Jump to content

Recommended Posts

snathani Wrote:

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

> I wonder how many people here saying the market

> should be closed are people who disliked having

> the market there anyway. And I wonder how many

> people ill in hospital now are there because

> having nine months of "stay at home" and cancelled

> operations is really bad for our health, but

> that's another argument.


And as well as what KK said above, if you have been into kings, or know people who work there, you would realise that as well as normal winter pressures, and some admissions caused by delays to treatments over the past year, the vast majority of hospital beds are taken up with Covid patients.


ICU staff are supposed to be dedicated to a single patient or two at the max depending on severity of their clinical needs, yet at the moment one nurse in ICU is on average looking after 3 or 4 patients at a time. That's a hell of an ask for someone on a 12 hour shift pattern and we can all help them by social distancing, wearing masks and only going out for truly essential reasons (toilet roll buying for example)


The impact of the delays in treatment will become truly apparent when this wave is over so to reduce that issue as much as you personally can, follow the blinking rules, no matter how much it incontinences you because you can't get a portion of street food.

I chatted on line with my partner Trust Education leads last week...all working in Cardiology, we ?joked? that we were going to be careful when cooking, running, cycling etc.why? Because if you break a leg, cut your hand or are in an RTA, treatment or surgery will be delayed, even as an emergency to save a limb as there are NO recovery ITU beds available in London... and if you have children...be warned, paediatric ITUs are now Covid wards. So please stay home, wear a mask and DO NOT SOCIALISE outside of your household group.

It is worth noting that there is a huge upsurge in issues surrounding mental health (including self-harm and suicide attempts) fuelled by fear, loneliness and isolation. Seeing other people (ideally of course in a fully socially distanced manner) offers some remedy to this. Like other strictly non-Covid conditions which Covid-19 is exacerbating we should not be condemnatory of people because their entire being isn't fixated just on Covid-19 and Covid secure behaviour. This is particularly relevant to younger people, whose careers and education have been put on hold, or severely jeopardised, by this pandemic and who have far less, materially or experientially, to fall back on.


Of course the market is a risk, of course 'socialising' is a risk, but so is isolation and not socialising. Young adults are not in line for the vaccine early on, perhaps ever (they don't normally get flu vaccines after all) - and one of the government experts has started to talk again about herd immunity amongst this age group.

Penguin , just to add context , according to the BBC "Every adult will be offered a coronavirus vaccine by Autumn, Matt Hancock says"


Whilst the isolation issue and knock on effects are recognised, young people socialising because they don't like staying in * and then potentially going home to carry undetected infection to their parents / vulnerable family members also needs to be considered in the equation and RIsk factors of going out unnecessarily to things like the burger van at a market.


* a few short months / years ago parents complained that their kids didn't go out and socialise as they were online or playing video games, oh the irony of now being told they like to go out to socialise....

This Government has defunded mental health services over the past 10 years.


There has been an extreme shortage of acute and emergency ?beds? for children and adults in London for years. I have been campaigning for these services to be increased so young people in London are not transferred 100 of miles for an emergency bed, but....the current issue is there will be NO emergency beds for anyone ...acute or chronic in 14 days time.


So yes, I do worry about mental health issues, I worry about my burnt out colleagues at King?s, GSTT, Barts, Georges, Imperial...I worry about my friends with risk factors who haven?t seen anyone for a year. But it is about access to care. Don?t break a leg, don?t have a stroke and don?t get diagnosed with cancer.......

A fair suggestion in principle, but I think it would come back to the problem shopkeepers face - enforcement.

People get pretty aggressive when challenged.

Last night I got called a tramp (fair enough), ?bladclaat?, c*nt, racist AND a got threat to ?give you Covid?, because I asked a guy sat in a takeaway if he could put a mask on - in a place that clearly had a big sign on the door (with diagram) to ?only enter if wearing a mask?. He was sitting down, so I didn?t touch him.

Wouldn?t fancy doing that job myself in a shop or market !


Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Playing the devils advocate for a moment

>

> Should it be closed or should the current rules be

> applied with more authority to control / enforce

> numbers, social distancing and mask wearing ?

sjsl Wrote:

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

> Agree KK, the problem with the suggestion of

> applying the rules with more authority, there just

> aren't the resources/manpower... if there were

> more community policeman it would help but they

> aint there. You can't expect stallholders etc to

> enforce the rules.


But you could reasonably expect the appointed market officers in the council to enforce the rules or install barriers and one way systems to assist people being able to follow the rules

No, you have to trust the stall owners and customers. Herne Hill market was open today, with just a handful of stalls and people were observing rules.


I don?t believer the same could be said for NCRoad (or we wouldn?t be having this conversation) so it had to be nothing.

Go out to buy essentials ... otherwise stay at home. We are all bored of it, we all want to have fun, we all want to eat nice tasty pork buns, but the selfish and thoughtless actions of some people will cost lives. Yes, this Government is useless and yes the message has been confused and mixed, but we all know what we should be doing. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/10/london-hospital-trust-cancels-urgent-cancer-surgery-covid-barts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Do you genuinely think people are leaving their house just to go look at how busy the market is so they can complain about it? Come on!


I absolutely love that market and fully support all the local businesses that make this area such a special one. I can?t think of anything more sad than it needing to shut- oh yes I can, people starving of oxygen and dying alone without their family around them because we all fancied a hog roast and a chat...


No one is denying the horrendous impact this pandemic and the restrictions are having on so many different people in so many different ways. The economic and mental health impact is just awful and I agree that it?s hit certain groups much harder. I think everyone can understand the desire to find ways around the rules and seek out social contact and of course the need for vendors to keep working and making a living.


The struggle is that the more we are complacent/make exceptions and don?t comply, the more people will get sick, the more likely the NHS falls over entirely and the longer we all have to live with our lives restricted.

Keeping the Market open gives the impression that things are back to Normal.

and that it is OK to stroll around eating Street Food and having a good old chat.


Closing the Market will bring it home to people that we all need to 'STAY AT HOME'

and only venture out for Essentials.

Things are far more serious than they were in Early 2020.


People seem to believe that having a Vaccine available has made it Safe to go out.


DulwichFox

Are the stallholders exempt from any of the government payments? If not, then I can see why they are dead keen to make money. If not, then they ought to not open and turn attention to take-away via phone or online order.


Also, I do expect stallholders to instil some confidence at least by enforcing (yes, enforcing) distanced queueing and card only payment etc. I woudl prefer to shop at a stall whose owner is telling customers to stay six feet apart, etc. than one that turns a blind eye and take the cash.


Most people sans masks are young men and, strangely-to-me, middle-aged women, in my experience.

Brockley farmers market is an excellent example of how to run an outdoor market and stick to the rules. They have a one way in and out system, stewards monitoring numbers at the gate and only allowing people in with masks, all stallholders have a strict queuing system as well. I know it?s a little harder with a street market, but a lot of good lessons could be learnt from how they do things.

AnnaSimmonds Wrote:

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

> Food and drink may be classed as ?essential? but i

> am very surprised Southwark allowed it to go

> ahead. Obviously I can entirely understand the

> instinct of the vendors to want to keep going with

> their small businesses but it did not look in

> keeping with the spirit of lockdown at all, lots

> of people maskless and in close proximity to one

> another. In an area where 1 in 20 are estimated to

> have covid, it did seem irresponsible. But then

> probably no different to how busy the rest of

> Lordship Lane was today. I Was really surprised to

> see it open though!



I totally agree. It was very busy when I saw it (I live nearby) and hardly anyone wearing masks.


I know market traders need to earn a living but it should have been better policed in terms of people distancing and not gathering together.


People in this area just don't seem to be taking Covid seriously enough.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> My colleagues in the NHS are at breaking point. My

> best friend was called on NYEve to call around his

> team to ask for volunteers for the intensive care

> unit .... to help prone patients and act as

> assistants to the ITU team as they were so short

> handed. I?m so glad that people had access to a

> nice pork bun! Seriously 😑 I don?t blame

> the guys selling food on the stall...it must be

> hard if that is their only income. The Government

> should pay people to stay at home, if you can?t

> pay your rent or mortgage you can end up

> homeless...which won?t help the NHS as it

> increases morbidity and pressure on health

> services. But.....Southwark need to work within

> the crap parameters that this incompetent

> Government have given us. I think making masks

> mandatory if people want to run stalls and shop in

> the market is a good compromise.


I completely agree. Make masks outside compulsory. Instil how dangerous Covid is (people don't get it until they have it or know someone who ends up in ITU or dies). Market should be very carefully organised if allowed to go ahead.

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...