Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Shame hasn't bothered the majority of Southwark Councillors before, not sure why many of this new lot would feel any different.


From setting up sock-puppet accounts to troll council house residents, to sitting on Council while working for property developers and lobby groups, that they eventually work for full-time, to closing roads for old mates that helped destroy Heygate and lose council housing stock for profit (that they actually didn't receive due to an inability to read the LandLease small print).


In the main - Shameless, careerist and undeniably without talent or vision.

What makes me laugh is they claim to be socialists and take every opportunity to call out corruption and sleaze yet are more than happy to stand back and let it happen on their watch. Hypocrites every single one of them and a classic illustration why politicians of all political persuasions are so despised by so many - putting their own party's ideology ahead of the will of the people they are supposed to represent.

This whole operation just smacks of cllrs' disdain for the objectors in this review.

The idea that they know better and have the 'correct' ideology for how southwark should be moving forward is a trump card and gives them carte blanche to do what they want regardless of the overwhelming objection.


It appears that Southwark Coucnil are trying to use this 'new government guidance' as a sort of get out of jail free card for ignoring the review findings.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/active-travel-schemes-supported-by-government-funding

Perhaps might be worth a letter to transport sec to clarify if bypassing democracy is part of the gov guidance?

Just seen the newsletter that dropped through our door. Apparently we told the council we are all supportive of the measures.....they seem to have forgotten to mention that 65%+ of local residents responded to tbe review saying they wanted them removed.


This are the only stats they present from the review:


The majority of respondents (55%) were


supportive of the overall aims of Streets for


People as set out as priorities in the survey.

In particular, a majority of respondents (77%)

agreed that improving air quality and road

safety on the street where they lived was an

important priority.

The largest level of support in the survey

(82%) was for improving air quality and road

safety for local schools.



This council is shameless, absolutely shameless and I hope they one day get held to account for their constant manipulation of what they are being told by their constituents. I really hope they have the backbone to hold some public meetings around this - I think they need to hear from people directly instead of hiding behind Covid as a reason not to engage with the people they represent.

Chick Wrote:

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

> Here is a link to their proposal.

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i

> mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?

> utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source

> =govdelivery&utm_term=

>

> Laugh, I almost fell off my chair


And a very selective group of documents that they link to....very different from the documents we saw last night. Talk about trying to bury the story and drive people to the data you want them to see rather than the data that tells you what is really happening and what people think of the measures.

I'm not horrified at the prospect of the council making a decision that goes against the wishes of local residents - sometimes governments have to make unpopular decisions where they believe that it's in the best interest of their constituency - and if people don't like it, their remedy is the ballot box.


I am, though, still concerned by the things that heartblock mentions, in particular the lack of data, the treatment of data that is available, and the overall lack of transparency throughout the process.


Do people have views on how much improvement the proposed amendments will make e.g. moving the North Melbourne closure to the other end, reducing the times of closures, making Melbourne South timed? The latter two must help a bit with EDG/LL/ Croxted (it would be good if they could restrict them to term time as well, and exclude bank holidays?). I'm not sure what a timed school street in Townley would do in terms of traffic that currently heads south along that route - it presumably gets shunted to LL and DV - I don't know how much traffic we're talking about there?


Presumably "Parallel work with TfL to make improvements to junction safety for cyclists and improve the flow of traffic at the junction of Village Way, Dulwich Village and Red Post Hill." means "putting in that cycle lane and restricting straight ahead and right turning traffic to one lane has been a complete disaster in terms of creating traffic congestion through the village". will watch that one with interest.

Legal - it looks like a token gesture to say "we're listening and making changes" and I don't think it will much difference at all.


The residents of Dulwich have spoken and they want this disaster the council forced upon us at the behest of a few self-interest groups and self-interested individuals removed. It just shows the weight of feeling against the measures that despite trying to rally support for them by pulling every underhand trick in tbe book the council have not been able to rally a mandate to continue this horrendous experiment. Yet they chose to do so.


The council cannot be allowed to put the will of a few over the will of the majority. Keeping the DV measures on the basis of weak support on Court Lane and Calton is another very dangerous precedent for them to set.

Remember how we were kept being told that the emergency services had no issue with the closures by the council and the pro-LTN supporters. Check out the emergency services response document for the truth....a very different narrative than the one that was being peddled....

The paper version of the update just came through my door.

Page 2 bottom right reads

"A majority of respondents said they would like to see changes to the current measures."


How is it that in the data presented by the council the majority wanted to see the measures removed yet the summary provided doesn't mention that once.


There's spin and there's downright lies


Email your response on the published report to [email protected] by the 27th September to object to this overall sham of a consultation.

I've just had a multi-page hard copy review update through the door.


One thing that strikes me is that pretty much all of the measures have been able to be compromised in some way, EXCEPT the Court/ Calton closure, where it's about emergency services only. That's what I don't understand. Why can't that junction have timed restrictions like everywhere else? There's a real fixation with closure, I'm not sure why. My money is on refusal to acknowledge the poor design last time it was remodelled (a sort of "it's an impossible junction to make safe for cars, cycles and pedestrians", rather than catering to some narrow local interests (surely not?). I don't want to believe the latter.

Of course it is catering to some narrow local interests.


We have to get rid of these corrupted, good for nothing councilors in May. I hope One Dulwich will start information campaign soon so more people are aware of the council's doings. I have already started mine, talking to friends and neighbours and explaining why they should not vote labour in the next local elections.

Does anyone know / has anyone heard any rumours as to whether independent candidates of any flavour are likely to come forward in May? I'd potentially vote for a local independent or local party, in the hope they might be - well, representative in some sense.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I've just had a multi-page hard copy review update

> through the door.

>

> One thing that strikes me is that pretty much all

> of the measures have been able to be compromised

> in some way, EXCEPT the Court/ Calton closure,

> where it's about emergency services only. That's

> what I don't understand. Why can't that junction

> have timed restrictions like everywhere else?

> There's a real fixation with closure, I'm not sure

> why. My money is on refusal to acknowledge the

> poor design last time it was remodelled (a sort of

> "it's an impossible junction to make safe for

> cars, cycles and pedestrians", rather than

> catering to some narrow local interests (surely

> not?). I don't want to believe the latter.



Isn?t this due to the fact you can?t/dangerous to put timings on the traffic lights (or it is too difficult to do) hence it is either always open or always closed.

I'd say it is only independents we'd want. James Barber of LibDems has been quiet as a mouse on all this but in his time was pro CPZ and very entwined with cycling lobbies. Could not vote for a Tory, so we have to pray we get some decent independent candidates.


legalalien Wrote:

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

> Does anyone know / has anyone heard any rumours as

> to whether independent candidates of any flavour

> are likely to come forward in May? I'd potentially

> vote for a local independent or local party, in

> the hope they might be - well, representative in

> some sense.

From the Southwark Council report and there are many more like this.


"It was noted that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people were more likely to live in areas outside of Dulwich Village, such as East Dulwich and Peckham ? therefore not benefitting from the low traffic measures and potentially experiencing higher traffic volumes, congestion and air pollution.

Buses were mentioned as a particular concern as commutes to central London were affected with longer journey times"


What does this say to us residents? I think it is telling us if you are not wealthy, white and able bodied Southwark doesn't care if you are negatively effected by the closure of roads that are very white, wealthy and with accessibility to private and public car parking.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping the DV

> measures on the basis of weak support on Court

> Lane and Calton is another very dangerous

> precedent for them to set.


It's complete nonsense that "the residents of Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not representative of the outside world.

It is Southwark's consultation document - not an anti-LTN group.


I would love the raw data to be published though. Southwark hasn't published the raw data set or the pollution data - except for June 2021..I'm sure there are more months in a year - why???

I think the photo on Twitter showing Melbourne grove having newly painted 20 mph signs at the grove vale end in May , which seemed strange as it was next to blocked off planters, suggests this was decided a long long time ago and all these consultations are a waste of time.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping

> the DV

> > measures on the basis of weak support on Court

> > Lane and Calton is another very dangerous

> > precedent for them to set.

>

> It's complete nonsense that "the residents of

> Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there

> is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton

> Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not

> representative of the outside world.



DKHB - take the time to look at the data the council published from the review. It's all in there. Let us know if that changes your view......

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping

> the DV

> > measures on the basis of weak support on Court

> > Lane and Calton is another very dangerous

> > precedent for them to set.

>

> It's complete nonsense that "the residents of

> Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there

> is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton

> Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not

> representative of the outside world.


Read the data behind the report.


Over 65% of respondents said they want the schemes removed. That comes directly from the real world, not the EDF


Yes, true, it doesn't represent every resident of the SE22 postcode zone, but as in all things you either speak up or you put up with what the majority of those who respond said.


So no echo chamber DKHB, but consulted on fact.

I've just read the Council's review, and it feels pretty fair-minded and responsive to me. A lot of the anti LTN campaigning was at one point was focused around emergency vehicle response times, and that has been addressed, as has Blue Badge holders/ disabled access. There seem to be measures in play to try and reduce congestion on Croxsted and East Dulwich Grove.


I also read the government guidance referred to in the review - the council, even if they wanted to, couldn't get rid of the LTN's at this point. Despite all the 'vote them out' sentiment, I can't see any major existing party at either a national or local level who would want to roll back on increases in active travel/ reduction in car useage. In terms of the Climate Crisis, it isn't a great look, and ultimately the move to a carbon-neutral country I think will be supported by a national majority, especially with younger people.


I've found the tone of this debate around the LTN's dispiriting - unnecessary personalization of the issues, even Police involvement for some of its excesses. Given the overarching context that the LTN's or some form of alternative serious traffic reduction isn't going to go away, I would have thought the best way forward is to accept the new reality, and try and collectively make it work as best as possible.

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...