Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Would it really be a utopian dream if:


The cyclists in Dulwich park made the most of the roads being deserted and used them instead of endless loops of the park, swerving around everyone at a time when we're all struggling to keep a safe distance. Hell, they could even organise a Tour de France style event round Dulwich, Crystal Palace & Forest Hill wearing their best lycra.


The joggers in Dulwich park did the same.


The park could then be safely used by families to get their kids out, get them some air without having to shush them out of the way of the above every 2 minutes. Surely it isn't being selfish to prioritise families being able to use the park at this time - is it?


Is it?

Whilst generally in agreement with you Ed-Nag there are plenty of families that really could be using their own gardens for some fresh air (obviously not all but more than are at the moment). People living in places without their own outside space should have priority in the park if anyone, be that families-or single people. In fact single people may not get to see other people otherwise, whereas families dont have that.
Do you know what, ive just driven through dulwich and Herne hill and it really does seem like people have given up with following the guidelines, or at least many are liberally interpreting ?essential? - not sure walking with beers or chatting on a bench in the sun counts as exercise. It was shockingly busy just now. There are just too many people in London to be able to stay 2m clear. I wonder if we will need more stringent measures if we don?t see a dip in numbers soon.

?There are just too many people in London to be able to stay 2m clear.?


No. Let?s not excuse the selfish minority.

London is not the problem, it?s the same in Huddersfield and Isle of Wight, everywhere.

It is easy enough to be 2m apart.

But people are not prepared to stick consistently to the distancing advice, which requires a little thought, patience and flexibility.


This is why, having given the public a chance (and failed), full lockdown is the only obvious next step.

Give people an inch, they take a mile, so they now need controlling.

700 dead yesterday anyone ?

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> ?There are just too many people in London to be

> able to stay 2m clear.?

>

> No. Let?s not excuse the selfish minority.

> London is not the problem, it?s the same in

> Huddersfield and Isle of Wight, everywhere.

> It is easy enough to be 2m apart.

> But people are not prepared to stick consistently

> to the distancing advice, which requires a little

> thought, patience and flexibility.

>

> This is why, having given the public a chance (and

> failed), full lockdown is the only obvious next

> step.

> Give people an inch, they take a mile, so they now

> need controlling.

> 700 dead yesterday anyone ?


Totally agree with you.

?There?s nothing wrong with ?joggers? in and off themselves, it?s thoughtless people that are the problem.?


As has been made clear already repeatedly on this and other threads.

No one is saying all joggers are bad, please indicate where this has been done.

Joggers (I'm one) need to take it easy. Stick to early morning or evening and run in the road.

Remember we are breathing out hard - pushing droplets far beyond 2 metres. Last week I was visually reminded of this on a frosty morning in Dulwich park - and I've not run in the park since.

As for the spitters - I've seen a few... that's a war crime!

mako Wrote:

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

> If you have to jog, do in parks. I

> see literally no need to do it on narrow pavements

> in busy areas such as lordship lane beyond

> selfishness and self entitlement.


I don't jog in parks, I jog on pavements and roads at night, when almost nobody is around. On a 1 hour run, I will only see a small number of people - most of whom are out voluntarily, exercising or dog walking. You see each other a mile off, and I just run into the road to give them space. I'm acting responsibly (but not everyone does).


I would not try to make excuses for stupid behaviour such as running along Lordship Lane during the day.


You seem to have softened your stance ever so slightly since your "literally no excuse" comment.. so at this point I shall bow out of the argument.

ebeneezergoode Wrote:

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

> Joggers (I'm one) need to take it easy. Stick to

> early morning or evening and run in the road.

> Remember we are breathing out hard - pushing

> droplets far beyond 2 metres. Last week I was

> visually reminded of this on a frosty morning in

> Dulwich park - and I've not run in the park

> since.

> As for the spitters - I've seen a few... that's a

> war crime!


Thank you! You illustrate the problem perfectly. The jury is currently out on distance required to be safe when breath is forcefully exhaled (coughing, sneezing, panting). With a light breeze to carry droplets further, who knows.

Mainly young couples hogging the pavements of Upland/NCR & LL right now. Even those who are clearly aware of the situation; using loud speaker between them, telling their friends they look forward to seeing them soon... meanwhile, hogging the streets & oblivious of other people.


I've given up on pavements completely. I walk in the street & dip in between cars whenever I need to. This hasn't made anyone on the pavement more aware of just how much they're hogging it.

first mate Wrote:

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

> ebeneezergoode Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Joggers (I'm one) need to take it easy. Stick

> to

> > early morning or evening and run in the road.

> > Remember we are breathing out hard - pushing

> > droplets far beyond 2 metres. Last week I was

> > visually reminded of this on a frosty morning

> in

> > Dulwich park - and I've not run in the park

> > since.

> > As for the spitters - I've seen a few... that's

> a

> > war crime!

>

> Thank you! You illustrate the problem perfectly.

> The jury is currently out on distance required to

> be safe when breath is forcefully exhaled

> (coughing, sneezing, panting). With a light breeze

> to carry droplets further, who knows.


A cough can travel 6m a sneeze 8m and breath travels further in warm conditions. Just stay indoors when you can .

ED Bird Wrote:

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

> Mainly young couples hogging the pavements of

> Upland/NCR & LL right now. Even those who are

> clearly aware of the situation; using loud speaker

> between them, telling their friends they look

> forward to seeing them soon... meanwhile, hogging

> the streets & oblivious of other people.

>

> I've given up on pavements completely. I walk in

> the street & dip in between cars whenever I need

> to. This hasn't made anyone on the pavement more

> aware of just how much they're hogging it.



Ditto

One thing that I've noticed- and it was very alarming on one occasion this week, is that people with children on bikes and scooters are letting them get too near other people. One child was about a foot away from me last week and coughing like mad with both hands on its handlebars, so the cough was totally broadcast.

The child should not have been out at all, and was not being properly supervised.

Stop blaming joggers..! There are ignorant and lazy people everywhere you go. These people may sometimes choose to walk, sometimes cycle, maybe even run, or worse still...roller blade. It?s simple - everyone should make an effort to distance themselves from one another. And that includes moving yourself out of the way of oncoming traffic - it takes two to tango. Don?t just expect cyclists or runners or roller bladers to move - pedestrians must also move. And if you don?t, well don?t whinge when you don?t get the whole pavement to yourself! But on a serious note, I noticed today that people overall were being more conscientious, which is really positive.


And whoever was moaning about parks being for families: bore off. The parks are for everyone.

Labour, the UK's main opposition party, will back the government's possible plans to ban outdoor exercise if it was "necessary" to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus.


Sir Keir Starmer, who was elected Labour leader on Saturday, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Every time people break the guidance from the government, they put other people at risk."


His comments come after Health Secretary Matt Hancock said if people continue to "flout the rules" then the government will ban exercise outside of the home.


Sir Keir said the focus has to be ?what is necessary to reduce the number of deaths?. ?- BBC

FlatStanley Wrote:

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

> Stop blaming joggers..! There are ignorant and

> lazy people everywhere you go. These people may

> sometimes choose to walk, sometimes cycle, maybe

> even run, or worse still...roller blade. It?s

> simple - everyone should make an effort to

> distance themselves from one another. And that

> includes moving yourself out of the way of

> oncoming traffic - it takes two to tango. Don?t

> just expect cyclists or runners or roller bladers

> to move - pedestrians must also move. And if you

> don?t, well don?t whinge when you don?t get the

> whole pavement to yourself! But on a serious note,

> I noticed today that people overall were being

> more conscientious, which is really positive.

>

> And whoever was moaning about parks being for

> families: bore off. The parks are for everyone


An issue with joggers/runners/cyclists is that it is harder to maintain the 2m when people are coming at you at a greater speed/it may not be possible to move into the road etc. People need to walk to get to shops for essentials and unless travelling to work do not need to cycle or jog on the pavements. There has been general agreement that those wishing to exercise should do so in the parks, and much of the criticism has been about joggers on pavements.

Sue Wrote:

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

> KidKruger Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yes parks for everyone.

>

>

> Provided they stay two metres apart from anyone

> else.

>

> Which is not happening.

>

> 3000 people in Brockwell Park today. WTF.


from twitter

3000 people doesn?t sound many. What?s normal for first sunny weekend of the year? The park is 51 hectares = 510,000m2, space for 127,500 to socially distance at 2m (or 4m2 each)

There are lots of pictures apparently from yesterday and it looked pretty clear.


Those with gardens should definitely use hem and not add to the congestion in our parks for those who have no choice.

I go out for my walk around 7am and am still having to dodge into the road to avoid joggers or having them pass me very closely from behind. I should say that the majority are being considerate but it only takes one to infect you. As for the 2 meter rule, that is nowhere near enough according to thus study:


https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in-times-of-covid-19-you-can-not-walk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08

ebeneezergoode Wrote:

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

> Joggers (I'm one) need to take it easy. Stick to

> early morning or evening and run in the road.

> Remember we are breathing out hard - pushing

> droplets far beyond 2 metres. Last week I was

> visually reminded of this on a frosty morning in

> Dulwich park - and I've not run in the park

> since.

> As for the spitters - I've seen a few... that's a

> war crime!


None of this stuff is getting through. I think the people who think they are invincible will carry on regardless, making life very difficult for us borderline vulnerable people and those that care for the vulnerable.

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...