Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Dulwichmum,

Southwark Council has nearly 600 Looked After Children. This doesn't to me imply intertia. This is a slightly higher ratio than most other London boroughs. Southwark Council has a full compliment of social workers and all councillors take their Corporate Parenting responsibilies very seriously.

If you EVER encounter such problems and are unhappy with the response you tell your local councillor. If you fail to get engagement from them you escalate to their party leader.

Whinging on a forum after the fact with the implication kids have suffered is - well I'm incredulous.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Alleyn's School has released the following

> statement:

>

> ".. Both children are below the 9

> years-of-age threshold currently recommended by

> the local authority (Southwark Council) for

> crossing the road independently. Moreover,

> Bikeability, the government-approved,

> cycle-training organisation, itself does not

> recognise a child's ability to cycle unsupervised

> and independently until they are over eleven years

> of age. "


Presumably the parents have been given these recommendations, and it is very clear from both the Southwark Council and Bikeability guidance that a five year old is way below their accepted threshold to cross roads/cycle without adult supervision. I don't understand why they couldn't have taken the advice a little more seriously and reflected that perhaps their decision to send their infant child to school by bicycle, having to cross at least three roads, might not necessarily have been right. Even if they had decided that they know better than the local authority and a national cycle training organisation, what ever possessed them to take this story to the national press and put their children in the spotlight like this?

Probably because they have never in their lives actually been descriminated against, and this allows them to feel like a wronged party, whilst also looking awfully green and "right on".


The school appears to have responded in a way that is right and proper, whether or not the kids are indanger, if people have commented / complained to the school, the school is right to act.

James Barber Wrote:

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

>" No, it isn't illegal to ride on the pavement for

> the small wheel sizes involved and age of the

> kids."

Please would you clarify this. I understood (from the DFT website) that there was no exemption to section 72 - so it remains illegal - nevertheless, the police are allowed to use their discretion in not prosecuting adults responsible for very small children cycling on the pavement. (Children of 8 and 5 would be below the age of criminal responsibility). I have never seen any official reference to wheel sizes - I thought the size issue was an urban myth. Please advise accordingly.

With regard to this particular thread it may be helpful if someone would confirm if the route used by these children is a designated shared cycle/pedestrian pathway which would indicate a safer (for all users) route.

Given the large number of young children who would be in the immediate vicinity of Dulwich Village Infant School and Dulwich Hamlet at this time of the morning, does it not also create a potentially hazardous situation to these children and their parents to have two very young children cycling amongst them on the pavement?

Up to now it looks like a three horse race:


1) allowing an 8 yo to supervise a 5 yo's journey to school is totally irresposible - 70% agree with this - an unassailable lead I would say


2)allowing an 8 yo to supervise a 5 yo's journey to school is not unduly risky and is an acceptable way for them to get to school - 20% agree with this


3) it's none of my business - 10% agree with this.


Councillor Barber takes the archetypal politician's view in that his children are "not ready" to do such a thing but he supports the parents right to do so (= he wouldn't allow this himself under any circumstances but he hasn't got the balls to say so - this horse is from the same stable as claiming to support state education whilst sending your kids to private school - do you do that as well Councillor B??)

Alleyn's School has released the following statement:


"

Alleyn's Junior School would like to correct the misreporting of the travel-to-school story.


First, the school has not reported the family to the local authority social services.



Putting on my best Paxman-grilling-Michael-Howard voice... "But did you *threaten* to call social services?" (repeat 14 times).

Keef Wrote:

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

> Probably because they have never in their lives

> actually been descriminated against, and this

> allows them to feel like a wronged party, whilst

> also looking awfully green and "right on".


Oh puur-lease. Now it's a feckin class issue again Keef?!


They've never been discriminated against? Really? How do you know? Have you met them? Do you know the first thing about them beyond their names and where they send the kids to school? No, of course not. But don't let that get in your way to have a dig at the "awfully green" and "right on" crowd. As per ususal.


And even if you're right, and they've lead lives of serene happiness and bliss, so what? Somehow they're no longer allowed to make the same choices of any other parent without you or anyone else here wading in with you size nines?


Leave the personal attacks out of it at the least.

Sorry bbug, you're right not to want the technicalities drawn out again but I would like James Barber to respond regarding his statement on the wheel size issue as his statement perpetuates a myth. Whatever the chances of being prosecuted, it remains illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavement, something that parents should be aware of, in case their child ever collides with a pedestrian.

Loz said:


> Putting on my best Paxman-grilling-Michael-Howard

> voice... "But did you *threaten* to call social

> services?" (repeat 14 times).


I like the idea of Paxman peseverating pointlessley with that type of question - he's past his best and this type of thing that would really wind him up nowadays!


But seriously, anyone providing a legally accountable service that takes responsibility for people or their children is obliged to explore and discuss the full legal etc implications of actions taken. Being informed isn't necessarily the same as being threatened. For example, was the headmaster "informed" or "threatened" that the press might become involved?


This isn't meant to be a dig at the Schonrocks as it isn't necessarily the case they went to the press in the first place. But I do know however the press/Boris/David Cameron have stirred up the whole thing for their own ends, and I wish they hadn't got invovled.


PS is this thread beginning to perseverate?

'On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance...:"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."


'Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)


And yes PeterW couldn't you hear the laughter across ED?

Keef Wrote:

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

> D_C, not picking *bob* up on his posts, because

> he's rather funny and popular, and well, you know,

> Sean probably likes his posts too?


Well, yeah, that and a sense of irony I suppose.


And you did mention class - you just didn't say the word.

> 'Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty

> needs to be used with a considerable degree of

> discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under

> the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John

> Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23

> February 2004)


Anyone under 16 cannot be issued with a FPN (common sense - most kids would just throw it away), but they can still be prosecuted in the normal way. (Apologies to bbug for carrying on the technicalities.)

No I didn't, but of course you're always right, no quesiton.


I'm usually the person who says class is a load of nuts actually, although you've tried to paint me as the one who "always" makes it about class.


Whatever class these people are, I think a 5 year old cycling to school is fecking stupid.


The fact is though David, that sometimes class, or whatever you want to call it, does make a difference, and that makes some people, a little bit uncomfortable, and defensive.

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...