Jump to content

Recommended Posts

chantelle Wrote:

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

> wait - just because children go to private school

> means money is not an issue? maybe that is true

> for a minority of parents but i doubt it applies

> to most children at private school.



Fair point but was just making the point that the reason the parents are letting them go to school on their own is because they want to let them, not because of necessity/financial reasons.

@Growlybear: You wrote "Or is it too old fashioned to make your children your first priority if you decide to bring them into the world?" This has made me think.


We are privileged to watch only a few marriages "up close". Mine is childless (although not by choice, and yes, to our regret). So I'm foreclosed from understanding what I might make my first priority, had I children. However, I did watch my parents' marriage.


I don't think that I'm dishonouring Mum and Dad to say that they made each other their first priority, and that we seven children -- although we knew that we were loved and cherished -- were very aware that this was so. "Your mother wants it" or "Your father wants it" trumped any "I want it" from one of us kids (I'll spare you examples). Our home revolved around them, and not around us children.


Perhaps their approach, making each other and their marriage their first priority, was even more old-fashioned than that of making one's children one's first priority...

Buggie


Whilst I know and respect you personally, and the work you and all other medical professionals do, do you not think that your view point on this is distorted by precisely that?


Working as a paeds nurse you undoubtedly see some horrendous sights. But these are statistically rare. And whilst people will scream till blue in the face that "one road injury/death is too many" may be a good sound bite it is impossibly optimistic.


Whilst I have no doubt you only have children's best interests at heart, I firmly believe no-one is in any position to make the decision the Schonrocks have made other than themselves.


Surely six months of incident free cycling should indicate they have taught their two children well?

dulwichmum Wrote:

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

> @David Carnell.

>

> You mis-understand me. The McCann's should be

> prosecuted for abandonment at least. What do you

> suppose would have happened there if they had not

> been white middle class? This is all about lazy

> parenting, not empowerment and exercise. My kids

> walk to school every day. Why can't parents take

> their responsibility seriously and walk with them?


I didn't misunderstand you. You crow-barred in a ridiculous comparison. I'm not going to move this discussion off its topic with a blow-by-blow account of the McCann incident but I could not disagree more. Nothing more than a terrible accident.


And if anything should ever happen to any child making their way to school in Dulwich it would be the same.


At what point is it just acknowledged as such? If a lorry runs of the road and kills a teenager it's an accident.

And so it should be for a 12 year old. And an 8 yeard old. And a 5 year old.


It has nothing to do with parenting. These people should be commended, not witch-hunted.

DC - accepted, it's not a daily thing, but from my POV the stress the children go through makes it while rare something that should be protected.


If it was more local (most children struggle to get into schools more than 500m away from their own door), on foot, and only the 8yr old I'd be a happier bunny.


It's the burden of supervision on the older child added with the distance/bike which rankles me.

Dulwich Mum made a point about being fined for cycling on the footpath being illegal. I always thought that was the case here. Also is it not 'illegal' here to leave a child under a certain age at home alone? Regardless of the rights or wrongs of that law which I'm sure applies to these kids, that would presumably apply to them being away from home alone.


I don't think these parents should be witch-hunted nor commended, unless of course you know them. I wouldn't have had the courage (if that's what it is) to allow my kid do that when he was that young. It's a personal opinion as is everyone's else's here.


We can all judge each other till the cows come home. It would be nice to live in an environment where we wouldn't need to ask questions about the rights and wrongs of doing this. Unfortunately, we do.

Narnia Wrote:

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

> Dulwich Mum made a point about being fined for

> cycling on the footpath being illegal. I always

> thought that was the case here. Also is it not

> 'illegal' here to leave a child under a certain

> age at home alone? Regardless of the rights or

> wrongs of that law which I'm sure applies to these

> kids, that would presumably apply to them being

> away from home alone.


You can cycle on the footpath until you're 13 yrs old (a policeman told me). There are no laws as to the age you can leave a child alone at home. However SS can intervene if you leave your child alone and it is evident they can't look after themselves.


There are no laws as to the age a child can go out alone. It's down to judgement of child's competance. Since we do not know the children's competance in this case we have no place to make judgement.

I really do wonder what the reaction would have been if this couple were working class and something had become of one of the children. As Narnia says "It would be nice to live in an environment where we wouldn't need to ask questions about the rights and wrongs of doing this. Unfortunately we do."


My aupair was fined last year for cycling with our daughter on the footpath. Because of the weight of traffic in the village, it was impossible for them to stay together if the aupair cycled on the road. The solution for us was a scooter or walking. Most of the parents I know don't take their children to school by car, it is usually only children who come from far away. Don't forget that lots of people travel some distance (Clapham/Kent/Battersea etc) to get to the independent schools.



You know better than I do then BB100. Maybe it's a recommended age. I just seem to remember a single Dad telling me something about it when he took his boy to kids football on the astroturf at Dulwich Hamlets on a Saturday and remarking how his slightly older girl was at home alone and he shouldn't really be doing it.


I also remember panicking when my boy (probably 5 at the time) decided to walk out. I drove around the streets of East Dulwich looking for him only to eventually find out he had hidden himself at home in a very unlikely place. It wasn't a nice experience but kids do know how to punish their parents. It could happen to any parent.

Dulwichmum:


In a surprisingly temperate (for the most part) discussion you're managing to be the voice of hysterical alarm and self-righteousness. I fear you might have lost your few remaining backers when you called for the McCanns to be prosecuted for neglect.


I'll try and make a serious, if obvious, point: all life, most particularly in raising children, is a constant balancing of risks versus benefits. It's grossly patronising to dismiss someone as neglectful because their assessment of the balance is slightly different to your own. I'm sure there's some anti-bike zealots out there who'd condemn your decision to let your own daughter out on a bike with the au pair as dangerous, which would be equally absurd and judgemental.


I'd argue it's very damaging in its way to wrap one's children in metaphorical cotton wool till they're 18 and emerge, blinking, mollycoddled and unsuspecting - not to mention most likely obsese - into the outside world.

PeterW,


I am a very passionate woman, that is true (bats eyelashes). However sweet cheeks, I think it is you who is being hysterical. Who is suggesting that children should not be permitted to enter the outside world until they are 18?


I think that perhaps 11 - 13 would be a suitable age for a child to go to school alone, depending on the distance and maturity of the child. I just don't see 5, supervised by an 8 year old as at all appropriate.

Dulwichmum:


The reference to 18 was deliberate exaggeration to make a point. I thought it was obvious, but clearly not.


You think 11-13 is ideal, that's wonderful. I've got no objection to that. I just think your earlier vilification of those with a different view - and this apparent, unspoken assumption that yours is the only true way ? a bit narrow-minded and judgemental. Same with the McCann reference, and the Damilola Taylor one. I'm just a bit worried you see perils everywhere. Yes, vigilance is sensible. But as mentioned ealier on this thread, sometimes parents' misplaced fears of certain dangers can cause, in their way, as much harm cumulatively as the dangers themselves.


It is, however, disarming to be referred to as 'sweet cheeks'. Very retro.

As sad as I am for the McCanns, I wouldn't consciously do what they did in a foreign country and leave my child alone. However after a few drinks and in a nice environment, I might have had a warm feeling that this place is so nice and the people so friendly, there is no need to worry. I don't accuse them of neglect. They were just extremely unfortunate that this happened to them. Having spent many summers in Spain on holiday with a Spanish family, which is not that different to Portugal, I would say that living in south London is completely different. You may pick on DM for her views but ask yourself what would you have done in similar circumstances.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> dulwichmum Wrote:

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

> -----

> > @David Carnell.

> >

> > You mis-understand me. The McCann's should be

> > prosecuted for abandonment at least. What do

> you

> > suppose would have happened there if they had

> not

> > been white middle class? This is all about lazy

> > parenting, not empowerment and exercise. My

> kids

> > walk to school every day. Why can't parents

> take

> > their responsibility seriously and walk with

> them?

>

> I didn't misunderstand you. You crow-barred in a

> ridiculous comparison. I'm not going to move this

> discussion off its topic with a blow-by-blow

> account of the McCann incident but I could not

> disagree more. Nothing more than a terrible

> accident.

>


xxxxxxxxx


A terrible accident? Leaving a three year old alone night after night in an unlocked, dark and unfamiliar apartment with two younger children? And even when by their own admission she had been crying for them the night before she disappeared?


Whatever happened, and we may never know, it could have been avoided if the parents hadn't been more concerned with going out to get pissed than looking after their little children, and yes the McCanns should have been prosecuted for abandonment/neglect.

Ditto Dulwichmum and Sue, I would never ever ever leave my child alone at home, never mind abroad!

That in my eye is neglect as they were all extremely young and it was foolish to leave them alone.

If they wanted nights out without the childen then they should have left them with family members at home or hired a babysitter ( not a baby listener), but to leave two babies and a young girl alone in a room when they were not even on the premises was wrong on all levels.

HeidiHi Wrote:

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

> Ditto Dulwichmum and Sue, I would never ever ever

> leave my child alone at home, never mind abroad!

> That in my eye is neglect as they were all

> extremely young and it was foolish to leave them

> alone.

> If they wanted nights out without the childen then

> they should have left them with family members at

> home or hired a babysitter ( not a baby listener),

> but to leave two babies and a young girl alone in

> a room when they were not even on the premises was

> wrong on all levels.


xxxxxxx


Exactly. A child can be sick and choke, wander and fall, try to find their parents, quite apart from being emotionally distressed at calling for their parents and they don't come. What sort of parent knowing those risks (and these were doctors, for God's sake) leaves their children anyway? And not just as a one-off, but night after night? And not just in a familiar room, but in a strange place?


It beggars belief.

I saw it on the news and I think Boris is an arse. I wonder how hands on he has been with his kids. He was probably out every night socialising when they were kids and doesn't have a clue. No-one is saying children should not walk or cycle. This is about supervision.

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...