Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear Maurice,


My mother and her chums park in an antisocial manner outside a church on a regular basis. I have not joined into this thread because I thought it was about her. She is not African. She is Irish. She is one of the loudest churchy religious types you could ever hope to avoid. Fact...


Brenda not only attends her own parish church in Beckenham, she also hangs out with a group of anti social Roman Catholics at St Thomas Moore in Lordship Lane.


Have you ever seen The Reverend Ian Paisley on TV? He is terrified of my mother...FACT.


Have you ever been to an Easter Vigil or a Christmas Midnight Mass? They do not confine their worship to normal office hours either. Fact.


Can I suggest that if you have a problem with our African community or any other ethnic group, you take it somewhere else. The Forum will not accommodate racism.

I do not have a problem myself. But as clearly explained, it is a huge problem in South London. Trying to resolve it has already led, and will lead, to cries of racism. I'm merely stating that. And inevitably, the people who complain defend themselves with similar arguments to yours. Leaving the Council in a pickle. They've even formed a task force and can't figure a way to resolve it.


As I said, I'm only playing 'devil's advocate' (ahem) to explain if you take matters further, you could be branded with a red 'R' on your chest.


It is a bit ironic that I'm being branded a racist but I'm not the one complaining about black churches. People here will get their back's up and say they aren't either, they are complaining about loud churches. But those churches (here) are all black. That will lead to some friction. It already has.

For my sins I had to attend a charasmatic circus once. Can you tell me where there is one causing issues locally that is predominately white or non-black? Perhaps that would give Southwark a broader issue. Times and addresses of such churches causing havoc please. I will write today and complain.


I'm familiar with the Catholics. They are many things but hardly loud.

Fair play to Maurice for having the guts to point out an elephant in the room (whether he is correct or not, I am not sure, as I have not conducted extensive research into noise levels in different churches). I think it rather sad and a reflection on the almost Macarthyite, PC intimidation that typifies our modern society that anyone who mentions differences between the cultures or practices of different racial groups is automatically branded "racist". It is a knee-jerk response by people who seem to want to prove that they are more PC than the next person but ultimately it actually stifles debate and the ability to actually point out and investigate certain facts (or what people believe to be facts and which cannot be proven or disproven unless we have the guts to state, analyse and debate them).


I think the point that Maurice is making is that certain churches and certain evangelical denominations tend to attract congregations that are predominantly from a certain racial group, eg. Afro-Caribbean. The style of worship of some of these congregations tends often to be more effusive and downright loud than other, dare I say it (I dare!), white Anglo-Saxon congregations that are more staid or sedate in their worship. I take Maurice's comments to be a caution that if people complain about those places of worship that tend to be loudest they may well be complaining predominantly about Afro-Caribbean congregations. In the PC social tyranny that we live under he is warning that anyone making such a complaint may well face allegations of racism by those who make their living from detecting discrimination where none exists and who are too cowardly to actually do their jobs in case someone else plays the race card which, as we all know, is kind of a trump card whether there is any evidence to support such racism allegations or not.


I think it a pathetic indictment of our society that, from what Maurice says, our councils are paralysed into inaction by those dangling the Damoclean sword that if they actually carry out their noise-abatement responsibilities someone will come along and accuse them of racism. Well done, Maurice, for having the guts to point these things out. Of course it doesn't make you racist.


Funny, though, that no-one would raise a word of protest if we made the observation that American tourists tend to be quite loud and over-enthusiastic (indeed we even had a thread on this very subject on this very forum) or stated that the English tend to be more reserved and less overtly emotional than other nationalities, or that the Irish are known for liking a drop or two, or that the French have an appreciation for food and good living. I suggest it is a form of inverse-racism that we can observe and state certain cultural/national traits about other nationalities or populations but have to run scared and tread on eggshells of noting certain traits or characteristics of predominantly Afro-Caribbean religious denominations in South London.

I don't think we live in a McArthyite society Dom... there are certainly people who like to find offense at everything and remind one of the Millie Tant character in Viz


And yet, and yet...


One only has to listen to phone-in radio shows to hear many a person, all too clearly racist but feeling they can't QUITE come out and say what they want. Liberal guilt about (in particular) black cultures hasn't arrived out of nowhere


If we lived in a society which didn't have casual racism as part of a daily environment then "plain speaking" might be more possible. It's not just liberal opinion which creates the climate where offending people becomes a touchy subject


It's not racist, offensive or "pc" or "non-pc" to say that the church services to which this thread refers are from an afro-carribean culture. As it happens, I think religious worship from any culture, be it Anglo-Saxon or Afro-Carribean is in itself misguided ... but if it's what people want to do then by all means go ahead. Just don't expect special treatment to non-believers. But Maurice is no martyr for pointing out the bleedin obvious. What gets peoples' radars twitching is the reason behind the complaint


I live close to a church which has these services (or have done.. to be honest I haven't heard a peep for a while) - in any case, for an hour on a Sunday morning it doesn't bother me. Not compared to the yapping dog in the garden of the near-neighbour who let's it whine for hours on end...or the 30-40 something neighbour who still thinks it's 1995, and plays trance at 4am.


If I was to complain about the noise eminating from churches SPECIFICALLY, then I would like to think I am noise sensitive and have a whole bunch of other noises I would like to complain about as well. Living in London, I'm spoilt for choice


To complain about ONLY black people singing/using drums as a noise source does leave one open to accusations of , at best, suspicious motivation. It isn't MCarthyite to be fair to everyone and to be aware of peoples prejudices. And despite what the right--wing media would have us believe, white people JUST ARE NOT persecuted in modern western society.

I'm inclined to agree with Sean. There's no issue saying the church is African or Caribbean. But to use a broad brush such as Maurice's is disingenuous and also plays in to the whole anonymity on the net - "I'll say what I want because you can't see me". I find the most abhorrent views on the internet - Maurice's being nowhere in such leagues - that such 'normal folk' wouldn't say in the real world.


Just as a follow on, I very often note an undercurrent to your posts Maurice that forever seem to find themselves back in the same place. It's a shame your contributions are so singular.


And to the point of the post: if they are loud go and speak to the pastor. If that doesn't work speak to the council who I am sure won't be giving these guys extra special treatment, if they do contact one of the local journalists with your 'plight' it will give them something to do.

As I mentioned above, this thread was motivated not by crypto-racism that I had managed to hide behind my white guilt, but by the fact that my wife and I like to sit in the garden at the weekend without being disturbed by loud noise in the neighbourhood.


I do object to Maurice dragging race into it though, because he seems confused as to what racism is. For there to be anything in his proposition that "It always amuses me how the most liberal can't quite bring themselves to admit they are complaining about a race-based issue", there must be an issue of race at stake. What is it? Is anyone seriously saying that black people are by nature more noisy than white people? Are they genetically predisposed to play amplified drums of a Sunday morning? Has evolution endowed them with a propensity to take all the parking spaces on my road at the weekend so that I have carefully to time my trips to Sainsbury's?


I doubt it. If not, then it is not a race issue, there is no elephant in the room, there is no issue of liberalism or "political correctness" (whatever that means) to object to.


It's sloppy thinking, Maurice.

I think Maurice is not a happy chappie, because his posts are often reactionary. Maybe he needs the services of the ED massage parlours mentioned on the other thread. What's your preference Mr M? I'm sure you will find a little light relief if you prowl the newsagents windows.

I'm getting older Buzzard and empathise completely with the "I just want a quiet Sunday morning without any racket" sentiment


But if I had a garden to sit in (pauses momentarily and wonders why that isn't the case) I'm not sure the sound you describe (as I understand it) would be that much of a problem. That's not me trying to deny it is a problem for you, just.... there are worse is what I'm saying


All that said, after the weekend I have had, they clacking of the keys as I type is a major noise problem for me ;-)

Believe me, Chavster, the knowledge that I only a phone call away from a professional rub n tug is all that keeps me from going crazy.


Sean, not sure I get your point. Are you saying that I should shut up because I am privileged enough to have a garden? Is that how it works? Mate, It's not that much to aspire to, and hardly lifts me above the ordinary.

Buzzard - most definitely am not saying anything of the sort. Sorry if I wasn't clear. And please don't "shut up" about anything


I was simply making the point that other things would disturb me more - I only mentioned me not having a garden as an attempt at self-deprecation

I can fully understand Buzzard's frustration. I imagine Sunday may be the one day Buzzard gets the chance to relax in his garden and it is the one day of the week when his garden is subject to noise pollution - a grim and irritating irony. One of the things I really notice about London is the noise, particularly when I have been elsewhere and really had the chance to appreciate quiet and return to London afterwards. What I mean by this is that even when it is 'quiet' in London, it is still noisy - there is this constant, low-level ambient noise that raises stress levels to some degree. Having some peace and quiet is an absolute Godsend (no pun intended!) and I can appreciate Buzzard's intense frustration at having that polluted. Noise pollution is something that can only really be understood when it has been experienced. A number of years ago I lived two floors above a woman who was, quite literally, clinically insane and would make an unbelievable racket all night long. I would not have believed beforehand how much my life would have been affected by her behaviour but it was simply unendurable - and I was TWO SOUNDPROOFED CONCRETE FLOORS away from her. The girl in the flat between us had to spend time living at her mum's place.

Yeah, the missus and I lived for about 4 months in a place that ostensibly seemed a great flat, and for 3 weeks it was.

Then the family who lived upstairs returned and life became hellish. There was absolutely no soundproofing between the floors and every single step thundered down from above. Add into the mix two young children who loved running about upstairs, and it was really no joy.


We were going through a really rocky patch in our relationship at the time, and it wasn't until we moved out (the landlord was having the flat repossessed by the bank, he was a dodgy operator at every level) into a place with peace and quiet, and we finally started getting good nights' sleep that we realised how much it had affected our lives, and came damn near to breaking us up.


For the record, we never blamed the family, they were lovely and nothing they could do, but I never want to live through that again, it was like chinese water torture!!

My first flat in London was a nightmare.

Terrible conversion.. the couple upstairs played the same track over.. and over .. and OVER again for days on end. They vacuumed at 3am. We could hear they fighting (physically fighting.. things being thrown etc). They left taps running and went out for the weekend so we could hear the "ssssssssss..." of the cold water tank for the duration. Madness.

Wilko, Sean.


We moved to ED because my previous flat was on a main road in the posh part of Hackney (ho ho) and escaping the noise from the traffic (particularly buses) was the prime motivation to come here. Give me the aeroplanes overhead anyday, but spare me the amplified drumming.

I sold a place in Brockly SE4 some time ago - on paper , it was fantastic, the reality was horrendous - evrry creak and footstep was amplified - you could hear every workd of a drunken conversation and every single note of Elton John they quietly played after getting back late on a friday night ( why is it always Elton John ? )



its just been sold again - in the region of ?350K


for a 2 bed flat !


In Brockley !


With no soundproofing!



an exopensive mistake for someone sadly

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...