Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Actually, the No Vote was a result of the voting system - three divisions of the General Synod all needed a 2/3 majority. It was the laity that didn't reach that total, partly I understand, because the code of conduct to set out the exemptions for those who didn't wish to be ministered to by a woman hadn't been decided (it was to be debated and voted for after a Yes vote).


So it would appear the majority of those who voted, voted yes - but lost the vote for procedural reasons and because the laity felt they couldn't vote yes because they didn't know exactly what they were voting for because the rules governing such appointments hadn't yet been decided.


The Archbishop Elect will be inheriting a poisoned chalice next spring.


(edited for spelling)

It all sounds more complicated that it should be to me. Either the C of E has female bishops or it doesn't. Setting rules for those that don't want it even if they become allowed is just daft and wouldn't be tolerated in normal law. Perhaps the C of E needs to be reminded that it does actually have a woman at the head of it...in the form of the monarch. Queen Elizabeth II tends not to interfere in things even though she has a constitutional right to do so, but a future female monarch might not be so passive.

My initial reaction was along the lines of why would a woman want to work for an organisation where they weren't wanted. But actually it seems that the council DID want female bishops, by a vote of 324 to 122. So how does that work? What sort of system is that?


eco 79 - I think you'll find that "lady rabbi" is sexist, the correct term is "rabette".

Haha eco, there's a few on here who would suggest that your use of the word 'lady' betrays latent gender discrimination on your part, since 'lady' signifies demure, inoffensive and self abasing traits.


Overlooking that...


The Koran makes no statement about whether women can lead people in prayer, so it's all down to interpretation of related literature. As a result certain sects allow female imams and some not. The debate is whether references to females not being allowed to lead prayer is actually a reflection of Islam, or just a hangover from medieval patriarchal tradition.


Female rabbis were first ordained in 1972, but as with Chritianity different movements or orders treat this differently.


So I think your question was about whether Christianity was being treated differently to other religions in terms of women's role in the hierarchy. The answer is it's not, other major religions are suffering the same internal wrangles as the old male guard fights for their control.


Incidentally, I challenge the entire premise of your question, as it seems to hinge on whether decisions regarding one religious structure can be made on the basis of whatever another religion may do.


This is completely illogical, these are religions with a violent history of social manipulation, not after school clubs.


If one religions decides genital mutilation is okay, it doesn't mean the rest can too..

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Ridiculous decision obviously

>

>

> On the plus side, what intelligent woman would

> want to join such a moribund organisation anyway?



Because they have a strong faith and a calling?

It was slightly tongue in cheek Otta. It wasn?t meant as a dig at faith (not this time anyway) more at how people choose to use that faith


Given the discord in the CoE at present (with many existing senior figures despairing over declining congregations, as well as how things like this vote play with the public), wanting to become a bishop in that organisation seems like a dysfunctional way to utilise one?s faith or calling


The church now faces several more years of to and froing on this ? one suspects it will eventually happen, but by that time will anyone care?


Will Bishops still have an automatic place in House of Lords?


Will congregations be even smaller?

Remember, it wasn't that long ago that these women were fighting for the right to be vicars (about '90/91). And it's this generation that are fighting this fight now.


I guess for them it's like getting in to politics. One could ask why would anyone want to get involved with that shower, but to change an institution you need to fight your way up to the positions where you can have real influence.

That's true Otta and not something unique to religious institutions either. It's just that religious institutions are painfully slow to change.


Of course, the falling congregations are exactly a result of that growing gap between reform on the roles and achievements of women in wider society, amongst other things, and the snail's pace of reform within the church. Increasingly the church is showing itself to be out of step, to it's own detriment.

I think it's all a load of tosh as many know...but


...it could easily be argued that the C of E has lost its way precisely by trying to be wet, liberal and plaesing eveyone up until now and hence no-one has a scooby what it stands for...being a secular religion makes no sesnse really. A religon should surely be based on an idiotic set of myths or the writings of a single person as a spokesperson of god? Being thoroughly nice, liberal and caring without much else is a bit of a waste of time religioulsy



Meanwhile, intolerant, bigoted, unplaesant Catholicism and Islam march on, the latter especially, often uncriticised by secular liberals. just pick on the wooly old C of E...


As far as i'm concerned I'm with Swift they are all arguing over which end of a boiled egg you should open.

First paragraph of quids post I agree with but this


"Meanwhile, intolerant, bigoted, unplaesant Catholicism and Islam march on, the latter especially, often uncriticised by secular liberals. just pick on the wooly old C of E... "


Is either trolling or you believe it. Either way its horseshit. It's willful disregarding of the ongoing criticism of both. But for a self professed ideology hater you sure have some sacred cows of your own


Regardless, the reason this Coe issue is of particular interest is because of its inbuilt role into the constitutional fabric of this country, unlike the other religions mentioned. 26 places in House of Lords, out of bounds to women for this reason alone

Am I missing something then?


Bishops of the COE have 26 places in House of Lords?

Women are not allowed to be bishops?

So, that's 26 places denied to women in the upper chamber because of their gender, no?


Granted its not a shining beacon of equality anyway but not sure what I'm getting wrong with my assertion ?

A) the phrase "just asking" is the preserve of idiots. Just a step up from "just sayin"


B ) if you want to bring up other religions the do the honor of answering my previous point. And also recognise you are strawmanning just a bit


How many women are or aren't allowed into a mosque is a topic of discussion. None? Well blow me down with a feather, religion shows yet again how backward it is


But here we are talking about the establishment and its exclusion of a whole gender. If you are religious it's ultimately your choice. But when it comes to legislature OF THE COUNTRY WE LIVE IN , and people are excluded that's something else

For example, in the viruntly anti catholic thread re abortion and the woman who died in Galway, I don't recall your contribution quids? And yet there I am banging away about the backwardness of Ireland and from you? Nothing



I do the same here? And all you do is complain how Catholics and Muslims get a free ride



It doesn't really lend any credibility to your arguments

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...