Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I found myself four times on inappropriate sites in the office. Three were opening attachments from mates, they were risqu? rather than obscene and once redirected from a benign site to something very much not benign. You get into an immediate panic trying to remember where the blank screen short cut is on Windows. At worst I switched it off at the mains, these were PCs in full site of others. At no time did I feel the need to investigate what was on my screen and spend further time looking at it to check that is was inappropriate.

I had that in the past

Some where for security training and if you didn't report them questions were raised

Others were "dodgy" and you got reported if you did open them

Either way a course followed.


I failed by opening "Kim Kardashian wants to keep abreast of your security status" as it was both dodgy and needed reporting. I was torn and simply put it in a tractor folder deleted it

JohnL Wrote:

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

> The way its going next election will be Tobias

> Ellwood versus Chris Bryant for PM.


Fine, as long as we don't get to see Chris Bryant's Gaydar white briefs pics again...:)

  • 3 weeks later...
I'm actually angry since the Sue Grey report came out. It's late and if I start typing now wont get to bed till 1 and will lie their thinking about it all night. So you will have to wait. But a precis is that No 10 would not have behaved this way under previous PMs.

Here's an question for you all


If there is a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson, which he loses, assuming the government doesn't go back to the polls with a general election and there will be a new Tory PM selected which of the existing Tory MPs is the one that could be PM.


Frankly, none of them stand out in anyway for me but Gove and Rees-Mogg would be akin to voting for Trump in mind.

How refreshing that the Tory party are considering replacing Mr. Johnson.


Not because he is an inexperienced inept politician, not because he has no cause, not because he is a traitor, not because he doesn?t care about the UK population, not because he instructs people to follow rules that he has no intention of following himself, not because he lied about what parties were held, not because he prorogued parliament, not because he lied to the Queen, not because he lined his friends pockets, not because he put his cohorts into crucial positions during the pandemic when actually what we needed was expertise, not because he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, not because he is dismantling the structures which maintain stable government, not because he is removing the right to protest.


No, because he may make the Tory party less popular.

Refreshing isn?t it ?

This is without the consideration ?should any party that has had 4 leaders on 6 years and called 3 to 4 elections in that time even be considered as stabile/capable of running a country?


And after 12 years in power it?s clear that no matter who leads them they are an empty yet dangerous vessel and any hint of re-election rewards ineptitude on a massive level.

Exactly KK, what we're seeing is self-preservation kicking-in, the prospect of Tory MPs losing their seats rather then any genuine objection to Johnson and his lies, ineptitude, moral bankruptcy, and the disgrace he's brought to the role of PM.


I'm still not convinced though that he would lose a VONC, didn't May survive one, only to later stand down 'voluntarily' due to failing to get the Tories to agree to her Brexit deal?


As much as I want him to go for the good of the country, if he stays it makes it much more likely that this incarnation of the Tory party will lose the next election. The whole lot of them need to be sent packing, not just Johnson...

KK, not quite getting the thrust of your point....


HE GOT BREXIT DONE!


Oh, wait a second, he didn't get it sorted, and the whole thing is a mess (irrespective of the opportunities Cat).


Anyway we have our pint and mile, and soon traders in Kent and Lincolnshire can sell strawberries by the pound. Although the UK actually started to go metric in the 60s, being government policy long before the EU allowed us to join. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom Hardly a victory over the evil EU Prime Minister.

malumbu Wrote:

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


>

> Oh, wait a second, he didn't get it sorted, and

> the whole thing is a mess (irrespective of the

> opportunities Cat).

>


Yep it is a bit of a mess Mal, no disgreement there.


As an aside....I do find it bemusing however that some people can constantly cite this govenrment's total ineptitude on anything and everything (which I agree with by the way) as a reason why the country has 'gone to the dogs'. But when it comes to Brexit, its nothing to do with terrible government...its just 'brexit is bad'.....


If brexit is so very, awfully terrible (irrespective of who runs the place), than can someone please explain the attached chart (from the very anti-Brexit Garun of all places, using ONS data)......without giving me cherry picked sob story anecdotes about people they've heard about doing it tough or indiviudal sub-sectors that are doing poorly...Overall, while these charts are far fron 'sunlit uplands' they are also very far from 'absolulte disaster/carnage', and also not really even able to be descibed as particualrly negative if we're being honest (recpover after intial shock early last year)...so looks to me like overall things are about the same as they were before brexit on the trade front....and thats with a totally inept government in charge....imagine what might be able to happen with someone competent....

diable rouge Wrote:

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

> Here's the article* in full for those who want to

> read the full

> context...https://www.theguardian.com/business/202

> 2/may/30/brexit-uk-firms-eu-trade-northern-ireland

>

>

> *Warning: Article contains 'cherry picked sob

> story anecdotes'...


Sure the aritcle is full of those. This 'context' you are providing in not way detracts or changes the overall data....which I note you've failed to address or comment on at all....

What happened to the 'let's wait 10 years before we judge Brexit' plan? :)


Yet, here we are, almost a year and a half after the transition period ended and Cat's citing one graph because he thinks it suits his agenda.


I note the graph and article makes no reference that the Gov has still to apply full post-Brexit import checks, something the EU did immediately, so hardly a level playing field in that respect. It's something that the UK Gov will have to do eventually, especially if it wants to be seen to be 'taking back control', despite the adverse effect that will have on imports and graphs like that one.


One important thing the article does cite though is that the OBR's original long-term forecast (15 years) that this particular Brexit deal will hit GDP by 4%, remains unchanged despite these figures. Perhaps the OBR didn't conveniently forgot about the Gov's delay on checks...

But when it comes to Brexit, its nothing to do with terrible government...its just 'brexit is bad'.....


The Brexit deal we ended up with has everything to do with this Gov, they negotiated it. The two are inextricably linked.


Some people, myself included, feel that any form of Brexit would've been 'bad' with respect to staying in the EU, but there were degrees of 'badmess'. For instance a more competent Gov would've Brexited while still remaining in the SM and CU, thus minimizing the economic damage...

Yes. One chart. One chart showing total trade figures.


Surley, the only chart that really matters for people whinging about brexit destroying trade.


One chart not showing any benefits (yet), becuase they would indeed only be evident 'after 10 years'. But one chart showing a lack of foretold negative impacts which even the most ardent remainers admitted would likely be near-dated.


So what if they havent instituted full checks in imports? What dangerous or damaging imports are you concerned with from the EU that makes you so keen to see them check things? Its the UK"s choice to check or not check imports, the only risk is p1ssing off non-eu importers who think they are being treated unfairly versus the EU. Delaying the full checks is probably the one sensible decision the govt has made. In anycase, the application of full checks from the EU doesnt appear to have had much an impact on overall exports to the EU, as the chart shows, so perhaps the impacts of these checks are somewhat overstated. Its obviously worse in some industries that others, but overall, little impact from the hard data.



Its funny how many remainers spent years demanding 'tangible impacts'...now i've given you 'one chart' with 'tangible numbers' and you want to obsfucate about OBR forecats and apparent vague reference to 'context'....


Seperatley, I wont bother explaining how flawed that same tired old OBR study is (which i've done multiple times and no one on here has responded to)


Anyway...my aim here is not re hash all this old ground, but to maybe highlight (with actual data, not hysterical anecdotes about tea trolleys and hotplates) that this indefensible government is the main problem, not nessarily the concept of brexit....

Full text of the 'Leadership Memo' written by a tory backbencher and doing the rounds amongst consrvative MP's the past 24 hours.....geez I hope most of them heed its message, even if it is based on concern for their own electroal survival, rather than for ethical/policy reasons...i'll take it....



PARTY LEADERSHIP ? Boris Johnson is no longer an electoral asset and, if left in post, will lead the Party to a substantial defeat in 2024. He will lose Red Wall seats (with majorities under 10,000) to Labour, and Blue Wall seats (majorities up to 20,000) to the Liberal Democrats. At least 160 MPs are at risk (all majorities under 10k, and LD-facing majorities under 20k). Furthermore, tactical voting, so devastating in 1997, is returning and could turn a defeat into a landslide. ? Partygate, and the Prime Minister?s denials of it in the House of Commons, represent a major breach of trust with the British population, including 2019 Conservatives, many of whom have abandoned the party already. Boris Johnson cannot win their trust back, and they will discount anything a Government led by him promises. ? Partygate is not going away. Allegations of a birthday party ? hitherto uninvestigated ? in the flat on June 19, 2020 have not been denied by Downing Street. And the ?Abba party? of November 13, 2020 was not fully investigated by Sue Gray. The Privileges Committee will want to examine both events, and may demand that Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson, Sue Gray and No 10 staff give evidence to them. ? The entire purpose of the Government now appears to be the sustenance of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. MPs are having to defend the indefensible, not for the sake of the party, but for one man. He is the only Minister given negative ratings by activists in the ConHome ratings (link), meaning he is dragging everyone else down. Electoral Considerations: ? Our last lead in the polls was on 6th December, a week after the initial Partygate stories broke. We are now an average of 8% down. We won the last election by 11.8% (GB) so this represents a 10% swing against us. (link) ? 27% of current Conservative voters think the PM should resign, indicating there is potential for a further fall in our polling position. 51% of current Conservative voters think the PM knowingly lied about breaking lockdown rules. (link) ? The booing of Boris Johnson at the Jubilee Thanksgiving service tells us nothing that data does not. There is no social group that trusts him, with even 55% of current Conservatives calling him untrustworthy, against only 25% saying he is trustworthy. (link) ? The damage done to trust in Boris Johnson is such that popular policies are falling flat with the public (e.g. cost-of-living measures). A pollster has dubbed him the ?Conservative Corbyn? because of this. (link) ? The recent YouGov MRP poll (link) showed us losing 85 of 88 Labour-facing seats at the next election. Bookmakers expect us to lose the Red Wall seat of Wakefield (maj 3,358) comfortably. ? Facing the Lib Dems, we have already lost Chesham & Amersham (maj 16,223) on a 25.2% swing and North Shropshire (maj 22,949) on a 34.2% swing. North Shropshire was the seventh-worst by-election swing since the war ? only Christchurch was bigger in the 1992-97 Parliament (link). Bookmakers also expect Tiverton & Honiton (maj 24,239) to follow. ? This situation is not comparable to the ?mid-term blues? in the 2010-15 Parliament. There are very few votes on our right to squeeze (unlike e.g. 2013, where UKIP polled into the 20s at times, link). The polls in 2010-15 were also shown to be wrong following an inquiry after the 2015 election. Risk of an early General Election: ? Should Boris Johnson win a vote of no confidence, but only narrowly, his authority within the Commons and the Parliamentary Party would be destroyed. Most Prime Ministers would resign; however it has been suggested (link) that he would consider calling an early General Election (despite the obvious electoral risk) as the only way to restore his personal mandate. This would put MPs in marginal seats at risk. Privileges Committee: ? The Partygate story will continue to be played out over the summer, with reports suggesting the Privileges Committee may not report until October (link), overshadowing our conference and ensuring Ministers and MPs continue to face questions on this subject for months. The four Conservative MPs on the Committee ? and the integrity of all of them is beyond question ? have been placed in a very difficult position. ? The only way to end this misery, earn a hearing from the British public, and restore Conservative fortunes to a point where we can win the next General Election, is to remove Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

I can't work out what he means below.


?Can you look me in the eye and tell me you haven?t lied in your political career?? asked interviewer Paul Brand.


Johnson responded: ?Absolutely not. Absolutely not? ? apparently meaning he can look Brand in the eye and say he ?absolutely? has not lied.

I expect Johnson will win the vote, but as to whether it counts as a 'win' will depend on how many vote against him there are.


I would've thought any number above the parliamentary majority of around 80 will cause problems. Once you get into 100+ then it's just a question of how long it drags on for. May managed 6 months but didn't have an investigation by the Privilege's Committee and two very losable by-elections to contend with...

Really hope Boris can weed out the Conservatives who voted against him tonight.


As for Paul Brand. I used to like him as a journalist but he has morphed into a younger version of Robert Peston who right now is just reporting on ITV in his usual long drawn out, breathless, exasperated style and hatred of Boris Johnson.

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

    • Week 3 fixtures...   Saturday 30th August Chelsea v Fulham Manchester United v Burnley Sunderland v Brentford Tottenham Hotspur v AFC Bournemouth Wolverhampton Wanderers v Everton Leeds United v Newcastle United   Sunday 31st August Brighton & Hove Albion v Manchester City Nottingham Forest v West Ham United Liverpool v Arsenal Aston Villa v Crystal Palace
    • I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂 I had niko over recently to clean out my kitchen pipes. Not only did he pick the problem he's messaged me a couple of times to check the problem has been solved. A real gem! 🙂
    • Log in See all News The fightback against Britain’s corporate vets has begun With costs continuing to spiral, angry pet owners and independent practices have had enough of the big companies dominating the industry     481   Gift this article free   Sally Williams 24 August 2025 12:00pm BST Caroline* and Julian* had been married for 10 years before the arrival of Amy, a miniature dachshund. They had different views about pets. She had grown up surrounded by dogs and really missed having one around the house. He was not a dog person.   They had a happy marriage, a lovely house in south London, good jobs (he worked in finance, she for charities). “But we couldn’t have children and so decided having a dog would make our life more complete,” Caroline explains.   Just before the first lockdown of March 2020, they went to a miniature dachshund breeder in Colchester. A tiny bundle of fur with brown eyes looked up at her husband, says Caroline, and in that instant something clicked. “He just fell in love with her. We knew we had to have her.”   From that moment on, Amy was a member of the family. But she didn’t come cheap. There were routine health checks, a monthly parasite treatment, and also cream for mildly flaky skin around her neck and body. Costs really spiralled when Amy started to hop during a holiday in Cornwall when she was six months old. The local vet said she had a “wobbly knee” and suspected a luxating patella (a kneecap that slips out of place; common in small dogs). Back in London, Caroline’s vet thought it could be hip dysplasia where the hip joint doesn’t develop properly.   Over the next six months, Amy had two X-rays under sedation, blood tests, painkilling medication, and multiple trips to a specialist clinic in Guildford, where she had physiotherapy and hydrotherapy at a cost of £75 a session. Eventually, Amy was seen by a leading small-animal specialist at a referral clinic in Kent. He was not able to identify a clear reason for her hopping. Amy, the expert concluded, “should return to a normal life”.   Caroline was lucky she had insurance. But it still fell short of covering the total bill of £5,000. “I don’t know anything about veterinary care, so I just did whatever the vets told us to do,” says Caroline. “We feel they did too much. Amy had treatment she didn’t really need. But of course we agreed to the treatment because we love her and we wanted her to be better.”   Helplessness, panic, a sinking feeling in the stomach – the worry that comes when a pet is in pain can be awful. But so is the cost of treatment. Nationally, pet owners spend around £4bn a year on veterinary services. And yet there is little consensus on prices.   A low risk, high reward opportunity This is one of the concerns being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK competition watchdog, which, after a national outcry about spiralling vet costs, is next month set to announce the provisional decisions from its market investigation into veterinary services for household pets.   This was set up in response to the takeover of veterinary practices by large corporate groups. “Pet owners may not be getting a good deal or receiving the information they need to make good choices,” it stated at the launch of the market review in September 2023.   The CMA has addressed many unfair, monopolistic practices in its 10-year history, such as funeral companies and airport services. It currently has 63 “live cases/ investigations”, including Ticketmaster (triggered by the dynamic pricing for tickets for the Oasis Live ’25 Tour) and Google, the US technology giant, for its dominance in the online search market.   But the investigation into vets and pets was exceptionally wide-ranging. It included hands-on site visits, teach-ins and round-table discussions with professionals, businesses and the public at large. This is not unusual. The idea is to share knowledge. What has been extraordinary is the unprecedented response.     More than 56,000 people (45,000 pet owners and 11,000 veterinary professionals) replied to the CMA’s online questionnaire. To get 56,000 people to do anything is impressive. To get 56,000 people to respond to a consultation by the CMA is unheard of.   Our devotion to pets is big business. Several factors have come into play. More people are living alone – 8.4 million people, or 30 per cent of all households, in 2023, according to the Office for National Statistics – and fewer people are having babies. Both have combined to deepen our relationship with pets.   There were, it transpires, more Google searches for “is my dog happy” than “is my kid happy” according to a report called Pets are the New Kids from Google in 2022. Of course, it’s not entirely clear if that’s because human children can talk, whereas barks can be confusing. But the sentiment is revealing. Owners are concerned about their dogs’ wellbeing.   What’s more, they are willing to go into debt to cover their pets’ medical bills.   Big money investors noticed the “humanisation” of pets, advances in veterinary care and the scale of ownership – there was a spike during lockdown when 3.2 million households acquired a pet with more than half of UK households now owning an animal – and saw an enticing formula. The field was viewed as low-risk/high-reward, according to a report issued by Capstone Partners in 2022.     The structure of UK veterinary services created an opportunity. In 1999, the law was changed to allow non-vets to own veterinary practices. What’s more, the UK has a relaxed regulatory environment. Veterinary surgeons are regulated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. But veterinary practices are not. The market was wide open.   In 2013, only about 10 per cent of vet practices belonged to large groups. Today, almost 60 per cent are owned by the “Big Six”: IVC Evidensia, CVS, Medivet, Pets at Home, Linnaeus and VetPartners. Of these, IVC, Medivet and VetPartners are owned or backed by private equity firms – investment funds that purchase companies with the aim of delivering profits to their shareholders.   Nestlé (of Cheerios and Shredded Wheat fame) is one of the groups behind the largest owner of veterinary services in the UK, IVC Evidensia, which operates more than 1,000 veterinary practices (out of a total of 5,331 in the UK). It also owns 60-plus emergency out-of-hours hospitals, through Vets Now. Not to mention PawSquad, an online telehealth service, pet funeral and cremation businesses and Pet Drugs Online – an online pharmacy selling pet medication.   EQT, the world’s third-largest private equity firm, controls IVC Evidensia which has an estimated annual revenue of over £221m. Nestlé acquired a stake in IVC in 2021.   Medivet owns more than 400 veterinary centres across the UK, including the Skeldale Veterinary Centre in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, the practice made famous by the semi-biographical books of James Herriot (real name Alf Wight) in the 1970s. It is controlled by the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners.   As big businesses bought up veterinary clinics, prices began to rise – a lot. Vet bills soared by more 60 per cent between 2015 and 2023, higher than the rate of inflation, which was around 35 per cent.     The stakes are high in veterinary medicine. More pets are being put down due to rising vet bills, according to a BBC report. “The sad thing is people are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost,” says Melanie Weatherall, owner and director of Oxford Cat Clinic, a cat-only clinic in Oxford. “We had a cat yesterday that had died on the way to the clinic. The lady was hysterical. She was beating herself up because she felt she should have got the cat to us sooner. There are things we could have done, but it was too late.”   Lack of transparency is another complaint. Six years ago, Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, went to an emergency out-of-hours vet to have Oscar, her beloved bearded collie, put down. He was 16, had a growing list of things wrong and had been hit by a particularly bad bout of pancreatitis. “I could tell he was in terrible pain,” she says. “I wanted the nearest vet who could put him out of his misery in the most gentle way possible.”   She arrived at the vets with her family who had come to say goodbye. But to Cuddy, the clinic felt transactional. “They wouldn’t even look at the dog until they’d swiped a credit card. Then they started upselling me to a crematorium. I wasn’t ready for that. But they wanted to put it on the credit card. I thought, whatever. And they gave me a leaflet that looked like a beautiful family-run place.”   She and Oscar went into a room while her family waited outside. “I was on a cold floor with Oscar. There was no blanket. It was cold in every way.” She cradled him in her arms. “He was blind and I wanted him to hear my voice, smell my scent, know he was safe, even though the place was alien.   “Afterwards I just wanted to go home to cry. I left him on the floor and was given an itemised bill. It was massive. About £1,000 including the cremation. A lot of money to pay for a very miserable experience. I went home and after I stopped crying I googled the crematorium. Turns out it was part of the same corporate chain as the out-of-hours surgery.”   Today, two of the Big Six veterinary groups own pet crematoria. “The ownership of pet crematoria by the large veterinary corporate groups clearly has an impact on our independent businesses,” states the Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria in its submission to the CMA. “The ownership of these crematoriums is often not declared, even on their websites and they appear to be independent.”   “It’s quite hard for normal pet owners to spot how all these things are linked,” says Cuddy. “It’s not like we can see the McDonald’s golden arches everywhere.”   ‘All of us are buyable’ It turns out, furthermore, that there is another consequence of the “corporatisation” of veterinary clinics. Sarah’s cat was 12 when the vet diagnosed suspected cancer, around six years ago. Her local, independent vet in London had just been taken over by Medivet. “The vet said, ‘We’ll do a biopsy’, which involved cutting her open and removing all the tumours and sewing her up again.” The price: £1,000. “I was going to do it,” Sarah says, “and then I thought, I can’t put her through that. In the old days animals got sick and died. The vet wasn’t pushing it, he just assumed this is what you do: I’ve got an elderly cat with suspected cancer, we’ll immediately do a massive operation. I just thought, this is a bit insane.”   Sarah decided against the treatment. Her cat died from cancer “very peacefully at home” six months later. “She just stopped eating and slept all day and then she died, which to me is how it should be.”   Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean it should be done, says Bruce Fogle, vet for 55 years and the owner of London Vets, an independent practice in London (and father of Ben Fogle). “A diagnostically aggressive and expensive American approach to vet medicine has become standard in the UK,” he told Instagram followers during a recent discussion on the rise of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in corporately owned clinics.   Bruce Fogle has been approached many times to sell his practice, but has always said no Bruce Fogle has been approached many times to sell his practice, but has always said no Credit: Jeff Gilbert What is best for the animal is not necessarily best for maximising profits. “A corporation doesn’t have a moral core to it,” Fogle tells me. “The aim of any corporation is to increase the financial return.”   For their part, IVC Evidensia, CVS and Medivet point out that corporate veterinary practices benefit from extensive clinical expertise and significant financial investment not available to independent practice. All treatment decisions are based on clinical considerations and in clear consultation with the owner. Furthermore, each has co-operated with the CMA and is fully supportive of all efforts to deliver overall sector improvements including better pricing transparency.   In 2022, Medivet was buying veterinary practices at great speed – 86 that year alone – so by April, it operated 390 clinics across the UK, arranged in a “hub-and-spoke” model, where smaller first-opinion practices encircled larger specialist hospitals that were open all day, every day.   Corporates were “aggressive in their acquisition strategy”, says David Reader, who teaches competition law at Glasgow University. “Rolling up of local independent practices under a single ownership umbrella for the purpose of boosting the value of the collective fleet.” Reader and his frequent collaborator Scott Summers, an expert in business law at UEA Norwich Business School, are in the middle of a project looking at the consequences of private equity and corporate control of the veterinary market. “Pet owners in rural areas, in particular, lose out when the local vet is bought and shut down,” says Summers.   But then, corporate chains were in a powerful position. They could offer to buy practices for “eight, nine, 10 times the profit of the business and it would still be profitable to them because they knew they could improve the efficiency”, says Fogle. “There are great efficiencies in running a number of businesses through a head office. If I own 20 practices and I need 20 X-ray machines, I’m going to get a far better price than if I was just buying one.”   Fogle has been approached many times to sell, but has always said no. “But if I were younger and had to pay for my children’s education, say, or university fees, I’d have been an idiot to turn it down. All of us are buyable.”     As it turned out, in January 2023, eight or so months before the current inquiry, the CMA turned its attention to Medivet’s purchase of 17 independent veterinary clinics bought between September 2021 and September 2022. The CMA was concerned that the new purchases squeezed out any competition in the local market.   But before an in-depth review could get under way, Medivet offered to dispose of the practices that were the subject of the merger investigation. (The same thing happened when the CMA launched a review into specific purchases by CVS, VetPartners and IVC; each offered to sell off the practices.) In October 2023, Medivet sold the 17 practices at a loss of £21.9m.   Will Chandler, 38, qualified as a vet 13 years ago. In his view, the dichotomy of corporate (bad) vs independent (good) is too simplistic. “There are some very well managed corporate clinics,” he says. They can provide better, more sophisticated equipment and more opportunities for advancement. But as lead vet for a Medivet clinic in London, where he worked for six years, it sometimes felt like “all the responsibility and none of the power”.   He describes an environment of unrelenting pressure and a culture of price inflation. He had little influence over hiring staff. “I wasn’t given any CVs, any choice about which candidates to interview.” And with a large corporate structure, “I was always on my phone at weekends, in case someone had a question. And it wasn’t even my business.”   Chandler wanted to go it alone. But he was constrained by a “non-compete” clause which prevented any veterinary business within a very tight radius around a Medivet clinic from opening. “Considering Medivet has 70-odd clinics in London, it’s almost impossible to find an area where you could set up a clinic without triggering a non-compete issue.”   ‘We’re not owned by somebody in an office in a different country’ When he heard that Medivet were selling off clinics at knockdown prices, he jumped at the opportunity. He is now the co-owner of Brockwell Vets in Herne Hill, south London. His business partner is Jenny Kalogera, a veterinary surgeon and original owner of Brockwell Vets, who’d sold it to Medivet in 2021.   “She didn’t like how it was run. Clients went elsewhere, and that was sad for her to see. When it was up for sale, I approached her. She said: ‘Why don’t we go into partnership together?’”   “People love that we are independent,” says Chandler. He is now proud to set his own prices. “We charge £49.50 for a consultation and our dental fee is around £400 – significantly cheaper than the local corporate vet.”   The Oxford Cat Clinic is another practice that was bought back from Medivet as a consequence of the CMA’s merger investigation. Weatherall, 58, had worked as the practice manager at the clinic for nine or so years when it was bought by Medivet in June 2022. She stayed on, along with the vets who’d founded the clinic 16 years before.   Barely six months later, in January 2023, the CMA started to investigate and the clinic’s relationship with Medivet was paused. “We didn’t have a lot of time to be absorbed into the great Medivet machine,” says Weatherall. But it was long enough to get an insight into how things worked.   “In a big corporate environment, you haven’t got the people who make decisions on the ground with you. It’s all centralised which is obviously more cost-effective. Which meant, for example, that we had to wait an interminable amount of time to get permission to buy anything, or if anything breaks – if a door handle comes off, you’ve got to wait for someone to come out and fix it, even though it could be driving the team mad.”   When Medivet put the Oxford Cat Clinic up for sale, Weatherall decided to buy it. “I wanted to keep it out of the hands of the corporate. It’s really good for our clients to know we’re locally run. We’re not owned by somebody who’s in an office, sometimes in a different country, even, who has no idea what’s going on.”   Melanie Weatherall: 'People are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost' Melanie Weatherall: ‘People are frightened to go to the vets because of the cost’ Credit: Harry Lawlor She talks about “pragmatic” care. “I adopted a cat recently. He was a stray. He had a damaged leg. We could have had about £3,000-plus of surgery to repair the leg, but did an amputation in the surgery because that’s a cheaper option and a reasonable option.”   There should be budget vet options, says Paul Mankelow, chief vet at the Blue Cross animal charity. “I can walk into an Aldi and know it’s a different proposition to Waitrose. Similarly, do I want to fly easyJet or Emirates? It’s very clear. But it’s not clear in the veterinary market.”   But running an independent practice is not easy. “I don’t draw any money from the business,” says Weatherall. “I earn no profit whatsoever. I want to change that.”   Sadly, it looks as if the CMA market investigation is not going to be quite as effective as everyone hoped. One of its purposes was to address alleged monopolistic pricing and ownership in the veterinary industry. But there are signs the investigation has pivoted away from the more profound problems of the corporate sector.   This January, Marcus Bokkerink stepped down as chair of the CMA, just three years into his role, as the watchdog moves to better align itself with the Government’s “push for growth”. “The Government’s strategic steer to the CMA is that it shouldn’t be doing anything which gives any outward impression that the UK is not business- or investment-friendly,” says Reader. Doug Gurr, a former head of Amazon UK, is now the interim chair.   “That doesn’t mean no regulation – we all want to see safe, high-quality care. But the system has to be fair and proportionate for both large national groups and small local practices,” says Martin Coleman, chair of the CMA’s inquiry group.   “We’re very supportive of the investigation, we’re glad it’s happening. However, one of our concerns is that the remedies won’t go far enough to put any real constraints on business, but they will go far enough to create extra work and additional paperwork for people working on the front line of veterinary medicine,” says Suzanna Hudson-Cooke, branch chairman of the British Veterinary Union in Unite.   “Initially, I thought it would be great. Now I think I was naive,” says Chandler. “As a small business, we’re looking potentially at an increase in administrative burden and we’re meant to be a clinic that the CMA looks after.”   *Names have been changed     Join the conversation   Show 481 comments The Telegraph values your comments but kindly requests all posts are on topic, constructive and respectful. Please review our commenting policy. Related Topics Telegraph long reads, Dogs, Cats, Animals                         © Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited 2025  
    • @malumbu your original post is a bit confising with multiple, possibly unrelated,  concepts thrown together. Let's address the title of the thread. What are you looking for here, objecting to people flying their national flag? Tying to draw extreme comments out or associating flag flying with the far right ?  The real qquestion possibly is should we feel ashamed to fly the flag? Possibly not, however the reasons for flying it should not be hijacked by political or extremism motivations.  We shouldn't be ashamed of our flag, but a minority seem to be using ir to incite hatred against others.  Therefore the real debate should be around how to remove the extremist views from ability to put a flag up?  I don't have an answer and we won't get one on here but good to have a discussion that may stir a few thoughts. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...