Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I get stuff for myself or my large, mostly broke family for free or low cost on here and Freecycle quite often and when I do have something to get rid of myself, I wouldn't dream of asking for money for it, unless it was something worth a lot, like a car or something or I was really skint.


I think it's a really good way of recycling and goes some way to decreasing our ecological footprint.


Knowing that someone was trying to sell my donations wouldn't stop me wanting to give and I think it's an issue for their own conscience. Maybe they have no other way of making a living at the moment and as someone said above, at least the item hasn't ended up in landfill.


But if thier possibly selfish actions affected other people's willingness to participate, I think that would be a real shame.

  • 4 weeks later...

I've just seen this interesting thread.


I think I agree with Louisiana.


I recently offered a couple of small items free. I only had one reply, but I didn't recognise the name, so I looked up their previous posts.


I found that the only times they had ever posted was to say that they wanted free stuff which was on offer.


I too wondered how many PMs they had sent for the same reason which wouldn't show up on the forum.


I am torn between thinking that if I can't make use of something does it really matter who it goes to, and feeling a bit miffed that some people are apparently only using this forum for what they can get out of it.


I did ask this person if he was a dealer, and he denied it, but it all seemed a bit odd to me. I still have the stuff though so I probably just shot myself in the foot :))

Because other things being equal, I'd rather my things went to someone who genuinely wanted them, rather than someone who was going to sell them on.


In the case above, there were no pleasantries in any of the posts this person had responded to, just something along the lines of "I'll have this, phone me on *******


And as someone else has pointed out above, some of these people seem to be waiting to pounce immediately a "free" thread starts, so that they get in before anybody else has had a chance to see it.


I think the problem to me is, as I think for Louisiana, that this is a local community forum, not an offshoot of eBay, and this kind of behaviour just doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the spirit of that.

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> I see what you mean - your free offers are aimed

> at the genuinely poor or disadvantaged?

>


xxxxxxx


No - I have been grateful to take advantage of free things offered on the forum, and I wouldn't call myself poor or disadvantaged, though probably more than a lot of people in ED :))


As I said, I would rather they went to people who were going to make use of them personally, and also preferably to people who use the forum for more than just snapping up freebies.


But this all seems like a bit of a re-run of the Kimzy (?) thread ....

  • 2 months later...

I gave away three books recently, had a few people interested and gave them to the first person to reply.


When she arrived to collect them, she looked in the bag and said "Oh, I thought there were more than that, I thought you said five to ten"!! That was it - not even a thank you.


I had clearly listed the titles, authors and publishers in my post, so there were clearly only three books.


I was well pissed off, wished I had given them to somebody else as I could probably have sold them online and got twenty quid or so and now suspect she is going to do the same as she only seemed interested in quantity rather than content and clearly hadn't read my post properly, just saw "free books" :-S

  • 2 weeks later...

I've read quite a few of these threads concerning the giving away of free stuff and I think it's a load of nonsense. Why sit lording it over an old TV or some saucepans you're never going to use? How many posts do you need before you're worthy of receiving someone else's junk? I've noticed in the past the same names asking for Tvs and other things, but who's to know they received them?


Also the idea of checking previous posts is a stupid one. If you were to check mine it would tell you next to nothing, so how would you rate me? I've requested free items, bought many more and helped out via the wanted section, but most of this is done by PM.


Some of you seem to have a need to gripe when there are obvious ways around this. If you've got something to give away and you expect a bottle of wine or something else in return, don't head your post free, use swap instead. If you suspect the person collectimg an item is wanting to sell it on, either do as Louisiana does and send them away empty-handed or if you don't have the heart to do that, name the person the item went to at the end of your thread. Otherwise sell at a nominal price, but keep the price out of the header. Simple.

Would it be an idea for the forum to raise money for local charities by those who are wanting to recycle their stuff for free to have the option to ask the receiver to make a donation of a certain amount to a bank account set up for this purpose?


The forum set could set up an account and divide the funds raised between two local charities, perhaps the Dulwich Help Line and Kids Company, both of which do a lot of extremely worthwhile work locally. The amount raised could be shown on the forum and passed on to the charities periodically.

It's a great idea skyblue.


As it happens, there's already a site set up to do exactly this - it's called www.justgiving.com


If you go on there and set up your charity account, it actually lists people who donate, and the amount they donate.


All a poster needs to do is specify that the freecycler gaining the goods must have posted a donation of a certain amount on the site AFTER the date of the offer post. The poster can even specify the charity.


Really, really simple to do, and totally in your hands. All that Admin would need to do is post the policy as a sticky on the top of the section.

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...