Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks James B. - your fact is interesting - Especially as East Dulwich is classified as suburban according to the town planners or whatever you call them (the bureaucrat that would not let me build a roof garden)...perhaps this "classification" would come in handy to fight the application?


On the other hand, as an ex-new yorker, I do miss late hours in bars. In New York, a bar can have it's license revoked for excessive noise. The bar staff know when a customer should go home to prevent disturbance and will often escort customers out or refuse to serve them.

JohnL Wrote:

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

> I don't stay out much beyond 1am - and LL is

> always pretty quiet when I go home (odten from the

> Bishop/EDT).

>

> Does it really get worse at 2am ?



**********************************************


It's the late night drinking bars - kebab and wine etc which stay open all through the night. That's been there ever since i can remember. No complaints, but i don't live on the main road.

Madger, I suspect the battle has already been lost....unfortunately Dulwich is no longer the Dulwich we fell in love with way back. It has become, and this is a fact, Clapham. When the Clapham hordes, and their friends at Foxton's turned up, then this is the logical conclusion. I will write to the council, they do have a habit of actually acting on people's concerns strangely enough. But, it would prove only to be a short-term fix. Dulwich has irrevocably changed.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Local papers reported that since the changes in

> licensing laws emergency admissions to local

> hospitals related ot alocohol have risen by 500%.


Local papers also reported that local squirrels were addicted to crack, are there any official stats to back your statement up?

Ohhhhhhh the Dulwich we fell in love with..


Which one is that? The one with the boarded-up windows and an occasional crack den or the one with the burgeoning restaurants and secretly-pleasing rocketing house prices?


Poor old ED.. resting in a state of idyllic stasis for 20 years - and then the Adventure bar arrives.

I didn't blame the Adventure Bar....not sure I could even identify it. The point I was trying to make is that ED is not a village anymore, that romanticism of the past, which may have been evident in my previous post, is not worth it. It's a new Dulwich now.

East Dulwich has never been a village, or felt like a village.


Dulwich Village doesn't even feel like a village quite frankly.


Sean is right in saying that from the Palmerston down to Goose Green is not nice on Fri/Sat nights. I'm not sure how much underage drinking goes on though. I feel a bit old these days when I look at an 18 year old having a pint, but to be fair, it is legal, and I was one of them once upon a time.


Drugs? Not sure how much of it goes on, I'd imagine there is a fair bit of snorting going on, but to be fair, Tne Foresters used to be a well known place to get coke, The Bishop is not, so surely that is an improvement.


I'm amazed Stab & Wine doesn't get raided on a weekly basis though!

I think I've been to LL twice on a Friday / Saturday night, in all the years I've been here - in the same way that I avoid all sorts of other places on Fridays and Saturdays - and always have done.


It's always been like that, now it's just more like that. And before that it was doubtless just as unpleasant, only a different sort of unpleasant. If you think it's a sudden and recent development you must have been strolling around with a lampshade on your head for the last ten years.


It's not the drink and the drugs.. it's the people. Welcome to England 'on the weekend'.. appearing in your local high street since I can remember being old enough to get into a pub.

I think it depends where you go on Lordship Lane! I don't think that all the bars between Goose Green and The Palmerston are full of under-age drinkers who behave anti-socially, even late at night. I can go out with my friends till 2am to the EDT or Bishop or Liquorish and have never seen any trouble on a Friday or Saturday and many of these bars have an over-21 policy anyway. There are plenty of people who enjoy a late-night drink at the weekend without resorting to fighting, vomitting in the street or whatever else people say they see on LL.


And East Dulwich is not a village, it is a surburb of a large city. If people want a village atmosphere, move out of London. I personally choose to live in East Dulwich because it's busy, lively and has a number of good bars and restaurants. If I wanted quiet, peaceful and pubs that closed at 11pm I would move away.

To be fair to the OP, I have seen fights outside the EDT whilst driving past quite late after playing gigs elsewhere, and I have definitely seen people being sick.


But, as Georgia says, this is London, and it's not even that much of a suburb really (Sidcup is a suburb), so it is going to be busy, and if you live on, or close to a High Street, you're going to get noise.


Having said that, I'm not sure I'd agree that a bar needs to open til gone 2am on a Sunday.

No really the outerlying suburbs are horrible for pissed up arseholes on the weekends when compared to inner london areas like ED. Croydon, Watford, Dartford etc. are practically no-go areas. East Dulwich has a bit of it and it is anoying but it could be a lot worse.


It could be Clapham.

if you don't like living just off lordship lane because of bars that are open till 1am - then move away.


I chose not to live just off lordship lane as wherever there are bars and shops there is higher crime - there are loads of houses that you can move to. I don't see why the majority of people should be stopped from drinking.


pathetic nimbyism

One of the most intimidating places I ever went on a Saturday night was posh Canterbury. East Dulwich at 10pm is bliss compared to almost anywhere I can think of that has a pulse. But why pander to a tiny minority of the local population by offering further opportunities for rowdy drunkenness in the small hours, especially before a school/weekday?
I think the point is ATP that people who have lived on these streets for years couldn't have anticipated these problems. These are their homes where they have chosen to bring up their families. In this situation, especially if you own your house, moving is a very big upheaval, not to mention that it costs tens of thousands of pounds.

edanna Wrote:

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

not to

> mention that it costs tens of thousands of pounds.


Fortunately, their houses have doubled in value in the last decade - due in no small part to the proliferation of the very things that attract the unpleasant element. That should help-out with the move to Quietsville.


Why do people seem to assume it's some kind of unwritten law that things will always stay the same? Half the time they've forgotten that they aren't even the same as the person who bought the house two decades prior.


Things get better, things get worse, circumstances change, you weigh it up and make a decision. But if you've owned a house in ED for a long time at least you've got more options than most.

Hi all - I wasn't expecting such a wide response to this thread... I really do want to emphasize that I'm not interested in bashing late night drinking for the sake of it, I know that I don't live in rural Kent, I love east dulwich - having made it my home since the 1990s - and I like staying out later at the weekends for a few pints. I'm not trying to criticize anyone else's way of life, I just feel that 2am on a sunday night is too late for a bar like the Adventure Bar to stay open. If it was people just having a nice time and leaving quietly, then great - but when i went past on Wednesday, coming back from town with a friend, it had just closed and the 4 people who had just been chucked out at closing were now settled in with tinnies at the bus stop, and one of the guys became very aggressive with us and, frankly, that is the sort of thing that annoys me about the bar, and I just don't think the company behind this bar takes enough responsibility. I am NOT saying let's all live in a quiet, tedious, stifling little neighbourhood and think piggy thoughts about other people having fun, I'm merely saying that there has - as others of you on this thread have also found - been a real explosion of 2am screaming and puking and fighting, and I just don't see why this should be something we're all just supposed to accept because we live in zone 2 London, albeit a very residential part.


And I don't think it is about things staying the same - this isn't some tedious, retrospective harking back to some apparently more 'golden time' when everyone fed the ducks and had a nice cup of tea and bun and went to bed at 9 with a small schooner of sherry, it's about saying - why should every area of London, as soon as it becomes 'popular' and mentioned in the property pages, slowly turn into the same old, boring, ubiquitous mix of late night bars that you get in Clapham and Battersea and places - it all starts to look the same.


Fundamentally, some bar owners based in Battersea - which is, i believe, where the Adventure Bar team are based, would like to make a fat lot more money by extending their late licensing to Thursdays and Sundays, and they, quite naturally, have no interest in whether there are people who live all around this bar who may be sleeping at 2.30am (which will be actual chucking out time on sundays if this license goes through), or have an early start on Monday morning.


I don't think this is about an 'either/or' response. It's not a question of 'should we have late night licensing or should we not'. I don't care about the abstract arguments for or against, and I'm very happy to make use of late licensing myself. But then I never spill out of a bar and shout my way down the street, outside people's homes, and puke in their gardens or pee or scream - and these are the problems. Our driveway now has a collection of empty beer cans EVERY SINGLE WEEKEND, accompanied by piss, which we have to clean up every single weekend. When I recently confronted a guy at about 2.45am who was peeing against our wall - and whose crashing around our garden had woken me up - he was so drunk he couldn't even speak. So he just kept pissing and then stumbled away. This has only started happening since the late licensing round here has become so much more prolific. Is it unreasonable of us to find this discouraging and to want to do something about it? I don't want to stop the late night drinking, but I want to stop the aftermath of it - and it may be that certain bars just aren't able to handle their clientele or their licensing conditions.


I am merely trying to explain what has started happening to those of us who have homes on or around the Lane, and asking any of you who agree to help.


I sincerely wish you all well. Madger.

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...