Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No James84 (my post was directed at James Barbers unsubstantiated claims btw), I do happen to really believe there is no issue with the unit being in this area and have reasons to back that view up. Youth offenders are not Southwarks biggest criminals. Their misdemeanors range from low level vandalism to burglary. Dangerous teens are locked up in secure units, like all dangerous criminals.


Not arguing for arguments sake at all...but giving a perspective from my own experience of dealing with teens that are offenders and currently under the probabtion service. Surely an informed view is to be welcomed in light of some of the scaremongering above.

The old toilet building on Peckham Rye would serve the purpose.

Although tags on all of them would be better than reporting to a probation officer,the majority of offenders dont take notice of them either.

Being confined at home would be better,and most tag wearers find it embarrassing,a little ridiculing of these numbskulls

is whats needed.

Stocks maybe,pictures on the t.v. Remember the old Police five programme,

No special treatment, like clubs and things to do,they are not special,or deprived,just lazy thieving nasty gits.

They cant even talk properly,so if they cannot pronounce the words properly how can they read and write,and if they cant read and write how can they educate themselves for a better life.Innit get me,

Fair enough DJ I can see your point, but no one can honestly say to me that they arent in the slightest bit disturbed at the prospect of having the majority of Southwarks convicted burglars ( alot of who are reoffenders) travelling into an area of East Dulwich where there is opportunity all around. Its like putting a jar of sweets in front of a child and saying dont eat any of them. Please dont twist the words, I fully appreciate that this thing has to go somewhere, but you cant ask or expect me to be happy about the prospect, that the very guys who potentially burgle me one day, could be 200 metres down the road the next signing with the probation team.
Ah ok...now we get to the real fear...teenage burglars. There are already teenage burglars in the area and in my experience most teenage burglars are opportunists. They look for portable items that are easy to steal and carry, and more often than not steal from those they know. There is no reason think that there will suddenly be a spike in burglary. That is not the evidence from the current location of the unit either. Those attending the unit have no reason to hang around and like I say, most of them are on probation with serious consequences if they reoffend.

DJ you really would argue that black is white wouldnt you, just for the sake of teh argument.


You just said it yourself, burglars on teh whole are opportunists, so why would we want to give them the opportunity by bringing them down to ED and giving them the opportunity to be opportunists in what is a relatively affluent neighbourhood, rich pickings. To be honest where the current unit is located is hardly comparable to ED in terms of opportunity now is it. Burgling one house in ED is going to be pretty profitable on average as opposed to where the current unit is based. And yes given recent events frankly I dont want my wife walking the streets with my daughter in the day with those type of criminals in the area.

You haven't read a single word of what I wrote have you. Teenage burglars do not tend to go out of their way to burgle well securred houses in leafy areas. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your fear. Most of these kids are low level petty theives or vandals and I think it's really sad if you think you need to fear walking the streets. You already do walk amongst low level thieves and vandals. Tell me....do you have the same fear of the Harris Boys Academy.....crikey that's bringing almost 900 teens to the area when full....?

Tarot Wrote:

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


> They cant even talk properly,so if they cannot

> pronounce the words properly how can they read and

> write,and if they cant read and write how can

> educate themselves for a better life.Innit get me,



*Implodes*


(edited, missed off my asterisks)

Look DJ, I did read everything you said, if I missed something, perhaps it is the way you write and the lack of clarity than me not reading your post. It is pointless having any kind of discussion with you, you just speak hot air. You say in one breath that these teenage burglars do not go out of their way to burgle leafy areas, well this isn't going out of their way is it if this unit goes ahead, in fact ED will be very much in their way.


You change your points to suit your argument, one minute you are saying that they are responsible for anything from low level vandalism through to burglary, now you say they only low level criminals or vandals. Which is it then? Make up your mind.


I am quite entitled to voice my opinion, like I said it is an opinion and I am not naive enough to realise that this unit has to go somewhere, and ED is as good a place as any, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.


You seem to have an issue with the Harris academy when it suits you, and then when it sits your argument you don't, it just goes to show how fickle and weak some of your arguments are. You will use anything just to argue that black is white.


It is so annoying sometimes DJ that you feel the need to twist words and points to suit your own agenda and support your own argument. I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you, because you are so arrogant and ignorant that you will never accept that some peoples views are different from your own. I have said that my views will not necessarily be right or that you will agree with them, but they are my opinion which I am entitled to have. What gives you the right all of the time to think that your are correct in everything you say. Its boring

Tarot that is an childish and ridiculous arguement.


The reason the building is moving is that the current building is in need of a huge refurb and is part of an estate that is undergoing a redevelopment as far as I am aware. It therefore makes sense to me to move it to a council owned building that has the space. I see no problem in moving it to ED, even though I have a young child and 'walk the streets with them'. I also work with young people, most of whom have / had involvement with youth offending services.


The building is on the opposite side of playground and there is no reason why the this service would impact on children using the playground. The current service is located very close to a nursery / playground and I don't believe that there has been an impact.


Just to add the criticism of Jame's post- how do you know where the staff live and that it will be more inconvenient for them to travel to work? Odd reasoning.


It is not realistic that these kids are going to come and report for their appointment and then go and burgle the next door neighbours, why would they do that?


As OP have stated most are involved with YOS due to low level offending and by attending their appointments are satisfying the conditions of their sentence and hopefully engaging in some constructive work. Some of them might even live in ED (gasp) or other affluent areas of Southwark. They certainly could come here anytime they wanted if that is what they choose. Despite James' post it really is not hard to get to ED from pretty much anywhere in Southwark.


I accept that there is a lot of strong feelings around at the moment but it would be useful to have a look into what youth offending and other services actually consist of before launching into reactionary arguements.

And without entering the debate, because I can't be bothered, DJKQ I just can't follow your logic when you say there are already teenage burglars in the area, therefore the unit is ok/won't make any difference. How does that follow? Surely, if there are MORE teenage burglars in the area because of a unit (presumably quite a few would have been convicted of burglary/theft) then there would be MORE of them in the area, which surely is a consideration is it not? It doesn't mean the situation is the same, just because some are already here does it?!

Magpie Wrote:

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

> The sporadic outbreaks of disagreement to the board's liberal consensus lasted for a few days,

> but it looks like the lefties are beginning to regain control


Don't get 'liberal' and 'lefty' mixed up - they are quite different and often opposing concepts. I'm a liberal, but not really a lefty.

DB I was making the point that the idea that there will be an increased level of burglary in the area is nonsense and not backed up by any evidence. The offenders that go to the existing unit are from every area of Southwark, inlcuding ED and they go to to attend appointments only, and return home or to school or wherever afterwards. Any suggestion that having the unit in ED will create a new problem (or add to an existing problem) in the area, really is nonsense.


James84 I have no time for the kind of post that resorts to phrases like 'hot air'. You are frustrated because your points are foundering against more informed and reasoned ones - that's all.

I really don't see what this has to do with left and right, other than people spoiling for an argument.


James, I can agree with you that nobody exactly wants this, in that it wouldn't be their first choice. However, I don't understand why people are so against it.


Suggesting that a load of hardened criminals will arrive in dulwich and start looting the place, is an absolute nonsense!

Meeanwhile, back on Topic.


The reason the building is moving is that the current building is in need of a huge refurb and is part of an estate that is undergoing a redevelopment as far as I am aware.


I'd be interested to know if this is true and if the move is therefore temporary. James Barber has given no clear reason for the move...and has been asked to clarify the reaons behind it...i.e. are they financial or as you suggest lisa, temporary pending a refurb. Would be good to have some clarification on this. Will try and find out.

As Otta said, nobody wants it as such. In an ideal world, such facilities would not have to exist at all. But it has to go somewhere, and it just seems self centred to campaign against it.


It also seems strange to suggest that after reporting in, the youths will stick around to harass mums and young kids at the swings over the road.

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...