Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Your post was probably removed because it was an entirely unjustified accusation of racism which was frankly rather silly, which I must say didn't accord with my and my BAME wife's experience of the Dog. I entirely understand why admin had to remove your post, because it was utterly stupid and libelous. Could you please give us a link to your Twitter account, because I'd love to tell your alleged 3000 followers why you're an arse.

Jellybeanz Wrote:

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

> I wrote about my personal experience today at the

> Crown & Greyhound today but tragically the admin

> have deleted the post.


I understand you?re upset at the post being removed, but legally speaking you?ve put the forum in a tricky position. I can understand why it was removed.



>

> Sad times when racist actions are supported even

> by this forum.

>


However this part is just you talking ?^*$?#~ rubbish.

As my Glaswegian relatives might say, ?get to #%^^!?



> Never mind I have almost 3,000 followers on

> Twitter so there are always other ways of telling

> the truth and making others aware.


And that?s what Twitter is for...?nuff said.

hey you lot, tone it down


i read the OP's post before it was taken down and i thought that she had every reason to believe that her family had been badly treated - she might not have been right about the reason why, but you don't know the truth of the matter either. whatever that was, it's distressing enough to think you're getting unfair treatment, when it not just you but your family also involved.


so hold off on the ad hominem attacks and let's see if the pub can help set the record straight


fwiw, OP, calling admin's actions 'tragic' is just a bit excessive

civilservant Wrote:

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

> hey you lot, tone it down

>

> i read the OP's post before it was taken down and

> i thought that she had every reason to believe

> that her family had been badly treated - she might

> not have been right about the reason why, but you

> don't know the truth of the matter either.

> whatever that was, it's distressing enough to

> think you're getting unfair treatment, when it not

> just you but your family also involved.

>

> so hold off on the ad hominem attacks and let's

> see if the pub can help set the record straight

>

> fwiw, OP, calling admin's actions 'tragic' is just

> a bit excessive


No sorry I ain't going for that, the idea that a pub in this neck of the woods would deliberately discriminate against BAME people is frankly ludicrous. I'm tiresomely politically correct but I'm not going for this one. Why has the OP deleted her post?

I read the post as well, and to be honest I thought it was a bit much going on a public forum before the general manager had been given a chance to respond.


Incidents like that are unfortunately still going on, but I have no time for people who hit up social media without giving a functioning business the opportunity to investigate and come back to them.


To then accuse the admin of supporting racism is, as you point out, way over the line.

It was my wife that put the post up. I was there and believe you me, I have lived in East Dulwich for about 18yrs.

I love this place and its multiculturalism. I would be the last person to cry racism and in fact when my wife first alerted me to the fact that the guy had lied to us about the pub's availability I didn't believe it.


I was shocked when I called the pub and was told there WAS availability, in the 2-3 minutes that it took me to call them back using my mobile phone - a table big enough for the exact number of people that I asked had magically become available.


I don't wont to continue with this thread and want to draw a close to this matter. When you brush things aside as political correctness gone wrong, it truly shows your naivety. My children were there and that for me made the experience even more painful.

What has the pub management said? Have they had a chance to investigate?


Allegations like this must rightly be taken seriously but along with that goes an understanding that the business will be given a reasonable timeframe within which to complete such investigations and report back to the customer. To come on social media beforehand, however aggrieved one might feel, is simply unfair. For all any of us know disciplinary procedures might already be underway.


Of course, if you aren?t happy with the response then at that point social media can be your weapon of choice, but until then restraint must be shown.

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> What has the pub management said? Have they had a

> chance to investigate?

>

> Of course, if you aren?t happy with the response

> then at that point social media can be your weapon

> of choice, but until then restraint must be shown.


agree

this may well be cock-up rather than conspiracy, and after all it's in the pub's interest to put the record straight.

Jellybeanz Wrote:

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


> I don't wont to continue with this thread and want

> to draw a close to this matter.


No mate, you don't get to say that. You've accused a respected local business of refusing custom to people on the basis of their ethnicity. Back it up or apologise.

I suspect the two threads / three posts that were deleted infringed the forum's Ts&Cs on defamation (aka libel). Unfortunately the one that started this fourth thread seems to extend the defamation to include the forum, which is silly, and tends to undermine the original argument.


Look, I completely understand that you're both angry and upset, and that this is your interpretation of events, but you must see that you can't publicly accuse someone of a criminal offence without allowing them to put their side? If your version of events is proven - proven - then by all means go for it. Otherwise trial by social media is just bullying, isn't it?

alice Wrote:

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

> jellybean?s a long time poster. I?ll believe them.

> rh back off.



Why does the longevity of someone posting on a local forum somehow ensure their veracity?


Moreover, why does it mean they shouldn?t have to let the business investigate the allegations before coming on social media? This is a serious complaint that should be treated as such, and part of that is not rushing to judgement before the accused has been given the chance to conduct internal enquiries.


How long someone has been on the EDG has no bearing on this.

alice Wrote:

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

> jellybean?s a long time poster. I?ll believe them.

> rh back off.


No, Alice, I won't, when I see rude, stupid and unfounded allegations of racism. There's enough real racism in the world without people flinging around unfounded allegations because they're having a hissy fit about a restaurant messing up their booking. Why precisely does longevity of account on this forum make someone's allegation more believable? And while we're here, why do you think you're some sort of unofficial admin? Make your points, stop the self-righteous telling off of others please.


Still waiting for anything to come up on Twitter telling jellybeanz' 3000 followers about this terrible racism.

If someone is a long term poster it allows ppl to form an opinion ,based on their posts ,as to whether that poster has form for being over sensitive ,always diving in to stir things up for the sake of it ,aggresive ,ridiculous ,bee in their bonnet etc .


I read the OP's description of events ,the amount of detail and balanced tone led me to believe that something had s gone seriously wrong . The OP gave credit where it was due and referred to one of the managers as intervening in a helpful way and that a further response from the pub was awaited .


I didn't read later posts by the OP - perhaps they weren't balanced or calm .But from the description of what happened I can understand how he/his wife drew the conclusions they did .Possibly the conclusions were incorrect ,but we weren't in their shoes and I can see how deeply upset the OP/her husband would be .Upset enough to loose their cool and go on to post incautious posts .


Cut them some slack .

"And while we're here, why do you think you're some sort of unofficial admin? Make your points, stop the self-righteous telling off of others please."

hilarious comment from RH who can happily tell other posters what they can't say and how they're not allowed to stop posting on a thread .





rendelharris Yesterday, 10:56PM


Jellybeanz Wrote:

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


> I don't wont to continue with this thread and want

> to draw a close to this matter.


No mate, you don't get to say that. You've accused a respected local business of refusing custom to people on the basis of their ethnicity. Back it up or apologise.

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...