Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't think they are a lazy construct, and I have seem them around the place.


What gets me is words like discrimination, like it's your (no one imparticular) human right to sit and have a coffee with your mates.


Perspective required. As has already been said, there are plenty of other places around so why not just go there and worry about something that is actually important.

I agree that there is an argument that the word 'discrimination' itself has connotations beyond those intended here, and perhaps was ill-used (though I also think there's an argument that its use was semantically accurate).


However, having been in a similar situation (in a different cafe) with a friend who (in a shaky state, like many of us when our babies are young) was knocked off the end of her tether and into tears by treatment akin to that described above, I don't think calls for 'perspective' which belittle the experience of the original poster and the effect this kind of treatment can have are justified. We're humans living in a close society together; actions like this (however admittedly minor compared to war, famine, and any other polarising example you can think of!) do have an impact on people. Why try to trivialise people's experiences and feelings?


If you don't think this issue is worth worrying about, perhaps don't read and contribute to this thread?! (Having said that, I'd be interested to hear concrete descriptions of how the observed entitled examples enact their entitlement!)

Places that aren't friendly to buggies are also unlikely (in my experience) to be friendly to wheelchairs, so I'm sorry to hear that there are places locally that have made mothers with buggies/prams feel unwelcome. There have been times when I've struggled to get around the many prams in various local shops/cafes, but generally the pram-owners have been more than happy to move them to help me get past... I'll stick to the Actress, the Palmerston and Pretty's!
Sorry but the very use of the word discriminate suggests an entitlement complex. My partner read that over my shoulder and groaned without having seen the protracted discussion that followed. The restaurant was not accommodating, which may or may not be a bad business decision. The term discriminate shows a total lack of perspective.

I'm with Otta too; yes, the owner doesn't like prams and that probably a bad business decision, but it's his decision to make. It's a pity, but it's hardly like there's a dearth of places to go with your pram round here. And the OP managed to have a lovely time practically NEXT DOOR!


Also, a pram isn't essential with small children - babies can go in slings, toddlers can walk. Of course, that's not always convenient, but it's just not true to say that you HAVE to have a pram with you when you're out and about.

That's really the point oimissus. We selected ED because its is so accommodating to young families. However, when making decisions about what products are best we all need to consider what is convenient for our lifestyles. If you rely on public transport you have to think about if the pram you like can fit on the bus and if it can easily fold down. If you enjoy travelling, you need to think about what can be accommodated on planes (if you can still afford to travel :)). If you enjoy going to cafes, you need to think about what will fit in a typical shop without potentially inconveniencing the owner and other customers by limiting the number of people that can be served or creating an unsafe environment. There use to be a time when people made decisions about what was best considering not only what was convenient for them but also what was convenient for the wider community they would be interacting with.


Lot's of stores around here are thankfully very accommodating because they are targeting young families and its no crime to have a massive pram. However, the complaints about "entitlement" come up when it appears that no thought has been given to how your choices might impact others.

Actually I don't think it is a bad business decision.

Cafes cater for people of all ages and the buying power of mums with babies/prams is limited compared to that of other patrons. If the Gardens becomes known as a baby-free zone, that would be attractive to all the people who regularly complain on here about having to share their space with babies.


Speaking as a one-time baby sling user who graduated to a fold-up Maclaren, I think that London Mix makes a valid point about thinking about how one's choices impact on the rest of society, including cafe owenrs

Of course it his decision, he has just on several occasions been very rude about it, which in my opinion is uncalled for. Especially when you have been a good, well paying customer. I have lived baby free in ED for 10yrs and love the fact that there are baby and non baby establishments in the area. Thats great.

It is most def his/her decision and one that should be respected. It is just a shame when that decision is rudely put across to very loyal customers.

I would have loved to have a sling baby- sadly that wasnt an option for me, nor is it for my friend with newborn twins.

For some prams are a must.

I am at homemade every single day with a pram. Everyone who has been know the place is tiny, i do my best to ensure my pram is not in the way and staff have never ever made me feel anything but welcome. In turn i dont go there at times when i know they are very busy, to ensure that i am not in the way.

I have the utmost respect for any revenue generating business in this climate and never ever assume that my pushchair us welcome.

I dont have an issue at all with business owners not wanting prams- my issue is being treated with rudeness.

Spring babies have found a new venue & we are very happy there.

I know The Gardens hosts business networking meetings so it sounds like he's trying to encourage that sort of client more. I do recall years ago a cafe owner (acquaintance) saying that whilst he welcomes Mums & buggies they would often take up many seats for a couple of hours whilst only ordering a coffee & cake - not good for business...I'd never really considered that before & it did make me a bit more self aware when I was lurking around the area on maternity leave!


I think my main issue is that the owner could easily put a sign up explaining their policy - eg "Sorry, no buggys" etc and then everyone would know where they stand & these upsetting experiences would cease.


As others have said its the owners decision but what a shame he's handling it so badly.

Agree that rudeness is never ok.


But must say that though service might be patchy, it's still better than the place on the Rye (which is dirty, has squalid toilets and dishes up appalling food. Are those butties actually edible?). A pity, given its excellent building and location.

The Nappy Lady Wrote:

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

> I do recall

> years ago a cafe owner (acquaintance) saying that

> whilst he welcomes Mums & buggies they would often

> take up many seats for a couple of hours whilst

> only ordering a coffee & cake - not good for

> business...I'd never really considered that before

> & it did make me a bit more self aware when I was

> lurking around the area on maternity leave!

>


To be honest, this is very true. Unfortunately Mums and buggies are not very lucrative as really do mostly (not always) go into cafes just for coffee and possibly a cake and may stay for quite a long period of time. So cafes can't really afford for them to take up two tables at a busy time- breakfast or lunchtime, or if it's a really small establishment. However, the Gardens whilst quite small inside has a large outside and if not busy I really don't see the problem with prams or taking two tables. There's absolutely no need for rudeness or attitude from the manager.


Do agree with civilservant and LondonMix about thinking about how your choices impact on society.


Funnily enough, I had an awful experience with an entitled DAD the other day who brought a buggy with a child in on the bus and then asked me to get up from the seats next to the area for buggies/wheelchairs so he could sit down!!!! I completely refused and although he continued to try to bully me out of the seat I stood firm and eventually all of the other passengers came to my defense and called this guy up about his entitled behaviour. He tried to claim the seats were for people like him, I pointed out that they are for elderly, those less able to stand, pregnant women (which I could have been one), and for parents with young children who they need to seat on their laps. He said 'when you have children you will want to look after them!'- patronising enough as he clearly thought I was 16 when I'm actually almost 30 and could have had 5 kids at home! He was a complete bully who just chose me because I looked like an easy target-there was an older woman next to me and he didn't ask her to move and she was in no way 'old'. I said 'you can look after your child and stand up at the same time! '. You'ld never get a Mum acting in such a way IMO. That's really the only self entitled parent I've come across before, besides a few SW mums in Clapham in their SUVs!

The Nappy Lady Wrote:

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

> I know The Gardens hosts business networking

> meetings so it sounds like he's trying to

> encourage that sort of client more. I do recall

> years ago a cafe owner (acquaintance) saying that

> whilst he welcomes Mums & buggies they would often

> take up many seats for a couple of hours whilst

> only ordering a coffee & cake - not good for

> business...I'd never really considered that before

> & it did make me a bit more self aware when I was

> lurking around the area on maternity leave!


So, they could just be asked to move the buggies, nicely, if that's the case. Although I've seen plenty of people with laptop computers and newspapers taking up seats with just a coffee... It's more about timing, as I see it, and whether the place is otherwise busy or not. Because if the place is empty otherwise, then having mothers with small babies, taking up tables with just cake and coffee is still better than having no one in there at all. And I really cannot believe that people want their buggies to annoy others and get in the way. It's just not always as easy as saying you can leave a buggy at home. Thay may be the case for a lot of people, but it's not the case for everyone.


>

> I think my main issue is that the owner could

> easily put a sign up explaining their policy - eg

> "Sorry, no buggys" etc and then everyone would

> know where they stand & these upsetting

> experiences would cease.


Yes, a sign would be great. They wouldn't even have to totally disallow prams. Eg, "2 buggies only during busy times", or "please fold all buggies when seated".


>

> As others have said its the owners decision but

> what a shame he's handling it so badly.


Yes, very badly handled. It's very confusing because The Gardens was initially very baby/child friendly. Why the change? I do think there are ways to accomodate different customer types in the same space. The Brockley Mess (SE4) seems to be doing a better job of managing mixed customers, in less space, with better service -- they're always busy! It can be done!!

Saffron, I agree only a sociopath would want their buggy to annoy someone. There is a difference between actively wanting to annoy someone and doing something you genuinely find convenient without considering /caring if it will annoy and inconvenience others though (which everyone is guilty of sometimes).


The family trade being better than having no one is a chicken and egg kind of question. People go to coffee shops to relax and an establishment filled with small children and babies doesn?t give off a relaxing vibe to the childless. Only families might currently go there because they are putting off other users. A place doesn?t need to be full with babies either before it starts to give off the feel of a cr?che. Not sure how large the non-baby demographic is in ED but there do seem to be a lot of writers, literary agents, musicians etc in the area so who knows.

I really cannot believe that people want their buggies to annoy others and get in the way


Indeed, I don't think anyone would imagine that people are going out thinking "who can I annoy today". I think people just don't think about other people sometimes. I am sure I don't always consider how my actions are effecting everyone around me.


If a person goes through life considering how each and everything they do will affect everyone eose, then they are a better person than I am.


I just don't think that person exists though*




*The person I describe, not "a better person than I", as they are 10 a penny)

For what it's worth, I never felt welcome in there with my baby and I used a sling most of the time. I've avoided it for months, particularly since the deli arrived in the back room (surely in no one's definition of a 'community space' as it's a shop) because it has endless things for my child to pick up and I couldn't relax for a second.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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