Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Probably the weekday cyclists that are the ones filling up their cars ..

I've already told my boss I cant make it into work tonight not sure about Sunday night etc and already 4 others have said the same thing at work... we are all in a company watsapp group and all sent pics of our fuel with fuel lights on and gauge below red...

Was this petrol queue for the goose green petrol station?



Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Yep

> alice Wrote:

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

> -----

> > So if car use switched to bikes in then

> > Bets we?re told how come the queues for petrol

> are

> > so long?

> Huh?


When I was in the garage yesterday around 1330 waiting to fill up they came out and closed the pump.


How come they have managed to get fully stocked so quickly? What I did notice was the price of petrol had gone from the middle 1.30's the day before to I think 1.48 a litre on this day. Feel sure my memory is correct but could be wrong but I have this figure in my brain.


When this garage first opened many years ago it was the cheapest in the area now it is the dearest only to be used in an emergency. How times have changed.

I'm very close to Goose Green petrol station and just googled and sadly see it's 24hr. We have had hooting all day and entry to my road frequently blocked by a queue that barely moves. Don't think I'll get much sleep tonight as hooting still going now gone 10.30pm!!!

Sad to think of emergency vehicles not being able to fill up. What are the media going to post next to cause the next panic issue.....

Richard Tudor...

When I went to the goose green petrol station yesterday they only had diesel the put those yellow plastic covers over the unleaded pumps.... like you said theres no way they would get fully stocked up that quickly when there are far bigger petrol stations needing fuel... also I think you are right about the price i believe it was around 136.9 .. i also use them as an emergency as they are expensive ...

There's not much money in selling petrol any more - not many other products where people pay attention to the price down to the penny and will drive half an hour out of their way to save peanuta. it's more a lure to get people through the door and sell people coffee, Red Bull and groceries. Place like Goose Green that has expensive property and not much store space? They'll need to charge a but extra just to keep afloat.

Trouble is you label people who are rushing to the pumps as idiots, yet this is a sizable part of the population. I could label those of you who voted to leave the EU as idiots, but I don't. By all means share your views but what benefit does is it to use emotive terms such as idiots? You silly Billy's.


I'd be really interested in how you discourage such 'idiotic' behaviour. When for a sizeable many panic buying is a totally rational thing to do, I'm alright Jack.

The curious question is : in normal times when one or two petrol stations run dry for what ever reason , drivers are mildly frustrated but don't panic buy as a result

This may happen at various places across the country in any given day.



However at the moment this exact scenario occurred and the media picked up on it then poured fuel in the fire.


The question is, if the media hadn't mentioned it,would there still be panic or would there be just a few places in each area shut and drivers being mildly inconvenienced ?

White flag here, I was using humour, to say that we should not be demonising people for queuing for fuel. If you are desperate you will join the queue, irrespective of the implications (were people getting fines for queuing on the bus lane yesterday on the South Circ yeseterday?).


How essential your purchase is, is highly subjective. It is a natural instinct to hoard for you and your family in times of shortage. How many people rushed to buy toilet rolls during lock down 1 when they heard they were available through social media/WhatApp? Whether they had a good supply or not. In the 80s if you were queuing for bread in a Moscow shop would you say I'll just have one loaf and hope they have some tomorrow or would you buy a whole freezer's worth?


This situation is highly frustrating to those that have to use their vehicle and totally avoidable. This is a blip, we've seen it before, it will sort itself out shortly. Supply chains operate on 'just in time' and don't want loads of stock in storage at a retail site. Market forces mean that the number of filling stations has declined by about 60% in the last 30 years, exacerbating this blip.


But it's fine for me to sit back and not rush out, as I don't need fuel and can easily ride it out. Many are not in that fortunate position.


Anyway, DKH, there was a centre forward in the 60s who said to the ref at half time, what would you do if I called you a barstool. The ref replied, well I'd send you off Mr Centre Forward. OK says the footballer, what would happen if I think you are a barstool? Well Mr Centre Forward, you can think whatever you want. Thank you referee, I think you are a barstool.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> In the 80s if you were queuing for

> bread in a Moscow shop would you say I'll just

> have one loaf and hope they have some tomorrow or

> would you buy a whole freezer's worth?

You would not have been allowed to buy a freezerful of bread (and neither would it have been likely that you owned a freezer).


There are only a handful of ways you can ration scarce goods:


- by time - whoever has the most time to sit around in queues will get the goods.


- by need - whoever needs it most should get it - but we have no time to build a system for working this out.


- by money - by increasing the cost to reduce short term demand. There would be no queues if petrol was a tenner a litre!


It's actually the last method that would probably be best, quickest and fairest in the short term: it could be done overnight. It would force the idiots to reconsider whether they actually need the petrol (in the toilet paper panic, people moaned about paying 10p extra for a nEcEsSiTy). It would increase the cost for people that really need fuel but at least they would be guaranteed of supply without waiting for hours.


In fact what will actually happen is that idiots will disrupt everyone else for a short period by bringing their normal purchases forward a couple of weeks, and then in a couple of weeks there will be a dip in demand as people consume their stockpile - exactly like the toilet paper affair.


Just because everyone buys 3 pints in the 10 minutes before closing time, it doesn't mean there's a shortage of beer...

Not that I am an economist but I know something about this. Increasing costs of private car use does not necessarily equate with reduced use - so increased fuel price at a time of shortage may not quell panic buying. Here's some of the evidence but not an easy read, and I could not cut and paste some succinct findings from it - be my guest!


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/395119/road-traffic-demand-elasticities.pdf


If you restict purchases by amount, the time factor does come into it, as those who are most desperate (for real or perceived reasons) will go round the block and queue again. This would only be introduced I expect, in a proper time of crisis due to severe loss of production/refining, or say a tanker driver strike.


I doubt whether fuel rationing, as in the last war, or thought about in the early 70s, is a liklihood.


On deliveries, as smiley untrustable man (SUM) said this morning on the Jonny Marry programme, there is not a large shortage of tanker drivers. It is relatively well paid job, particularly compared to other hauliers. SUM seemed to say that other hauliers salaries would increase, which appears to be rather interventionist from a Tory government, and of course that will add to the costs of our food and other products. A Brexit benefit (sorry couldn't help myself).


The beer analogy is a good one. In New Zealand when they only served beer after work for an hour, drunkenness and domestic violence rocketed. Beer was being served in a high pressure hose the demand from drinkers being so high. In Scotland that is why they liberalised licensing laws long before England.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Not that I am an economist but I know something

> about this. Increasing costs of private car use

> does not necessarily equate with reduced use - so

> increased fuel price at a time of shortage may not

> quell panic buying.

The type of panic buying of petrol we have seen is discretionary and therefore highly price elastic - people are bringing forward their fuel purchases based on fear rather than actual consumption. The aggregate demand over the course of a month hasn't changed at all and in reality supply hadn't been reduced much either. A handful of petrol stations running a bit low on some types of fuel is what triggered this "crisis".


A short term surcharge would soon shake out the people who really need fuel for today from the people panic buying - and that's all we need to even out turnaround at petrol stations. This is a 2-3 week problem.


BTW that study is about the impact fuel prices (and other things) have on demand for roads. It's not about the impact fuel price have on demand for fuel.


> fairest', by penalising those who can least afford to shoulder such a price increase - a wonderful if unintentional illustration of some of what is wrong in our society!


Right now we have a situation in which the least wealthy who really need petrol for work either don't get it or wait hours unnecessarily because of the actions of a few. That's not fair either.

The last panic was in the late 00s following a refinery fire - I expect that another refinery was down due to annual maintenance. Prices went up due to the shortage, but people still rushed to the filling stations. Prices came down a week or two later, after demand had subsided and refinery capacity restored. Not sure how much of a price hike you need to quell short term demand.

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...