Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In an organisation the size of Barclays, it makes no sense for the CEO to take the rap for something like this. The blame lies in compliance, and of course the individuals who knowingly submitted the wrong rates.


It's purely political. In what other industry would the CEO be forced to resign under similar circumstances? Not pharmaceuticals, it would seem.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557137
Share on other sites

I lost count of the number of times Private Eye reported incidents of political pressure placed upon the FSA to sweep stuff under the carpet during those heady days.

This is our old friends Blair and Brown again isn't it.


I couldn't give a toss about Bob Diamond frankly but Jeremy's right that he's been scapegoated.

Heads should roll but I've a suspicion that most of them will have moved elsewhere by now anyway, many to totally different jurisdicions anyway.


Just another case of banker bashing in a slow news week, clearly not enough massacres in Syria going on.


In terms of bad business practices there are far more pressing concerns such as the exploitation of immigrant workers, supermarket's bullying produce suppliers etc etc etc that noone raises an eyebrow over as those price manipulations help to keep our costs down and keep us happy like any other amoral derivatives trader.


Let he who is without sin etc.....


*i'm not advocating these practices either, and if there are criminal charges to be answered (and I suspect there could well be) I'll be as happy to see those doors a slamming as anyone else, just saying storm in a teacup is all*

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557148
Share on other sites

Sorry Pibe but that?s slightly surprising coming from you


Calling Diamond a scapegoat is a bit like our ?single rogue reporter? excuse trotted out by News International before it became obvious they were knee deep in trouble (and didn?t a CEO resign in that industry?)


Not to say Diamond isn?t being singled out (now at least ? this is going to get a lot worse before long) but it isn?t banker bashing in the slightest when an industry which relies so heavily on trust is found juking the stats. It?s just common sense to say ?if this is widespread it?s got to be stopped?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557159
Share on other sites

I'd expect the likes of Hugo, Quids and co defending Bob Diamond as though he was a victim of his own success. And that we should all be grateful for the existence of banks.


I see El Pibe has tried deflect attention away from banks. After all he works for one.


We hear how the tories gleefully announced reforms for the public sector. Perhap it's time they do so for the banks. Clearly we have an imbalance of banks in relation to our economy and at the expense of other industries. Some of the banks like Barclays pay very little tax because of tax avoidance schemes. So to say that we should be grateful for banks is pure nonsense. They created the deficit through greediness and let us ordinary people like us pick up the consequences.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557165
Share on other sites

"far more pressing concerns such as the exploitation of immigrant workers, supermarket's bullying produce suppliers etc etc etc that noone raises an eyebrow over as those price manipulations help to keep our costs down and keep us happy like any other amoral derivatives trader."


As for this one, it's true as far as it goes. However:


1) to suggest that people aren't concerned about them is wrong - those topics have been discussed on here plenty and will be again


2) I thought arguing "can't talk about X when Y is happening and that's worse" was considered poor form


3) If the world loses faith in banks for playing with the fundamental building blocks of banking, then all other problems will seem like small beer.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557172
Share on other sites

And how is saying he's a scapegoat like saying it was one rogue reporter.

Ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere and if he takes the fall, like I say I have on issue with that, but taking the fall he is. And that is surely political pressure to deflect attention from the lax regulatory climate in place, one the tories tend to think should be further deregulated.


"I see El Pibe has tried deflect attention away from banks. After all he works for one."

To quote otta "idiot"

You have no idea where or for whom I work, but during my previous jobs in investment banking I have seen all sorts of shoddy practices utterly widespread in the industry, and known to be so for a long time. These revalations are about as shocking as 'Linekar sleeps around', it's an open secret.


I'm not sure investment banking relies on trust at all, if it didn't it wouldn't be so heavily regulated and have so much compliance in place.


I would say that key to moving forward however is the seperation of investment and retail concerns of banks as well as breaking down those 'too big to fail'.

I've been saying this from the start so no surprise there.


This really is storm in a teacup stuff.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557174
Share on other sites

"And how is saying he's a scapegoat like saying it was one rogue reporter. "


because in both cases, the argument is "nothing to see here"


If IB doesn't rely on trust, how would you describe the practice of how the Libor rate is arrived at?


Does it have SO much compliance in place? In which case how have the recent JPMorgan and Barclay situations arisen, given the spotlight on banks since 2008? How come you have seen all the "practices utterly widespread in the industry, and known to be so for a long time. " but "so much compliance" hasn't?


(my argument there is not that I disagree with you on the practices, but on the banks complaining about compliance being a burden. If it was such a burden then one would expect the practices to at least be mitigated)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557178
Share on other sites

In short though, as you well know, it's the incredible complexity of the regulation that allows for things like this to fall between the cracks as people tend to tick the boxes that are looked for and turn a blind eye to grey areas taht aren't specifically being sought.


Hence why it often relies on financially punitive measures on compliance officers in a bid to keep them savvy to this sort of thing.


My point about b is worse may not have been clear. I'm saying that it's ongoing and disgusting but no universal opprobrium is heaped upon those organisations, and we stand to benefit making us big fat hypocrites as we turn a blind eye oursleves.


ALready spent more time on this quick note than I

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557182
Share on other sites

Regarding compliance - there's a lot of it, but much of it is ill conceived, and poorly enforced by people who don't always understand the industry (both in terms of internal compliance staff and external regulators). Banks don't need more compliance, they need better/smarter compliance.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557193
Share on other sites

I don't think better/smarter compliance is the answer. As it seems banks will alway find away around it.


What is clear is that these bankers were fraudulent in their behaviour and the 2006 fraud act gives the possibility for prosections in the future. Putting these bankers in jail is the only way forward. If a rioter can be given a stiff sentence for stealing a packet of chewing gum then surely throwing away the key is the right thing to do for these bankers.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557200
Share on other sites

"in fact I'm staggered that the Glaxo story hasn't generated more commentary.

It's far more shocking, though the fine is gargantuan."


It is shocking but I think Joe Public has had a long history of Big Pharma pulling numbers like that and when they get caught they tend to pay a price


I think with banks there is a sense that not only does Joe Public not know the half of it, but that banks continue to be mollycoddles and yet even so, teh worst is yet to come. And things like Libor-fixing looks a BIT like a scraggly, skinny dude on horseback

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557204
Share on other sites

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> "in fact I'm staggered that the Glaxo story hasn't

> generated more commentary.

> It's far more shocking, though the fine is

> gargantuan."

>

> It is shocking but I think Joe Public has had a

> long history of Big Pharma pulling numbers like

> that and when they get caught they tend to pay a

> price

>

> I think with banks there is a sense that not only

> does Joe Public not know the half of it, but that

> banks continue to be mollycoddles and yet even so,

> teh worst is yet to come. And things like

> Libor-fixing looks a BIT like a scraggly, skinny

> dude on horseback


Probably due to the fact it was related to anti-depressants.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24278-bob-diamond/#findComment-557259
Share on other sites

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...