Jump to content

Recommended Posts

annaj wrote:

> That does sound harsh Bizzy, particularly when I suspect you have your own agenda


Bloody Nora...Care to elaborate? - you do make it sound quite sinister :))



louisiana Wrote:


>And you're handing them out, eh?


Can be arranged. JK - was said in jest, apologies if I have caused offence to anyone.


> You care: you raised the issue of their capacity

> for payment for the site. To me it's neither here

> no there how much money they have. (If people want

> to give them money, that's their business.)


No. I was merely stating that the Church owns the building, not who has the most money. As you said before, this is not a competition.


> This is about a *cinema building* that has got

> tired on the outside but that is still capable of

> reverting to its former function for this

> neighbourhood. Have you checked out the history on

> the interior?


Yes. The Church could still use the building without altering any of the prominent existing features.


> Do you like movies? Do you like the 'cinema

> experience'? Do you know anything about what some

> 'cinemas' do these days?


I recently worked on a fit out of a Cinema (inception to completion). Sadly, I know oh so well the emphasis placed on the "cinema experience". Yes, I do like movies - do you?



> A range of projects elsewhere, such as a ?3m

> project with umpteen buildings and *substantially*

> more land. Nothing to do with this part of town.

> Or this town indeed.


It's always good to hear construction projects are on the go.



> Indeed. And there are many ways to fail too. As some developers have found out.


Developers yes - starting from scratch, this is a change of use application.

louisiana Wrote:

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

> By the way Bizzy, it would be really nice to see

> you posting on EDF about something unrelated to:

> gods of any variety, religion, churches, the

> trouble with atheists, the Alpha Course.... There

> must be other things that interest you? There is a

> whole wide world out there.


Thanks for your concern. I only comment on things I can contribute to. There are many wonderful subjects on this forum - however, I refrain from commenting on such things for two reasons. 1) I don't know what it's about and, 2) I don't want to know what it's about. You may wonder what my contribution is on this thread - I do like to challenge people when I don't think they have thought things through completly. It also gives others viewing the thread another view. For the record, I don't have issues with Gods, religions or Atheists ;-)

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> Louisiana, this may sound harsh but, you need a

> good clout.


I never cease to be surprised by the number of people who seem to be associated with religion of various kinds who so quickly begin to 'talk in violence' (or worse).


You will not convince people of anything by threatening to hit them, either in the offline or online worlds.


But let that pass this time.


Ever heard of 'non-violent communication'? It's a really interesting technique that I've only recently come across.

Did all you people kick off when the Wetherspoons opened in Forest Hill, or was that okay because it wasn't a church?



Oh come on Keef, this isn't about being anti-church, it's about wanting an independent cinema in a restored art deco builidng.


I was fairly new to the area when the Weatherspoons opened. I was aware of it and thought it was a terrible shame that that lovely building wasn't being restored back to a cinema, but by the time I became aware of it the conversion was already underway and, if I'm honest, I was less aware of local issues and it never occured to me that I could've done anything about it. If there had been a well publicised campaign, like this one, and an independent cinema interested in taking it on, as there is here, I'd have totally supported it.

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> annaj wrote:

> > That does sound harsh Bizzy, particularly when I

> suspect you have your own agenda

>

> Bloody Nora...Care to elaborate? - you do make it

> sound quite sinister :))

>

>

> louisiana Wrote:

>

> >And you're handing them out, eh?

>

> Can be arranged. JK - was said in jest, apologies

> if I have caused offence to anyone.

>

> > You care: you raised the issue of their

> capacity

> > for payment for the site. To me it's neither

> here

> > no there how much money they have. (If people

> want

> > to give them money, that's their business.)

>

> No. I was merely stating that the Church owns the

> building, not who has the most money. As you said

> before, this is not a competition.

>

> > This is about a *cinema building* that has got

> > tired on the outside but that is still capable

> of

> > reverting to its former function for this

> > neighbourhood. Have you checked out the history

> on

> > the interior?

>

> Yes. The Church could still use the building

> without altering any of the prominent existing

> features.


So annaj's suspicion is correct.


>

> > Do you like movies? Do you like the 'cinema

> > experience'? Do you know anything about what

> some

> > 'cinemas' do these days?

>

> I recently worked on a fit out of a Cinema

> (inception to completion). Sadly, I know oh so

> well the emphasis placed on the "cinema

> experience".


I think you are referring to an entirely different kind of cinema.


Yes, I do like movies - do you?


Indeed. I have been known to go to the cinema more than three times a week. I almost lived in the Odeon Tottenham Court Road at one time (displacement activity for studying).


>

>

> > A range of projects elsewhere, such as a ?3m

> > project with umpteen buildings and

> *substantially*

> > more land. Nothing to do with this part of

> town.

> > Or this town indeed.

>

> It's always good to hear construction projects are

> on the go.

>

>

> > Indeed. And there are many ways to fail too. As

> some developers have found out.

>

> Developers yes - starting from scratch, this is a

> change of use application.


Developers often take over existing buildings, remodel or not, convert or not, apply for extensions/change of use/whatever. Many developers do nothing else.


As you will know, it all comes under *exactly* the same government and local authority planning regime, namely Planning Control and Planning Enforcement and the national Use Class system.

Keef Wrote:

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

> Did all you people kick off when the Wetherspoons

> opened in Forest Hill, or was that okay because it

> wasn't a church?


The old cinema in forest hill was already a wetherspoons

When I moved back to ED in 02.As I recall there was a religious group that chanted and prayed outside,when it was still a bingo.lots of women in blue headscarves. Very entertaining.


I am neither a fan of bingo or of wetherspoons.but I am a huge fan of the Duke of York's in Brighton, which is what a good cinema should be.


I suspect a lot of people who live around here now didn't then.

I think the Capitol in Forest Hill had sat empty for some time before Wetherspoon's spent some cash on it and opened it up again. And I do believe there was some discussion on se23.com about whether it was a good idea and how people would much rather it was a cinema - even though I don't believe there was any interest back then from any cinema group. Bits of the old cinema are still there though - occasionally, the Capitol takes 'tours' up to the balcony to the old projection room and fold-up seats.


However, presumably the church's offer was better than the cinema company's to Gala - and there's no guarantee that even if change of use isn't agreed, that the church won't just hang onto the building while they tweak the application every few months. Is being used as a church better than being empty and falling into disrepair?


Having said that I have a definite soft spot for old cinemas and since I'm far more likely to use a cinema than a church, I'd like to see the campaign succeed. There are lots of large but less interesting buildings that can house congregations.

Keef Wrote:

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

> Anna, I'd like a new cinema too, but from where

> I'm reading, some posts on here seem more

> concerned about the church factor than anything

> else.


Got it in one. That pretty much sums it all up.


Louisiana: I hope your efforts are rewarded as you seem so passionate about a Church treading on your cycle routes. I'm not a violent person - i'm pretty sure you know it was said as a joke, yet you've turned it into something childish. Come to think of it, you've used the same tactics in your mini pledge campaign.

Bizzy


You'll notice *someone else* jumped in *not* interpreting your comment to me about clouting me as a joke. 'Clout' is a marvellous Anglo-Saxon word, but umm quite physical. ::o You came across as very serious in that post, and there was no smiley or similar anywhere. :) Like that. To aid understanding/interpretation. But as I said before, let's just put it to one side.


As others have said on this thread, "There are lots of large but less interesting buildings that can house congregations". Some churches even build their own. Many, many take over existing church buildings when those congregations are no more or where church assets need to be realised. (That means no planning/change of use class is required.) But there are not many lovely old cinema buildings. So many old cinemas been demolished (in ED included).


It would be nice to see a a classic old cinema building preserved as a cinema, and it would be nice to see such a building open to all, seven days a week. That is what Picturehouse cinemas do. They also offer a place for people to meet, film screenings for mothers with babies and very young children (and all the social benefits of that for mothers with young children - I hate seeing the whole 'mothers with their young children meet in the pub' thing), the opportunity to screen shorts etc. for local/new film-makers, non-film events, film-related speakers such as film directors, and so much more.


I think a development into just about any other use I can think of (including a chain pub) would not offer the same benefits to the local community. I am also strongly against the onward march of large chain retail stores that take the heart out of communities (and which I've often posted about on this forum over the last three years). Pual Kingsnorth has written a good book about this.


But that's my view and you may have quite different views. That's life. We are each free to have our own opinion, and to express it.


The pledge was successful yesterday, within 48 hours of launching (with more pledgees than required), which is something of a record I understand, and it still has some weeks left to run. So there's some evidence I'm not the only one who is thinking along these lines. (Some pledges don't succeed even after months of being up there.)


No doubt we'll each work towards achieving our objectives. Involving ourselves in how our communities and neighbourhoods grow and develop is something I think everyone should do. It's the sign of a healthy society. It's when people *don't* take an interest that we need to worry.

And it is to encourage such community involvement that local authorities have a Statement of Community Involvement (in planning policy and planning control)

There are more people out there thinking like you? Scary :(


That *someone else* you refer to is probably holding some animosity from a previous thread.


My participation in this thread was a sign of a healthy society - not your unilateral, them vs us campaign.


What's wrong with building a new cinema that will facilitate the needs of a modern cinema? If the Picturehouse really want to open a cinema in the area, I?m sure they will find a way with all this support.


I can't figure out what objecting to the proposed change of use will achieve. What will you cinema supporters do if the Church holds onto the building and tweaks their application as mentioned before? This could take years.

"I can't figure out what objecting to the proposed change of use will achieve. What will you cinema supporters do if the Church holds onto the building and tweaks their application as mentioned before? This could take years."


Ooooh, the old 'we are relentless' method ;-)


Nicely employed but a bit obvious.


I'm glad that Lousiana's doing less Fisking, which always impoverishes debate - but Bizzy's older auntie 'pat on the head' approach makes me gag.


Personally, since I see religion as a political movement, I see the acquisition of more public places to exercise their despicable rituals as a frighteningly virulent rampage perpetrated on the sick and the thick.


If promoting its use as a cinema is a way to impede it, then it's a battle well fought. Forever.

Huguenot


Still doesn't answer my question. The objection gang are showing signs of "If we can't have it, a Church certainly can't have it". IF the benefits of an independent cinema were that great, they would find another site. Most of the objections are much like yours; they couldn't care less about the local benefits of having a cinema, but care much about opposing a Church.


If you want to make sweeping generalisations about the wellbeing and intelligence of a religious congregation, I suggest you start another thread. If you have nothing relevant to say, be a gentlemen and keep your comments to yourself ;-)


What might "Fisking" be anyway? :-S

Re Multiplex versus Picturehouse


I think the Picturehouses do cater for a wide audience. Of the big blockbusters, Brixton's currently showing Bruno, Harry Potter and Ice Age. I don't think they would be alienating anyone if they were to open one in CP.


LLx

Quite right Bizzy, quite right.


All the economic liberalism that we cherish would suggest that we should let the market take its course and a church it should be.


But as it happens we don't let the market take its course very often, we temper that with the long term health of our communities from an enlightened standpoint. Hence planning laws.


My view (and possibly others) would consent to religion as an acceptable a secondary pastime. Have your fun and good luck to you.


However, the renewed vigour of evangelical churches demands the opposite: it would not be inappropriate to say that these churches feel that religion should be the core of our lives, and that the medieval and arbitrary regulations the church imposes should dictate our every activity.


I consider those affiliated to religions as victims of a ruthless, pervasive tyranny.


Hence granting planning permission to petty local despots for a campaign office is entirely against the long term health of our communities.


Its use as a cinema is subject to economic realities, and hence a bit of a red herring. Saying it should be a cinema is whistling in the wind.


However, saying it should not be a church is quite within the rights of the community.

Points noted.


So you're saying the whole cinema idea is a blanket for the real cause which is specifically to stop the Church from moving in? We're getting somewhere now. So tell me, why doesn?t the objection brigade drop the cinema idea and rename their cause as something like "Stop the Church from moving in" rather than the ?Picture Palace Campaign?? It?s a bit misleading don?t you think?

There's always a possibility that the whole thing is a cover, but I don't think that's likely.


The fact that I would run such a campaign doesn't speak for the motives of others. Besides, I'm quite open about it, and I imagine that others who shared my views would be open also. It's only those who practice deception that suspect it in others. Hence in somewhere as fraudulent as a church, I imagine you'd see it everywhere.


I guess that the majority of those who support a cinema just support a cinema. It's romantic, and delivers commercial benefit for the whole community by building associated businesses.


I think the cinema vs church thing has only blown up because a church is trying to hypothetically 'take something away' from the community to serve their own nefarious purpose.


If it had been a pound shop, there'd be a cinema vs pound shop debate.

Bizzy Wrote:

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


>

> I'm certain this alternative cinema will have a

> certain audience - a cinema like the Multiplex

> would serve the local area in a broader way with

> films such as Hannah Montana and Geforce rather

> than Coco Channel (wrong spelling eh?).


But surely ANY cinema would serve a larger audience than one church would? After all cinemas are open to all, no matter what religion you follow or not. If it is an original Art Deco cinema it would be fantastic to have it restored and to appreciate it when going to watch a film. If it was an evangelical church then I, and most of the people I know, would feel uncomfortable going inside just to look at the architecture and decor.


I do however find it slightly ironic to see a campaign supporting the opening of a cinema in CP when it wasn't that long ago that I was amongst those marching from Leicester Square to Downing Street to PREVENT a UCI Multiplex opening.

I can assure you that the Cinema Campaign is entirely sincere in its wish to return the building to the purpose for which it was originally intended. Surely it is not so difficult understand the distinction between the support for the restoration of an on street purpose built cinema and opposition to a massive Multiplex built on public park land?

You won't see much with the lights off :))


Depends on how big the congregation of a Church is. Much like a cinema, a Church is open to all (or at least it should be). There is also the chance that local residents may visit the Church.


"If it was an evangelical church then I, and most of the people I know, would feel uncomfortable going inside just to look at the architecture and decor."


That's the exact opposite of me. You see, myself and most of the people I know, would feel comfortable going inside ANY building, be it religious or social if we really wanted to marvel at the architecture and decor.

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> "I can't figure out what objecting to the proposed

> change of use will achieve. What will you cinema

> supporters do if the Church holds onto the

> building and tweaks their application as mentioned

> before? This could take years."

>

> Ooooh, the old 'we are relentless' method ;-)

>

> Nicely employed but a bit obvious.

>

> I'm glad that Lousiana's doing less Fisking, which

> always impoverishes debate - but Bizzy's older

> auntie 'pat on the head' approach makes me gag.


And you accuse me of fisking!?


>

> Personally, since I see religion as a political

> movement, I see the acquisition of more public

> places to exercise their despicable rituals as a

> frighteningly virulent rampage perpetrated on the

> sick and the thick.


Fisk away


>

> If promoting its use as a cinema is a way to

> impede it, then it's a battle well fought.

> Forever.

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> Huguenot

>

> Still doesn't answer my question. The objection

> gang are showing signs of "If we can't have it, a

> Church certainly can't have it". IF the benefits

> of an independent cinema were that great, they

> would find another site. Most of the objections

> are much like yours; they couldn't care less about

> the local benefits of having a cinema, but care

> much about opposing a Church.


Bizzy, you are making it up as you go along. To suit yourself.


We care immensely about a cinema.


Your view is *if we can't have a church* - and that's we, as you are definitely part of that campaign - *then it'll be shut*.

Just wait and find out!! You may be surprised at what happens. You are very 'glass half empty'. We are not.



>

> If you want to make sweeping generalisations about

> the wellbeing and intelligence of a religious

> congregation, I suggest you start another thread.

> If you have nothing relevant to say, be a

> gentlemen and keep your comments to yourself ;-)

>

> What might "Fisking" be anyway? :-S


Google is your friend.

(But I know you are not interested in the world around you. You have said as much. Sad.)

Bizzy Wrote:

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

> You won't see much with the lights off :))

>

> Depends on how big the congregation of a Church

> is. Much like a cinema, a Church is open to all

> (or at least it should be).


I hear from the KICC spokesman via the local rag that the church would be open 1.5 days per week, on Tuesday, and on Sunday:

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/South-Norwood-church-reveals-plans-Gala-Bingo-Hall/article-1132136-detail/article.html


A cinema would be open 7 days per week.




There is also the

> chance that local residents may visit the Church.

>

> "If it was an evangelical church then I, and most

> of the people I know, would feel uncomfortable

> going inside just to look at the architecture and

> decor."

>

> That's the exact opposite of me. You see, myself

> and most of the people I know, would feel

> comfortable going inside ANY building, be it

> religious or social if we really wanted to marvel

> at the architecture and decor.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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