Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Penguin68 Wrote:

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


> People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding' (or

> the royal anything) should surely be left to do so

> - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.


We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we? Security costs to public purse estimated at approximately ?30M.

kibris Wrote:

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

> Why don't we all just watch the FA CUP FINAL more

> fun in that than from these people that just take

> our money


William is making a mad dash to be at the FA Cup final according to the Express

Potential for a missed speech I'm sure


https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/949435/royal-wedding-latest-prince-william-attend-FA-Cup-Final


I love that for us plebs - the last paragraph states pubs will be open longer.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding'

> (or

> > the royal anything) should surely be left to do

> so

> > - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

>

>

> We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we?

> Security costs to public purse estimated at

> approximately ?30M.


Ditto the 2012 Olympics. Some people's bread and circuses are royalty, some are elite sports. I couldn't be a*sed with either but I'm not decrying others for their choices.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding'

> (or

> > the royal anything) should surely be left to do

> so

> > - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it.

>

>

> We are obliged to pay for it though, aren't we?

> Security costs to public purse estimated at

> approximately ?30M.


Exactly. It seems that it?s ok for the struggling person on the street to be paying towards the wedding of one of the many hangers, yet we can?t afford to give Doctors, Nurses and others pay rises. I think it?s shocking.


This guy isn?t even first in line to the throne. They perform nothing but ceremonial BS. We have it shoved down our throats by the media, and the best thing we are offered in response is the so called privilege to watch this circus without a tv licence. Pathetic.


Louisa.

Maybe the royal wedding could be sponsored or product placement used.


I noted impressively that when singing 'we're in the money' the CEO of Sainsbury's picked up a cup of Nero's coffee (Isn't Starbucks the Sainsburys partner) :)


Edit: The UK sites have cut out the 'product placement' - but the Irish ones haven't LOL

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> why pick on the royals? there are many deserving

> of the title "Freeloader".



eat your peas, people in Africa would love to have a plate of peas like yours. be thankful for your peas.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> why pick on the royals? there are many deserving

> of the title "Freeloader".



It?s not just about them being ?freeloaders? though is it? It?s about what they represent. Unelected privilege. Unlike our elected representatives, these people are not held accountable for anything.


Louisa.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> so, why single them out? would removal of the

> royals solve all of the problems with inequality?


They?re singled out for the reasons I explained. They are in a position of privilege as a birth right rather than a democratic right. You can?t solve inequality when people like them are given access to state funds to pay for security towards their weddding. You think it?s fair that people are going to food banks and struggling to pay the bills, whilst these wealthy aristocrats are flaunting their state funded wedding on state funded television? It?s just absurd in the 21st century.


Louisa.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> so, why single them out? would removal of the

> royals solve all of the problems with inequality?


Nope. Be a start though. How can you ever hope to have true equality in a country where the head of state is selected through an accident of birth, paid a fortune and treated by the majority of politicians and media as akin to a deity? It heavily reinforces the concept that each has their allotted place.

adonirum Wrote:

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

> RH, you can never have true equality in society as

> it just does not work like that. You always have

> to have those that rule and teach and, likewise,

> you have to have those that learn, submit and

> obey. Simple, really.


What a depressing worldview. Might as well chuck it all in and go back to feudalism then, eh?


You will always, it is true, have those who lead and those who follow. That doesn't have to imply the totalitarian "ruling" and "obeying" and "submitting", and most importantly who leads and who follows can be predicated on ability, desire and work ethic rather than accidents of birth and whose many times great grandad was best at nicking land and goods off others a thousand years ago.

RH, you're quite right regarding "ability, desire, work ethic" etc, but that is surely to do with equality of opportunity, which I wholeheartedly endorse, rather than actual bona fide equality. Most have to obey and there are those that decide/ tell us what to obey (laws) and thereby it necessarily follows some are ruling and others are submitting. If society did not work in this way, then surely there would be anarchy and no society? (Setting aside what Thatcher said!!).

adonirum Wrote:

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


> Most have to obey and there are those that decide/

> tell us what to obey (laws) and thereby it

> necessarily follows some are ruling and others are

> submitting.


Somewhat discounting the role of an elected legislature there, aren't you?

And the fact that everyone, including the 'lawmakers', is subject to the same laws once they're in force. Ditto rulers - that was the point of Magna Carta, which is still what many Brits recognise as the basis of this country's constitution.

micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> Actually Harry did serve on the front line for his

> country, so that certainly makes him the most

> deserving member of his parasitic family.


So apparently did Patrick, the homeless guy in the wheelchair who was sheltering in the doorway of the Grove Tavern before they boarded it up to force him out.

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...