Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sue Wrote:

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

> intrikat Wrote:

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

> -----

> > CourtLaner Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > DJKillaQueen (and everyone).....No idea where

> > you

> > > got your info from, maybe chinese whispers.

> > There

> > > was no police chase, not even a police

> vehicle

> > > involved. There was an off duty officer in a

> > car

> > > behind the accident who got involved. Big and

> > > important difference.

> >

> > Wow Courtlaner, you're like, so sensitive.

> >

> >xxxxxxxx

>

> Hang on, surely it's important to know if the

> information about the cause of the accident

> previously given in this thread is wrong?


Yes, I do agree that information could be schewed, and that we should have all the info before making a judgement, BUT, there are ways you can do that with out being big and important. Sorry to CL, but these sorts of comments do wind me up, regardless of whether you do have all the correct info 100% it just makes you sound pompous.

intrikat Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > intrikat Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > CourtLaner Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > DJKillaQueen (and everyone).....No idea

> where

> > > you

> > > > got your info from, maybe chinese whispers.

> > > There

> > > > was no police chase, not even a police

> > vehicle

> > > > involved. There was an off duty officer in

> a

> > > car

> > > > behind the accident who got involved. Big

> and

> > > > important difference.

> > >

> > > Wow Courtlaner, you're like, so sensitive.

> > >

> > >xxxxxxxx

> >

> > Hang on, surely it's important to know if the

> > information about the cause of the accident

> > previously given in this thread is wrong?

>

> Yes, I do agree that information could be schewed,

> and that we should have all the info before making

> a judgement, BUT, there are ways you can do that

> with out being big and important. Sorry to CL, but

> these sorts of comments do wind me up, regardless

> of whether you do have all the correct info 100%

> it just makes you sound pompous.


Obviously the way you read it, another problem with internet forums posts can me misinterpreted. Wasn't my intention i was just being short and to the point. Maybe the 'Chinese whispers' comment could be seen as having a go but i was just pointing out that DJ doesn't say where their info's from so i couldn't comment on the source, and that rumor is usually the way these things work.


I could reply to you in kind but don't think this is the right thread to get personal on seeing as someones father on here is involved and hurt. If you have a problem with my posts then private message me and we can explain/discuss it that way.

I got the info from the scene where various witnesses were giving piecemeal info about the stolen car. I was told that the dark blue car was a CID vehicle. I did say the info was second hand ffs.


I later asked the Police for news on the injured man (and I too know know all my local beat and SNT officers) because like any decent person I hoped to hear he'd made it to hospital and that no-one had died whatever the circumstances.


Some people are so ill mannered in this forum.


It's enough to know that there were serious injuries and be thankful no-one died, whilst expressing deep sympathy to idm and wishing his father a full recovery.

DJKQ, this is what you said:


"This is what I found out. A CID car was chasing a stolen car towards the junction of ED Grove from Peckham Rye before having a head on smash (on the opp. side of the road). Three cars written off (including the CID car)."


and then:


"He was being chased by a CID car. I thought the police had a policy of not pursuing high speed pursuits in urban areas.."


It appears that you were wrong, and it was pointed out that wrongly attributing some fault to the police (which was the clear implication of your posts) is not helpful. I think you need to take that on the chin rather than complaining about bad manners.

One has to be cautious when relaying second hand accounts - I once posted about an accident repeating what I was told by supposed eyewitnesses: that the victims' legs had been cut off - it turned out that the rescue services had merely cut her legs free from the mangled wreckage of a bicycle.

I have no problem with acknowledging that supposed witnesses don't always get their stories right......what annnoys me is that a genuine effort to relay that info...with no malice intended is met by vilification and a whole conversation takes place which instead of merely correcting incorrect info has to pass some judgement.


Yes I did find it odd that a police car would be at pursuit near a built up junction during rush hour (and suspected that possibly couldn't be true) but I think if you read the post again it's hard to conclude I was implying Police to be at fault when a stolen vehicle caused the crash in the first place.

  • Administrator
I would like to back up HAL9000's point that one has to be cautious when relaying second hand account and also remember that this is a local forum. There was a case when someone described, in vivid detail, an accident including the accident victim and their injuries, I soon received an email from the victim's cousin asking if I could remove the post as it was upsetting to the family.

I think the issue DJKillaQueen was that you didn't make it clear where your information came from. You made it sound like facts rather than hearsay. It was at the very least implied (from later references from talking to the police and the authoratative manner in which you spoke) that this information was accurate (i.e. from the police). Your inability to recognise and accept fault for this is rather depressing.


The point isn't that you didn't intend malice, but that you clearly didn't think about how your actions (and the way you posted) could impact on others- especially to people hurt/ close to those who were hurt.

Thank you for your kind well-wish messages for my Dad I will pass on your support. You will be pleased to know he is out of hospital and is doing well.


Now we have had all had time to sound our vuvuzelas, its a good time to take stock of what has happened and learn from it and address the issues that affect us locally.

Whilst the timings of the lights were probably not the root cause of the crash they are haphazard and often (I find at least) poorly timed. I have come through at 3 am to find the lights on a go slow and yet at 7am they have changed pattern and letting only a couple of cars through at a time. the sequencing is something we need to petition the council to adjust or implement the traffic signals that dynamically change according to traffic flow. Personally I am against the use of red light enforecment cameras as they generate revenue without resolving the root cause of the problem.

What do others think??

I'd support that.


It was very disturbing to walk past that scene. I called my family (we live round the corner) to see if everyone was safe.


From the perspective of not being directly involved, we've been talking about petitioning the council to put a right filter on those lights. It's unlikely to have made any difference in this case but it might help to change the attitude to that junction. And that might have some positive effects.


I'd support any local petitions / campaigns to get those lights properly sorted...


Hope your dad continues to improve...

I too have stopped using that route, I go in that direction very often and tend to go around the back

of Lordship Lane and come out on Forest Hill Road. I would also give my support for a right filter.

Hope your Dad has a speedy recovery.

Glad to hear your dad's out of hospital.


I would vote for cameras at that crossroads, I frequently see cars/vans/trucks make illegal right turns and bugger up the flow. I also think some lighting-up speed sign on ED Road would be good, too often cars are going way over 30 mph - at all times of the day. [Peckham Rye has speed cameras/road markings which slows that road down to an extent.]

idm, I'm glad your father is ok. I would disagree with you on the red light camera being a revenue earner though. I think in the case of red light jumping the camera is justified and it is also a good way to catch people who are driving in an exceptionally dangerous manner.

I am glad your Dad is doing better.

I have always said roundabouts would be a better bet (and at the next traffic lights too at the next junction of Peckham Rye East / onwards to Nunhead).

Turning right is a major headache, if you don't do it when your lights have turned red sometimes the car behind you will shunt you. Seen that happen too.

There is a community council meeting next week, why don't everyone go and demand improvements? A right filter light at both junctions too. I have been hassling the council ever since the 2nd lot of traffic lights went in but a lone voice always gets lost and ignored...

I can't go to the meeting next week, I'm afraid but I'd support demands for the authorities to improve that junction to make it safer for road users and pedestrians and effective at managing traffic flow. It sounds that a better solution is needed urgently so I'm reluctant to suggest some kind of review/analysis of the options for improvement since that would delay making improvements. However, it's probably better to get it right for the long term. Alec

kford Wrote:

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

> Removing the traffic lights altogether and

> replacing the junction with a mini roundabout

> would solve all the problems - there's room too.



A mini roundabout would be a poor replacement as it would remove the pedestrian crossings.


Bus priority operates at the junction; if buses 63 or 12 approaches the junction it shortens the green time on East Dulwich Road and Nunhead Lane to the minimum of 5 seconds. Removing this would go along way to stop people jumping red lights on the east and west arms.


The junctions would benefit from some remodelling and the only way to do this is to take some land from Peckham Rye?



Edit: Also a right turn filter would reduce green time at the junction which would mean longer queues of traffic.

Well since that corner of Peckham Rye used to be a car park area I would not vote against its reuse to widen the road so a right hand filter light and turn space could be put in place. The pavement there is also quite wide so there is space.

Incidentally ...

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Well since that corner of Peckham Rye used to be a

> car park area I would not vote against its reuse

> to widen the road so a right hand filter light and

> turn space could be put in place. The pavement

> there is also quite wide so there is space.

> Incidentally ...


I?ve posted some suggestions for your argument on the other thread.


My opinion is that your argument is centred around car drivers only forgetting cyclists and pedestrians.

idm glad your father is out of hospital I hope and trust he will make a full recovery.


Removing the lights and putting up a roundabout would not make it any esier for pedestrian nor do I think it will

stop the illegal right turn from Peckham Rye into East Dulwich Road.


I am in favour of one or more cameras, perhaps they will make people drive a bit more carefully and stop busting the

red lights. If one or more camera could be sound-activated perhaps the constants use of horns when you are stationary could also be cut.

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...