Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just another warning as I think I have heard of a few repeat incidents recently down this road. I guess in London it can happen anywhere though. Walking down Melbourne Grove last night on way back from station at around 10pm. I got jumped by a young black guy in a blue hoody. I'm a fairly big guy (so this kid must have had no fear) but still didn't fancy trying to take him on just incase, luckily I managed to be quick and ran away from him back to some life on Lordship lane. all ok without loosing anything. Unless you have to I would try to avoid going that way late at night.


Didn't even see him coming and he snuck out between the cars.


I guess it's not that well lit and generally not many people about on that road.

Of interest to many including the police is .. is this the same person who acted against the woman in the other mugging thread. Could you describe the person who attacked you and could the woman in the other thread describe her assailant? Is it the same person?

'black boy in a hoody'


Actually the description given was "a young black guy in a blue hoody" - which is a bit less generic, and might trigger others who saw such a youth lurking (or may even have been accosted by him).


Of course report to the police - but the description and the other information 'Didn't even see him coming and he snuck out between the cars' may also be helpful.


The balance to be got is between posting infomation about attacks and thinking that this necessarily makes the area dangerous, or increases people's fear (as oppposed to wariness).


To warn people that 'black people might mug you' or to hypothecate that a reported mugging 'might' be by a black person is to express unnecessary and unacceptable racial bias - to report 'a black person mugged me' is a simple description of an event - the easiest descriptors for us tend to be sex, age, height, colour, distinctive clothing. The description (a young black guy in a blue hoody) gives at least 4 of those, and implictly (because the poster says he is big, implying the attacker was smaller) some inkling of the 5th.


I think it is entirely reasonable to warn people, I believe that muggers not infrequently choose the same haunts to mug in (and tend not to travel too far to do it) - so a warning (if accompanied by reporting this to the police) seems appropriate and helpful.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> the easiest descriptors for us tend to be

> sex, age, height, colour, distinctive clothing.

> The description (a young black guy in a blue

> hoody) gives at least 4 of those, and implictly

> (because the poster says he is big, implying the

> attacker was smaller) some inkling of the 5th.


Couldn't have put it better myself. Of all the people walking around East Dulwich last night, this surely narrows it down to under 5%. So not exactly useless. Somebody else must have seen him.


I really think it's time people stopped being so sensitive about this kind of thing, "black" is not a forbidden word.

Ethnicity is a key feature in describing anyone physically after a crime or attempted crime. Had the assailant been caucasian he would have been described as such and no-one would have bat an eyelid I'm sure. Let's just be thankful that on this occasion the little thieving scumbag got nothing.

Bobbly: If you said what pub we were meeting in, I probably would recognise you. Likewise if I saw you on Melbourne Grove

And bodsier: Are you seriously suggesting that the victims of crime should keep their descriptions of their assailants a secret between them and the police, on the offchance that someone might be wrongly suspected of the crime? Aren't you more concerned about the safety of other innocents walking down Melbourne Grove, who might like to know of local dangers?

Still, if anyone has information about anyone beaten to death in police custody as a result of a description on the East Dulwich Forum mentioning colour, do tell all. Three examples would be good. Or how about one?

Descriptions are good so long as they are detailed descriptions. Those were not descriptions, i think even xone would agree with me there.


With regard to the info re death in police custody. look at this link........


http://www.irr.org.uk/2002/november/ak000006.html


Have you ever questioned what the shrine outside Brixton police station is for?

Otto Wrote:

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

> Thanks for posting. I am glad to have the

> information as that is route I often travel, and,

> send babysitters home via. It is indeed useful to

> know. I am glad you escaped, and, hope you can

> shake off the bad experience soon...



I second that! Thank you, useful post and content!


Edited to add, glad your ok!

In real life, 'white' people are a sort of pink colour and 'black' people are various shades of brown. When have you ever seen a truely white or black person? My betting is never!


Why do some of the posters on the forum feel reports like this have to be turned into a colour thing. Far more serious is the fact that someone nearly got attacked. We should all be together on this. We all bleed the same, regardless of our ethnic heritage.

ClareC Wrote:

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

> Otto Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Thanks for posting. I am glad to have the

> > information as that is route I often travel,

> and,

> > send babysitters home via. It is indeed useful

> to

> > know. I am glad you escaped, and, hope you can

> > shake off the bad experience soon...

>

>

> I second that! Thank you, useful post and

> content!

>

> Edited to add, glad your ok!


I third that!

hhhhm exactly the kind of response i was expecting. can anyone think beyond their own experience? its horrible to be mugged of your posessions of course it is, awful when it results in injury. but consider the implications to young black men, constantly harrassed by police, and often beaten up whilst in custody, some fatally? Why don't we discuss it over a drink. How shall i describe myself....... white with blue hoody,or black with blue hoody...... either way would you recognise me?


And exactly the kind of response I'd expect by someone fixated on the wrong issue here. Police will target any group when there is a prevalance of a certain crime in an area - because it increases their chances of an arrest. Recently there was a spate of teenage on teenage muggings in Peckham Rye Park for example...so the Police targettted teenagers. Far more teenagers were 'harassed' than those that were involved in any kind of crime, so are you going to argue that the rights of those teeneagers wrongly 'harassed' are worth more than the prevention of crime or even the chance of arresting those involved (especially given that a stop and search harms no-one)?


At the end of the day, those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from the Police. Police do not patrol the streets beating people up. When complaints are made it is usually during an arrest or from time spent in Police custody. Those people are usually being arrested or are in custody for a reason. Where the Police overstep the mark there are consequences for them, investigated by other agencies.


The list you posted a link to lists deaths in custody and NOT deaths found to at the hands of Policemen and women themselves (this is an important distinction to make seeing as you claim that black men are 'often beaten up whilst in custody' even though all Police Stations have CCTV includng in all cells!!! Where is your evidence of that???).


It is not only black people that die whilst in custody and also your inferrment is that Police are always repsonsible for deaths in custody is not born out by the evidence. Most deaths are the result of an underlying health condition or mental health condition that Police can not be aware of at the time. Others die whilst trying to escape from Police or immigration officials - over balconies for example. Again - they are running for a reason. This idea that innocent or otherwise black men are generally treated in some way differently by the Police to others is a myth. It may have been the case in the past, but not any more.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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