Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is a significant overlap between those defending piracy on this thread and those attacking production houses for failing to pay extras on an accompanying thread... It seems to be okay not to pay artists when it suits them.


Perhaps DJKQ should explain to these unpaid TV extras that they should be doing it for nothing because it's a good marketing tool for them, and people who watch them work for free watch a third more television (although not necessarily them)?


Edited because forgot to ;-)

You are missing several points Mr MacGabhann - I have several 'burnt' copies of bootleg cd's, live and rare stuff unavailable through commercial means - I have never said I don't - most o fwhich have been given to me by band members themselves - I have several compilation cd's of material that is used to send to other musicians to learn tunes (which may or not be regarded as educational) - I know what I am doing in possessing these things and I do not wish to turn a blind eye to that.


The main point is that the Copyright holder of a work (the artist or record company) has a right to decide in what format he wants that work released. The buyer of the work (c.d. in this case) does not own the work, he has been granted a licence with terms and conditions attached to listen to that work. The buyer owns the physical plastic of the c.d but he does not 'own' the music, nor does he own any of the rights that the copyright holder of the work holds.


If the buyer wants to change the format of a copyright protected c.d then he has no right to do so - if he goes ahead and does it anyway then he has assumed the copyright, ie he has taken something which isn't his (yes I know it's not a physical something but ....)


Call it wall you will but if you take something that isn't yours to take, be it a physical object or an assigned right to alter the format of a musical work then it is thievery. If you but a copy protected c.d. you can be under no illusion that the copyright holder allows you to copy it or to change the format of it. It doesn't matter how many copies of it you buy, you cannot legally assign yourself the right to alter the format and thereby

assume the rights of the copyright holder. You do not own the music.


If you are indulging in these activities, and you may believe (as in RosieH's case) that she has a moral right to do so then don't behind the dressing up of the language and try to convince yourself that you are doing nothing wrong - at the very least you are breaking the terms of the licensing agreement without the other party's knowledge and thereby leading yourself open to accusations of defrauding them, at worst inviting others to join you can be perceived as conspiracy to defraud

H where have I said piracy is ok? I have merely pointed out the difficulties in addressing it along with some reasons why it is not treated with the heavy hand you might expect if the music industry really cared so much about it. There is absolutely no comparison to be had between people being paid an hourly wage for the work they do and the cost to 'royalites' of piracy. The two things are seperate problems (one is a wage being denied by an employer which is illegal and the other is royalties being denied by the consumer - also illegal).


Maybe I should put you back on ignore seeing as you seem to be on some crusade to attack everything I post?

The other thing to say about the majority of illegally downloaded music is that it is in mp3 form. That is never as good as the sound quality of a non compressed audio file such as that found on an original CD. My only gripe personally with the music industry are the prices we were charged for CDs in the past. During the 80's and 90's I imported most of my cds from the US for that reason.

Piracy has been a tool of music promotion for as long as I can remember.. tolerated (embraced even, sometimes) by the industry when it suits. Hardly anything is so black and white.


Complicating the ways in which people (who actually pay for music) get to enjoy the music they've paid for 'in a reasonable manner' is liable to be counter-productive.


Just a couple of thoughts on the subject in general.

Anyone care to stop putting words in my mouth, Huguenot and Kingy? Where have I said that I have a moral right to do anything?


For fuck's sake Kingy, you're a staggeringly pompous arse, ascribing malintent where there was none. All I did was ask if it is possible to listen to a copy-protected CD on itunes. I had no idea that it would be illegal, so I certainly had no thought that I had some moral right to anything: I owned a CD and wanted to know if I could play it on my mac.


It seems you enjoy riding your high horse around this particular crusade, and you're very welcome to it. But I would ask that you stop right now ascribing thoughts or intentions to me that simply aren't there.

So a reasonable request about getting some tracks from a CD on to an MP3 player has resulted in various forms of accusation ? thievery, hypocracy, conflation with ID theft (I mean WTF??)


Kingy you go to great lengths to explain how ?changing the format? of music Is piracy and theft but it?s all bollocks. What RosieH wishes to do in this case falls fair and square in the ?fair use? category


There is no other question here


But as you have raised the morality of the rights holders ? these twats actually implemented a system on cds which installed software on to individuals pcs, without their permission, leaving them exposed to infection. They installed software on computers they don?t own ? they are the criminals here, not people like RosieH


Protecting music in this way (and DRM on mp3s) is going the way of the dodo ? it?s unworkable and causes legitimates customers grief . Pirates don?t have to suffer any of this grief because they are using versions with all of this ripped out anyway

And Rosie H you are effing stoopid - you can read the fricking cd - it say's copy protected - you know it's 'wrong' to copy it but you try to justify it saying you've paid for it twice - you haven't paid for it at all - you've paid for the right to listn to it in the presribed manner - it's easy to be pompous when you're in the right - why don't you just take your copy protected cd and shove it up your own arse

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If anyone wonders why ???? has left the forum you

> only need to read this thread.

>

> Jay-sus.



Well yes, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how weird and wonderful. And lets be honest this Forum is no differnt from many others nor do the views posted on here differ wildly from those espoused by many of the populace. Just saying like.

DJKQ in oversensitive shocker... I was merely addressing your points. Please feel free to ignore me, water and duck's back etc. It's tiring walking over eggshells anywhere near you, I'd be pleased for the relief.


Sorry RosieH, I didn't think I put words in your mouth, I said I can see you feel the system let you down. I don't have to quote you precisely to explain where I got that from?


I agree with most of the points made, I don't think that any of them justify piracy - which is not generally used to describe home duplication for personal use, but for redistribution.


'Anti-suit' and 'great marketing' are not arguments used by home users, but by pirates.

Dear Rosie H it would be nice if you actually read what is written - I did not call you a thief and I did not say that YOU believed you had a moral right to this I said that if Sean McG believed you had a moral right to this - so I can think of a place for you to park your bike as well, there's plenty of room, all the shit comes out in your posts

Not really - musicians have always liked to portray themselves as "anti suit". It's part of the "marketing"


Anyway, parasites and freeloaders exist BUT if the perfect mechanism was in place to foil them they wouldn't suddenly become consumers. These are not lost sales. It doesn't make them any more morally valid but I don't think many opportunities for sales are being lost


People who "steal" music tend to be people who like getting "stuff" for free - they don't care about it, probably don't like it and probably don't listen to it. Idiots, but they were never buying the stuff anyway. And they certainly aren't interested in the smaller artists.


So big artists - not losing out


Small artists - not losing out as their fans tend to buy the cds


Who is losing what here exactly?

No she didn't - she posted a perfectly legitimate question


your first post in the whole debate simply said


"thievery"


which doesn't chime very well with your pompous "Dear Rosie H it would be nice if you actually read what is written - I did not call you a thief "

and what is implied by my posting the word 'thievery' ? - it was meant as a suggestion not to do it as it is illegal (I think only KK recognised this) - i did not call her a thief - but she chose to believe that I had (wrongly) and proceed to tell me to stick somethng or other up my arse, someone else joined in and told me i don't know my arse from my elbow now if anyone had suggested either of these things to me in the local boozer they would now be the recipient of the Glasgow Kiss. neither did i suggest that she belived she had any moral rights - but somehow she managed to deduce these things and be offensive in the doing so

Emerson Crane Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If anyone wonders why ???? has left the forum

> you

> > only need to read this thread.

> >

> > Jay-sus.

>

>

> Well yes, but everyone is entitled to their

> opinion, no matter how weird and wonderful. And

> lets be honest this Forum is no differnt from many

> others nor do the views posted on here differ

> wildly from those espoused by many of the

> populace. Just saying like.



Ah, the old "freedom of speech" argument. Because until you mentioned it EC, I'd been advocating cellotaping mouths closed and typing fingers were to be amputated.


But you know what, with that freedom comes a responsibility. Not to act like a nark at every opportunity or not to turn a fairly innocent thread/request into a running ideological battle and insult-fest for example. But there are lots of others.


If that's what you enjoy reading then I'll leave you and all the other masochists to it, but for me, it's a perfect example of the current malaise infecting the local populous.

I would say just posting "thievery" is neither helpful nor watertight in it's unambiguity


The bottom line is it's illegality is open to question, with many people aware that it's a leftover from vinyl days. it's out of step with many places in the world and won't be illegal for much longer


The companies who tried to inmplement some CD protection systems broke the law


Nobody on here is advocating "piracy"


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/cyberclinic-is-it-really-illegal-to-rip-a-cd-to-my-computer-769184.html


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/article.html?in_article_id=500206&in_page_id=5

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Week 3 fixtures...   Saturday 30th August Chelsea v Fulham Manchester United v Burnley Sunderland v Brentford Tottenham Hotspur v AFC Bournemouth Wolverhampton Wanderers v Everton Leeds United v Newcastle United   Sunday 31st August Brighton & Hove Albion v Manchester City Nottingham Forest v West Ham United Liverpool v Arsenal Aston Villa v Crystal Palace
    • I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂
    • Log in See all News The fightback against Britain’s corporate vets has begun With costs continuing to spiral, angry pet owners and independent practices have had enough of the big companies dominating the industry     481   Gift this article free   Sally Williams 24 August 2025 12:00pm BST Caroline* and Julian* had been married for 10 years before the arrival of Amy, a miniature dachshund. They had different views about pets. She had grown up surrounded by dogs and really missed having one around the house. He was not a dog person.   They had a happy marriage, a lovely house in south London, good jobs (he worked in finance, she for charities). “But we couldn’t have children and so decided having a dog would make our life more complete,” Caroline explains.   Just before the first lockdown of March 2020, they went to a miniature dachshund breeder in Colchester. A tiny bundle of fur with brown eyes looked up at her husband, says Caroline, and in that instant something clicked. “He just fell in love with her. We knew we had to have her.”   From that moment on, Amy was a member of the family. But she didn’t come cheap. There were routine health checks, a monthly parasite treatment, and also cream for mildly flaky skin around her neck and body. Costs really spiralled when Amy started to hop during a holiday in Cornwall when she was six months old. The local vet said she had a “wobbly knee” and suspected a luxating patella (a kneecap that slips out of place; common in small dogs). Back in London, Caroline’s vet thought it could be hip dysplasia where the hip joint doesn’t develop properly.   Over the next six months, Amy had two X-rays under sedation, blood tests, painkilling medication, and multiple trips to a specialist clinic in Guildford, where she had physiotherapy and hydrotherapy at a cost of £75 a session. Eventually, Amy was seen by a leading small-animal specialist at a referral clinic in Kent. He was not able to identify a clear reason for her hopping. Amy, the expert concluded, “should return to a normal life”.   Caroline was lucky she had insurance. But it still fell short of covering the total bill of £5,000. “I don’t know anything about veterinary care, so I just did whatever the vets told us to do,” says Caroline. “We feel they did too much. Amy had treatment she didn’t really need. But of course we agreed to the treatment because we love her and we wanted her to be better.”   Helplessness, panic, a sinking feeling in the stomach – the worry that comes when a pet is in pain can be awful. But so is the cost of treatment. Nationally, pet owners spend around £4bn a year on veterinary services. And yet there is little consensus on prices.   A low risk, high reward opportunity This is one of the concerns being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK competition watchdog, which, after a national outcry about spiralling vet costs, is next month set to announce the provisional decisions from its market investigation into veterinary services for household pets.   This was set up in response to the takeover of veterinary practices by large corporate groups. “Pet owners may not be getting a good deal or receiving the information they need to make good choices,” it stated at the launch of the market review in September 2023.   The CMA has addressed many unfair, monopolistic practices in its 10-year history, such as funeral companies and airport services. It currently has 63 “live cases/ investigations”, including Ticketmaster (triggered by the dynamic pricing for tickets for the Oasis Live ’25 Tour) and Google, the US technology giant, for its dominance in the online search market.   But the investigation into vets and pets was exceptionally wide-ranging. It included hands-on site visits, teach-ins and round-table discussions with professionals, businesses and the public at large. This is not unusual. The idea is to share knowledge. What has been extraordinary is the unprecedented response.     More than 56,000 people (45,000 pet owners and 11,000 veterinary professionals) replied to the CMA’s online questionnaire. To get 56,000 people to do anything is impressive. To get 56,000 people to respond to a consultation by the CMA is unheard of.   Our devotion to pets is big business. Several factors have come into play. More people are living alone – 8.4 million people, or 30 per cent of all households, in 2023, according to the Office for National Statistics – and fewer people are having babies. Both have combined to deepen our relationship with pets.   There were, it transpires, more Google searches for “is my dog happy” than “is my kid happy” according to a report called Pets are the New Kids from Google in 2022. Of course, it’s not entirely clear if that’s because human children can talk, whereas barks can be confusing. But the sentiment is revealing. Owners are concerned about their dogs’ wellbeing.   What’s more, they are willing to go into debt to cover their pets’ medical bills.   Big money investors noticed the “humanisation” of pets, advances in veterinary care and the scale of ownership – there was a spike during lockdown when 3.2 million households acquired a pet with more than half of UK households now owning an animal – and saw an enticing formula. The field was viewed as low-risk/high-reward, according to a report issued by Capstone Partners in 2022.     The structure of UK veterinary services created an opportunity. In 1999, the law was changed to allow non-vets to own veterinary practices. What’s more, the UK has a relaxed regulatory environment. Veterinary surgeons are regulated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. But veterinary practices are not. The market was wide open.   In 2013, only about 10 per cent of vet practices belonged to large groups. Today, almost 60 per cent are owned by the “Big Six”: IVC Evidensia, CVS, Medivet, Pets at Home, Linnaeus and VetPartners. Of these, IVC, Medivet and VetPartners are owned or backed by private equity firms – investment funds that purchase companies with the aim of delivering profits to their shareholders.   Nestlé (of Cheerios and Shredded Wheat fame) is one of the groups behind the largest owner of veterinary services in the UK, IVC Evidensia, which operates more than 1,000 veterinary practices (out of a total of 5,331 in the UK). It also owns 60-plus emergency out-of-hours hospitals, through Vets Now. Not to mention PawSquad, an online telehealth service, pet funeral and cremation businesses and Pet Drugs Online – an online pharmacy selling pet medication.   EQT, the world’s third-largest private equity firm, controls IVC Evidensia which has an estimated annual revenue of over £221m. Nestlé acquired a stake in IVC in 2021.   Medivet owns more than 400 veterinary centres across the UK, including the Skeldale Veterinary Centre in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, the practice made famous by the semi-biographical books of James Herriot (real name Alf Wight) in the 1970s. It is controlled by the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners.   As big businesses bought up veterinary clinics, prices began to rise – a lot. Vet bills soared by more 60 per cent between 2015 and 2023, higher than the rate of inflation, which was around 35 per cent.     The stakes are high in veterinary medicine. More pets are being put down due to rising vet bills, according to a BBC report. “The sad thing is people are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost,” says Melanie Weatherall, owner and director of Oxford Cat Clinic, a cat-only clinic in Oxford. “We had a cat yesterday that had died on the way to the clinic. The lady was hysterical. She was beating herself up because she felt she should have got the cat to us sooner. There are things we could have done, but it was too late.”   Lack of transparency is another complaint. Six years ago, Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, went to an emergency out-of-hours vet to have Oscar, her beloved bearded collie, put down. He was 16, had a growing list of things wrong and had been hit by a particularly bad bout of pancreatitis. “I could tell he was in terrible pain,” she says. “I wanted the nearest vet who could put him out of his misery in the most gentle way possible.”   She arrived at the vets with her family who had come to say goodbye. But to Cuddy, the clinic felt transactional. “They wouldn’t even look at the dog until they’d swiped a credit card. Then they started upselling me to a crematorium. I wasn’t ready for that. But they wanted to put it on the credit card. I thought, whatever. And they gave me a leaflet that looked like a beautiful family-run place.”   She and Oscar went into a room while her family waited outside. “I was on a cold floor with Oscar. There was no blanket. It was cold in every way.” She cradled him in her arms. “He was blind and I wanted him to hear my voice, smell my scent, know he was safe, even though the place was alien.   “Afterwards I just wanted to go home to cry. I left him on the floor and was given an itemised bill. It was massive. About £1,000 including the cremation. A lot of money to pay for a very miserable experience. I went home and after I stopped crying I googled the crematorium. Turns out it was part of the same corporate chain as the out-of-hours surgery.”   Today, two of the Big Six veterinary groups own pet crematoria. “The ownership of pet crematoria by the large veterinary corporate groups clearly has an impact on our independent businesses,” states the Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria in its submission to the CMA. “The ownership of these crematoriums is often not declared, even on their websites and they appear to be independent.”   “It’s quite hard for normal pet owners to spot how all these things are linked,” says Cuddy. “It’s not like we can see the McDonald’s golden arches everywhere.”   ‘All of us are buyable’ It turns out, furthermore, that there is another consequence of the “corporatisation” of veterinary clinics. Sarah’s cat was 12 when the vet diagnosed suspected cancer, around six years ago. Her local, independent vet in London had just been taken over by Medivet. “The vet said, ‘We’ll do a biopsy’, which involved cutting her open and removing all the tumours and sewing her up again.” The price: £1,000. “I was going to do it,” Sarah says, “and then I thought, I can’t put her through that. In the old days animals got sick and died. The vet wasn’t pushing it, he just assumed this is what you do: I’ve got an elderly cat with suspected cancer, we’ll immediately do a massive operation. I just thought, this is a bit insane.”   Sarah decided against the treatment. Her cat died from cancer “very peacefully at home” six months later. “She just stopped eating and slept all day and then she died, which to me is how it should be.”   Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it should be done, says Bruce Fogle, vet for 55 years and the owner of London Vets, an independent practice in London (and father of Ben Fogle). “A diagnostically aggressive and expensive American approach to vet medicine has become standard in the UK,” he told Instagram followers during a recent discussion on the rise of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in corporately owned clinics.   Bruce Fogle has been approached many times to sell his practice, but has always said no Bruce Fogle has been approached many times to sell his practice, but has always said no Credit: Jeff Gilbert What is best for the animal is not necessarily best for maximising profits. “A corporation doesn’t have a moral core to it,” Fogle tells me. “The aim of any corporation is to increase the financial return.”   For their part, IVC Evidensia, CVS and Medivet point out that corporate veterinary practices benefit from extensive clinical expertise and significant financial investment not available to independent practice. All treatment decisions are based on clinical considerations and in clear consultation with the owner. Furthermore, each has co-operated with the CMA and is fully supportive of all efforts to deliver overall sector improvements including better pricing transparency.   In 2022, Medivet was buying veterinary practices at great speed – 86 that year alone – so by April, it operated 390 clinics across the UK, arranged in a “hub-and-spoke” model, where smaller first-opinion practices encircled larger specialist hospitals that were open all day, every day.   Corporates were “aggressive in their acquisition strategy”, says David Reader, who teaches competition law at Glasgow University. “Rolling up of local independent practices under a single ownership umbrella for the purpose of boosting the value of the collective fleet.” Reader and his frequent collaborator Scott Summers, an expert in business law at UEA Norwich Business School, are in the middle of a project looking at the consequences of private equity and corporate control of the veterinary market. “Pet owners in rural areas, in particular, lose out when the local vet is bought and shut down,” says Summers.   But then, corporate chains were in a powerful position. They could offer to buy practices for “eight, nine, 10 times the profit of the business and it would still be profitable to them because they knew they could improve the efficiency”, says Fogle. “There are great efficiencies in running a number of businesses through a head office. If I own 20 practices and I need 20 X-ray machines, I’m going to get a far better price than if I was just buying one.”   Fogle has been approached many times to sell, but has always said no. “But if I were younger and had to pay for my children’s education, say, or university fees, I’d have been an idiot to turn it down. All of us are buyable.”     As it turned out, in January 2023, eight or so months before the current inquiry, the CMA turned its attention to Medivet’s purchase of 17 independent veterinary clinics bought between September 2021 and September 2022. The CMA was concerned that the new purchases squeezed out any competition in the local market.   But before an in-depth review could get under way, Medivet offered to dispose of the practices that were the subject of the merger investigation. (The same thing happened when the CMA launched a review into specific purchases by CVS, VetPartners and IVC; each offered to sell off the practices.) In October 2023, Medivet sold the 17 practices at a loss of £21.9m.   Will Chandler, 38, qualified as a vet 13 years ago. In his view, the dichotomy of corporate (bad) vs independent (good) is too simplistic. “There are some very well managed corporate clinics,” he says. They can provide better, more sophisticated equipment and more opportunities for advancement. But as lead vet for a Medivet clinic in London, where he worked for six years, it sometimes felt like “all the responsibility and none of the power”.   He describes an environment of unrelenting pressure and a culture of price inflation. He had little influence over hiring staff. “I wasn’t given any CVs, any choice about which candidates to interview.” And with a large corporate structure, “I was always on my phone at weekends, in case someone had a question. And it wasn’t even my business.”   Chandler wanted to go it alone. But he was constrained by a “non-compete” clause which prevented any veterinary business within a very tight radius around a Medivet clinic from opening. “Considering Medivet has 70-odd clinics in London, it’s almost impossible to find an area where you could set up a clinic without triggering a non-compete issue.”   ‘We’re not owned by somebody in an office in a different country’ When he heard that Medivet were selling off clinics at knockdown prices, he jumped at the opportunity. He is now the co-owner of Brockwell Vets in Herne Hill, south London. His business partner is Jenny Kalogera, a veterinary surgeon and original owner of Brockwell Vets, who’d sold it to Medivet in 2021.   “She didn’t like how it was run. Clients went elsewhere, and that was sad for her to see. When it was up for sale, I approached her. She said: ‘Why don’t we go into partnership together?’”   “People love that we are independent,” says Chandler. He is now proud to set his own prices. “We charge £49.50 for a consultation and our dental fee is around £400 – significantly cheaper than the local corporate vet.”   The Oxford Cat Clinic is another practice that was bought back from Medivet as a consequence of the CMA’s merger investigation. Weatherall, 58, had worked as the practice manager at the clinic for nine or so years when it was bought by Medivet in June 2022. She stayed on, along with the vets who’d founded the clinic 16 years before.   Barely six months later, in January 2023, the CMA started to investigate and the clinic’s relationship with Medivet was paused. “We didn’t have a lot of time to be absorbed into the great Medivet machine,” says Weatherall. But it was long enough to get an insight into how things worked.   “In a big corporate environment, you haven’t got the people who make decisions on the ground with you. It’s all centralised which is obviously more cost-effective. Which meant, for example, that we had to wait an interminable amount of time to get permission to buy anything, or if anything breaks – if a door handle comes off, you’ve got to wait for someone to come out and fix it, even though it could be driving the team mad.”   When Medivet put the Oxford Cat Clinic up for sale, Weatherall decided to buy it. “I wanted to keep it out of the hands of the corporate. It’s really good for our clients to know we’re locally run. We’re not owned by somebody who’s in an office, sometimes in a different country, even, who has no idea what’s going on.”   Melanie Weatherall: 'People are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost' Melanie Weatherall: ‘People are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost’ Credit: Harry Lawlor She talks about “pragmatic” care. “I adopted a cat recently. He was a stray. He had a damaged leg. We could have had about £3,000-plus of surgery to repair the leg, but did an amputation in the surgery because that’s a cheaper option and a reasonable option.”   There should be budget vet options, says Paul Mankelow, chief vet at the Blue Cross animal charity. “I can walk into an Aldi and know it’s a different proposition to Waitrose. Similarly, do I want to fly easyJet or Emirates? It’s very clear. But it’s not clear in the veterinary market.”   But running an independent practice is not easy. “I don’t draw any money from the business,” says Weatherall. “I earn no profit whatsoever. I want to change that.”   Sadly, it looks as if the CMA market investigation is not going to be quite as effective as everyone hoped. One of its purposes was to address alleged monopolistic pricing and ownership in the veterinary industry. But there are signs the investigation has pivoted away from the more profound problems of the corporate sector.   This January, Marcus Bokkerink stepped down as chair of the CMA, just three years into his role, as the watchdog moves to better align itself with the Government’s “push for growth”. “The Government’s strategic steer to the CMA is that it shouldn’t be doing anything which gives any outward impression that the UK is not business- or investment-friendly,” says Reader. Doug Gurr, a former head of Amazon UK, is now the interim chair.   “That doesn’t mean no regulation – we all want to see safe, high-quality care. But the system has to be fair and proportionate for both large national groups and small local practices,” says Martin Coleman, chair of the CMA’s inquiry group.   “We’re very supportive of the investigation, we’re glad it’s happening. However, one of our concerns is that the remedies won’t go far enough to put any real constraints on business, but they will go far enough to create extra work and additional paperwork for people working on the front line of veterinary medicine,” says Suzanna Hudson-Cooke, branch chairman of the British Veterinary Union in Unite.   “Initially, I thought it would be great. Now I think I was naive,” says Chandler. “As a small business, we’re looking potentially at an increase in administrative burden and we’re meant to be a clinic that the CMA looks after.”   *Names have been changed     Join the conversation   Show 481 comments The Telegraph values your comments but kindly requests all posts are on topic, constructive and respectful. Please review our commenting policy. Related Topics Telegraph long reads, Dogs, Cats, Animals                         © Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited 2025  
    • @malumbu your original post is a bit confising with multiple, possibly unrelated,  concepts thrown together. Let's address the title of the thread. What are you looking for here, objecting to people flying their national flag? Tying to draw extreme comments out or associating flag flying with the far right ?  The real qquestion possibly is should we feel ashamed to fly the flag? Possibly not, however the reasons for flying it should not be hijacked by political or extremism motivations.  We shouldn't be ashamed of our flag, but a minority seem to be using ir to incite hatred against others.  Therefore the real debate should be around how to remove the extremist views from ability to put a flag up?  I don't have an answer and we won't get one on here but good to have a discussion that may stir a few thoughts. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...