Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> I'm not going to reiterate at length what I've

> said already on this thread in case someone

> insults me again. Let me make it clear that I

> would be very pleased if Picturehouse paid the

> LLW; indeed they seem to be moving in that

> direction. But I still don't see why they are

> being picked out for attack when there are so many

> other local businesses currently in existence who

> don't pay it. Do people really think that larger

> businesses who don't pay it should be condemned

> while small local businesses who don't pay should

> be let off the hook because they're run by nice

> cuddly people wearing flip flops with flowers in

> their hair who are kind to animals and say that

> they want to save the world?



I agree with this post. I've always agreed with your stance on this, I just didn't agree with the way you "spoke" to people that disagreed with you, which is why I said you are "coming across as a bit of a prick today", before immediately clarifying that I didn't think you were a prick in general.


But if you want to keep dragging it up and playing the wounded party, go for your life. If you honestly feel you've been insulted though, I'd suggest you develop a thicker skin, or when someone does actually insult you you'll be throwing yourself off a bridge in despair.

RE The Living Wage thing, it would be great if the gov turned around tomorrow and forced the issue, but being as they won't do that, and no other business is doing much at all, I think it's good that Picturehouse are in ongoing discussions with staff and unions.


And none of this addresses the issue of why a London Living Wage is even required, and it's not all about house prices, it's the London premium on everything, the need for which is shown to be bollocks by those businesses that choose not to take thge piss.


And I tend to agree with Maxxi that Picturehouse's prices to suit the local area probably means that the ED Picturehouse will be a bloody expensive way to see a film. But time will tell on that one I guess.

Buddug, you know that I have the greatest respect for you, but IMHO there are much bigger baddies out there than Picture House.


If Milliband and his chums promise to legislate to enforce the LLW if they win the General Election, this would be one more reason for me to vote Labour.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> playing the wounded party, go for your life. If

> you honestly feel you've been insulted though, I'd

> suggest you develop a thicker skin, or when

> someone does actually insult you you'll be

> throwing yourself off a bridge in despair >

>

> Otta, I would refer you to the response of the

> defendant in the case of Arkle v. Pressdram.



If you're going to be clever you could at least spell Arkell right.

Otta Wrote:

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

> And I tend to agree with Maxxi that Picturehouse's

> prices to suit the local area probably means that

> the ED Picturehouse will be a bloody expensive way

> to see a film. But time will tell on that one I

> guess.


Well, a quick check reveals that Godzilla (3D) at 18.00ish tomorrow is ?12.50 (adult) in Clapham, Brixton and Hackney, while it's ?12.00 in Greenwich. It's ?8.20 (in 2D) in Edinburgh. And York (also 2D) is ?8.10. So London loks pretty uniform in price.

Haven't been to Clapham for a while since I noticed it was always a pound or so more than the Ritzy. Prices at the Ritzy have gone up quite a bit the last couple of years so perhaps it has caught up since. I just kept noticing as I was out of work at the time. Still good value though.

Zebedee Tring wrote: "Buddug, you know that I have the greatest respect for you, but IMHO there are much bigger baddies out there than Picture House. If Milliband and his chums promise to legislate to enforce the LLW if they win the General Election, this would be one more reason for me to vote Labour."


Zebedee Tring, I didn't know that actually, but thankee kindly! Bigger baddies or not, the employees in this case are currently on strike, risking their jobs and livelihoods. That is a quite remarkable thing. Hence my support for them. Sadly, the employees of the bigger conglomerates feel powerless and are not striking, so nothing we can do at present to help them.


Until, as you say, a more compassionate government changes the law. However, like you I think, I doubt if Labour will promise to bring in a living wage. They are as much in the pockets of the banks and big business as the current crooks and shysters in government.

And let me just add: I don't know about you and everyone else and the gatepost, but it really makes me angry that because these businesses refuse to pay a living wage to their employees, the government has to make up the difference via taxpayer money in the form of tax credits, so they don't starve. When on earth did that start happening? Yes, you guessed it, under Toni (Italian mafia spelling) Blair's government. It's unbelievable. Why are we putting up with this?
I query whether 'fair wage', 'living wage' and 'the London Living Wage' should instinctively be treated as equivalent, as many posters here are happy to do. The LLW is ?8.80 per hour, calculated by reference to needs for all different types of people in different circumstances (working full time and part time, with or without children etc.). To say that any lower hourly rate for any job in London is not a 'fair wage' is just not sensible.

buddug Wrote:

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

I believe

> that if a business can't afford to pay a living

> wage to its staff then it does not deserve to be

> in business in the first place.



That is totally unreasonable. You are essentially saying that virtually every business in London should close. How does that exactly help low-wage workers and employment exactly?

Singling out the Picture House for boycott and criticism is totally unfair on this issue. Unless you are prepared to boycott virtually all goods and services in London, attacking a specific business over this issue is very hypocritical.

The London Living Wage is a complex issue, deserving of its own thread in the lounge.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> If I'm an individual trying to put a roof over my

> head, what job in London should I get, for less

> than ?8.80 that constitutes "fair"?



You can't.


But not everyone is an idividual looking to put a roof over their head. Some are living at home, some are living with their partner who works full time, and are going out to bring a bit extra in.


You can't assume that everyone is a single person desperately trying to scrape their rent together.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> If I'm an individual trying to put a roof over my

> head, what job in London should I get, for less

> than ?8.80 that constitutes "fair"?



Most people in London earn more than the LLW. Those on less tend to be unskilled workers (or workers with skills that unfortunately are no longer needed).


Starting out in unskilled work as a young person can allow someone to develop the skills to move into a higher wage position over time and therefore unskilled positions in and of themselves are not a problem as many businesses need an element of unskilled workers to run their businesses.


The problem arises when people spend a lifetime as unskilled workers. However, that is a social and political issue that needs to be addressed through policy initiatives. Suggesting that businesses should pay unskilled workers more value than they create through their efforts is akin to suggesting coal miners should have continued mining regardless of the underlying economic reality.


The real issue is skill training (including retraining), the education system, and social mobility.


The implications of unilaterally increasing the minimum wage (to the LLW or otherwise) are complex and have different outcomes depending on the full universe of factors that apply. Sometimes, unemployment increases as businesses close or staff numbers are cut. Sometimes prices increase (inflation) if demand for the good or service is not price sensitive because its essential. Alternatively wages of higher skilled employees are cut if the business cannot operate without the low income employees and if they believe they can retain the higher skilled staff (this can boost GDP growth overall in certain circumstances). One other possibility is that the low income employees will be forced to become more productive (working harder / increased duties etc) if possible within the role. How each business responds will depend on the details of their circumstances and has been heavily researched and studied.


There is actually an Independent Low Wage Commission that tries to balance out the implications for the hiring and the economy when setting minimum wages. For those of you who claim to be really passionate about this issue, why not start an intelligent discussion of the complexities in the Lounge or the Discussion Room and then try to advocate for whatever policy changes you think make sense?


Making this about the Picture House is hopelessly myopic.

Back on topic!


Someone asked what the proposed opening hours would be? I am curious about the same actually. I imagine it will be a real boost to the evening trade for the local restaurants in the area.


Also, will any of the screens be able to show films in 3-D?

LM - you said earlier today that if business had to pay a living wage that virtually ALL London business would close


Minutes later you said - "Most people in London earn more than the LLW"


contradictory


But anyway - number of people living in London below living wage = about 16-20 % of population


http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/1-5-paid-less-living-wage-says-kpmg


That is not a small number - and I doubt most of them are the casual workers looking for supplemental income.


No poicy ever is going to magic those peolpe into better skilled/paid jobs, much less replace them should they actually find those jobs

Strafer Jack wrote: If I'm an individual trying to put a roof over my head, what job in London should I get, for less than ?8.80 that constitutes "fair"?


I couldn't have put it better myself. And yes,LM has contradicted himself/herself. But a living wage (in London ?8.80) could become policy, to replace the minimum wage.


But I have to say again, that any business that can't (or rather won't) pay its workers a living wage doesn't deserve to be in business. It seems obvious to me, otherwise in the near future workers like those at the Ritzy, or bar staff/waiters etc won't be able to even travel in to London daily, never mind live here. Where will that leave businesses? Or they'll be forced to live in a hovel or dosshouse. That's happening already. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. As to low paid workers with children getting tax credits, it really isn't right that taxpayers should be subsidising businesses in this way.


House prices and rent are a problem too. Witness how many cottages and small houses for sale are marketed as former fisherman's cottage or artisan's cottage or quarryman's cottage. Ordinary workers on low incomes could afford to rent or buy a home on just one income even in Victorian times. My house (two flats now) was owned by a bank clerk then!

I did not say that. I said that Buddug's earlier call for all businessses that do not pay the LLW to ALL their employees to close would result in virtually all businesses shutting as it currently stands. I said this to show how rediculous it was to single out Picture House.


Most people in most organisations earn well above the LLW. The question concerns making this obligatory for all employees regardless of skill level in every organisation. Virtually no organisations pay all their employees above the LLW which is the standard to which people are holding the Picture House.


If either you SJ or Buddug spent time actually reading what people who are trying to engage with you were saying instead of attacking you would realise that I am not against an increase in the minimum wage but recognise that its a complicated issue with various points that need to be weighed up. Mandating a significant payrise for low skilled workers in one shot might have significant unintended consequences that those advocating for such a policy initiative don't appreciate and could harm those they intend to help...




StraferJack Wrote:

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

> LM - you said earlier today that if business had

> to pay a living wage that virtually ALL London

> business would close

>

> Minutes later you said - "Most people in London

> earn more than the LLW"

>

> contradictory

>

> But anyway - number of people living in London

> below living wage = about 16-20 % of population

>

> http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/1-5-paid-less-li

> ving-wage-says-kpmg

>

> That is not a small number - and I doubt most of

> them are the casual workers looking for

> supplemental income.

>

> No poicy ever is going to magic those peolpe into

> better skilled/paid jobs, much less replace them

> should they actually find those jobs

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...