Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A 74 year old man was walking home at 8.15 when he Was attacked , beaten black and blue and stabbed in the stomach . He was robbed and left in the dark in the park .

An absolutely horrendous senseless crime that if anyone witnessed please call the police !

The culprits were two black youths , one tall with a beard and one short boy .

I personally know no more as this has been posted on face book 😡

This is how the daughter of the man who was attacked described them .


If this is how someone close to the attack described the attackers I think it is legitimate to use the term, perhaps more helpful in retrospect if the description was put in quotes - perhaps saying 'described as ...' To someone who is in their mid seventies (I am pushing towards that) the relative youth of the attackers may have been a salient point - being attacked by 'boys' may be more worrying than being attacked by grown men - although a bearded boy does leave me slightly confused. Some adolescents nowadays do seem to have straggly beards I have noticed.


Amended to add - even someone in his mid-seventies, unless he was either an American from the South or South African, would be unlikely to use the word 'boy' as a general pejorative to describe someone of African descent. It is not UK usage, I would have thought.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> "Two black boys"? I don't give a damn what

> uncleglen, Loz and various other Daily Mail style

> commenters think, some of nomenclature on here is

> getting bloody ridiculous.


That's the trouble rh- you 'think' you know what I 'think'....and fyi I only read Private Eye

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "Two black boys"? I don't give a damn what

> > uncleglen, Loz and various other Daily Mail

> style

> > commenters think, some of nomenclature on here

> is

> > getting bloody ridiculous.

>

> That's the trouble rh- you 'think' you know what I

> 'think'....and fyi I only read Private Eye



Pot. Kettle. Black. If you'll pardon the phrase...


Back on topic, I personally find the use of the word 'black boy' unhelpful as a description when that is all that is goven - the other thread was a perfect example of this. Here there are more details given, which gives a better impression of someone trying to give a description, and from the sounds of it that's probably all they could ascertain of these heinous young fools.


I wonder though, would it have seemed half as offensive if it had been 'black male youths'? Language evolves over time.


I hope the victim mounts a full recovery, no one deserves such brutality.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> [..] Loz and various other Daily Mail style commenters think [...]


Are you actually calling me a 'Daily Mail style commenter'?? Really? What an ignorant, first-class a******* you are.


Take your half-baked, half-witted opinions and shove them where the sun don't shine, you tosser. You obviously know sod-all about me.

I am half black and I describe black people as black people. Black people call themselves black too. Fancy that. Are we racist to ourselves? But obviously More details would be helpful in the sense of clothes, height, any distinguishing marks? So that we know who to look out for.

I hope they are caught soon before they do this to someone else.

That?s what the facebook plee said and no more of a description of the boys/men or where in the park . I thought just a warning on here would be helpful and also people would want to know , I?m kind of regretting posting this now !

There is also a picture of the poor man with a very bruised face but I thought better of posting that as very upsetting

Loz Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > [..] Loz and various other Daily Mail style

> commenters think [...]

>

> Are you actually calling me a 'Daily Mail style

> commenter'?? Really? What an ignorant, first-class

> a******* you are.

>

> Take your half-baked, half-witted opinions and

> shove them where the sun don't shine, you tosser.

> You obviously know sod-all about me.


And I'm thoroughly delighted that that's the case, I can assure you.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

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

> I am half black and I describe black people as

> black people. Black people call themselves black

> too. Fancy that. Are we racist to ourselves? But

> obviously More details would be helpful in the

> sense of clothes, height, any distinguishing

> marks? So that we know who to look out for.

> I hope they are caught soon before they do this to

> someone else.


No of course it's not racist to use the term "black people" per se. But when, as happens often on this forum, details of a crime are posted with just the details that they were committed by "black boys," "a black man" etc and nothing else, does that help anybody? Are we all to keep a careful eye out for "black boys"? To my mind all it does is promote a negative stereotype and won't do anything at all to assist in the apprehension of the perpetrators.

I could find no record of this incident having been reported on elsewhere which given the seriousness of it was surprising. It was not on the met police website under Southwark or South London. I rang the Met Police non emergency help line this morning and they confirmed they have no record of this event in Peckham Rye Park or Peckham Rye common.
  • Administrator

I've removed unnecessary posts. I'm getting rather fed up of people having to state their opinion about something that takes away from the serious context of the main message.


Please stay on topic.

Administrator Wrote:

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

> I've removed unnecessary posts. I'm getting rather

> fed up of people having to state their opinion

> about something that takes away from the serious

> context of the main message.

>

> Please stay on topic.


Thank you Admin

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...