Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sean - ever met any alcoholics or families ruined by booze? Where are your threads about closing down bars?


I've noticed yours and others use of the word "WE"....are you the collective opinion of all the EDF? Forums are places for debate sorry If you're not up for that....but unless you really speak for everyone (and I'm sure you speak for a lot) I'd change your "We" to "I"...


Meanwhile, whilst this is an open forum which I'm allowed to post on I'll continue to have my own opinions even if they are in the minority...


If this was a dinner party I'd understand you're annoyance at the appearance of an unwelcome guest that disagreed with you and your mates but it's not it's a public forum. The laugh is that I'm sure that you and others think you're very liberal and tolerant and full of original thpought and opininon.....infact you're not at all........

I'm not, it strikes me that the undercurrent of this thread is pretty clearly "YUG, we don't want Betting Shops in our (recently aquired) manor"...plus a whole load of stereotypical views about the nature of gambling and bookmakers.......I notice, with a few exceptions, most reactions to my posts which don't are outright abuse Brandon calling me *%$*, or, as in Seans "Oi, you WE don't want your opinions on here"....sorry for pissing on your chips

???? - ha - on that point you have me. I shouldn't have used "we". I wasn't speaking for a forum collective (how could I - there are 1500 odd people on here) - although if I was to take "we" to mean everyone except you, I would make a defence for it


The slightly tedious nature of your "this is a public forum etc etc" ignores the fact that I'm not arguing with the pros and cons of betting shops. My beef with your argument is that instead of talking about the merits or otherwise of betting shops you seem determined to compare them to restaurants and bars. Despite arguments to the contrary, you don't engage with any of them


Several people, who you dismiss as the "petit bourgeois" have spelled out their prediliction for gambling - be it big time or nickle and dime stuff. One or two people with families who have suffered overly have come out against. You ignored all of this to make a cheap point - namely



And you don't have a lot to back that statement up with. You can point to some posts arguing against the spread of betting shops and the negative effect on communities but to conclude, as you do , is not an opinion - it's factually wrong


As it happens my family is riddled with chronic addictions to both gambling and alcohol (not always both in the same person) and there ain't anything petit bour fucking geois about any of us.


My point is you can't keep repeating the same guff about thebarsarequietsometimessowhydopeoplepickonbettingshops??


Because. they aren't. the same. thing


It is a public forum and there is a debate to be had on it - but it would be useful if people referred to the points others make in the counter-argument. The first time you did that in this thread was when I singled your post out.. . And to then finish with

is just chip on shoulder stuff. You haven't the first idea about me other than what you read on here - I make no similar judgement on you (and have supported you on other threads - not that I imagine you care one jot) - I merely said that if you can summarise as incorrectly as you did your opinion can be ignored.


You could counter that by expanding your argument but instead you've gone on a personal attack (to which I probably shouldn't respond). By your post I'm not sure if you think liberal and original thought are good things or not by the way


Having re-read the thread just now to be sure (to be sure) I caught a few things that I missed first time. Keef taking my point about restaurants being social and betting just a vice and calling it nonsense. Sorry keef, but your description to portray the social side of it doesn't sound like the wife and kids would be either welcome or want to join in. Again, I'm not saying that makes betting shops bad - I'm just saying there is a difference with pubs/restaurants beyond the possibility of addiction to either - and why more of one would be preferable to more of the other - but I'm not against betting shops (which I'm sure I have posted somewhere on here, just not on this thread)

Ok Sean, I accept, and now remember that you agreed some parts of my posts on the bank charges...so you clearly are capable of original thought : ). the use of we bothers me and riled me as I've had it several times already from various posters. Is this a cozy club or a forum....I will bother to sit down and make some points about gambling shortly...but with a few exceptions most arguments on here about it demonstrate ignorance, and however much they are dressed up with steretype and prejudice put forward as justification actually suggest to me that 'people like us don't want people like that round here'...I suspect you can see that a bit too....it looks like classic PB disapproval of gambling to me...am I being a bit provocative, sure, but that's my nature...

;-)


As I'm coming to realise ???? - and I'd be happy for anyone to call me on ot if I use the royal we again. Bad form and all that


I look forward to the arguments around gambling - Personally, I love it. But I tend to keep well away from it these days. And I have no real problem with the number of shops in the area. I wouldn't be thrilled by one opening in the Woolwich - but that's more to do with size of the space and the fact that something more interesting could open there


ummm...what else? Oh yes... the fact that it's a public forum doesn't preclude it from being cozy. Come along to the drinks. But it isn't a club...honest guv

I think many people's disappointment about the prospect of a bookies opening on the woolwich site is simply about what could be there in it's place, however unrealistic that may be. There are already Bookies on the Lane: wouldn't it be great to have a record shop?

Some arguments against points made on here


1) Betting shops are largely empty


Betting is not like going for meal or even going for a drink - a great deal of betting business is a single relatively straightforward transaction, except for the hardcore all day user (more of which later). Therefore, a bookmakers doesn?t have to be ?full? to justify its existence - I hardly ever see (no pun intended) anyone in the opticians.


2) Gambling is the ruin of all gamblers and bookies result in all sorts of social ills


Er?no, or certainly no more, and actually probably far less than pubs/off licences are the cause of far more widespread social, criminal and health problems. Of course, some people get into problems with gambling as some people do with drinking, some with drugs, some with sex etc. The vast majority of gamblers genuine enjoy the ups and, mainly downs, of gambling and pitting their wits. They may lose, and the majority do but MOST gamblers lose a little and have an occasional nice win and enjoy this well within their means,


3) Bookies are anti-social full of misfits


A bookies is actually quite a social place with quite a lot of banter and collective commiseration (hey, and even celebration sometimes.) There are a hardcore of punters (mentioned in point 1) - who spend a great deal of time in the bookies, have mates their, bring in a daily budget and pass the day in likeminded company without getting in to any financial problems. They are, in the majority, not the sort of people many EDF types probably mix with?but so what.


4) Bookies somehow cause social harm to surrounding areas and attract the wrong crowd


In east Dulwich pubs, I?ve seen several pretty unsavoury incidents including someone getting bottled, numerous fights, frequent highly aggressive behavious, abuse of passing people, people throwing up on the streets, Anti-social noise at closing time, not personally seen any of this in or by bookies


5) You only need one


As any punter knows, it?s about the odds you get. The more the merrier - in reality it would be best if there were about 5 in a row so you could easily check odds/prices


Let?s face it EDF?you don?t like them because you have prejudiced PB attitudes about the the whole gambling thing plus you don?t like their hardcore demographic?


There Sean, some points rather than provocation as promised

and a very good post to Quids (although naturally I'll disagree with some of them ;-) so, without further ado;

1) Betting shops are largely empty

Only one (or two) people have expressly made this point. Sometimes they are busy and sometimes they aren't. Just like the other establishments you highlight. ie we (that's we as an quids and me btw!) agree


2) Gambling is the ruin of all gamblers and bookies result in all sorts of social ills

Don't think anyone has made that point - certainly not with the "ALL". If they did make that point I would disagree with them. so another one we agree on. But it can definitely ruin families far quicker and without any awareness on their part - compared to (say) alcoholism where it's a year on year increase with all the signs becoming more evident


3) Bookies are anti-social full of misfits

Can't find anything to support this. The anti-social could be an interpretation of me saying that restaurants and mbrs are convivial places whereas bookies aren't - which is true if we broaden out the client base. I have been to bookies, I do know what the score is and have had fun there - with other people too! But I wouldn't get very far if I suggested Lady MacGabhann and pals might care to join me.. so, not sure if I can full agree on this point


4) Bookies somehow cause social harm to surrounding areas and attract the wrong crowd

It's a point that could be made but as you rightly point out the same is true of bars etc - although only in a bookie can someone go in and end up losing not only all of his/her own money but that of their families as well (without them knowing - yet). So I half agree with this one


5) You only need one

Don't think anyone has made that point - I think some people have said we have enough in the area and there are many more than one... but yeah you're not realistically going to tear from Crystal Palace Rd to Lordship Lane bottom end and then up to The Plough end to compare odds


So in short: I'm not against bookies opening but if someone was to directly compare them to bars/restaurants then I know which I would prefer MORE of....

As per the previous post asking for a quick show of hands I think I fall into the "don't care" category but with some reservations.


I do not have a problem with bookmakers or gambling. The idea of people "needing protection" from gambling seems absurd. If someone wishes to gamble they should be free to do so and have the facilities provided. If they lose their money it is no ones fault but their own. People complain about government interference regarding drinking limits, community inteference regarding individual pursuits is a similar grievance.


I would rather have something else, though. I don't gamble myself (other than the odd flutter - Grand National etc) and could think of things that would be of more use to me personally. Whether anyone else would want them is another matter.


I am wondering whether it matters if a shop is busy though? Is this an argument against a bookies? Surely if they pay rent, business tax and council tax they are doing the community a service? Better that than an empty premises.


I'm not sure whether more bookies equals a better deal for the consumer though. Odds are pretty similar in all. Do you not just visit the one closest to you or with the biggest range of TVs and free teas/coffees?

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...