Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As a keen supporter of most of the independent shops in East Dulwich I was very excited to go down to Goose Green today and spend my hard earned on various trippery and frippery within the tents on the green. At the time I was pushing my 5 month old in his pram, he was a sleep. I went to enter the main tent and was turned away saying that I could not enter the tent with a pushchair.


What a bunch of muppets, do they know who their target market is? It does not take a brain surgeon to understand that all these small businesses are frequented on a daily basis by parents and their children, not wanting to get in a war with those who want to avoid the little people. The organization of this event must have predicted some form of precipitation or inclement weather.


As I walked away feeling incredibly frustrated I told all parents with children the sad facts that they could not enter the Fairy Grotto due to the fact that Santa was only seeing people who could walk on their hind legs.


I was well and truly SNUBBED by the SNUB WINTER GREEN FAIR

Got to admit, the tent was really poorly laid out. Simply too many stalls allowed in such a small space. Forget about the push chair; there wasn't even room to stop and browse unless you wanted the ten people behind you to have to wait until you were done before they could get past. I felt like I had to rush through the tent so didn't get to spend much time in there.


Good concept. Poor planning. As for no push chairs - schoolboy error (but not surprising considering the size of the tent)!

I was about the post the same re the tent layout - what a nightmare! I managed to get my pram in but was them followed round by the pram police, asking 'Are you going to be looking at that for long?' and 'Can you move on please!' I moved the pram over as close to tha stalls I was looking at as possible! I was not going to carry a sleeping 7 month old around!


The kids enjoyed themselves, powering the music stage, trying all the free samples and making Christmas cards, but I felt it to be very un-family-friendly, the tents needed to be much bigger!

well even though you think they do, pushchairs do not fit in everywhere unfortunately.. and they certainly did not fit in that tent with the 2 foot of space to walk through .. it was seriously crammed too tight with no thought being given to people trying to pass as others bothered to stop at stalls


I went child-free and was frustrated by those maneouvering toddlers around if I'm honest


I didn't notice a santa's grotto in the main tent .. but really? you were taking a 5 month old to see Santa? precious first born by any chance? >:D<

Curmudgeon - what kind of sad unfamily friendly git are you! "Precious first born" indeed, just because a parent like Grumpydad has a baby to tote around - not everyone in London has willing relatives or staff (like I obviously do) to care for their little ones while they hit the shops. Life does not stop because we have children you know, and attitudes like yours - expecting those of us with children to stay at home, are what cause postnatal depression, isolation and anxiety in new parents. Get over yourself.


Winter Green = Victor Meldrew fair.

dulwichmum Wrote:

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

> Curmudgeon - what kind of sad unfamily friendly

> git are you! "Precious first born" indeed, just

> because a parent like Grumpydad has a baby to tote

> around - not everyone in London has willing

> relatives or staff (like I obviously do) to care

> for their little ones while they hit the shops.

> Life does not stop because we have children you

> know, and attitudes like yours - expecting those

> of us with children to stay at home, are what

> cause postnatal depression, isolation and anxiety

> in new parents. Get over yourself.

>

> Winter Green = Victor Meldrew fair.




I'm not sad nor unfriendly I merely commented on the perceived need to take a 5 month old to see Santa (which may or may not have been the case) in a jokey fashion .. and 'precious firstborn' is a friendly joke in my circles reflecting the precious aspect that all first-time parents seem to adopt in the early months/years until they get more experienced or have more children


I didn't realise that in other circles parents give up the ability to laugh at themselves?


So I shan't get over myself, but maybe you should


(parent of 2)

I think that it was obviously a mistake putting the stalls too close together, but saying that the organisers were snubbing families is a bit daft, I suggest you go and get your entrance money back. I understand it was the first event they've done and I'm sure they'll adjust the spacing for next time.

I staggered through with friends who have two youngish kids. It was a nightmare. I dont surpose that the organisers were in any way family unfriendly - but there awareness of their needs seemed to be nil.


The sight of about dozen buggies lined up outside the tent would have been amusing if it werent so sad. The weather was SO much nicer than the summer fare, but the organisation was SO much poorer.


Disabled access? I am not such a pillock as to think that all disabled people are in wheerchairs, but anybody who wasnt fully mobile would have a real problem fighting through.


Shame the council didnt do anything about the muddy quagmire that surrounded the event.


Very disappointed, walked though once, didnt buy anything, ran off to Borough Market and bought lots.

"I feel that michaels point about the disabled access is much more important than my rant. I would love to see a copy of their access statement and their risk assessment"


Fat chance there I think, and Southwark Council probably wouldn't know what these are. Their lame attempts to meet their obligations under the statutory Disability Equality Duty (now a year old) seem to me to be almost nil.

Your points have been noted and thank you. SNUB have been in existance for 6 months,this is the first time we have organised a fair, we had a budget donated by sponsors and we had to justify every penny spent. We would have loved a bigger marquee and warmer weather but we are not miracle workers. For the last 6 months My co organiser and i have worked hard to make sure we could provide a good eco fair. I dont expect praise from East Dulwich and we are not snobs. We had to ask mums to leave the buggies outsede because of the marquee size,again down to budget all from sponsorship money.

Jessie we said no to you because we had cards already so please do not lie. We did not promise a santas grotto and we tried to make sure that everyone had a good time. For every negative comment on here we have had 5 positive comments.

This fair was organised by SNUB not southwark so vent your spleen on us.

When you guys organise a fair i will be more then happy to come along and support it. SNUB was created on here so you have every right to attack us.

Good post.

Monica makes many a fair point. If everyone did everything perfect the first time round there wouldn't be half of the problems that there are in the world. The truth is we don't. But we should all try and we should all support each other.

Focusing on the 80%+ people who loved the fair, I look forward to the next one.

"This fair was organised by SNUB not southwark so vent your spleen on us."


You misunderstand, if it is my post you are referring to, it is Southwark Council's responsibility to ensure that people or organisations holding public events on council owned land (or anywhere else in the borough, come to that) complete an access statement and undertake appropriate risk assessments. If they were not done, and you were not asked to complete them in advance of the event, then it confirms that Southwark haven't got a proper handle on their statutory duties.

>> feel that michaels point about the disabled access is much more important than my rant. I would love to see a copy of >>their access statement and their risk assessment<<


Oh well.....for the record I was there on a scooter around noon....and yes the front of the marquee was seriously congested and there was a neat row of parked, empty buggies to one side. Being sly and experienced in these kind of affairs I betook myself around to the rear entrance of the tent hwich was (a) gratifyingly people-free and (b) sublimely close to both Anna's oh-GOD-these-are-heavenly-let-me-die-now cake stall and the cheese guys who were also selling excellent baguettes. These two alone were worth the price of admission....oh wait....it was free I think??:))


It was busy....in many ways like trying to negotiate The Lanes in Brighton but I thought pretty damn good for a first attempt and I feel sure lesons will have been learnt (tu)

Frisco southwark have a list of risk assessment and we had to follow them to the letter,if i had 10000 to spend on the fair i would have.

What ever is left after we have paid everything will go towards the East Dulwich cloth bags,we organised the fair to help fund the bags,although we have been allocated money from the dulwich community council we still need to provide bags to 3000 extra households so any fundraising by SNUB will fund the bags.

Good on yer, SNUB for trying to brighten up our rainy week. You might not have got it quite right this year, but, hey, I bet the first Glastonbury was chaos too.


To all the moaners, I suspect you'd rather they didn't have one next year, so you can have an empty, muddy and windswept Goose Green to yourselves again.


And risk assessments, without sounding too Daily Mail, are the kind of safety-first tosh that's making us all a bunch of blame-everyone,-sue-everyone,-never-take-personal-responsibilty dullards.


Phew.

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...