Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it would have been fairer if they gave the option to pick it up and dispose of it in the proper manner whilst giving you a strong warning.


Yes I appreciate they were quite clearly making an example out of the whole thing but as already mentioned on this thread the "finers" didn't target everyone else along LL at the same time.

Mark


I get my information from the kids that get mugged. Each day, I hear from another parent that their son or daughter has been mugged......its been going on for years, and unfortunately parents from these schools have resorted to driving their kids everywhere. What a shame.

Roughly 4 months ago, there were at least 6 of these wardens and at least the same number of police officers outside Bermondsey tube station giving out fines to those who had to have their last cigarette before boarding a tube. It was 8am and they made a killing that day, pity the police weren`t out in the street doing something more important :'(

Mark -


I agree with Gerry. Some of us can think outside the box. My friend has been picked on THREE TIMES this week trying to walk from the bus stop to her house (about a 10 min walk). She has spoken to the police who seem totally disinterested.


It just made me think that effort is being put into the wrong thing. For example, has the council thought about doing something to calm down the traffic on LL, or will they wait until someone is run down? Have they confronted the kids that loiter outside the newsagent by the playground on ED road - where I was treatened with a knife after refusing to give a kid 50p!!

What was so irritating is a bunch of

> blokes were accross the road chain smoking and

> slinging their butts - I guess the little weazle

> was too scared of them!


The old English student came out in me when I read that. "A bunch of blokes"... "chain smoking" ... not just placing their butt-ends on the ground but "slinging" them! Bloody hell - they were horrible louts littering our streets, weren't they? Not like you - you were smoking a cigar, waiting for your sister - terribly respectable, very reasonable.


Fact is you broke the rules and you paid the price literally. I don't like littering. Full stop. It's the behaviour we are talking about here. Not you, not the blokes across the street. And it was the behaviour that warranted the fine.


You know, I used to smoke, and I used to drop cigarette butts everywhere. And then once in Richmond this incredibly posh woman said in a really really loud voice "You dirty girl" as my cigarette butt hit the floor. I was embarrassed, angry and slightly ashamed. But I learnt my lesson.


ps. I wouldn't actually advise people to use the phrase "you dirty girl" to strangers in public - there are perhaps more appropriate ways to address the problem. Perhaps like a ?75 fine.

I don't have a box myself so I'm not sure what you're talking about.


Anyway as I mentioned on your other thread about your friend being picked on, there is the Safer Neighbour Hood team, they deal with things like that, so there is effort being put into the right thing. I'll copy and paste it here again:


Safer Neighbourhood police teams - taken from http://www.southwark.gov.uk/YourCommunity/Dulwich/lookingafterDulwich.html


"There are three Safer Neighbourhoods police teams in Dulwich in addition to other policing teams. Each team is made up of six police and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). Their aim is to find out what affects your daily life and feelings of security and help find lasting solutions to these problems.


Teams are permanent ... See this site http://www.met.police.uk/saferneighbourhoods/ for more details"


Put this number in your phone: East Dulwich Ward Safer Neighbourhood Team Tel: 020 8721 2447, they're good for reporting non-police type incidents to.


I hope that helps

BellendenBelle,

I share your horror of littering. When appropriate, your shaming idea is worth a go. It's so mucb better than silent seething or passive aggressive behaviour. I also think that when I pick up cans and bottles from teh street, a subliminal message is received by people, who might think twice about littering in the future.

But I also feel sympathy with seanmlow's view that the wardens are less likely to pick on a group of men in Camberwell, or go looking for 'victims' outside a pub.

Nero

Once again the point has been missed.


What I don't like is the fact I was singled out, on a street FULL OF SMOKERS - e.g. the guys opposite. If you are going to fine me, do it, but don't just walk past other offenders!


It is clear he was nervous as he was stuttering. If they want to put these baffoons on the street then they can't pick and choose who to fine. Surely a rule is a rule if we want to stop the littering?


No, instead they pick on a guy on his own on his mobile. Easy target, unlikely to react badly.


I think they may be in for a shock soon - one of these days they will get nutted!

Given that people get mugged and given that some muggers do get caught, do you think the ones that get caught say "it's not fair! Most of the other muggers get away with it - I hardly EVER mug anyone and the one time I do I get nabbed!!"

seanmlow Wrote:

>

> I think they may be in for a shock soon - one of

> these days they will get nutted!


They're working around that. Face recognition software and the nice biometric identity cards will make patrols unnecessary, and they'll get a robot to hand out fines.


That, I hope, will free our hard-working PCSOs from their social control responsibilities and enable them to offer real community support - telling people the time, hauling old folk across roads and generally keeping an eye out for criminal nonsense - what Plod used to do before they learnt to love paperwork and shoot Brazilians.


In the meantime, the War Against Behaviour is being fought by whoever's cheapest. It's now a whole decade since Blair announced his cashpoint plan for tramps, and yet there are still people drinking and smoking and whistling in the street. In other circumstances we'd probably have the military involved by now, but in their absence the PCSOs are the next best thing, especially given the difficulties in recruiting Specials

Sean, life can be so unfair. Lordship Lane is a tough place, especially that patch outside Somerfields where all kinds of hazards are waiting to pounce on the unsuspecting. I've known life long ED residents who wince at the thought of standing there.


But look at the positive side.


At least you're not having to write a whinging thread about being run over by a buggy pushed by a stuttering nanny.

maybe unfair that you got fined so much immediately, without even a warning


however.....i am sure you might think twice before you throw a butt on the floor again.


and if it makes people think twice then that's a good thing (in my opinion of course).

I have just returned from a trip down Rye Lane shopping and opticians and stuff.


Whilst there I saw two Community Wardens (to give them their correct titles) and approached them about the subject de jour.


They said - if you pay within ten days it's ?50.

They are not stupid.

They told me they do not carry money around and so the fine was issued in the form of a ticket (like parking ticket) and if the person gives a false name or address they follow it up and obviously they are good at recognising faces.

They approach people who are not looking like they will attempt to kill them. If there is trouble they will call the police. If the police don't come because it's not a priority there's nothing they can do.

If you are asked for your name and address by someone in authority EVEN a community warden it is an offence to lie. Clearly you did not and you were fined.


For the information on Police Ward Panels of which I am a member and anyone can be in their locale if they can be arsed, you should come along and state your case.

Phone the safer neighbourhood team numbers given above and ask them for details of the one in your area.


Admin: I started a topic a while ago which I hoped would be a useful topic listing all the important such phone numbers of safer neighbourhood teams, police support community officers, ward panels and community councils and so on and hoped everyone would add to it and put relevant numbers in their phones. Could that topic be "stuck" to the top of the forum please? It just might be useful, that's all.


Good luck in your appeal, seanmlow.

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...