Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's possible to be horrified about what happened in Norway and be sad about Amy Winehouse. I cannot understand why people need to compare the two. Hr music touched so many people and I can honestly say this is he first time I have ever been moved to tears by a celebrity death.


If one young life is steered away from heroin and crack because of this, then some good will come out of it.


Once you start using heroin, your life expectancy reduces to about 7 years.


RT @billybragg: It's not age that Hendrix, Jones, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain & Amy have in common - it's drug abuse, sadly

I think it's the magnitude of something like Norway which stops many people from commenting - what can you say? It's either 1000 pages of "thoughts with you all" type sentiment or lot's of misguided/plain wrong conjecture


Whereas music is universal and personal at the same time. Many of the relatives affected by events in Norway will use music as part of their way of getting through this. And it's that relationship with music which means so many people have something to say about Winehouse


There isn't anything good to say about her death. It surely can't be shocking tho? Anyone who has seen her try and perform in the last few years knew it could either go one of two ways?

To be honest, I never really got what all the fuss was about with her music. Yes she was talented, but unfortunately all she did was pave the way for the likes if Duffy and Paloma Faith.


I'm basically with Rosie on this. It's tragic, especially for her old man, but it's not really any surprise, and it pales in to absolute insignificance when compared to other things going on in London, let alone the rest of the world.

I agree with every single word Ratty.


ratty Wrote:

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

> It's possible to be horrified about what happened

> in Norway and be sad about Amy Winehouse. I cannot

> understand why people need to compare the two. Hr

> music touched so many people and I can honestly

> say this is he first time I have ever been moved

> to tears by a celebrity death.

>

> If one young life is steered away from heroin and

> crack because of this, then some good will come

> out of it.

>

> Once you start using heroin, your life expectancy

> reduces to about 7 years.

>

> RT @billybragg: It's not age that Hendrix, Jones,

> Joplin, Morrison, Cobain & Amy have in common -

> it's drug abuse, sadly



To all those disrespecting the death of ONE seriously talented girl in light of the MASS death going on in other parts of the world- it is tragic when ANY life is lost in an untimely way, no matter the number. No one has the right to dictate how death and feelings of loss should take priority in other people's hearts. If you can't be respectful, shut the f*ck up. All of these deaths are total tragedies, and trying to work out which is worse doesn't make you more humane, it just distracts from the true scale of what has happened.


It also boils down to the fact that as a society, we have evolved to accept that the sole purpose for anyone in the mainstream entertainment spotlight is to be judged and exploited, and then thrown away in the bin. What ASTOUNDS me is that some of this shit-talking is coming from actors and other artists who i am sure would envy the success of someone like Amy Winehouse......... need i say more.

Sorry you think that, but I said right away that it is tragic, I just don't think the fact she was a talented and famous musician makes it any more tragic than any other death.


I don't agree with all the waste of talent talk, as it suggests to me that if she wasn't talented, it wouldn't be such a shame.


The real tragic thing is that she ever came across heroin in the first place. The aspect that I find sad, is that she knew what a mess she was, and she couldn't escape it.

That is not to say it was her fault for not being able to overcome them. It is society's fault. She was clearly extremely unhappy and I think probably would have turned to drink and drugs whether famous or not. It's just a shame she didn't get better care, support and help from everyone around her. We fail addicts- and if she couldn't get out from them then what hope have other addicts got. It's so easy to judge addicts just as many seem to be doing here. Unless you've ever known one though I doubt you'ld all be so self righteous.

Hmmm. I suspect a large number of people on here have direct experience of addicts.


It's also fair to say (without commenting on AW in particular) that there are some personalities that are destructive with or without drugs. And it isn't really society failing them. I can't imagine any society which has such safety nets that no addict can fail

zeban Wrote:

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

> That is not to say it was her fault for not being

> able to overcome them. It is society's fault. She

> was clearly extremely unhappy and I think probably

> would have turned to drink and drugs whether

> famous or not. It's just a shame she didn't get

> better care, support and help from everyone around

> her. We fail addicts- and if she couldn't get out

> from them then what hope have other addicts got.

> It's so easy to judge addicts just as many seem to

> be doing here.


Unless you've ever known one though

> I doubt you'ld all be so self righteous.


What an extremely judgmental posting full of your own assumptions - particularly the last sentence. What insight and knowledge do you possess on whether anyone else on here knows addicts or not.

Otta Wrote:

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

> Sorry you think that, but I said right away that

> it is tragic, I just don't think the fact she was

> a talented and famous musician makes it any more

> tragic than any other death.

>

> I don't agree with all the waste of talent talk,

> as it suggests to me that if she wasn't talented,

> it wouldn't be such a shame.




Are you looking for an argument on the lukewarm grave of someone deceeased ?

>

> The real tragic thing is that she ever came across

> heroin in the first place. The aspect that I find

> sad, is that she knew what a mess she was, and she

> couldn't escape it.

I think people are judging her here from what they've written and comparing it to the Norway tragedies. If you're not then fine but don't blame me for me coming to that conclusion when some of you have been very tastless in all of this.


Yes me as part of this society is to blame Alan Medic, as are you. I do agree StaferJack that 'I can't imagine any society which has such safety nets that no addict can fail'. However this was a celeb in the spotlight. She shouldn't have fell through that net. What is it saying for other addicts? what hope have they got?


But from all of this whingeing about why she's getting so much coverage there are actually some good debates to come from this.

I was the one to bring up Norway, but I didn't compare her death to the Norway massacres - I was merely wondering why her death provoked more comment.


I think Strafer answered part of the question, and perhaps the other part is that she lived her life in the tabloids, so people felt like they knew her more than they knew any of the people they're not lamenting. And for some, I accept that her music will have touched them.


However I've known addicts who have died: they weren't prodigious singing talents and they were mourned rather less by people who had never met them than Amy Winehouse. But still, there were some people, who never knew or liked them, who turned up at the funerals, death glory hunters if you will, being seen to give a shit in death in a way they never did in life, and it fucked me right off.


I smell a little of that in some of the comments I've been reading on the social interweb.



Edited to add - Ah, I have just looked at the Norway thread and see that perhaps it wasn't just me getting zeban's dander up. But zeban, you're missing a crucial point that katienumbers summed up nicely.

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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