Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't own a dog but I assumed it to be normal to leave a dog outside the shop for a short while to get your stuff done.

I can't see the point why people blaming the owners and not the bastards who steal dogs.

Reversed reality ...

Leaving a dog outside a shop is not illegal whereas stealing is.


Without knowing any other facts I think trolling the forum with phrases that the owners are "fool people" and "irresponsible selfish" are unjustified and purely written to be divisive and distracting of the original point, which is "Watch out there are dog thieves about".


It's good to hear opinions, especially honestly empathetic ones and even better to hear constructive ones about how to help each other round here.


Thanks for the warning PeckhamRose, I'll keep an eye out for anyone suspiciously untying dogs.

It is bad that people steal dogs.

It is bad (but much less so in the grand scheme of things) that some dogs are left to yelp and yap outside cafes/shops whilst owners do things that don't necessitate bringing said animals along in the first place.

Both realities can and do exist. Open your minds, man!

Basically... wot ali2007, Mark, enjoy and other sensible people have said. It's a pretty normal thing to do. And besides, you shouldn't presume to know their circumstances and reasons. I'm sure everyone is OK with people questioning such things, but it should be possible to do so without being nasty about it.
When I was young, children were often left outside shops in prams (you couldn't get the old big Silver Cross prams into shops) - indeed children were also left outside pubs (with a packet of crisps and a lemonade if they were lucky). Some dogs do have abandonment issues (as do some children!), but many are perfectly relaxed about being left tied up outside somewhere for short times (and far better that than being left in a car in the sun). It is a sad commentary on our society that we blame victims for the actions of criminals - as if criminality was the expected norm in our lives. By doing so we validate criminal actions (by treating them as normal and expected).

And here is a prime example of irresponsibility:


ali2007 Wrote:

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

> I take my dog for a walk in the park. On the way

> back, I realise I need some milk. I tie the dog up

> outside the shop as I HAVE NO OPTION TO TAKE THE

> DOG IN.


Yes, you do


The dog gets stolen. Then it would be MY

> fault for leaving my dog outside for 5mins?


Yes, see above.

>

> I would love to take my dog in but so many shops

> are hostile. I tried to take her into the Post

> Office and was told to leave her outside


Take dog home then come back.

(btw

> there is nowhere to tie your dog up outside unless

> you want them to get run over by a bus) so I had

> to leave. So instead of taking my dog out on fun

> jaunts these days, she has to sit at home bored as

> hell. Something's not right.


Mistreatment of dog.


How many threads have there been on dog escapes tether outside shop, running scared, plesse help? How many poor tethered dogs are attacked outside a shop by nasty vicious pitbull/terrier type dogs on or off lead with moronic owner in toe, proper pet dog tied as if a sacrifice? How many kids/adults that have a fear of dogs being too scared to enter/leave/pass tethered dog and go about their daily life? How much dog sh#t is carried on dog that you want to take in food shops when apparently, according to never-ending dog sh#t threads, 98% of ed kids under the age of 10 are blinded via dog sh#t.

So, treat the dog responsibly, don't impose and dogs and owners and others all get along.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> When I was young, children were often left outside

> shops in prams (you couldn't get the old big

> Silver Cross prams into shops) - indeed children

> were also left outside pubs (with a packet of

> crisps and a lemonade if they were lucky). Some

> dogs do have abandonment issues (as do some

> children!), but many are perfectly relaxed about

> being left tied up outside somewhere for short

> times (and far better that than being left in a

> car in the sun). It is a sad commentary on our

> society that we blame victims for the actions of

> criminals - as if criminality was the expected

> norm in our lives. By doing so we validate

> criminal actions (by treating them as normal and

> expected).


Same here - my mother was telling me the other day how there was some debate in the late '60s as to whether a baby should be on their face or stomach when asleep, so sometimes she'd come out of a shop and find some well meaning stranger had turned me the other way up!


But sadly it's not that sort of society any more, nobody (I hope) would think it OK these days to leave a baby outside in their pram while they went into the bank/shops whatever. It's not "victim blaming" to say don't do it, it's just common sense. Similarly if, as it seems from the OP, people are pinching dogs, it's not "victim blaming" to say don't leave your dog unattended, it's common sense. Yes it would be just peachy if we could not have to look out for criminals, leave our doors open, not lock our cars etc etc, but we can't. Accusing people of "victim blaming" for saying be careful is ridiculous.

"But sadly it's not that sort of society any more, nobody (I hope) would think it OK these days to leave a baby outside in their pram while they went into the bank/shops whatever. It's not "victim blaming" to say don't do it, it's just common sense."


Hmm. I am not so sure about this as a general point. Of course, I agree social services would 'rescue' the child, and infants are too young to be left alone except in extremis.


The reason (I know this post will be unpopular) is that child-abductions and child-murders are pretty much constant over time as a percentage of the population (at least last time I looked up the stats - does anyone have them?).


In fact what has changed is visibility and a blame-culture.


Rendel, I guess we both ran free as children in London: not a bad thing at all (despite the ensuing mischief). Perhaps it would be better if parents and dog owners DID revert to practices that were normal a few decades ago. Children, it seems to me, are quite likely to be damaged by constant surveillance and care.


Having said that, I'm not sure my mother would have left me in a pram alone outside a shop in the 1960s - she always had a nanny or au pair girl on tap :-). So there is a danger of blaming social class here too.

Bad things happen sometimes, we can't live our lives constantly second guessing others, so leave your dog responsible tied up to pop into a shop. Enjoy your day and let the dog fit in and around it, if we modify our whole lives to accommodate a few ill meaning people we will never get anything done.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> When I was young, children were often left outside

> shops in prams (you couldn't get the old big

> Silver Cross prams into shops) - indeed children

> were also left outside pubs (with a packet of

> crisps and a lemonade if they were lucky). Some

> dogs do have abandonment issues (as do some

> children!), but many are perfectly relaxed about

> being left tied up outside somewhere for short

> times (and far better that than being left in a

> car in the sun). It is a sad commentary on our

> society that we blame victims for the actions of

> criminals - as if criminality was the expected

> norm in our lives. By doing so we validate

> criminal actions (by treating them as normal and

> expected).


My parents used to take me and my siblings to the pub, leave us in the car and occasionally pop out to deliver a bag of crisps or a coke through the window. We'd even be allowed to put the radio on. We thought it was a great treat. Looking back at it, it doesn't really seem so much like a treat.



The 50s and 60s, when I was growing up, were not exactly a risk free period for kids - abductions and murders were scarcely less common than today. Remember that the Moors Murders, arguably the worst case within living memory. took place in the early to mid 60s

rahrahrah Wrote:

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


> My parents used to take me and my siblings to the

> pub, leave us in the car and occasionally pop out

> to deliver a bag of crisps or a coke through the

> window. We'd even be allowed to put the radio on.

> We thought it was a great treat. Looking back at

> it, it doesn't really seem so much like a treat.


Why am I not surprised...:)

Zelig Wrote:

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

> And here is a prime example of irresponsibility:

>

> ali2007 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I take my dog for a walk in the park. On the

> way

> > back, I realise I need some milk. I tie the dog

> up

> > outside the shop as I HAVE NO OPTION TO TAKE

> THE

> > DOG IN.

>

> Yes, you do


Don't be ridiculous Zelig, what ali2007 writes about is the problem faced by a lot of dog owners including me everyday. Dogs are not allowed into shop. Full stop.


> The dog gets stolen. Then it would be MY

> > fault for leaving my dog outside for 5mins?

>

> Yes, see above.


Again, that is absurd. The thief stole the dogs and you blame the owner for it ? Get real.



> >

> > I would love to take my dog in but so many

> shops

> > are hostile. I tried to take her into the Post

> > Office and was told to leave her outside

>

> Take dog home then come back.

> (btw

> > there is nowhere to tie your dog up outside

> unless

> > you want them to get run over by a bus) so I

> had

> > to leave. So instead of taking my dog out on

> fun

> > jaunts these days, she has to sit at home bored

> as

> > hell. Something's not right.

>

> Mistreatment of dog.


Why not blame the post office for not letting dogs in the first place ? Don't start there. When dogs are on lead with owners they behave absolutely brilliantly. Extremely rarely the dogs will do a poo or piss while inside the premise, not anymore than staffs getting abused by "customers".


>

> How many threads have there been on dog escapes

> tether outside shop, running scared, plesse help?

> How many poor tethered dogs are attacked outside a

> shop by nasty vicious pitbull/terrier type dogs on

> or off lead with moronic owner in toe, proper pet

> dog tied as if a sacrifice? How many kids/adults

> that have a fear of dogs being too scared to

> enter/leave/pass tethered dog and go about their

> daily life? How much dog sh#t is carried on dog

> that you want to take in food shops when

> apparently, according to never-ending dog sh#t

> threads, 98% of ed kids under the age of 10 are

> blinded via dog sh#t.

> So, treat the dog responsibly, don't impose and

> dogs and owners and others all get along.


Again, Zelig, 1. If off-lead stray dogs attack a dog leashed outside the cafe, it is the fault of the OWNER of the off-lead dogs. 2. Dogs don't shit in food shops. 3. When dogs yelp it doesn't always mean that they are stressed. Most often they want attention, like kids. 4. You just have to teach kids to go on with their daily lives when they walk pass a dog leashed outside a cafe.

It's sometimes inconvenient when we'd like to shop and have the dog with us but we suck it up and do the shopping while leaving the dog safely at home for a limited amount of time. I think there are many places that unfairly exclude dogs but there's not much we can do about it and we tailor our time according to our needs and the dog's needs.


It would be very handy to be able to tie the dog up outside a shop for a few minutes but the risks are far too great these days.


We also seek out dog friendly places where we can go. There aren't enough but there are a fair few.

geobz Wrote:

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

> ....Its like saying oh why are you

> blaming a man that his house got robbed while he

> left his front door wide open... There is no

> victim here, just a fool person.


Just because one sees an open door, doesn't mean it's incumbent on that person to go in and nick everything. I once got home to find that I hadn't shut my door properly (by mistake obviously). Luckily, no one took it on themselves to empty my house but if they had, I would still have been the victim of theft.


TBH, I reckon 99% of the time, it's perfectly fine to tie a dog up outside a shop. Personally I feel sorry for the person whose had their dog nicked and angry at the shitbag that took it.

I'd like to suggest a solution to the problem, as I haven't read of any yet.


Dog kennels. Comfy ones where you can leave the mutt locked up in his own individual airy but secure kennel. A nominal amount to open the door and take the key out and bingo. Sainsbury's could have a row of them.

Not sure what people are supposed to do to not be cruel to a dog. Leave them at home they may get more upset than coming for the walk and waiting outside a few moments. I would personally welcome dogs in Sainsbury's until the thief is caught so long as they stay on a lead and any mess is cleared up. Maybe Sainsbury's could have special dog free hours for the phobic or a happy hour when they could go unleashed.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...