Jump to content

Recommended Posts

or maybe this should be shame the bankers


Over the past few weeks there has been more and more stories about how bankers are going to receive bonus payments for the past financial year, and our beloved prime minister (gawd rest his soul) is up in arms that banks that have been bailed out are still paying bonuses despite their obvious losses and failures.


According to today's papers (well the mail at least) the government is powerless to stop the bonus payments and the bankers due to receive them may well go to the European Court of Human Rights to keep them. As a result they are now appealing to bankers to not take the bonus payments rather then stopping them from being paid in the first place.


therefore, I wish to start a campaign on here to shame any bankers that read this into (or alternatively if you know a banker then tell him / her)


"DO NOT TAKING THAT BONUS PAYMENT"


okay a slim chance that anyone will listen, but if there are enough voices added to the call then who knows we may well shame them yet...

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/5252-beat-the-banker/
Share on other sites

This bonus pool they?re talking about, how much of it will be going to the normal staff of banks who form an integral part of the greater economy, shop on the high street, buy a new family car every few years, move house maybe 3 time in their lives etc?


Or will it all be going to those who are responsible for all the trouble in the first place but are completely financially independent from it and who will spend their bonuses on high end luxury products, 4th homes abroad or growing their own little property fiefdoms.

Our "beloved prime minister" might be up in arms - but so are the rest of the country over Labour handing out Knighthoods and Peerages. I don't remember anyone saying no to be made a Lord however undeserving the case, so to ask someone to turn down a cash bonus seems far fetched. After all working is hardly a hobby for most people. What is sad is there is no clampdown on the 48 hour week maximum when there are thousands in the City who effectively have to work 12 hours a day just to keep their jobs (and then get a token bonus).


Sure there are scores of people who get big fat bonuses, bit like the Cabinet minister who retires and then goes off to earn millions in the City as some 1 day a week international "palm greaser" consultant. Maybe Gordon Brown should publicly suggest his old mate Tony Blair starts the ball rolling by handing back his ?5m salary he earns at JP Morgan and be happy with his wages/expenses he gets as a UN envoy..


It's all hypocrisy - starting with Gordon Brown and happily to be continued no doubt by whoever takes over in the future whether Labour or Tory.


If you really want to make a difference first port of call is to keep your money under your bed - to stop the banks lending it at a higher rate then they give your savings ;-)

What the Government are actually saying is that they are going to publicly "pretend" to decry the banks' actions so as to try and appease an already p'd off public, but at the same time they are also lining up their own very large "bonus" awards by way of "expenses", the amounts and proportions of which have all now been made hush hush! You couldn't make it up!

My husband will certainly not be taking his bonus. I will (smirk)...


Have you any appreciation of how many local shop holders are depending on me? If I don't get what I need, everyone will suffer - and I shall see to it personally.


God how I adore a man with a big bonus(swoon)!

Brendan Wrote:

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

> This bonus pool they?re talking about, how much of

> it will be going to the normal staff of banks who

> form an integral part of the greater economy, shop

> on the high street, buy a new family car every few

> years, move house maybe 3 time in their lives etc?

>

> Or will it all be going to those who are

> responsible for all the trouble in the first place

> but are completely financially independent from it

> and who will spend their bonuses on high end

> luxury products, 4th homes abroad or growing their

> own little property fiefdoms.



If you believe the tabloids, it's all going to "fat cat bankers", who got everyone into this mess, etc etc.


It would be interesting to hear about the distribution. It would also be interesting to hear what the total RBS bonus pool was last year and the year before, to give this sensationalist story some perspective.

I like Obama's idea of capping top level compensation including bonuses across the board - here.


If the Government as a major shareholder were to insist on no bonuses for the banks they had bailed out, the medium-term result would be that they would lose their best staff across all levels, which would hardly be the best way to get back to profitability. Compensation caps would have to be applied to the whole industry for them to work.


I agree that it would be interesting to see the RBS distribution. I believe the retail banks did fairly well against their targets last year, so presumably retail bankers expect some bonuses.

Moos Wrote:

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


> If the Government as a major shareholder were to

> insist on no bonuses for the banks they had bailed

> out, the medium-term result would be that they

> would lose their best staff across all levels,

> which would hardly be the best way to get back to

> profitability.


Lose them to where?

I was chatting to Mrs Keef about this last night, and admitted that if someone offered me a few grand bonus right now, there is absolutely no way I'd turn it down. I may think the system is a wrong, but at the end of the day, I have my own stuff to worry about. To try and put the individual on a guilt trip is just a pathetic nonsense.


The system itself needs sorting, but expecting someone to "do the right thing" when they have been brought up in your capitalist machine is just clutching at straws!

Brendan Wrote:

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

> Moos Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > If the Government as a major shareholder were

> to

> > insist on no bonuses for the banks they had

> bailed

> > out, the medium-term result would be that they

> > would lose their best staff across all levels,

> > which would hardly be the best way to get back

> to

> > profitability.

>

> Lose them to where?


Do you mean that there are no jobs at the moment? I did say medium term... and even now there are still people changing jobs in the City.

I am sick of the perception that people who work for Banks in the City and who may be fortunate enough to receive a small bonus this year are living some sort of 'fat cat' champagne lifestyle. This is utter nonsense and simply does not apply to the vast majority of City workers, as Brendan quite rightly pointed out. The BBC's news coverage last night, laced with champagne glasses appalled me almost as much as the original post on this thread. Most people in the City had nothing to do with causing this situation, and earn a modest salary in return for a very long working week.


Spartacus, a Daily Mail reader - that figures....

Aren't the banks legally obliged to pay these bonuses?, if they don't there's talk of employees going to the european court etc,..as long as there is a bonus culture in the financial services it's only a question of time before greed kicks in, witness the mis-selling of pensions scandal of the late 80's early 90's...a cap on bonuses might work but doesn't that go agaianst the principals of the free market?...

As a tax payer who has helped bail out these fat cat banking swine I'm totally against the directors who have failed in their jobs getting a bonus of any sort whatsoever. We should not in anyway be rewarding failure.

I'm sure there are other staff at the lower end of the scale like IT workers, secretaries etc etc, who are probably relying on a much much smaller bonus and who have done nothing to ruin the economy and so I'm not against the ordinary worker getting their bonus but the fat cats can take a running jump.

I like what Obama did last week and more or less the same has been happening around Europe and Asia with salaries capped and bonuses put on hold until debts are paid or they'll receive shares in the company.

This current government are a bunch of pussies for not clamping down on this in exactly same way as what President Obama did last week. Rewarding failure should be a thing of the past.

I personally think that the bankers who have performed well should be rewarded accordingly but those who have severely screwed us over should be strung up with piano wire and have their privates blowtourched by single mothers while their families are made to watch, children included. I'm a rude boy Civil engineer and if I constructed a motorway crossing or multi storey car park and the whole lot came falling down I'd have my arsehole torn out not be handed squillions of pounds.

I agree with everyone who has said so far that it isn't on to tar everyone working in the city with the same brush. Most workers there are just average schmoes doing (probably) long hours in admin type jobs with no proximity to any of the decision making that went on in recent decades. Do they deserve a bonus? I say they.. I mean we, as I work in the city too. Although when Gerrard says modest salary, who is that in comparison with? What are we saying is a modest salary? Compared to most people living in Britain I would say even junior staff earn relatively decent money


However, I don't see what is so special about city workers (compared to other occupations) that says we should expect one. There is no point saying it's now a cultural thing - if we have learned any lessons from all of this then surely it's challenging cultural assumptions?


It's nice, and like keef says, if you are offered it you are going to take it. But I am not manning any barricades to say I have a right to one. Bonus to me means just that - if it's been a good year and there is money sloshing around I'll have some. But there is no point a farmer at the end of a back-breaking year saying he deserves more when all of his crops have turned to dust, just because he worked hard. If the result of a years hard work = bad results then why should bonuses be paid. Staff will leave? And go where? Even without a bonus this year, city people are doing fairly ok (if we hang on to our jobs). And where is this bonus money coming from? If the banks made a profit and haven't taken government funny they can do what they like. But to hear people on 30/40/50k an d upwards bleat about bonuses when some old shopkeeper in Bow is paying for it with his tax money.. it's not right is it?

I do pretty much agree with you, SMG... but banks wouldn't give bonuses if they thought they could get away with it, would they? If they thought they could retain the best staff without paying bonuses, then they wouldn't be doing it.


And in the case of RBS, it's now mainly owned by the government... so personally I want the company to get back on it's feet. And if paying a bonus to *some* staff is a necessary step, then I support it. Although of course I understand why some people are uncomfortable with it.

And I sort of agree with you (and others) too Jeremy. But one of the reasons banks think they can get away with it is tehy have been living in dreamland (I'm paraphrasing here - you know what I mean) for years and money was never an issue for them. It is now..


Ditto the RBS point - I want it back on it's feet. But on a level playing field with bonuses ceilinged, why would it be a necessary step?

Whilst working for a number of architectural practices up town it was the norm that once a year the whole office would be treated to a long weekend trip away, usually to places with architectural merit e.g Lisbon, Rome, Paris, that way the whole office was rewarded equally no matter what their position was in the company, even in a downturn we managed a day trip to Brighton!

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...