Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The YOS is currently located on the Aylesbury estate which is about as central to Southwark in population terms as you can get. The Bradenham block is due to be demolished at some point but not soon. I suspect this has more to do with finding a tenant of the current Adoption and Fostering centre which is moving to Cator Street.


The ED SNT ward panel is concerned that local Police will be distracted from reducing local crime by dealing with YOS visitors. When asked the local Police said they would expect to have to deal with YOS visitor issues. They also said risk it would be a serious drain on Police officer time.


It isn't a particularly attractive concept DJKillaQueen to have all Southwarks young burglars etc sent by law to visit our area. Many wont have ever visited before so real risk we'll be adding ED to their reportiore.


On Eco grounds maximising the distance travelled as per the plans for each visitor will increase CO2 emissions.

Social grounds why send young criminals as far as you can from their homes and their communities to access the YOS.


And DJKillaQueen if ED has such brilliant transport links as you suggest why do we not see any businesses relocate from Borough or London Bridge?

No one in particular - my personal impression of this board is that the consensus on most issues - economics or crime say - is essentially left leaning. In addition there is a snobbery against, for example, the "buggy brigade" in East Dulwich. For a few days we had a more diverse sweep of opinion with, shall we say, more robust views on crime, but now they have all been driven off or bored to tears with essays on disaffected youth, and so situation is back to normal.

"In addition there is a snobbery against, for example, the "buggy brigade" in East Dulwich. "


I would disagree with that - there are a couple of eejits who bang on about them but I would say most of the "left leaners" on here are very much IN teh buggy brigade


As for the more diverse sweep of opinionin recent days, it has largely consisted of "hang 'em/jail 'em/export 'em" - which isn't really that helpful is it?

It depends on your perspective or "explanation" for the recent riots. I acknowledge that most of the people involved will have grown up living in depressing accomodation, with terrible or non-existent parents, and attend struggling schools. However, most of them have also never been disciplined, no-one has ever stood up to them or said no, and hence a strong response (eg jail time) may do them some good, and act as a deterrant to others. By all means lets look at improving opportunities in inner cities, but don't kid yourself that its a lack of opportunity that has failed them - discipline and self discipline are just as important, and no-one has ever given them that.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The YOS is currently located on the Aylesbury

> estate which is about as central to Southwark in

> population terms as you can get. The Bradenham

> block is due to be demolished at some point but

> not soon. I suspect this has more to do with

> finding a tenant of the current Adoption and

> Fostering centre which is moving to Cator Street.

>

> The ED SNT ward panel is concerned that local

> Police will be distracted from reducing local

> crime by dealing with YOS visitors. When asked the

> local Police said they would expect to have to

> deal with YOS visitor issues. They also said risk

> it would be a serious drain on Police officer

> time.

>

> It isn't a particularly attractive concept

> DJKillaQueen to have all Southwarks young burglars

> etc sent by law to visit our area. Many wont have

> ever visited before so real risk we'll be adding

> ED to their reportiore.>

> On Eco grounds maximising the distance travelled

> as per the plans for each visitor will increase

> CO2 emissions.

> Social grounds why send young criminals as far as

> you can from their homes and their communities to

> access the YOS.

>

> And DJKillaQueen if ED has such brilliant

> transport links as you suggest why do we not see

> any businesses relocate from Borough or London

> Bridge?




lol an they say taht the librals are sposed to be the vioce of reson amognst teh reactoinary govrnment i am suprisd at yuo mr baber thuogh doutles you hav suport from many concrned redisents in this statment yuo know tat ole saying that whoevr yuo vote fr the govrnment alwys wins best kepe the burglars in alesbury estete wher they can only bugrle there own kind lol

So James B, in other words, you don?t really know the reasoning behind the move when it is clearly obvious the current building is going to be demolished. Priceless. So I ask the next question. Is the Centre to be accommodated in the plans for the rebuilding of the estate? I 'suspect' the move is temporary because of the refurb which in turns leads me to accuse you of deliberately being vague (you made no account of the demolition in other threads for example) but will give you the chance to at least get a definitive answer on that.


The local Police also said the same things about the Harris Boys Academy too before that opened....but it is an argument that could be used to save any reduction in the local SNT as well...wherever the centre is, it has police involvement as part of the probation service, and ED does have a low strain on it?s Police resources compared to neighbouring wards anyway.


Many wont have ever visited before so real risk we'll be adding ED to their reportiore.


Where is your evidence of such a claim?


And Jeremy is right. The co2 emission argument is a non argument as the no. of bus or train services will not be reduced or increased as a result of a few teens travelling a bit further than usual. Apart from transport fuel....what other co2 concerns are there? I ?suspect? James tried that point because it appeals to the sensibilities of his electorate.


Btw James, it was not me who said ED had good transport links.....look back over the thread.

Manda> And if the SNT are predicting issues then they must have some cause for concern, past experience.


James Barber's words were "The ED SNT ward panel is concerned that local Police will be distracted." To which my internal response was: Who are this ward panel, where can I find out about them, their appointment, remit and deliberations?

The ward panel meets every three months and comprises of the Safer Neighbourhood Police Team, Community Leaders and residents/ members of the public. Anyone can attend. At those meetings, priorities for local policing by the SNT team are set for the coming months.

DJKQ wrote

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


'lefty' must be the most misused word on the forum I think and generally means anyone that doesn't agree with the moral conservative stance of the 'I'm alright Jack' and NIMBY brigade....no? ;)


I have to agree with DJKQ on this thread there some people who think "yes let have youth offenders unit so long it is not in my back yard! who is to say we don't have youth offenders living in ED it may be easier for them to register there.

edresi10 Wrote:

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

> Its pretty amazing that the DJ lady does not event

> live in ED but still insists on sticking her beak

> into ED business.


I live on the edge of Peckham Park and have done so for 23 years....so it IS my area........ED is not an island....get over yourself.


And yes Ridgley, there are youth offenders in ED, along with Nunhead, Forest Hill, Camberwell, Peckham and so on.



WTF is with comments like this? I might have my run-ins with DJKQ but she is definitely around ED, shows her face, gets involved and has been posting on this forum for a fair while. She is definitely not some interloper hiding behind a keyboard

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> This is excactly the kind of cr@p that shows just

> how juvenile some people are. If you can't be

> civil, and not resort to insult...don't debate.


Pot calling teh kettel black there DJ with your last response.

Ty SJ.....I might not always get things right (or say the right thing) but I do get involved with the local community and try to do good things. And no-one can question my interest in the local area or even my input to this forum (both good and bad). I think edresi is just looking for a reaction tbh....

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> "East Dulwich Road, eh? So just a stone's throw

> from the Tesco..." Loz wrote on page one.

> Anyone else even trying to hide a snigger at this

> faux pas?


No faux pas - it was an attempted joke, PR. I need to be less subtle. Though I blame admin for taking away our smileys.

Not really just looking for some indication that you understand that this isnt the bloody DJKillaQueen show- it s apublic forum where people will voice opinions, and that yours is not always right. Fair enough you have your own views but you have no right to try and bully people into accepting them, or be so ignorant to stand there and say that your views are the only right ones. It quite simple pi**es people off as has been proven today, again!!!!

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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


>

> Btw James, it was not me who said ED had good

> transport links.....look back over the thread.



Indeed - it was me! And ED has got a darn sight better transport links than the Aylesbury! :p

So let me get this straight DJ 'don't mind if I fill-her' Queen. There are already robbers / vandals in ED so we might as well welcome more?! Everyone knows that 'once a criminal, always a criminal' - These guys might just finish their two monthly appointments of annoyingly indirect train routes to ED and complete everything by paper but they'll be back alright. You yourself admit that these youngsters are opportunists and just as James84 says - ED is comparatively better to do a spot of free window shopping than other boroughs. Moreover as Councillor James touches on - if they weren't aware of ED opportunities beforehand they soon will be after spending their afternoons to and from 'rehab' checking out endless amounst of single pain Victorian bay windows.


The ones that will be coming by are only those that have been caught and are forced to rehabilitate - doesn't stop them relaying info of the next treasure trove to be added to their miscreant mates' list of places to trash.


You want it set up next door to you then do you? Obviously you don't have children to consider, a house / flat that you value, and friends that don't mind get shards of glass between their toes and they walk over the threshold of your busted-in doorway? If they did set up next door to you I'm sure it wouldn't be a bad move all round - You and your incessant rants about all things ED will bore them stupid, which in itself might prove a good crime deterrant.


Who are you kidding - no-one wants a criminal living next door let alone a high turn over of them! It's almost certainly inevitable but you can't have a go at people because they've VERY good reasons to be concerned about this. Selfish!!

And I'm merely expressing a point of view too.


If people make unproven claims to back their view then others are perfectly free to challenge that. I haven't bullied anyone. I've simply questioned viewpoints that are based on nothing but unfounded fear and assumption. I know that because I know teenage offenders, I know how the system works. What you call bullying is just strong counter debate and of course it's hard to counter that if you have nothing to counter it with.


The only people who are p1ssed off are those who don't want the unit here but have no real valid argument backed by evidence to prevent it. In other words, they don't want those kinds of kids in their area. Those kinds of kinds already ARE in their area.

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...