Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Loutwo Wrote:

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

> The moment well to do (and let?s face it) mostly

> white people miraculously ?discover? previously

> ?neglected? working class London neighbourhoods,

> these issues occur. Twenty years ago no one would

> have dreamt about having a festival in our back

> yard. But surprise, surprise the moment the trendy

> fashionable types want to live in and spend time

> in our neighbourhood, we all have to be ?thankful?

> that a private company is using our public spaces

> to host these events for these people. Regardless

> of the noise and environmental costs for

> residents.

>

> You may think I?m banging the same old drum, but I

> think I have a valid point here. At what stage do

> residents get to have a say on what happens in

> their own back garden? Are our high streets now a

> free for all for out of towners to defecate and

> vomit in after a night of partying? Does our park

> only get partially annexed once a year or maybe in

> time money talks and they can have the whole space

> for various times during the summer?

>

> The old elephant in the room, the G word strikes

> again, but we all have to keep pretending that?s

> not relevant, and that we should all be grateful

> people come here to have fun and new

> shops/restaurants should now only cater for their

> tastes and not anyone else.

>

> Louisa.


So if rich white people are the problem


And the consequences could be untold sh*tting in the street, ethnic minorities and working class people being unable to buy anything or eat out and the loss of all the park


What?s the answer?

I?ve heard horror stories about the shoreditchification of the area around PR station. Out of towners weeing in the streets after a night on the tiles. It?s disrespectful when others have to live and work in the area.


I don?t know what the answer is, but I know that everyone should be made to feel welcome, and not excluded. But the reality is money talks. And if businesses and events think they can attract a certain audience to a certain location based on the notion of a neighbourhood suddenly being ?discovered? and ?cool?, they?ll bang that drum (no pun intended), and rinse that pound note for all its worth. The least the council can do is be a bit more understanding to those who live and work nearby, whoever they may be. We can?t stop the G word, but we can manage the negative side effects surely?


Louisa.

Loutwo Wrote:

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

> I?ve heard horror stories about the

> shoreditchification of the area around PR station.

> Out of towners weeing in the streets after a night

> on the tiles. It?s disrespectful when others have

> to live and work in the area.

>

> I don?t know what the answer is


Portaloos maybe?

Loutwo Wrote:

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

> What on earth is a portaloo? Like those things

> used on building sites?

>

> Louisa.


Yeah and at festivals funnily enough


You get urinal ones out on the street in shoreditch and soho etc, that are just put out on busy nights (probably)

But that?s a city-wide issue, not just in your neighbourhood! Hackney, Tottenham, Brixton... So where is it acceptable for a festival to take place in london? Just looking at posters on my home from work, they seem to be advertising festivals in all corners of London so someone will always be pi$$ed off somewhere. It?s a couple of days a year where people can enjoy a festival atmosphere locally which is a great thing.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Pk, let us agree to differ; you think residents

> who found the sound levels uncomfortable should be

> ignored, I think

> some sort of compromise should be explored for

> next year.


Or to put it another way:


I think is that talk of forcing people out of their homes at great expense, suggestions that people are trying to tell people who know what circles are that they?re squares and that people are being subjected to torturous noise abuse is over the top and takes away from any sensible message


You think it?s useful commentary, apparently


But agree, let?s agree to differ

I don't know the figures for this year, but last year 60% of tickets were sold to people who lived in local postcodes. Last year the local train services weren't running all weekend due to engineering works and this led to a lot of concerns about dispersal. What was discovered was that many of the attendees walked home!

Renata

The Jam on the Rye festival on Monday had discounted tickets for locals ?20 - all you needed was to bring proof of address. I went on Monday and it was a nice vibe not too big. We left Before 10pm and couldn?t hear anything when we got home (we love on Cheltenham road next to the park). Will definitely go again.


The festivals are two days of the year and don?t take over the entire park, and I believe this falls over half term so any late nights for kids on those days can?t be too bad. I fully support them being run

Rather like your hyperbole about uptight, over- entitled nimbys.


pk Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Pk, let us agree to differ; you think residents

> > who found the sound levels uncomfortable should

> be

> > ignored, I think

> > some sort of compromise should be explored for

> > next year.

>

> Or to put it another way:

>

> I think is that talk of forcing people out of

> their homes at great expense, suggestions that

> people are trying to tell people who know what

> circles are that they?re squares and that people

> are being subjected to torturous noise abuse is

> over the top and takes away from any sensible

> message

>

> You think it?s useful commentary, apparently

>

> But agree, let?s agree to differ

I do wish people would stop moaning about this. Its a couple of days and thats all.

They have many more festival style events in Victoria Park, and when I was a child living in W2 in the 60's and 70's we had the Hyde Park free festivals and of course Notting Hill carnival.

I don't remember my parents wringing their hands over the noise -in fact mum and dad remained in the area until they died in the 2000's and carnival was a lot more noisy and crazy than when I was a nipper but even in their 80's they accepted it was a community event enjoyed by many and only lasted 2 days.

Also these events fall on Bank holidays when Kids are on holiday from school, the wealthy always left Notting hill when carnival weekend comes-If the noise from a festival that ends at 10.30 pm bothers you that much go away if you can afford to or accept it.

it isn't every day it isn't every weekend

The festival is long gone but the barricades remain.


Lots of things for local councillors to take into account when considering any repeat or anything similar:


1. Does it really take the closure of a LARGE, well used part of the park for 12 days for a 2 day festival?


2. Is it even right that a public resource like the park be used for a very exclusive event run solely for private profit?


3. Various noise issues raised.


4. Damage to the park from last year not yet repaired - is it going to be handled better this year?


5. There's a distinct lack of transparency on where the money goes and who's really benefitting e.g. did Southwark Council just cut the parks budget by the amount that they expected the festival to raise?


It was also disappointing to hear quite a few voices raised along the lines of 'we want a festival and we're having one and if you don't like it we don't care, shut up, it's your problem'. Not very friendly, reasonable or tolerant and probably only likely to increase the ire of those who objected to the festival in the first place. Everybody effected by the festival or with an interest in the area/park has a right to be heard whether you, reader, agree with them or not. Trying to harass people into silence is unlikely to have the effect you desire.

Not sure who said ?we?re having a festival and if you don?t like it we don?t care?


There was extensive consultation before this year?s festival took place, albeit that all the public consultation meetings were dominated by older, whiter residents who seemed to be part of a determined organised mob intent on trying to stop the Festival happening at all.


This event uses about 20% of the park space for one weekend a year - or about slightly less than half a percent of available park space.


And the part of the park used is actually the least used part which typically has about 4 dog walkers using it any particular time. Sometimes they pick up their dogs doings afterwards 😉


And it brings in money that is used to cover the cost of events like firework displays which reduce the risk from unregulated fireworks going off in our streets


The noise levels are monitored and apparently within agreed limits?


There was absolutely no trouble at the Festival when I was there - just a very friendly inclusive atmosphere


People who attended were young, old, women, men, children and drawn from all parts of the community.


Although I only went on Monday, Kelis was superb.


Yet still NIMBYs moan on about non-existent problems.


Sigh

I didn't hear a thing, though I did last year, so that is a success. Having that section of the park sectioned off for a weekend would be ok, but it is not a weekend - it is at least a week. Money is needed for services and people like music, all I ask is that optimum results be achieved for those who go to the concert, those who use the park and those who live nearby. (There will likely be some overlap so it is not a zero-sum game.) It needn't be an exercise is umbrage and antagonism.

The panelling was tagged almost within a day of its being put up, which was ugly and, well, expected. It doesn't mean though that it should be accepted.

Turn the volume down just ten or fifteen percent and it is likely that the music will sound better and people living nearby will be more accepting.

Let the council be explicit in how much money it raises and where it actually goes, publish that on forums like this and in the local press.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Food for thought:

> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/aug/31/lon

> dons-parks-accused-of-creeping-privatisation-of-pu

> blic-spaces



So basically it says that festivals and events are an inevitable reality of London park life


And that we get off lightly compared to Lambeth, Lewisham, Greenwich and most other places


187 days of restrictions on blackheath!!

pk Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Food for thought:

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/aug/31/lon

>

> >

> dons-parks-accused-of-creeping-privatisation-of-pu

>

> > blic-spaces

>

>

> So basically it says that festivals and events are

> an inevitable reality of London park life

>

> And that we get off lightly compared to Lambeth,

> Lewisham, Greenwich and most other places

>

> 187 days of restrictions on blackheath!!



What a terrible shame. We need to rely on investment from private firms to ensure our parks are sustainable, and we should be grateful we don?t have the number of restricted days some other boroughs parks have.


Very depressing future for our public spaces. And it seems the council and elected councillors support this move too.


Sad.


Louisa.

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...