Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think your point on Bishops in the House of lords and exclusion of women is a very good demonstration of how what the CofE thinks and does, impacts on what should a democratic chamber with equality at it's core. Could you imagine if such a thing existed in Parliament? That women were not eligible to stand for any number of seats? There would be an uproar, yet we tolerate it of the Lords.


My view is that until thre IS equality for those seats, that Bishops should not be allowed anywhere near the Lords, or any aspect of governement whatsoever.

Last time I looked at the abortion thread it was an argument bewteen you and a fellow Irish person - I don't think there's much to argue about that case in general a sthe thread seemed to be reaching a consensus on.


Now this IS interesting....."And all you do is complain how Catholics and Muslims get a free ride", the use of Catholoics and Muslims by you.


No I don't \anywhere, I actually discuss ISLAM and CATHOLICISM. You're so Guardian wired up for percieved racial prejudice that that is what you infer (and probbaly think) is meant by any criticsim of religon, especilally THAT one. I really hope the raeson that you just can't bring yourself to criticise an ethnic minority RELIGON, is not on the absurd grounds that it makes you not look like a Guardian reader. That would be most illiberal and stupid....and typical foooking Guardian reader I might add. "Don't talk about it people might think we're racist"


I would also like to see some proof, that I say catholics and muslims get a free ride...ever, anywhere on this forum. Choose your words more wisely in these areas please.

the conflation re individuals practicing a religion and the religion itself was indeed my mistake. Apologies on that score.


At no point do I mean to imply that your or anyone is playing a race card. despite your wish to see me as some Guardian-wired-racism-detector I saw no racist slurs in your posts. But that said, your point is still wrong


I might have clumsily used the terms catholics/catholic church muslims/Islam interchangably, but your argument still seems to run - those other two religions are often uncriticised, when in fact I was merely trying to point out that that is rubbish. You may summarise the abortion thread as reaching a consensus but the fact is I was damning the Catholic church (and yes by extension many catholics)


so the question remains - why do you think those other churches don't get criticised?


"No I don't \anywhere, I actually discuss ISLAM and CATHOLICISM. You're so Guardian wired up for percieved racial prejudice that that is what you infer (and probbaly think) is meant by any criticsim of religon, especilally THAT one. I really hope the raeson that you just can't bring yourself to criticise an ethnic minority RELIGON, is not on the absurd grounds that it makes you not look like a Guardian reader. That would be most illiberal and stupid....and typical foooking Guardian reader I might add. "Don't talk about it people might think we're racist" "


apart from my word conflation, most of your point here is way off beam.. you thought your were being called racist - you weren't. But yeah I should choose words more carefully here

Ok, thank you.


Well, actually Catholicism does get a bashing reasonably frequently on here and in social media (and quite rightly so). So why doesn't Islam? I dunno, not as many of us from a muslim tradition, the 'i don't know much about it' cop out and a fair old dose of PCness would be my verdict. Also whilst the Cof E would make its critics a nice cup of tea, and the Catholic church would threaten them with hell, a very, small minority of followers of Islam would try and arrange for them to go there. I think it has an effect (on wider social media/media coverage)


To my original point on a whole range of issues from women to homosexulaity the C of E looks miles ahaed of Catholicism/Islam, and though I take your point about it being the established church/religon it still seems an easy target with less baggage for the 'attacker'. The tweetersphere is rammed with outrgae on this....I feel slightly sorry (with a touch of amusemant) for the the wooly, pretty liberal (for a dogmatic faith based creed) 'nice' C of E.

"The tweetersphere is rammed with outrgae on this....I feel slightly sorry (with a touch of amusemant) for the the wooly, pretty liberal (for a dogmatic faith based creed) 'nice' C of E."


to be fair, it's not just social media. Many senior (and not so senior) players within the church are just as outraged and just as vexed and just as vocal. It's a genuine issue, and not just a social media storm


The league table of various religions and their current states of enlightenment (or not) is an interesting discussion but not really what the subject at hand is about

Well, since the CofE not only inherit a right to rule over me by merit of adhering to their medieval dogma, they also take the name of my nation in vain, so I feel singularly justified in critiquing their performance.


I'm not bashing the CofE because they're easy targets, I'm calling into question their right for dominion over me.


I suspect the Italians, Irish and Spanish may feel the same about the Catholic Church, Israelis regarding Judaism, and Iranians about their particular brand of Islam.


The fact that Catholics and Muslims may also pursue gender discrimination is neither here nor there, it certainly doesn't justify the CofE position, and it doesn't make me feel sympathetic - 'There, there, it's okay to by bigoted because other people are too...' ?? Bizarre logic.

The implication presumably being that we shouldn't criticise CofE gender discrimination because their charitable status allows them to control schools?


Is that like saying you can't criticise expense fiddling by MPs because they control our hospitals?

No, rather there's a lot of hypocritical nonsense being spoken on this issue.


Some seem to be saying a religious organisation should reflect the (non-religious) make up and views of a secular society, which appears slightly illogical to me.


If the majority of society considers religion and it's rituals to be medieval claptrap and have never darkened the door of a CoE church in their lives why are they getting so upset over how the church is configured? Surely the no vote has done women a favour if you subscribe to those views?

Except as SJ pointed out, that self same organisation has positions of authority in government and our chief representative, HM the Queen, is the Supreme Governor.


So it's not correct to assert that the CofE is entitled to do as it wishes without recourse to the people: both the church and the Queen retain their roles at our indulgence.

I understand those concerns but as one of the people who voted no said on Newsnight last night, the CoE is the established church, not a state church.


If it is to be treated as any other company employing people then yes, equality rules should be applied. However, at the moment it is specifically excluded from some of the equality legislation for the fact it is a religious body.


It is an important issue and raises the question 'to what extent a secular society can dictate the form a religious body should take?'


The CoE will eventually vote for women bishops once it has sorted out it's own doctrinal issues rather than in response to Twitterarti mob-rule.

"The CoE will eventually vote for women bishops once it has sorted out it's own doctrinal issues rather than in response to Twitterarti mob-rule."


And a large part of that internal wish to have women bishops is the knowledge that the world has moved on and they don't want to be left behind. Ie external not internal factors


Easy to ignore secular or wider views if your religion is based on intimidation, fear and control (boom! Islam reference!) but when you have become a softer cuddly religion and a dwindling custo... Er... Congregation then you simply have to adapt

But my original point SJ was because it has bowed to secular, emlightened liberalism the most - for Huges reference the C of E actually has woman priests, go and check out the others and yes relativism is important, bizzare to think it's not - hence the decline. But this is just an intellectual position not a political stance, I couldn't give a monkeys about christianity of any flavour or Islam, all superstitious, not fit for pupose in the 21st Century and certainly cusing far more probllems than the good they do. I still have my 'prejudice' about which partivcular one is CURRENTLY turning in the nastiest direction and significantly so. But hey ho....Personally I'd like to give one hemisphere to religous nut jobs of the world and let the rest of us muddle along to our inevitable and final lonely death.

True, I can't disagree with that. However, you have to bear in mind that those in the CoE who voted no have not done anything wrong - no rules or laws have been broken here.


It is not unusual for a religious group to be out of step with the wider society and this issue has only served to convince many that the CoE (and most other religions) are out of touch with today's world.


The matter is still one of Is and Ought. There are probably a great many things different religions ought to change if they wish to be seen to be relevant to people's lives today. At the same time, if they jump to every whim and current fad they risk losing their religious identity.

"But my original point SJ was "... sorry I've read ita couple of times now and still not sure what that last post's point is/was?


I think we agree on religions generally, and if we were discussing which are the worst at the moment we would agree there too. And we probably agree on CoE being more enlightened than most others


So what are we disagreeing on? Because it has bowed to some secular trends, it is beyond reproach? External or Internal?


Look the thread was about this specific (and non-trivial) vote which looks to have harpooned the church. It's a big deal to both the faithful and the leaders of that church. There will be fallout. Enlightened leaders of the church are in despair over some of the militant wing


It's worth talking about frankly. And it's a discussion that doesn't really need other religions being yanked into it because they just aren't relevant to the point at hand


But that doesn't mean we can't have THAT conversation (again) - I just don't see it's relevance here

"It is not unusual for a religious group to be out of step with the wider society and this issue has only served to convince many that the CoE (and most other religions) are out of touch with today's world. "


But this is the point entirely. I don't think the CoE IS out of step on this point. I think, for the most part it is totally on board. But what we have is several small, loud, militant sections who are getting to skew the outcome. Which is a different thing entirely

"So threads have to stick within strict paramaters set by a single person or the originator? Sounds a bit religous to me"


didn't say anything of the sort. In fact I would argue that what I did say


"But that doesn't mean we can't have THAT conversation (again) - I just don't see it's relevance here"


was the opposite of that

it was sort of a joke, u know deity/religon/single source/strict parameters of behaviour etc???


Anyway, for huge


Is voting against a woman becoming a bishop on religous grounds the same as shooting a girl in the head, on religous grounds, for wanting to go to school, say?

"for Huges reference the C of E actually has woman priests, go and check out the others"


As I pointed out, I don't remotely see the reason for this? The fact that other religions do some weird stuff doesn't suddenly make the CofE above criticism. This is a non-argument.


As it happens, and as I pointed out earlier in the thread, Islam has many women Imams.

You are probably right Sean that for the most part the CoE is in favour of Women Bishops (difficult not to be given its women priests). However, I've no reason to question the figures given on your link to Brother.org:


"...Of 47 bishops, only 3 voted against it. Of 193 clergy in the synod, just 45 voted against. And of the House of Laity, of the 206 members with a vote, 74 said no. That?s 6% of bishops, 23% of clergy, and 36% of the laity..."


These figures actually show a quite substantial disagreement between the elected representatives that would suggest the CoE is not quite as united on this issue as many assume. Although I will qualify this as in my first post, ie, a number were unsure what voting yes would actually mean in practice and further qualifications as to the remit of women bishops were to e discussed and debated at a later stage.

Quids, now you're going on about shooting people in the head - this bizarre assertion somehow claiming I can't criticise the CofE because no Christians have committed murder recently? (BTW Erm.. Anders Breivik demanding a mono cultural Christian Europe?)


This is silly, can I not criticise members of parliament because they haven't bombarded islands under disputed ownership with South Korea recently?


Can I not criticise Shell until I've criticised BP enough?

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...