Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> For heaven's sake, please talk about the cinema on

> this thread. If you want to debate the LLW (which

> has in any case been debated at length already),

> please do so on another thread, possibly in The

> Lounge.


But we are talking about the cinema and DC's question needs to be answered because if they aren't going to pay the LLW then I shall be boycotting the East Dulwich Picture House until they do.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> For heaven's sake, lets be positive - we stand a

> damn good chance of getting a cinema in ED. To

> quote (ironically) the late Mrs T - rejoice!


So those who work there should be expected to work for less than a living wage so you can go to the flicks?

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

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

> Also - can we just establish that Picturehouse is

> hardly an independent - it was bought two years

> ago for 47 million by Cineworld

>

> http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/p

> icturehouse-reeled-in-by-cineworld-in-47m-deal-838

> 9607.html


Similar to Innocent Juice, which kept it's management team after being acquired by Coca-Cola. The branding like Picturehouse works so well that people believe it's an independent.

Bic Basher Wrote:


> Similar to Innocent Juice, which kept it's

> management team after being acquired by Coca-Cola.

> The branding like Picturehouse works so well that

> people believe it's an independent.


Precisely, but its branding is entirely disingenuous. It trades on being a quality product and charges a premium for doing so, attracting a much sought-after demographic of customer who won't just buy a cinema ticket but are likely to have the disposable income to also spend on all the profit-making add-ons (coffee anyone?). Its "philosophy" talks about tailoring its programme for each area, providing clubs for groups such as the elderly and young parents, and delivering education work - but if you won't pay a living wage to your employees, it undermines all other "community" initiatives.

As has ready been pointed out earlier in this thread, there are only some 300 businesses in London who currently pay the LLW. If you have a huge issue with the proposed ED Picturehouse not paying it don't go! However it would be fairly hypocritical to boycott the picture house and then use a business other than one of the aforementioned 300, wouldn't it?


Ron

No, maxxi, don't guilt trip me please. As I said earlier, as probably virtually NO cinemas pay LLW, you would have to stop going to the cinema full stop if you take that line. Or do you believe that "robber barons of capitalism" like Picture House should pay LLW while hippy dippy independents shouldn't because they love us all and have flowers in their hair?


In any case I believe that Picture House WILL be paying LLW soon.

The plans look great. What will be the last screening time on the weekends and weekdays out of curiosity? I imagine the cinema will really bring additional business to the various restaurants etc in the area.



Regarding the LLW - please stop hijacking every thread about the cinema to talk about this. As others have side it would be totally hypocritical and unfair to single out this specific business for criticism / boycott when virtually no London businesses currently pay the LLW.

People can and should be allowed to vote with their wallets. Some people disapprove of factory farming and avoid fast-food outlets which are known to use them. If you disagree with a company's policies, you have a choice.


Also, "don't feed the trolls" -- they'll get bored eventually.

My agenda?! Haha. Wait - you caught me. I'm a spy for Peckham Plex seeking to undermine the newcomer!


Rot. I'm someone who cares about the pay and conditions of all including those in my community. This is a business who has a past history on the same issue (see Brixton Ritzy strikes) and are owned by a large national corporation. This isn't a market stall on NXRd. They can afford to do this. I'm interested to know if they will.


They've answered everyone else's questions - why not mine? I suspect because they know no one will like the answer.

If Picturehouse did agree to pay a living wage I would make a conscious decision to choose them above others. I would actively go there instead of, say, the Curzon, their closest brand rival.


Instead of always discussing boycotting, perhaps we could talk about giving cinema-goers a postive ethical choice.

Picturehouse could seize an opportunity to be a leader in the industry and make a stand, and receive well-deserved plaudits as a result. Just as they have with other areas of work like their autism-friendly shows.


What an amazing marketing opportunity - to launch a new cinema and say that not only are we bringing new jobs to the area, but that those jobs are paid at a living wage. Suddenly a small opening could become newsworthy.

And they could say they were doing that directly in response to listening to what's important for their customers.

So what do the moaners want? No cinema at all, which would be a very bad thing for ED? No doubt, they would then feel ethically pure, right on and smug. And presumably this new cinema which they would prefer not to have would generate employment - perhaps they could explain their views to the people who would potentially be employed there.


And why are they picking on Picture House when so many other ED businesses don't pay LLD?


The negativity and student union style posturing on this MB often dismays me. And I'm a left of centre person, so I can imagine how people on the right feel.

I thought David had already been clear that he wouldn't use them. That is pretty far removed from not wanting a cinema in the area at all.


As he said, they'll do well regardless, but they will lose the custom of some. And as BB points out, they could be missing a trick which could gain them even more business from people that wanted a warm fuzzy glow along with their popcorn.


I still think it's more important to address why it so bloody much to live in London in the first place.



This is a good subject for discussion, but not in this thread. I suggest that you start a thread in The Lounge entitled "Why is it so bloody much to live in London?", or something like that. How about "Trying to buy a house in London is near impossible"?

My my, aren't you the snidey one today, perhaps you could apply for a position of moderator.


But being as I said this earlier


Otta Wrote:

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


> This should be on another thread really, leave

> this one to the cinema.


And everyone carried on talking about it anyway, then you got a bit shitty with your



Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> So what do the moaners want? No cinema at all,

> which would be a very bad thing for ED? No doubt,

> they would then feel ethically pure, right on and

> smug. And presumably this new cinema which they

> would prefer not to have would generate employment

> - perhaps they could explain their views to the

> people who would potentially be employed there.

>

> And why are they picking on Picture House when so

> many other ED businesses don't pay LLD?

>

> The negativity and student union style posturing

> on this MB often dismays me. And I'm a left of

> centre person, so I can imagine how people on the

> right feel.



We get it, you really really really want a cinema, and couldn't really care less what the staff are paid so long as you get your cinema.


I'm not THAT fussed about it either, but you're coming across as a bit of a prick today to be honest.

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...