Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My partner who used to work for a homeless charity commented on the benches on the square of shame and Elsie Rd (not Melbourne..my mistake). The design with an arm-rest bar off centre is there to stop any cold, poor homeless people from sleeping on them.. a bit like those spikes under bridges or outside of very posh shops. Homelessness isn't a crime...we are all only a few steps of bad luck away from being homeless and I find this obvious purchase of anti-homeless benches really sad.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> My partner who used to work for a homeless charity

> commented on the benches on the square of shame

> and Elsie Rd (not Melbourne..my mistake). The

> design with an arm-rest bar off centre is there to

> stop any cold, poor homeless people from sleeping

> on them.. a bit like those spikes under bridges or

> outside of very posh shops. Homelessness isn't a

> crime...we are all only a few steps of bad luck

> away from being homeless and I find this obvious

> purchase of anti-homeless benches really sad.


I agree, the legions of homeless folk around Dulwich Village will have to bed down in Gails doorway instead.

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Well we all know whose fault it will be if someone

> is involved in an accident there.


Yes, I agree fully. Only Wednesday did I witness a cyclist and yummy mummy politely sidestep each other causing her to spill her oat latte.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> My partner who used to work for a homeless charity

> commented on the benches on the square of shame

> and Elsie Rd (not Melbourne..my mistake). The

> design with an arm-rest bar off centre is there to

> stop any cold, poor homeless people from sleeping

> on them.. a bit like those spikes under bridges or

> outside of very posh shops. Homelessness isn't a

> crime...we are all only a few steps of bad luck

> away from being homeless and I find this obvious

> purchase of anti-homeless benches really sad.


I understand the company that makes them do a non hostile version. The design is a choice.

As we are entering mayoral election period and our local Labour Councillors are having to engage with their actual constituents (rather than just minority activists) it seems they are trying to re-write history.


In conversations with neighbours the councillors have claimed:

- When they opened the OHS public meetings by insisting a 47% increase in traffic through DV required urgent action, and continued using it over many months despite repeated queries, they had no idea it was a totally misleading figure; they had themselves been misled by Southwark officers.

- The councillors had investigated timed closures at Calton\DV junction but it was not technically possible.

- Implementing a permit scheme for residents is also not possible ( even though it had been included in the OHS proposals)

- Councillors had been concerned about the effect of closures on disabled and less mobile users right from the start and had been fighting for exemptions

- The traffic displacement and increased congestion along the DV bypass roads is the fault of the Tory Government for funding the Covid emergency traffic orders and not the responsibility of teh C'llrs or Southwark Council (who together designed and forced through the measures despite many local objections).


Deceitful, disingenuous, desperate, if not outright lies.


I am a floating voter and have voted for all major parties at different points. After Brexit, I vowed I would never vote Tory again but given the complete contempt for democracy, decency and truth shown by this disgraceful Southwark Labour administration and our local Labour Councillors I will vote for any mayoral and GLA candidate with a chance of unseating or upsetting labour.

The Mayor has no power over LTNs - they?re Tory party policy delegated to local authorities of all flavours across the UK. Active travel and ltns are in every major party manifesto with the exception of Farage and the local failed actor and some of the other potential deposit losing anti vaccine candidates.


Their removal isn?t even in Baileys? manifesto.


Latest yougov survey (based on mayoral voting intentions) shows 52% of the public surveyed support LTN and 35% objecting. Which leaves 13% in the don?t know or don?t care category.


Details on p15


https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/yf4kwp7gmh/QMUL_Results_MayoralVI_210401.pdf


And isn?t looking great for Bailey either - close to not even getting enough support to merit a second round of voting.

@Snowy,

Many people, including One Dulwich, can support the concept of LTN's but still object to the poorly thought out, badly implmented, undemocratic mess imposed on Dulwich by the Southwark Labour administration.


Are you suggesting the Tory Government is to blame for the 24\7 closure of DV\Calton and the displaced traffic and congestion on EDG and Lordship Lane?

My understanding is that all the Covid " temporary" work is being designed and implemented by Southwark Council under the auspices of Mayor Khan's TfL Streetpspace scheme ? That's certainly what is says on the planters but happy to be corrected.


As for Bailey, he is a poor candidate from a Brexit supporting Tory Govt, he should be completely wiped out, if he isn't Labour should get worried.


Finally, are you able to give me a bit more information about Academic peer review as you promised a few days ago?


In particular, can you answer my query whether a peer review would approve a report based on a tiny, self-selecting sample, unrepresentative of the local community, supplemented by a potentially biased database, claiming to be a long term longtitdinal survey but with a 50% drop out after a year. If so, are the peer reviewers named?

I?ve donated but I am really cross. I think the council has failed to comply with the law, as a result my council tax will be funding the council?s legal bill and I?ll be funding the challenge to the council. If only all that money could be spent on something practical/useful.

From long experience doing community work in Southwark - it is the officers who make the decisions and it is pot luck whether the Councillors are aware of why/when decisions made.


Can give an example - years ago officers informed local Councillors that the East Dulwich Community Centre (previously called Alleyn Community Centre) was only used 2 hours each morning by a play group. When the management committee heard of this they contacted their councillors and discovered what the officers had broadcasted which was completely untrue as the premises were being used by several groups and local residents on a daily basis.


Those of you who have lived in ED for at least 40 years will have known that misinformation by officers resulted in 2 very successful campaigns to retain the centre.

@Pugwash

In the case of the OHS consultation and the subsequent so called "Covid" traffic measures the changes have been promoted and pushed through by the local Councillors, mainly C'llrs Newens and Leeming.


It is those councillors who set up the secret working group of activists to help steer the OHSD process; together with C'llr Simmonds they chaired and led the public meetings and happily trotted out the misleading statistics; they have been cheer leaders for the schemes while ignoring the displaced traffic and abusing and bad mouthing anyone who queried them or suggested compromises ( C'llr Leeming even making Private Eye's "rotten boroughs" section!). It is C'llrs Newens and Leeming who awarded ?3,000 of tax payers money to the anonymous so called "Friends of Dulwich Square" (aka Margy Plaza) and they are the people who instigated the benches in the road as part of their land grab.


In the case of the misleading statistics, the C'llrs were repeatedly challenged whether the numbers were correct. Despite being presented with the evidence, they insisted, and till recently were still insisting, the figures were correct. So, either they are naive, incompetent and innumerate or they were lying. Not sure which is worse.


Furthermore, if Council officers were misleading Councillors I would expect disciplinary action to be taken. That does not seem to have happened.

God - here we go! There'll be piggin' crocheted bench coverers next. Please - no more bloody road signage on already badly-placed hunks of sub-Next furniture! I can see all kinds of clutter arriving - both council-approved and "organic" Pinteresty stuff - slapped all over the new Village Square...
I suspect they are putting them on there to warn cyclists that pedestrians may be crossing, especially now due to the narrowing caused by the new benches. The junction is just so confusing now and no-one knows who has priority - I was sitting enjoying a sandwich from Au Ceil with my family on the new seats and a few bikes came hurtling down the hill which caused a few people walking across the road to do the pre-collision shuffle - that quick couple of stutter steps people take when they think a collision is imminent.

alice Wrote:

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

> It?s good to hear that people within the

> beneficial zone of Dulwich Village are embarrassed

> by or do not agree with some of the changes;

> perhaps they could add their comments to the

> consultation map because at the moment it?s

> weighed in favour of those who love the changes.

No it is not. Look at the investigation done by S

Dulwich Alliance. https://dulwichalliance.org/?page_id=101

If Sadiq Khan says the LTNs are here to stay, and local roads are not for local people, can?t see Southwark Council changing anything! Amazing that he said the following in an Independent article ?Our roads should be limited to blue light services, to electricians, to plumbers, to commercial drivers, to taxis, to those that need to use our roads - delivery drivers and so forth - rather than individuals that could be walking, cycling and using public transport.?


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-traffic-b1834758.html

The increase in traffic on Wood Vale, Underhill and Melford in the last two days has been nothing short of astonishing.


To be clear, we have major roadworks again at the junction of Underhill and Melford (SGN replacing the gas main that Thames Water cracked when they replaced the cracked water main - don't get me started) so the delays to traffic are nothing to do with the LTNs - but those works have been going for a few weeks now without the same build up of traffic, so there is definitely a change in volume - not to mention hooting of horns, pollution etc as the traffic gets held up by the lights.


This is completely unscientific, but when the lights are red, there are five vehicles directly visible from my window - so I did a vehicle count around 8am, over ten light phases going one way (towards Lordship Lane) this morning. Of the fifty vehicles there were:


2 buses;

21 cars with one or more children in the back;

18 commercial vehicles - delivery vans, tradesmen etc;

9 cars with no children in the back.


And yes I need to get out more, but it does rather suggest the school run continues to loom large in traffic at peak times. And for the residents of our street, we're getting back to the volumes of traffic we saw at the end of the last lockdown as people look for alternative routes down residential streets as a result of the Dulwich Village LTN. I keep waiting for the promised dispersion of traffic, but at the moment it definitely feels displaced only.

Khan could have phrased this better - ie I want those that need to drive to be the priority.


Sidhue - good points, halve the number driving their kids to school and that is the sort of evaporation that is needed and will hopefully happen in coming months. It would be interesting to hear what level of disincentive you need - financial and/or journey time, to get those that don't need to drive (need of course is subjective), to not.

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...