Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1/10 for doing it after I saw it.


And I don't talk down to you Keef. I just highlight flaws in your argument or when I think you're wrong. But I do that to lots of people on here and none of them seem to descend into the gutter or name-calling. And if they disagree then have a go back. But do it with logic and panache and rhetorical style. Not by being rude.


You have a big chip on your shoulder from somewhere or something and I clearly niggle you. But that's your issue, not mine.


Grow up, get over it and behave like an adult. If you don't like being taken to task, don't say anything.

Keef dear heart, I will always like you.


I am still shocked by the councillors assertion about Southwark's numbers of cared for children as though it is evidence of quality of service. In case it has escaped his notice, Southwark is a borough with some of the most deprived areas in Europe. It therefor is no surprise that we have marked inequalities in health and access to healthcare, indices of deprivation off the scale etc. I have never attended a child protection case conference and heard or seen any sign of a local councillor - busy with their spreadsheets admiring the nice rows of data.


Southwark's child protection services are an accident waiting to happen and the fact that Mr Barber is not aware of this doesn't surprise me. He clearly knows as much about Southwark social workers/caseloads/services as he does about age appropriate behavior for children - probably off at some meeting, furthering his career while his wife raises his kids alone.


A woman who argues or debates with him is a whinger - nice! This forum is well known for its debate and banter. If you cant take the heat...

And I don't talk down to you Keef. I just highlight flaws in your argument or when I think you're wrong.


Well okay, but I don't think I was wrong.


I don't usually call people names, but you get to me that much, I'll do my best in future to argue with logic and panache and rhetorical style, so that you might accept me for an equal, not something on the bottom of your shoe. You may not "stoop" to my gutter, but you do get personal, you just hide it behind your over confident persona on here.


"Grow up and behave like an adult" coming from someone about 5 years younger than me. And you say you don't talk down to me? You really do have no idea about anything real do you?


Anyway, back to the topic at hand then.


Edit to say that I have removed previous posts because I was letting myself get a bit angry. I'll not delete this, as it is a direct response to another post.

Maybe this thread should go to the family room. It might help focus the minds of contributors but then again I've noticed a trend on most threads that they tend towards the personal, back biting at some stage in their progression. This is a shame since there has been lots of really valuable insight and balanced discussion amongst the mild hysteria, sorry, heightened emotional responses to a question which is a real, everyday concern for parents. I'm not prepared to judge the Schonrocks or the McCanns but these discussions help me reflect on my own parenting decisions. I will however point out that I found BB100's postings very useful in helping bring balance to the discussion. Having an objective assessment of risk should help us put our own concerns into perspective and make more rational decisions about how we behave but when it comes to the pressures and concerns for keeping our kids safe then the subjective perception of risk takes control. I bang on about safety first to my kids when doing the school run and I hope that it is working. The thing that gets me most is when motorists stop their car to let you cross the road in front of them when there are no other vehicles around and then get narked when you wave them on. Getting my kids across the road safely is my responsibility and it is obviously safer to cross when there are no vehicles on the road. Or am I missing some obscure aspect of road use etiquette here? I don't drive so perhaps it has passed me by.

I have managed to get through all 9 pages of this and I'm a bit suprised by the posts of a couple of people I would normally agree with.


I was 9 when I was looking after my baby brother after my mum shut down with post-natal depression and I did a good job of looking after him until she recovered about 18 months later.


My own kids were brought up to look out for each other and whilst my son would have had no problems looking after a 5 year old sibling when he was 8, his sister would not.


Some kids are naturally more responsible and sensible than others. I think without actually knowing the kids and their respective abilities, personalities etc, it is very hard to make a judgement but in any event, it cannot possibly be as black and white as many posters have stated on here.


Hopefully the Schonrocks know their children very well and understand whhere their limits are.


I wish the family good luck and hope people will leave them to make the relevant judgements about their own children with a minimum of interference .

I think it is ok for the children to cycle, however only if they are chaperoned. Children under nine are not good at judging the speed of traffic. These days roads are busier. It is also too much responsibility for the 8 yr old to be caring for the 5yr old in these circumstances. (I don't think that stranger paedophiles are the issue here, there is too much fear about this, when, in fact children are more likely to be abused by someone they know)


I'm not sure I understand this point. If a car stops to let you cross the road it is presumably stationery and ensures any traffic that may arrive behind it stops too. Whenever I've stopped to let parents/kids cross it's to help in a small way that they cross the road safely.

Narnia Wrote:

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

> >

> I'm not sure I understand this point. If a car

> stops to let you cross the road it is presumably

> stationery and ensures any traffic that may arrive

> behind it stops too. Whenever I've stopped to let

> parents/kids cross it's to help in a small way

> that they cross the road safely.


right, but it doesn't teach the child to judge car speed/when to cross safely - if all drivers stop randomly to let children cross they'll end up (worse possible senario) expecting this to happen whenever they cross the road. If at a crossing fine, but if children get use to cars stopping randomly, what reinforcement is there for them to use crossings?

It's a question of perspective and risk assessment. From my pedestrian, literally, point of view, it is safest to cross the road when there are no vehicles around. That's what I tell my kids. It also sometimes happens that the pedestrian can't read the intentions of the driver, particularly at junctions like the crossroads by the Uplands. Sometimes the light reflects on the windscreen so that the driver's facial expression and even hand movements are obscured. Drivers don't always take into account the interests of pedestrians when they are negotiating junctions so don't always indicate their intentions. I don't see what benefit there is to stopping to let people cross the road when you are the only car around. W hen there are other cars on the road the driver who has stopped is acting irresponsibly since they have no control over the actions of the other driver/s.My attitude is also probably coloured by an experience when crossing a zebra crossing a few years ago with my oldest child who was in the buggy. A big white van had stopped to let us cross and when we were half way over the car behind overtook but stopped when it saw us on the crossing. The driver was apologetic and mouthed that she was in a hurry to get her kids. My perception of danger and my risk assessment is based on personal experience, prejudice and perhaps an over weening concern for the safety of my children that is only tempered to a certain degree by statistical analysis that shows we are less at risk nowadays.
I have been a teacher for 13 years. I don't have children. I used to walk to primary school alone or with my friend at 5 + winter or summer.. If had a bike to ride to school, I would have ridden it gladly. Let's stop being Daily Mail and making it DANGEROUS for youngsters to ride to school in numbers - and yes, the pavement is allowed by the way. The more children who do this, in safe numbers with confidence, the better. What do you want? - more 4 x 4's? Bubble wrap??

This is a great thread.


Not because of the issue, which has been done to death - but to see the big boys from the Lounge having a fight.....


I'd agree that 5 is too young to cycle to school - but I'd be absolutley fine with an 8 year old and a 5 year old walking the same route to school. But not a 5 year old alone.


The general point of over protective parenting drives me mad. The perception that a child that is not in your direct eyeline is in danger is a common feeling which smothers our children with protection and does not allow them to explore or enjoy their childhoods in the way they should.

Keef, DC - you're both decent blokes, but you're both partly to blame for winding each other up! So let's just call it a stalemate on this one.


Please bring back Huguenot, there was a man who knew how to talk down to people! How I'd cringe when I read his posts...

I think most people would agree that on a subject like this, its not such a clear cut matter that there is a right answer for every family and therefore it should be for the parents to decide.


Certainly for under 10s to be allowed to cycle on the pavement would not inconveniece many people and would be a good interim step before children progress to the road. It would be good if that was the law.


I worry much more about a young child on a bike following a parent on a bike on a busy road than I would a child on its own cycling on a pavement to school.


Good luck in resolving this.

schonrocks Wrote:

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

> Thanks to all those who have expressed their

> support on this thread.

>

> We got sick of being holed up in the house. 4

> small kids in 4 walls is not fun after a while.>

> Some stuff for you to tear apart:

>

> http://schonrocks.com/

>

> Gillian & Oliver Schonrock


I fail to understand the relevance of the above comment. It doesn't matter how you dress up or try to justify your decision, you will not change the fundamental belief of many people who have participated in this thread that a five year old is too young to cycle a mile to school, crossing three roads, supervised only by an eight year old, and that by letting a child of this age cycle to school without an adult present is highly irresponsible.


You have presumably read the comments in this thread, and I would be very interested to know why you chose to bring this to the attention of the national press and put your children in the spotlight in this way.

schonrocks Wrote:

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

> Thanks to all those who have expressed their

> support on this thread.

>

> We got sick of being holed up in the house. 4

> small kids in 4 walls is not fun after a while.

>

> Some stuff for you to tear apart:

>

> http://schonrocks.com/

>

> Gillian & Oliver Schonrock


Well to me that comes across like a thesis.


Beautifully constructed and well written with supporting evidence...very clinical.


I'll take my common sense approach over that every time.

Growlybear Wrote:

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

> schonrocks Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Thanks to all those who have expressed their

> > support on this thread.

> >

> > We got sick of being holed up in the house. 4

> > small kids in 4 walls is not fun after a while.>

>

> > Some stuff for you to tear apart:

> >

> > http://schonrocks.com/

> >

> > Gillian & Oliver Schonrock

>

> I fail to understand the relevance of the above

> comment. It doesn't matter how you dress up or

> try to justify your decision, you will not change

> the fundamental belief of many people who have

> participated in this thread that a five year old

> is too young to cycle a mile to school, crossing

> three roads, supervised only by an eight year old,

> and that by letting a child of this age cycle to

> school without an adult present is highly

> irresponsible.

>

> You have presumably read the comments in this

> thread, and I would be very interested to know why

> you chose to bring this to the attention of the

> national press and put your children in the

> spotlight in this way.


Eh - I don't believe they did bring it to the national press initally, but are responding to allow their side of the story to be understood.

I find it quite clinical also, are your children social experiments to see if by letting them cycle a mile to school without an adult will result them in being well rounded adults because they took risks as a child and were given that kind of freedom at such a young age? This is not a five minutes walk to school, this is a one mile cycle where there are busy roads.


I fail to see your logic and reasoning behind your decision, I don't need stats, researchers and so on, to tell me that an eight year old supervising a five year old to school is right/safe when common sense says otherwise. There are many children who goes to school with an adult supervising, and I don't believe for one minute that they will grow up to be adults that have no idea how to cross the road, deak with certain situations, and will fear the world outside their door.

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...