Jump to content

Recommended Posts

er " The one thing that's clear is that there wasn't some sort of hypothetical over managed bureaucracy.@


...er...oh no? * Looks at chart scratches head. Or are you being ironic?


the various enquiries have been launched Huge by the moonhowlers in the BBC not on my request.


The only enquiry I've ever advocated is the one into the paedo ring in north wales if you look back. But you never read peoples posts properly ever EVER just jump in with your own assumptions on what they are saaying or standing for in your enthusiasm to get your stuff out.


When I started work an old and clever mentor said to me "Two of these (pointing at his ears, one of these(pointing at his mouth)" shhheeeeeeeesh, you could have done with that mentor......

?I was waiting for that bit of obvious bile Ted......That's news International Ted not Sky, which is only 50% owned by Murdoch. That's not what this debate is about.?


Not sure what the point is there quids. Does any comparison with rival news/media orgs have to be about Sky? Or Murdoch? Are there rules to who we can and can?t compare with?


If the beeb is being flayed over this it?s entirely reasonable to compare with other orgs and how they conduct themselves. If someone wants to point out that shareholder accoutability is effectively meaningless, why dismiss them so readily (and quickly)


To also berate the BBC for employing someone who didn?t look normal and who rumour abounded about is also a bit dodgy. You know as well as anyone all of the other establishment figures he was friends with (Christmas at Thatcher yadda yadda) but noone else seems to be getting the same ?well they must have KNOWN? treatment


And what does ?move on from hatred and onto fact? even mean? Is this a Brasseye special again?


Hatred is a strong word and I don?t see much of it in Ted?s post ? irritation that other organisations don?t have to flaggelate themselves in the way the beeb does, yes, but ?hatred??

Have you read some of your posts objectively? Not saying hatred is the correct word, but your tone and adherance to facts don?t always match your professed standard

Hi, Quids.


This may surprise you but obviously we have to declare this stuff now, I'm not in favour of turning a blind eye to child abuse and rape, or of broadcasting reports that wouldn't have got past a tutor of first year media studies.


I'm also not in favour of nakedly opportunistic bandwagoneering from wherever it comes. My post was aimed at that, not at your arguments* - so I probably put it in the wrong place and deserved your cocked-and-primed counter punch, but I couldn't see a thread titled "Thread to call out nakedly opportunistic bandwagoneering from amnesiac enemies of publicly funded broadcaster", so I put it in here.


Anyway, I'm not sure what facts you are after so I copied some of yours down instead.


The BBC "stifles competition from elsewhere" and has a "top down monopoly on creativity": Yet a set quota, 25%, of all hours transmitted by BBC, must be provided by independent production houses.


The BBC has a "massive monopoly on broadcast news". Nope.


The 'progressive liberal left' ("tweet that lefties" etc.) won't criticise public institutions. It was Dan Sabbagh at The Guardian who destroyed, forensically, Newsnight's Meesham report.


I agree with a lot of what else you say, by the way. Probably most of it.


*EDIT: That's not 100% true is it? Some of it was aimed at your arguments, but generally I was just grandstanding a bit and not seeing it as a 1-2-1 argument with you.


*EDIT 2: Actually, probably not "most" of it. Probably only "some" of it, but I was making a gesture, like.

Not wishing to put words in ?'s mouth here but I think his argument is more to do with how hell bent folk are to protect 'Auntie' regardless of circumstances.


I agree totally with him that it is a cranked institution way past its sell by date and that it needs to modernise, having its tummy tickled constantly is not good for it, or its consumers.

That's my understanding of his argument too Atticus


But, objectively, the way it has been under attack in the last week is unparalleled compared to any other news org - so, many of those "hellbent" on defending it are not saying it's beyond criticism, but very wary about what the underlying motives for the strength of attack is


Which seems fair and reasonable


Your own language is interesting- "auntie". "cranked institution", "past sell by date" etc etc


all for 40 odd pence a day?


Again, that doesn't absolve it of blame - but why so angry about this particular organisation?

"I think his argument is more to do with how hell bent folk are to protect 'Auntie' regardless of circumstances."


Well, yeah. Teeny weeny bit of a straw man, though. Can't actually see too many of those hell bent folk on here: apart from perhaps H, who is often only a keyboard away from shouting at passing traffic in any case.

"SJ, I'm not, just trying to she'd some perspective"


So in a week where the Beeb has been under the cosh almost every hour, you are suggesting that somehow it's being treated too lightly?


I see...


Your criticisms actually come across liek a tired checklist of cliches.. .but don't let that stop you


It need to change and evolve? Anyone want to go back 10 or 15 years and have a look at the Beeb then and compare it to now? I'd say it's evolving at a smarter pace than almost anywhere else


Objectively speaking. Not JUST to defend it you understand

Evolving is always good - why would you think I think otherwise


Where we differe is the starting point - if we agree that the beeb has evolved plenty in last decade, it's probably evolving still. Just being in the middle of things right now, you can't see it. But take a snapshot now, and even without clusterf***cks like last week, you could compare it in 2-3 years time and see massive changes


i just don't see the same tired, out of date institution you do


If the starting point is "is it perfect, can we make it better" - then I would of course agree. But that applies to every organisation and individual


If the starting point is your list of complaints, then I think you misunderstand the problem and are likely to break it rather than improve it

"gets a lot more sympathy by virtue of it being our beloved beeb, that is a sole reason for change."


you think it has had a lot of sympathy this week? Compared to what?


And that is a SOLE reason for change? Not sure I'd ever be able to agree with something that simplistic in a million years

I think the BBC is cherished in this country. But rightly so. Compared to public or private broadcasters almost anywhere in the world and its output is miles ahead.


But to reiterate SJ, this hasn't stopped it evolving over the last couple of decades (see it's web presence and the success of iplayer) and it will continue to do so. To demand that it immediately does so in an unspecified manner to pacify the current cries from the usual suspects would be cutting off ones nose to spite the face.

BBC Sport Website = Great

BBC News website = Pretty darn good

BBC Radio 4 = Sanctuary from the kids watching Cbeebies in the living room!

Cbeebies (TV Channel and website) = Agggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BBC TV Programming = Very mixed bag, but some quality stuff in there.


BBC Comedy is in a good state, things like Thick of it, and Getting On are cool.


I'd like to see them do more stuff in partnership with the likes of HBO (Rome). See if they could get some of the writers for the top quality U.S. Dramas like The Wire / Sopranos / Breaking Bad to come and create a really really good British series. Instead we get Luther, fun but a total load of bollocks.


Life on Mars / Ashes to Ashes were very good IMO.


I hope that after the Jonathan Ross saga a couple of years back, they won't be so quick to offer stupidly large salaries to their top "stars".

Basically, I think we are lucky to have the BBC, and whilst it's not perfect, it's pretty bloody good. I don't think it's out dated or out of touch.


Yes the Saville revelations have clearly shown that there was some serious hush hushing back in the 70s and 80s, and anyone found to have known about abuse should be held accountable for it. However, I really hate it when an organisation is held accountable for what that organisation did decades ago. Find the individuals that worked for the organisation back then.


It reminds me of the PM apologising for things that happened in the past, such as Bloody Sunday, or Hillsborough. The families involved appreciate it, so that's good, but I do sort of think why is this bloke apologising for stuff that happened when he was a teen, and what does his apology actually mean? (and that is not a dig at David Cameron, fair play to him for standing up and making those apologies)


With regards the whole Newsnight thing, an investigation is needed, and should be transparent, and the individuals responsible for certain mistakes should be held accountable. I don't think that means they should be sacked outright though.

The solution the (screech) CRIISSSIIIIISS in hand is quite simple.


a) Try not to let any more badly researched news stories slip through the net

b) Don't let suspected child abusers present Top Of The Pops.


I think that covers it.


The Savile thing is madness though. We've gone from 'there were rumours or something' to, seemingly, the entire BBC Trust having lined-up in Savile's dressing room to shouting encouragement.


I am also massively irked by every Tom, Dick and Janet creeping out of the woodwork NOW to say "oh yes, it was known, we all knew, they all knew, everybody knew".

BBC4 too!


I will miss it very very much when I move to Ireland where RTE is a shadow of the quality.

Granted I can get beebs 1 & 2 on sky but none of the others, no iPlayer, no Katy *sighs*, no radio on DAB (or whatever Ireland calls it) or even interent I don't think.


Nothing is untouchable, but simple corrective action needn't mean hobbling it. Take it for granted at your own peril, you start to lose what it does it'll never come back, that's the pattern of government for 30 years now.


Quid's ludicrous hyperbole should just be filed away at his other windmill tilts, Bob's summary is spot on.


Oh and Sky has an amazing war chest with income in the billions, it's not some helpless minority broadcaster struggling in the face of an unstoppable public behemoth, that's an untruth that News International has been pushing and the Murdoch's have been bashing in the face of pliant politicians for an age.

Jimmy saVILE was into Ephebophilia rather than a peedo - big difference when taken in context - this was during the '70s, when prime time light entertainment usually involved actresses dressed as schoolgirls being chased by rancid old men & grabbing a schoolgirls arse on the bus was considerd acceptable - It probabaly wasnt even a case of the BBC hushing things up, rather accepting that saVILE was a bit more enthusiastic than most old letchers with his pursuit of teenagers - I would not have thought that any reports of sexual predation on the truly vunerable or the sick would dismissed or accepted as easily. John peel married a 15 year old, Ed Stewpot Stewart started going out with a 14 year old when he was about 30 ( amd subsequently married her ) - context is everything here

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...