Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It took me years to integrate into london from my home town in the midlands, and I could not live anywhere else because I feel the country is just too limited. The biggest problem with the provinces are the people, they are so provincial, so I guess Alicia should fit in quite readily.

My eldest daughter who has been living near her university in epsom, came back to live in london with a great sigh of relief, saying she will never leave london again. The town of epsom, a predominantly white middle class enclave is dull and limited.

The advantages of things like employment, the arts, the wide variety of things happening in london makes it unique, and when I lived in Birmingham our second city, it only felt like a big Derby (my home town) never could it be considered to be a small london. Have a nice dull extremely limited life Alicia, you obviously deserve it.

This post has really made me laugh. Having lived in East Dulwich since September and merely observed the forum I felt it necessary to register in order to respond.


I love the replies to Alicia's original post, I just hope that they are not covering up the severity of the problem: The problem of ignorance and a 'not in my back yard' ethos on the part of the writer are worrying and ultimately destructive.


I would rather live near a YOT than near you.

Alicia


I think the posters to date have given you a clear view of how your warning to East Dulwich has come across. I won't add to it, except to say that the kindest conclusion one can draw is that you are rather ignorant and have a tendency to jump to conclusions. I hope that your children will grow up happily and safely in the country, and that they will perhaps investigate the city on their own terms at the right time, and discover its wonders and joys.


You've gone very quiet since this afternoon, may I ask what purpose you had in mind when you sent your original post? Since you are moving out of East Dulwich, you have nothing to fear from the youth offending team yourself, and since this is (you say) a done deal, we could do nothing about it if we wanted to. Do you enjoy trying to frighten people? and have you a particular grudge against the readers of the Forum? I am curious to know - the spleen in your note suggests more to the story than we have seen so far. Come on, have a little courage - tell us what you really mean.

emmarose Wrote:

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

> This post has really made me laugh. Having lived

> in East Dulwich since September and merely

> observed the forum I felt it necessary to register

> in order to respond.


Welcome to the forum!


> I love the replies to Alicia's original post, I

> just hope that they are not covering up the

> severity of the problem: The problem of ignorance

> and a 'not in my back yard' ethos on the part of

> the writer are worrying and ultimately

> destructive.

>

> I would rather live near a YOT than near you.


Well if the YOT is moving to East Dulwich Road as Alicia stated, then they'll just be a few doors down from me. I certainly know who I would rather have in the neighbourhood. It would be the people who are trying to improve society as a whole, not just their secluded (deluded?) corner.

I am inclined to think that society is responsible for breeding youth offenders and therefore responsible for dealing with them. You can?t just sweep them under the carpet on some council estate somewhere.


The fact that they are a significant social problem can be put down to british society being blinkered and limp-wristed. This ethos is often spawned and perpetuated in the molly-coddled comfort of middle class suburbia so it is perhaps fitting that some of its consequences should make themselves evident here.


By the way, can I still post on here after I move to Kent?

Alicia Wrote:

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



> And you thought that Foxtons were a big deal. My

> house is under offer and we will be moving out of

> London as soon as we have sold - don't say that

> you weren't told about this in advance.

>

> I would be very worried about the safety of my

> children and for myself come to that if I were

> still going to be around.


Nice selling! Quite clearly you've learnt the art of selling a property perhaps from the Foxton lot?! ;-)

I don't really know much about this but just to pick up on one point:


Just assuming for argument's sake that the presence of a YOT team did cause problems (and by the way I'm not saying that it does!!!), then moving the team off a council estate and onto a main road may be a good thing. Why should council estate tenants have to bear the brunt of any problems? Also they are probably some of the people least likely to be able to 'up and leave' if they don't like their neighbours or the area.


Anyway a bit off the point but I just want to challenge the assumption I think some people in society have that council estates are the places for putting anything that may be troublesome.

More to the point, there is already a halfway house for vulnerable or troubled adults on East Dulwich Road - exactly the sort of place that gets NIMBYites hot under the cassock and off painting their placards.


I have lived next door to it for more than six years, and never had any trouble (except, once, for a week of VH1 being played a bit loud in the early hours. I dropped a polite note through the door, and they stopped).

ratty Wrote:

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

> Flong, glad to hear the house on EDR has not

> caused you too much trouble cos I work for the

> organisation that runs it! :)


Er... I suppose that there's more to it than that. I've disturbed their sleep with my occasional drunken interludes (breaking in when key is actually in pocket, etc) far more than they've ever disturbed me. Pass on my apologies.

I'm afraid this does worry me, if it's true (and I have heard rumours elsewhere that the Council is planning this but is keeping it under wraps so as not to upset local residents)


My children walk back from school that way and are already quite nervous after my son was mugged not once, but twice, for his phone. Reading the forum, this seems to be quite common. Are we sure this won't make the problem worse for our young people? Sorry to go against the grain. It's nice for ED to be so supportive of these troubled young people, but can we be sure it won't make the streets more dangerous?

Well done Alicia for giving us this valuable piece of intelligence.

I watched Oliver! the other evening and I know where these things can lead.

Oh first of all it's ragged urchins asking if they can mind your horse for you

while you're conducting business with the chandler. Lulling you into a false sense of security is what the young blighters are doing.

The next thing you know they're lifting your 'kerchief, bold as y'like.

It'll get to where a man's personal belongings won't be safe in his breeches and his womenfolk and maidservants will be fearful of walking the streets.

I shall be taking the matter up with the Beadle at his earliest convenience.

A taste of the birch is what these ne'erdowells require, that'll stop 'em going on to be footpads, mark my words.

I think everyone has been far too hard on Alicia, she's provided us with a valuable piece of information, a 'heads up' to use the vernacular.

It's all very well to come on here with your wooly-minded, namby-pamby liberalism and proceed to break poor Alicia's balls, but you'll be sneering on the other side of mouths when you find yourselves having to 'pack heat' for a visit to White Stuff to buy your low slung trousers.

I predict there'll be drive-by shootings, drug deals and associated turf wars within minutes of this place opening for business. Mark my words.

Well done for speaking out on the matter Alicia. Ignore the mimsy-wimsy, head-in-the sand lollygaggers who have criticised your brave stand against the forces of evil that would erode our quality of life.


I'm behind you all the way.

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...