Macmillan online dictionary defines ready as verb, transitive:

"to make someone or something ready to do something"

It adds that this is the British English definition.

Perhaps in the "rush" to prepare the item the word make got left out.

I feel a very important point has been raised by my former colleague Chris West in his response to my criticism of the On-Line use of "ready" as a verb substitute for "prepare". He is perfectly entitled to take the view, as he seems to be doing, that language never stays still and should be allowed to develop.
But I wonder just how far you can take this argument in the context of this Forum?
Its raison d'etre seems to me to be an opportunity for people who feel very deeply about their former employer and its business to comment on its present day activities and to make comparisons with their own time in the Corporation's employ.
As a result we can contrast judgements and values of the 21st century with those more familiar to us in our time at the point of delivery.
But were those Reithian values we liked so much, that emphasis on clear, unimpeachable speech, precise grammar, and, dare I say, unbiased Britishness, allowed to metamorphose so easily?    Of course not!   That is why we respected them so much and still do to this day.       There was change, of course, and  frequently it was defended as being "progress". Equally often it was driven by an external force such as World War II and its sociological consequences, the Sixties and the era of "liberation" and "pop culture". But now it seems to me that other forces are at work which have accelerated the rate of change within the BBC to such an extent that the principal Reithian values of Education, Entertainment and Information are being endangered by secular interests.   It is for this reason that I deplore, for instance, the sudden emergence of an entirely new section of BBC On-Line under the heading "Autos".  Personally I would prefer the heading "Petrol-Heads".    Just who, in the BBC, has decided that "autos"  (cars?) deserve an entire section and presumably a large slice of budget in an organisation which is (a) non commercial and (b) strapped for cash?. And what debate was permitted amongst the licence-paying audience before this questionable development?   In an organisation founded on "balance", where are the opportunities for a voice against "Autos" aka "Petrol Heads"? I don't see a section headed "Ecology" or "Nature", still less "Art and the Natural World".   I suggest that the BBC should not be in on-line publishing if it cannot adhere to those principles we used to value so much.  
It is far from being my only grievance against BBC On-Line. I wonder if there is much support for my view? Reactionary? Yes. Proud of it? Yes!!