Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Clockhouse junction of Barry Road and Peckham Rye SE22 side.

Here

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=534411&y=175132&z=1&sv=534411,175132&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf


No kids there this afternoon, except a few outside.



Azul Wrote:

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

> I asked about the clockhouse, dunno know where

> barry road is but I'll find it out.

> went to uplands this morning, I thought that kids

> wouldn't go there.

>

> bullshit, 5 minutes after we got in, 3 of them

> came around.

> they're everywhere, just like that new virus.

I've got to add my tuppence worth.


I've had four kids and have a 1 year old granddaughter so am used to having kids around me, but I really think that slapping horrible little kids in pubs should be compulsory for parents who have brattish kids.


I tend not to slap other people's kids, as their parents aren't usually very happy about this, but if some croc wearing little child does somthing very irritating or naughty and their parents are lamely smiling as though it's normal, I shout "OI, STOP IT!" in a very loud voice, and they tend to scurry back to their parents and stop annoying me.


Seems to work for me!

I just think that if you take your kids out, which you have every right to do of course, you shouldn't take it as a lisense to give yourself a break from them and let everyone else have to deal with / put up with them.


Just keep them close to you, and if they start screaming and shouting take them away.

Would it b wrong of me to suggest that those screaming kids on buses should b removed (along wiv the parents)? Not only is it horrible for us poor passengers but it really must distract the driver (more so than when they're on their own phones etc).


**awaits judgement** :p

We were in The Plough a few days ago on a FRIDAY NIGHT...and I actually asked the bloke behind the bar why the pub was full of kids, and he said "Oh, a freak occurance, it's not usually like this"....which after reading these threads is an obvious lie! There were hoards of them charging about and the parents were just laughing. I nearly spilt my pinot on the way back from the bar because one the f*ckers nearly ran me over.


Yes kids in pubs is okay now were are non smoking but runnign about all over the place? Most pubs in ED kick them out come 6-7pm but it seems that most places in Ed are more kiddie friendly than money paying adults!


Mr MW74 told me that in some pubs (your real boozers ie: Wetherspoons) that if you are an adult with a child you will only be served two alcoholic drinks and then your out or onto the soft drinks. This they hope will stop the pityful scenes of adults getting smashed on cheap pints all day, whilst their kids run amock in the bar.

So does that make them family hostile or socially responsible? I think many local hostelries could learn from WS. I remember seeing a baby who was barely 6 months old, crying incessantly, being held by a woman in G&B who was sitting drinking wine with her friends/family at 7-45pm. The place was full and noisy, the child was obviously distressed and the parent/carer did not appear to give a damn - seemed quite content to swill wine and chat to her pals who were equally oblivious to the child's welfare. I discretely spoke to the bar staff about it who admitted that no child should be in the bar after 7-30pm but who were also clearly to embarrassed to say anything. I imagine they were fearful of being labelled 'child hostile' on some internet forum and suffering the boycott that might ensue.

would be interested to know if there are any parents on here who take their kids to pubs / bars in the evening. what do parents think of people talking about inappropriate subject matter around their kids? it seems to me that pubs are adult spaces, where adult conversations take place, but many people may feel the need to self-censor if there are children close at hand.


I'm not saying I have the mouth of a fishwife (although sometimes I do), but I want to be able to swear if I feel like it, or make like Sex and the City and discuss the finer points of my sex life if I so choose.

RosieH Wrote:

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

> would be interested to know if there are any

> parents on here who take their kids to pubs / bars

> in the evening. what do parents think of people

> talking about inappropriate subject matter around

> their kids? it seems to me that pubs are adult

> spaces, where adult conversations take place, but

> many people may feel the need to self-censor if

> there are children close at hand.

>


Hear hear!

> I'm not saying I have the mouth of a fishwife

> (although sometimes I do), but I want to be able

> to swear if I feel like it, or make like Sex and

> the City and discuss the finer points of my sex

> life if I so choose.

I agree with you about the evenings.


But a lot of this thread is castigating anyone who takes their kids to the pub (or even on the bus) at all.

And attempting to make some kind of joke about it.



must be lovely and quiet up there on that child free moral highground.

mightyroar, if it's been said once it's been said twice.

We childfree folk are NOT against kids. We're just tired of having to share space time and energy surrounded by loud noisy undisciplined offspring of parents who think it's perfectly acceptable for their kids to be loud noisy undisciplined running around as if every pub restaurant (bus) they were in were a playground.

If parents want to take their kids to the pub at 11 at night when the pub is full of us drunk loud foul-mouthed adults, well as long as the kids are quiet and well behaved we don't care!

mightyroar Wrote:

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

> I agree with you about the evenings.

>

> But a lot of this thread is castigating anyone who

> takes their kids to the pub (or even on the bus)

> at all.

> And attempting to make some kind of joke about

> it.

>

>

> must be lovely and quiet up there on that child

> free moral highground.



If there is child-free high ground (moral or otherwise) please point me towards it and I will gone like a shot.

How many pubs have you been in that have kids in at 11pm? I fear that may be somewhat of an exaggeration.

I sometimes go to the pub with my kids of an afternoon but have rarely stayed beyond 5pm.

I also went on the bus with them as babies and I most certainly would not have got off if one of them was crying, what a ridiculous suggestion. Perhaps persons could carry around a set of earplugs and when forced to share the same airspace as a crying child - insert them.

As has been said before, some people think children are being badly behaved if they merely raise their voices.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have to share social spaces with children and there are plenty of places to go without children around.

Sometimes children are a lot better company than the obnoxious and badly behaved adults that frequent pubs in the evenings.

Darling KalamityKel,


I was of the opinion once that people with noisy poppets should not be allowed to use public transport due to the discomfort that they cause to all and sundry...


but actually, mothers driving four by fours while transporting/entertaining the said munchkins are actually a danger to the public. In my opinion parents should not be allowed to drive unless they can prove that they had at least 6 full continuous hours of sleep in the previous 24. The darling babies involved should not only be strapped into their car seats, but could (it may be argued by some unforgiving husbands) be gagged and handcuffed also - in order to ensure that they do not scream or drop their organic raisins on the leather upholstry...

Well to be honest East Dulwich has a vast population of kids as usually there's an army of enormous buggies waiting around the corner and quite frankly, the children seated in them are renowned for their obstreperous behaviour and indecorous conduct. Though what can you really expect? they're children it is a conformity for children to behave in that manor and a pivotal part of growning up is restraining yourself from that kind of vivacity as obviously you mature with age, well hopefully.

'child free' is a funny term.


I'm not going to go out much in January because I'm 'cash free'. I gave my last pound coin to a 'home free' guy at London Bridge.


My friend is not going to have kids because her husband is 'fertility free'. She got mugged last week which is lucky because now she's 'hand bag free'.

As has been said before, some people think children are being badly behaved if they merely raise their voices.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have to share social spaces with children and there are plenty of places to go without children around.

Sometimes children are a lot better company than the obnoxious and badly behaved adults that frequent pubs in the evenings.



Pretty much hit the nail on the head there Asset, how many of the anti-family pub crowd would have dared to venture into the Plough or the Forresters before they were re-invented. The bottom-line is that pubs allow, even encourage, families during the day because it makes commercial sense to do so, because a family of 4 will normally spend more money in two hours than the individual who goes there to read the Sunday Times whilst nursing a pint of bitter. To complain about this shows about as much commercial awareness as the forumites who feel that house prices in East Dulwich should be kept artificially low. Furthermore, there are many pubs in the area that are not family-friendly; Clockhouse, Castle, Inside 72, Palmerston, Liquorice, Franklins etc, more infact than those that welcome children. Apart from the garden at the Herne, I never see children (other than babies) in the pubs mentioned after 19:30, roughly the time that "real" grown-ups like to come out and play. I suggest some people would be happier living in the Docklands, not many children there, although I imagine they'd soon be complaining about the braying yuppies.......

Alan Dale, it's all about perspective. Some people do choose not to have children and are happy with that choice, in which case child free is not a funny term at all. So, whether it's child-free or child-less depends on whether it's through choice or bad luck.

Also, even people who are very happy with children might choose to be child-free for an evening now and then don't you think?

Good point about babysitters.


I think you have to have children before you can be 'child free' otherwise childless is more appropriate.


Child free in the place of childless sounds like people are putting a positive spin on a bad situation.


'It's great being child-free because I get to concentrate on improving my banjo skills while the missus can really ramp up her painting by numbers...'

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...