Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Annoyed that North cross Road Market is still open when so many are not, people still gathering, no masks, no social distancing, children running around, ok, but people who actually live here feel they cannot go out to shop/chemists as so MANY people etc, are around, Southwark Council have been informed and the fact that they have done anything to stop this so far (through their own negligence) is not an excuse to be a bunch of pratts, show some sense and regard for other people.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/275498-north-cross-road-market/
Share on other sites

Trolley Snatcha Wrote:

> If you are annoyed by this, then do not walk down

> North Cross Road on Saturday afternoon, lest you

> be even more annoyed. Very, very simple solution

> that works for all.



^ Exactly. I Couldn't agree more.


I see no need to make life even more miserable by forcing the closure of yet another amenity, just to appease the permanently outraged covid social media mafia.

"people who actually live here...."


Loving the implication that it's hoardes of outsiders descending on North Cross Road each week and not just residents of the road and surrounding streets grabbing a bite to eat, in the open air.


It's only open for a few hours and isn't even the full street, shouldn't be too hard to avoid for those concerned.

Marshalls are stopping people not wearing Masks walking through North Cross Road

but ignoring Stall Holders preparing and selling Food not wearing masks.


I spoke to one such Stall holder (Fast Food) not wearing a mask.

He said he did not have to wear a mask because he had been Vaccinated.


I said he could possibly still pass on Covid.

He was 20-30 so do not know under what scheme he may of been Vaccinated.


Fast Food to eat as you walk along is NOT Essential


Let's put a Stop to it.


DulwichFox

DulwichFox, what were you doing in the market? Was it an essential trip? How long did you stand there witnessing contraventions? If half of east dulwich go to north street every day to ?see? what is was like and and spent 15 minutes wondering around looking for rule breakers, then no wonder it was busy! Seems to me the market is more full with gawkers than customers!


Pot kettle black


I?ll shut up if you are a market inspector or a policeman.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Marshalls are stopping people not

> wearing Masks walking through

> North Cross Road


Are you certain you saw them physically preventing people from doing so?


> but ignoring Stall Holders preparing and

> selling Food not wearing masks.


I don't believe the regulations on wearing of masks in shops, etc would apply to stall holders, or customers, because the market is not indoors. See the definitions of 'relevant place', 'shop' and 'shopping centre' in para.2 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020. The word 'market' doesn't appear.


It seems to me that the best legitimate action would be against instances of gathering, of any group of two or more who aren't from the same household or bubble. That would be for a police officer to do. The best personal safegaurd would probably be to avoid the place if it's crowded. The risk each day of getting infected rises with the number of people you get near to, and masks are far from perfect barriers to something the size of a virus.

RoundTable Wrote:

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

> DulwichFox, what were you doing in the market? Was

> it an essential trip? How long did you stand there

> witnessing contraventions? If half of east dulwich

> go to north street every day to ?see? what is was

> like and and spent 15 minutes wondering around

> looking for rule breakers, then no wonder it was

> busy! Seems to me the market is more full with

> gawkers than customers!

>

> Pot kettle black

>

> I?ll shut up if you are a market inspector or a

> policeman.


I live on Ulverscroft Road. Going to Lordship Lane M&S or Co-op it is a natural route to go through North Cross Road

I also use Lucas and LLoyds Pharmacy on a regular basis. I try and avoid on Market days.


The market is packed. It does not need to be open under the current situation.


DulwichFox

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Foxy, the quickest route to LL for you is down

> Whateley Rd.

> Only when you want to arrive on LL further North

> does the market street (NX) feature as a viable

> route (when no Covid).



Whateley is Not quicker. It is longer by 200 steps. North Cross has shops which is a nicer route,

Not a problem when the Market is not open. the market IS a problem.


There was a Snow ball fight in a Field 50 odd people.. Loads of space..

The organiser was fine ?10,000


Market in a congested area with 100's of people

Why aren't Market organisers being fined. ?


Cannot give an example at the mo but I'm sure I have read/heard from somewhere that other markets have had to close.

East Dulwich seems to be outside the law. People with a lot of clout. Friends in the right places.


Foxy


ETA


Broadway Market in Hackney forced to close due to lack of social distancing as shoppers flout rules.


Covid-19: Bovingdon Market 'closed indefinitely' over safety fears


Shuttered by Covid: The end of Dagenham Sunday Market


A Christmas market in Nottingham has been shut down for the

rest of the year after criticism over a lack of social distancing.


Cambridge Market shut down as Covid spreads rapidly through city


Just a few examples I have Found.


What do they have in common ?

Responsible Councils..


Southwark does nothing.

Blimey, from the way everyone's reacting it's as if North Cross Road Market is a heaving mass of bodies. It's not. It's no more than a dozen stalls that were well spaced last time I was there, with marshalls at either end asking people to wear masks. In recent weeks it hasn't been that busy and it's EXTREMELY easy to avoid if you don't want to go through it - either by taking a slightly different route to bypass that short stretch of road or, y'know, avoiding going through it between 11am and 3pm on a Saturday. Do you really think it's safer to go to M&S or Co-op to get your lunch ingredients rather than buying something in the open air? And I'd far rather support a local business through these hard times.

redjam Wrote:

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

> Blimey, from the way everyone's reacting it's as

> if North Cross Road Market is a heaving mass of

> bodies. It's not. It's no more than a dozen stalls

> that were well spaced last time I was there, with

> marshalls at either end asking people to wear

> masks. In recent weeks it hasn't been that busy

> and it's EXTREMELY easy to avoid if you don't want

> to go through it - either by taking a slightly

> different route to bypass that short stretch of

> road or, y'know, avoiding going through it between

> 11am and 3pm on a Saturday. Do you really think

> it's safer to go to M&S or Co-op to get your lunch

> ingredients rather than buying something in the

> open air? And I'd far rather support a local

> business through these hard times.



Well said!

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> KidKruger Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Foxy, the quickest route to LL for you is down

> > Whateley Rd.

> > Only when you want to arrive on LL further

> North

> > does the market street (NX) feature as a viable

> > route (when no Covid).

>

>

> Whateley is Not quicker. It is longer by 200

> steps. North Cross has shops which is a nicer

> route,

> Not a problem when the Market is not open. the

> market IS a problem.

>

> There was a Snow ball fight in a Field 50 odd

> people.. Loads of space..

> The organiser was fine ?10,000

>

> Market in a congested area with 100's of people

> Why aren't Market organisers being fined. ?

>

> Cannot give an example at the mo but I'm sure I

> have read/heard from somewhere that other markets

> have had to close.

> East Dulwich seems to be outside the law. People

> with a lot of clout. Friends in the right places.

>

>

> Foxy

>

> ETA

>

> Broadway Market in Hackney forced to close due to

> lack of social distancing as shoppers flout

> rules.

>

> Covid-19: Bovingdon Market 'closed indefinitely'

> over safety fears

>

> Shuttered by Covid: The end of Dagenham Sunday

> Market

>

> A Christmas market in Nottingham has been shut

> down for the

> rest of the year after criticism over a lack of

> social distancing.

>

> Cambridge Market shut down as Covid spreads

> rapidly through city

>

> Just a few examples I have Found.

>

> What do they have in common ?

> Responsible Councils..

>

> Southwark does nothing.


Those 200 extra steps to avoid north cross roads will do you the world of good during lockdown. Plus anyway you are not supposed to go into non-essential shops so the ?nice? shops in north cross road should be shut. So no reason to have to go through north cross road really.

But it is NOT just about what "you" want to do. The fact that others are disregarding medical advice/regulations and meeting up for social light bites, keeping close to one another, etc. does have an impact on others, an impact that could copromiise somebody's health badly. So it is entirely invalid to say "don't go there and then all is fine". If the non-compliant people's actions had no impact at all on those who decide to stay inside or shop alone, masked and quickly, it would be fair to criticise them but this is the opposite of what is correct, namely that all of us a potential vectors to a new variant of an already easily transmissable and possibly deadly virus. Sheesh, nobody needs a pulled pork sandwich and weekend catch up au marche that much!

Nigello Wrote:

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

> But it is NOT just about what "you" want to do.

> The fact that others are disregarding medical

> advice/regulations and meeting up for social light

> bites, keeping close to one another, etc. does

> have an impact on others, an impact that could

> copromiise somebody's health badly. So it is

> entirely invalid to say "don't go there and then

> all is fine". If the non-compliant people's

> actions had no impact at all on those who decide

> to stay inside or shop alone, masked and quickly,

> it would be fair to criticise them but this is the

> opposite of what is correct, namely that all of us

> a potential vectors to a new variant of an already

> easily transmissable and possibly deadly virus.

> Sheesh, nobody needs a pulled pork sandwich and

> weekend catch up au marche that much!


But the argument is about the market being busy. It seems it is busy because folks go to gawk. By your logic, nobody needs M&S that much that they are prepared to stand in a queue. In fact, plenty supermarkets are busier than north cross road AND they are indoor. So if folks are so worried about the impact of north cross market, why are they not as worried about the impact of supermarkets? It is because of having options that risk spreads out. It is when people are forced down to one specific shop that crowds happen.


I would not be having this conversation if the argument was against ALL types of shops that encourage crowds, not just selectively a food market that is near their doorstop. It was a slight pong of ?not in my back garden? attitude.

> Those 200 extra steps to avoid north cross roads

> will do you the world of good during lockdown.

> Plus anyway you are not supposed to go into

> non-essential shops so the ?nice? shops in north

> cross road should be shut. So no reason to have to

> go through north cross road really.


Not worried about 200 steps . but when its cold and wet I want to get out as little as possible

and stay in the warm.


Before Covid I was walking 4 - 5 Miles a day.


I use Lucas to buy Loose Flour and Use Lloyds for regular medical needs

Asthma medicine.. From DMC and Diabetic Blood sugar test strips.


I am local here for last 41 years (25 years in Ulverscroft. }

Why should anyone like myself be restricted and told what roads I should and should not use


Why should ANYONE be told what roads they should and should not use.


(Apologies for any incorrect use of Grammar or Spelling )


Fox

In normal times that's a fair description of a market. It really wasn't like this today or on recent, drier weekends.


Rather than judging things with one's own eyes, I wonder if this thread amounts to anything more than assumptions muttered behind twitching net curtains?

It absolutely does not encourage people to loiter (in fact there are signs asking you not to) and I have seen no evidence of people 'meeting up for social light bites' at the market, certainly not since lockdown. There are no tables/chairs out on the streets or spaces where you're encouraged to linger. You might have to wait for some food to be prepared so maybe that adds to the impression of busyness but it's no worse than people waiting in a queue outside M&S.


Agree with the earlier point that the more places are open where we can buy food, the more the risk is spread. If only supermarkets are open then we really will have a problem.

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...