Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately done by a community who will insist they?re misunderstood and oppressed by wider society. Their reputation precedes them, then they live up to it just make sure.


As I have said, above, there are two entirely separate groups of traditional Travellers, the Roma (or Romani) - who originated, linguistic and genetic research shows, in Northern India/ the Indus Valley (not Egypt) - ironically (considering the Nazi response to them) an old Aryan racial group; and Irish Travellers, most recently from Ireland, of course, but almost certainly, following the end of the last Ice Age, migrants from the Iberian Peninsula as the ice retreated in what became the British Isles. Nobody has yet identified which group our Travellers here are, to start pillorying them with specific reputations. Their outward life-styles (they are travellers) may be shared, but their societal norms, their traditions (even their language) isn't.



Until you know which group you are talking about, an accusation of being 'misunderstood' doesn't seem far off the mark.


And yes, I entirely agree that mass fly-tipping is entirely wrong and vile, and doesn't reflect a build up of refuse which can occur on a temporary site with no organised garbage collection, but is clearly an act of studied vandalism and criminality.


Edited to add:- Can I just say that specific references to the unacceptability of actions by a particular identified group of people (the travellers who occupied the pub and the BT exchange) are OK - but general discriminatory references to Roma/ Romani or Irish Travellers or Travellers in general, lumping the two together ('these people', 'typical' etc.) are leaning into a breach of the anti-discrimination legislation.


Hate this particular group of people, fine, but hating travellers, and making wild generalisations about them, as a class or group, isn't on. That is oppressive.

That picture suggests that they have fly-tipped builder's waste, probably for a back-hander. The people paying them to fly-tip bear some responsibility for all this (unless they have been doing a building job of their own, in which case the person paying for that (and probably not paying VAT etc.) has a responsibility). As for the drug gangs we hear so much about, it is the people buying the drugs who keep them in knives and acid. The more we play (and pay) into a black or criminal economy, the more we fuel criminality.
It's just awful they are all still their they have a 66 plate car and all have new looking cars too So I think you might be right with working and being paid to dispose of the rubbish and they aren't. The children are playing in all the rubbish its just disgusting.
For goodness sake. This isn?t the ice age or the Middle Ages. My ancestors from the Stone Age walked on all fours, used rocks as weapons, would most probably kill anything and everything to survive. They would defecate wherever they felt like it. This is not those days. We have (hopefully) all evolved to become citizens who abide by the general rules of society. Why can?t this group of people do ditto.
It looks like a lot of the rubbish left is from domestic building sites.They are obviously finding work locally and then dumping the waste on the site they happen to occupy as it's cheaper than hiring a skip.In the last 2 weeks I have had 2 people knock on the door asking to do the drive.Someone's stupid enough to employ these "tradesmen".

Sorry penguin I don?t agree, though your posts are always educational and well thought-out.

Every travelling community I?ve seen in UK does seem to insist they?re misunderstood and oppressed (and I?m not saying they?re wrong).

So, for me, my comments are reasonable. I?m not hating anyone, just calling it out about right on these piss-takers.

The muppets at the BT TE will not be holding their hands up agreeing that they?re disingenuous opportunists will they !

Every travelling community I?ve seen in UK does seem to insist they?re misunderstood and oppressed (and I?m not saying they?re wrong).


I think it was your follow-up remark ('Their reputation precedes them, then they live up to it just make sure.') which I was concerned about - a generalisation which I understand but cannot agree with. There are refuse problems associated with travelling communities - who are not served by municipal rubbish collections (which, I agree, they have not paid for) - but this problem is entirely different from intentional fly-tipping of other people's rubbish.


But the more you demonise groups, the more they are likely to act as demons. I am very uneasy about a mind-set which tries to force people to live as you do - although tensions between, e.g. herders and farmers, or indeed hunter gatherers and pastoralists have a long and sad history. If you think of travellers as a peripatetic work force (as they were, and indeed still partly are) then they may seem less threatening.


But your take compared with the take of some other posters is still different (and welcomingly so) in tone.

Chick Wrote:

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

> It's obvious.

>

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > bsand Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Gypsies one of Hitler's untermenschen to be

> > > liquidated.

> >

> >

> > And your point is what, exactly?



If the point is so obvious, Chick, I must be very stupid as I can't grasp it.


So could you explain to me what Hitler's "liquidation" of Gypsies has to do with a thread about the behaviour of a specific, relatively small, group of travellers currently in East Dulwich?


Thanks.

Angelina Wrote:

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

> Yes Sue, they are a minority and therefore are

> privileged with tolerances because we're so scared

> of being labelled as racist/ intolerant



Sorry but that opinion does not explain what Hitler's killing of gypsies has to do with this instance, does it? Or am I being particularly dense?

Angelina Wrote:

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

> Yes Sue, they are a minority and therefore are privileged with tolerances because we're so scared

> of being labelled as racist/ intolerant


you are confusing two completely different things


travellers and gypsies belong to protected groups - this means that they are protected against harassment (which includes name-calling) for being members of that group

they've been given these protections because people have historically harassed them even when they've been minding their own business


BUT they do not have privileges under the law - if they break the law, they face the same sanctions as anyone else who breaks that law.


(poor old Penguin has tried to explain this already)


this lot have dumped stuff and made a mess of somewhere - THAT is the problem, not the fact that they are travellers, or, as one of the more charming posters above put it, 'do as you likeys'

They're going round offering to clear builders rubbish, cut trees etc etc then dumping the stuff and moving on.

My neighbour had them offer to do some clearance for her,

Its obviously what they do, move into an area and go door to door picking up cash jobs then moving on.

Angelina Wrote:

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

> If that were the case there would be repurcussions for what has happened, but that doesn't appear to

> be happening. So, the two do seem to be interwoven



why interwoven?

the council should be sorting it out - has anyone affected complained to them?

and if the land is Dulwich Estates land, as reported in an earlier post, they should be acting as well, so they clearly don't see a problem with it, possibly even an opportunity

Toffee Wrote:

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

> This amount of fly tipping is despicable. These

> people have no conscience. They don?t give a damn

> for the environment or for anyone else but

> themselves. They hide behind the umbrella term

> ?traveller?, yes they might travel but only so as

> to avoid getting caught and punished.


Of course they don't give a fig for the environment because they don't actually live in it for long....I blame the people who enable them to persist in the illegal tipping.

If that were the case there would be repurcussions for what has happened, but that doesn't appear to be happening. So, the two do seem to be interwoven


The primary issue when travelers occupy private land is to remove them (as it would be for illegal squatting). Any consequential prosecutions for e.g. fly tipping require full identification of the fly tippers (who won't be the entire group) - otherwise the prosecution would fail. In fact, it's not worth the effort or bother to prosecute, particularly where (identification issue) a conviction probably doesn't pass the DPP 50% possibility test.


This is nothing about condoning illegal activities and everything about resource utilisation and practicality. Many other criminals also get in under the wire on those grounds. Sadly. But don't see a conspiracy where there isn't one.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The primary issue when travelers occupy private land is to remove them (as it would be for illegal

> squatting). Any consequential prosecutions for e.g. fly tipping require full identification of

> the fly tippers (who won't be the entire group) - otherwise the prosecution would fail.


I think Angelina is right to be puzzled, Penguin, the issue is not about having grounds for prosecution but about moving a bunch of squatters along where they are creating a public nuisance


the Council and police were quick to act when a band of Euro-crusties set up an illegal squat in the old police station on Crystal Palace Road a couple of years back, and again when a group squatted next to the Constitutional Club. those squatters didn't fly-tip all over the site, so were much less of a nuisance

so why isn't there any action here, where there is an actual health and safety hazard?


no wonder people are invoking conspiracy theories, and allowing some of the nastier Forum racists to have a field day

Patatina Wrote:

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

> I live around the corner and have been following

> the developments.

> Is the suggestion that the travellers are also

> responsible for the dumping of the waste (right

> next to where they live)?


If they're not responsible, it's a truly remarkable coincidence that the fly tippers seem to fly tip right next to their caravan sites anywhere they show up!

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...