Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hmmmmmmmm


How long did you manage of the opening ?


Honestly, I lasted about 10 mins. It was a snorefest


Umbrella?


What's an American song/singer got to do with the Paralympics


I finally keeled over at the breakdancing


However, I'm looking forward to the sports events proper

In theory the 'descriptive' running commentary was a good idea bearing in mind that these games are for people with disabilities, blindness being one. But in reality the commentary was awful.

I got as far as the Dutch team entering the stadium, upon which the camera panned to the crowd, in particular a rather exuberant orange clad Dutch lady supporter, whooping it up big time...the commentator said something along the lines of...


''And there is a rather excited Dutch supporter in the crowd, all dressed in orange, looking like a rather jolly...''...long pause, and then her co-commentator interjected...''orange!''...''yes, orange!'' she concurred...it was at that moment I forgave Trevor Nelson and went off to finish the SuDoko...were the fireworks any good?

red devil Wrote:

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

> In theory the 'descriptive' running commentary was

> a good idea bearing in mind that these games are

> for people with disabilities, blindness being one.

> But in reality the commentary was awful.


The 'descriptive' running commentary was only on More4. What you got on Channel 4 was just 'poor' commentary. Has no one told Krishnan Guru-Murthy less is more?

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Why was all the music so miserable?


Bits of it were quite poignant and sadly all the stuff on the CD is. I was really looking forward to getting hold of the music they used in the Athlete's Parade which was quite fast and dancey. I wanted to use at the gym after dancing to it for most of the parade.

Once viewers are taken to the actual sporting venue, the C4 coverage is great. But the pontificating in an anonymous studio - punctuated by the ads - robs it of the sense of international moment, conveyed by the Olympic coverage. The so-so presenting quality doesn;t help. Also, there is no clear sense of when you;re actually watching a live event. The presenter this morning on the main C4 channel threw "live" to a race at the stadium - yet I had seen that same race five minutes earlier on one of the red-button services. Disappointing.
I agree North Londoner, and I think C4's lack of experience of covering live events is obvious to see. I was very disappointed to see adverts puntuating the opening ceremony for example. I do not think ITV would have done that. It's an odd one because many of the staff actually at the events, both technical and commentary are the same staff employed by the BBC and other channels to film and commentate on major sporting events. It's just the delivery of that from C4 itself that is poor.
Yes all true but isn't it great that the Paralympics are getting the profile of the "warm up ones" as the slogan goes. I am thrilled it is not just seen as an "also event after the real thing" - the tenacity and dedication of these overwhelming athletes are being shown to a massive enthusiastic and thrilled audience. If I were an employer, I would be desperate to employ them - they are demonstrating all the qualities any sensible employer would love to use ina team. I can see several of the ladies especially getting good sponsorship deals and becoming very high profile in their own right. Wonderful result!
I absolutely agree with all that DG2, and also think it a terrible shame that the USA on the other hand are showing nothing (and Canada too I believe). I also think that the biggest legacy from any aspect of the games will be the good it does for changing attitudes to the disabled. Just as I went to my first Olympic event I will be going to my first paralympic events this week. More importantly I will be seeing sports I have never been to see and in two cases, sports I've never seen before. In that context you are right, the standard of anything C4 do doesn't really matter. And I'd also say that you can't put a price on what that that means for the image of the disabled either......and I'd be the first to say that my previously negative attitude to the cost of it all has now been reversed.

My husband many years ago used to teach sport for disabled people in a social club run by the Southwark Disablement Association which met every Friday at Goodrich School. Unfortunately it closed down as insufficient numbers attending and was not cost effective. It is about time that the Para games were shown on mainstream TV - I was caught up with the excitment of the wheelchair basketball. My kids and grandchildren were so fired up by the Olympics that they got tickets to see the Para games at the Excel Centre ?30 for the 4 of them which also includes travel. They are off to see tabletennis and volleyball (wheelchair) power lifting and one other sport.

The para games are showing that 'disabled' people are equal and to some extent, better in certain areas that their able bodied colleagues.

Whilst I beleive that its good that there is some coverage of the Paralympics; C4 are not doing it justice AT ALL.


The commentary is awful, way too many ad breaks, not enough sport is being shown or discussed; which I heard from today will be addressed. As viewers we are not getting the full experience and thats a real shame.


The Paralynpics is as exciting, competetive and inspiring (if not more) as the Olympic games, so should be given the same chance... BBC excelled in their coverage of the Olympics..does anyone know why they didnt cover the Paralympics?

It's not brillian, not terrible.


It certainly makes you appreciate auntioe beeb all the more, so perhaps people will bash it a bit less in future.

NOt to mention be a bit more concerned about the likes of Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson trotting out Murdoch inspired mantras about removing the Beeb's privileged position in our country.

I watched the Table Tennis final yesterday on C4, or at least tried to. There was a GB player in the final. We never saw the end of two of the five games because C4 cut to adverts! They were both games the GB player lost. It completely ruined my viewing to the point I thought 'what's the point of watching'.
Absolutely loved my day at the Excel today with my brother....even though team GB sitting volleyball ladies lost. Totally blown away by the power lifting too....the lady from Nigeria took gold with a 249kg lift!!!!! I can just about manage a bag of shopping!!!

i'm a bit late to this but to me, i find some of the above to be pretty patronising and ill considered, although i am sure not intentionally offensive


the use of the term 'the disabled' (and similarly 'them') (as in 'i'd be desparate to employ them') as if 'they' are a single homogenous group who should all be lumped together is something that i know e.g. baroness grey-thompson has objected to in recent days.


i doubt that people would be similarly comfortable speaking about other groups who suffer from discrimination in the same way, would people really say e.g. 'the gays'?

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...