Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It was fairly clear from the meeting that there was never any chance the road would get permanently shut so i'm not sure why Southwark didn't stamp out the idea earlier in the year. And, apart from total re-build, there is only one safe option for re-opening it, traffic lights with single lane width restriction. So why they waited to make a final decision after the meeting escapes me. To me, the meeting was there to communicate the proposal and so locals could vent their frustration.


What we now need to do is keep up the pressure on Southwark and Network Rail to develop a re-build solution, so the traffic lights can be removed. The key to all of this is NR booking a weekend possession of the track to demolish the old and lift in a new bridge. These possessions can take many months/years to arrange and only happen on a few periods during the year so early planning could shave years off the construction. It can be done at the same time as the overdue traffic strategy for Camberwell and Peckham which the residents/councillors were demanding.

How very refreshing to hear some common sense from recb who obviously knows what he's talking about. Let me know if there's anything I can do to keep up the pressure.


As for Maurice, why not move to Grove Park? The peace and tranquility which you've enjoyed in the Grove will soon be restored and we can get in some AK-47 practise in Lettsom Gardens.


Andrew

Maurice Wrote:

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

Bob hasn't read my

> previous posts, which clearly show I saw the

> writing on the road. There was no need to fight

> it.


Basically you thought you'd lose, so you couldn't be bothered. Poor attitude.

Bob you clearly haven't understood me, poor soul. Not only did I 'think we'd lose', I believe we should've 'lost'. I think my position on that has been clear. I only bemoaned the fact that we couldn't win (I was sure we wouldn't and for that matter, shouldn't).


Now we can look forward to severe back-ups along the road. I may try and offer a window washing service for donations.

A traffic light will make the street a permanent traffic jam.


Really cr@p idea.


I think it's just posh bashing, a bit like the hunting ban. Gives the little guy a feeling of smug satisfaction that he managed to poke a finger in the eye of his more privileged overlords but in reality achieves nothing of any political or moral significance.


My preference would be to pedestrianise but as that doesn't seem realistic then I'd prefer it to be a one way street flowing South to North so that drivers from ED could come to Camberwell but couldn't escape with the same ease..

nobody thinks that traffic lights are a fantastic solution. Unforetunately it is the only safe solution. This was spelt out at the meeting. It safely caters for pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and the residents of the surrounding diversion route streets. In the words of the traffic officer, the partial aim of lights and width restriction is to slow down traffic thereby discouraging non-local drivers. and its only for the medium term whilst Network Rail get around to replacing the bridge.


and "posh bashing", "political or moral significance". you're missing the facts - ITS A ROAD.

Alan


It is certainly not posh bashing. That's a ridiculous thing to say. There has been a few jokes at Maurice's expense which he has been happy (generally) to play along with.


Did you even attend the meeting and listen to the arguments? These arguments have been well rehearsed and don't need to be repeated again.


The traffic lights are only supposed to be a temporary solution until the bridge can be repaired. No-one really wants traffic lights but it is (according to the experts) the safest solution for the time being. The council agreed to look at the whole issue of traffic management in the area. And that's what this exercise was about - traffic management not posh bashing

I wasn't at the meeting and I'm not a member of the Countryside Alliance but I can still see when people are delighting in flying in the face of the wishes of their wealthier neighbours.


I'm sure you're the same crowd who killed off the countryside from your London based Old Labour strongholds.

What joy! I'm delighted for her. I, too, would dance with glee if given a free flat with garden in Camberwell Grove at the young age of 19, just for having a baby. I'm honestly happy she's able to drive her car more easily - a key plank, no doubt, of the Green Party.


It's a joyful day for all. Well done, the road is open.

Alan


Your comments are idiotic. The three camps that argued most strongly against the road being closed were based in the North side of camberwell grove, lyndhurst grove and grove park. There is no wealth issue with these camps (these are affluent areas); just a community that argued articulately that the road should be opened for the greater good.


I should stick to commenting on issues that affect "selbourne village"


Lets not turn this into a class debate because it was never about that.

agreed, lets stick to the issues rather than decend into a bout of half jokes and vindictiveness.


lets get things straight, this was never about if the road should be re-opened, it was when and how to do it safety. Its a god damn road and has been for centuries and it was only because it was damaged was it shut. If NR had fixed it the day after it would never have come to these arguments. Its got absolutely nothing to do with who lives on the road.


I don't live on GC but use it daily as a pedestrian and agree that having it used as a rat run is in nobody's interest. However this is a completely separate matter to the temporary closure and needs to be considered in an area wide study. After this, along with other measures, it may be shown that the community is better served with closing the road.


As mentioned above, I suggest we concentrate our efforts on getting Southwark and NR to carry out a traffic strategy and replace the bridge.

The second post on the thread refers to the residents of SE5s most desirable road and the fact they are probably happy to keep it closed.


Throughout the thread thereafter there are a number of comments about how wealthy people in this area are and you don't have to be Maurice to pick up on the underlying sentiment.


As for being god damned idiotic and sticking to Selbourne issues then I think you are just trying to wind me up or oppress my opinion. Either way I still think we should let the toffs back on their horses and out into the countryside to kill.


With regard to the closure of the road then I would like to see it remain shut - it makes for a much more pleasant walk when I take my fellow peasants from 'selbourne village' on their through the keyhole walking tour of how the other half live. Now I'll be worried that the stragglers will be knocked down by speeding boom-boom cars.

You needn't worry about being knocked down as you'll be able to cross the road at the traffic lights. Also, CG is a wide straight road with big pavements protected by trees so you won't get into any scrapes (unlike some of the surrounding roads which are also equally salubrious if you wanted to extend your tour).


I'm sorry but it is a little daft to equate opening a public road and fox hunting. If there's been an underlying sentiment, it is one of NIMBYism which is not posh bashing. I don't count chav's and maurice's interactions cause they always bash each other regardless of the issue.


The CG closure is an emotive issue for the surrounding residents because of a number of accidents due to the displaced traffic. The Selbourne Village comment is a reference to the fact that you shouldn't be continuingly calling for the closure of the road where one (i) you are not directly affected by this otherwise than enjoying walking on the road as there are no cars (which is the case for every road anywhere), (ii) you weren't at the meeting to hear all the issues, (iii) you haven't participated in any neighbourhood or council discussions on this issue.


If you'd have come to the meeting and heard all the arguments and still felt the same way, then fair enough. But you can't comment from afar and then label a decision "posh bashing" or akin banning fox hunting when your only involvement has been to comment on this forum.

Of course you are correct Mrs BJ but do give poor Alan a pass. He is infected with 'Camberwell-ism', which is a condition whereby dozens of folks shout from the sidelines and debate the issues ad naseum but never do anything. You'll have noted some of that with the recent needle bru-ha-ha in East Dulwich. I'm equally guilty, though I point out I knew the outcome, knew it was right and simply stated my own personal wish, despite knowing it was in vain.


Read over on the chat boards in Camberwell. It's a hoot. Everybody has all the answers but no one ever does anything. Oh I do beg your pardon on the Baths folks. They did manage a delightful turnout and have saved the day it appears. I say they should just all move to ED. You all have far more do-ers and you're getting millions for your Leisure Centre first time lucky!


As for my ongoing fued with Chav, I'll simply make this mature comment in hopes of ending it. She started it!!!!

As to whether I can or can't comment then I think you'll find that I can and do. You may not take it seriously but that is your perogative. I think you're just annoyed though BJ because your street isn't as good as the Grove. At least you can always look down your nose at 'Selbourne Village'.


And as for the inability of the people of Camberwell to take action other than gossip online then I accept that is a fair criticism. I posted something to that effect on Camberwellonline recently but no-one did anything about it!

Mr Bojangles Wrote:

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

> It was rather fun.

>

> I thought the CG residents (those who wanted the

> road to remained closed) were made to look rather

> silly and totally selfish.


Finding it 'rather fun' but definitely not posh bashing were you BJ?

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...