Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It is unconscionable that a child of eight is in loco parentis of a five year old under these circumstances. This is busy South London, not some bucolic 'Cider with Rosie' village scenario of the fifties. This abandonment of parental responsibility is woeful, and endemic among certain types of people.


What if someone reverses out of their drive, unable to spot a small child on a bike? Is it reasonable to expect an 8 year old to spot and prevent this? No.


Can the 8 year old protect her little brother if a dog attacks them? No. Can she stop a mugger from nicking their bikes? No. Only an adult can. An eight year old cannot keep a five year safe. And an eight year old should not herself be unsupervised in any event.


And a quick note to those who think that there is some kind of silly imaginary paedophile hysteria going on here.


There is not: There have been two incidents of attempted abduction of girls walking through Dulwich Village to school. One was about three years ago, one was three months ago. (The school sent letters to the parents after these incidents.) The first girl was eleven - I don't know how old the second was but she had the foresight to reverse in her tracks, and hid in a front garden (calling for help on her mobile) while the man in the van reversed and tried to follow her again. Paedophiles are rare, but they ARE out there. What a sensible, clever child - but I'm thinking she is probably older than five or eight.


How would an eight year old deal with that situation? I pray that we never have to find out.



Why don't the parents walk/cycle with their kids themselves? Why doesn't their nanny? The kids should be supervised - they are too little to be doing this.

Sue Wrote:

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

> A terrible accident? Leaving a three year old

> alone night after night in an unlocked, dark and

> unfamiliar apartment with two younger children?


Not quite the same as allowing your school-aged children out in broad daylight in a very familiar place close to home, with lots of adults and children walking in the same direction........

BB100 Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > A terrible accident? Leaving a three year old

> > alone night after night in an unlocked, dark

> and

> > unfamiliar apartment with two younger children?

>

> Not quite the same as allowing your school-aged

> children out in broad daylight in a very familiar

> place close to home, with lots of adults and

> children walking in the same direction........


No it isn't but I liked to take responsibility for my child. Didn't you?

most of the posts on this thread are the very reason I don't want to become a parent.


It appears that I will have to agree with most people posting on here or face prosecution. Lovely options


Anyone who wants to spend every minute of every day with their kids is free to do so - but it's not mandatory. Who the F*** are ye to judge other parents so (to the point of prosecution?? They aren't branding their children with pokers FFS)


DulwichMum - if the parents weren't middle class and were jumped on? You have heard of 2 wrongs not making a right?


And prosecuting the McCanns? That says everything about the judger and nothing about the McCanns. The rest of their lives isn't punishment enough? You thing prosecution is some kind of deterrent or punishment? "Well I WAS going to risk having my child abducted but f*** it when I heard there was a jail sentence involved I thought better of it"


Never have I felt more like walking away from this place

SeanMacGabhann said:


"And prosecuting the McCanns? That says everything about the judger and nothing about the McCanns. The rest of their lives isn't punishment enough? You thing prosecution is some kind of deterrent or punishment? "Well I WAS going to risk having my child abducted but f*** it when I heard there was a jail sentence involved I thought better of it"


I love you SeanMacGabhann - don't leave.

Dammit woman - quoting my messages after I thought better of leaving it up!!


Fair play. But I still think you and most other posters on here are way off beam. I'm minded to think 8 and 5 are a leeeetle bit young but then again there are 8 year olds who are savvy and smart. If I knew the parents I might bring it up in conversation but the bile and condemnation on here and everywhere else is grim stuff


If more people did what these parents did then SE London might be a little. teeeny bit more like the utopian villages mentioned earlier on the thread. These parents aren't branding children with pokers, or not feeding them for weeks on end


if I was a gambling man I would bet a fair whack that these two kids don't end up as stay at home 30 somethings wondering where their tea is. The world needs more of this not less

CoD Wrote:

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

>

> There is not: There have been two incidents of

> attempted abduction of girls walking through

> Dulwich Village to school. One was about three

> years ago, one was three months ago.


Increasing police presence and use of CCTV are some of the alternative ways of making everyone safer. Just keeping young children under supervision doesn't tackle the causes, or protect older children - or even adults.


Everytime my dad collects my kids from school different staff come out and ask him why he's waiting outside, or have called the police or parents report him to the school staff. He's just an old grandad that likes to turn up early and pace up and down but everyone is so hypervigilent and ready to scream pedo. No wonder that toddler drowned when she escaped from her nursery - a builder saw her walking down the street but was too frightened to help her in case he was accused of abducting her.

For those of you who are getting apoplectic over the Schonrocks decision, again try this. Set an age, 5, 8, or whatever, and then say that before that age kids must not be sent to school unchaperoned, but after that age they must travel to school unchaperoned. How would you feel if a bunch of other people were telling you that you must send your kids to school on their own?

The Schonrocks have evidently made a balanced decision that it is not only safe but also good for their kids to go to school on their own and they get these quite hurtful accusations of child neglect. I'd say let more people be brave enough to make a similar decision for their (slightly older) kids and perhaps we'd soon have all the evidence we need to say that it really is safe for kids to walk to school alone and/or accompanied by their peers and/or part way accompanied by the carers of other children.

It's not the 'going to school alone' bit that bothers me - although I wouldn't allow a 5 year old to do this ( and I used to walk my sister to school and back when I was 7 and she was 5).


It's a 5 year old on a bike, in London, with an 8 year old in charge. However mature a 5 year old is I can't believe they have great bicyicle skills or road sense. TV crews in Dulwich Village at school turning out time apparently.

iaineasy Wrote:

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

> I think allowing any child of primary school age

> to take themselves to school is hugely

> irresponsible.

>

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

>

> I couldn't disagree more, my dad left when I was

> 5, my mum worked two jobs to pay the mortgage and

> keep a roof over our heads losing the house and

> being homeless would have been irresponsible. My

> taking myself to school may not have been ideal

> but nothing ever happened to me.

>

> my point remains hurrah for the parents.

> hugsb


IainEasy, you send our DD to school alone when she is five, and it'll be your huevos on the radiator, DH! Five is too young to negotiate such a walk alone in London, and eight is too young to look after a five-year-old.


And just b/c you did it, or your parents did, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. (Your mother [and my mother] did a lot of things I won't do!!)


That being said, other people's children are generally not my business. So if these parents want to take their chances with their precious sprog, time will tell how long a lap they make in the gene pool.

I've just seen the route the children use to get to school which was published in the Telegraph. If this is correct, then I don't see that there is any way the children could possibly get to school without crossing more than one road. Now that it appears that these little children cross the busy junction in the heart of Dulwich Village on their bicycles alone during rush hour, I am even more horrified by the thought.

kristymac1 Wrote:

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

> Great, so the precise route that these little'uns

> take to school unaccompanied is now national news

> - doesn't that put the children at even more risk?



WEll I guess it's the parents who went to the press originally. I wonder what they thought they would gain?

A couple of years ago a friend of mine who lives on an estate in Ashford asked me for advice... she had noticed that one of her neighbours wasn't getting out of bed in the morning and her 6 year old was getting himself up and dressed, and walking to school alone. My friend (and other mums) were surreptitiously keeping an eye on him (there were no roads to cross at all, the walk was on a footpath, less than 1/3 of a mile)


My friend wondered if she should do anything... we both felt she would feel terrible if something happened.. in the end she spoke to support staff at the school.


Was thatb interfering?

I agree with DulwichMum - I've only ever seen the lollipop lady at the Turney Road part of the crossing.


Nick Ferrari is just starting to talk about this on LBC. Both of his children went to Alleyn's so he knows the area and presumably understands what the area is like better than most of the other radio and TV presenters who have debated this.

Fuschia


Are you comparing a couple who are making a rational decision with someone who can't get out of bed?


If a child is being neglected because of whatever is wrong with their parent(s) (drugs? depression? not sure from your decription of then Ashford case) then fair enough. That has nothing to do with this case


Everytime a parent puts their child into a seat of a car and drives somewhere, they are putting that child at risk. Should we prosecute everyone of them? Of course not


And did the parents go to the papers? Presumably that was after they had been informed of intention to prosecute in which case it's worth publicising

kristymac1 Wrote:

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

> Great, so the precise route that these little'uns

> take to school unaccompanied is now national news

> - doesn't that put the children at even more risk?


Yes....yes it does. Do you know why? Because child abductors regularly scan national newspapers looking for clues as to the routes children take to school. It's pretty tricky for them to figure out otherwise. It's not like children have any identifying clothing that would associate them with a school or walk the same route every day or anything is it? Children these days have got pretty cunning. Often they disguise themselves as adults before burrowing tunnels to their school so as not be seen by predators lurking around every corner.


My god, the hysteria on here would make Chris Morris blush.

Several people have posted that what really bothers them is a 5 year old cycling to school.

I've seen these kids cycling and the 5 year old has far superior cycling skills than my 8 year old.

Cycling should'nt be part of any issue here. The kids are good cyclists.


Equally these kids only have two more days this academic year to get themselves to school.

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...