Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can see the OP's point but I do feel there are other businesses doing just the same and it's been a really tough year for these independents. I imagine they'll have to close again due to overheads if they reduce number of tables outside. I am a buggy pusher and don't usually find it a problem along that road as not a busy road and I can always cross over. But know just my experience. I also love the food at this cafe and just want to flag that it's DELICIOUS

redjam Wrote:

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

> nxjen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Come off it, while people in their sixties are

> > certainly older, you know full well that

> Garages

> > was referring to an older and possibly less

> mobile

> > demographic. People in their sixties are spring

> > chickens!

>

> Don't really understand the 'less mobile'

> argument. You're either mobile enough to travel

> along a pavement or you're not. If you are, then

> surely you can just walk on the other side of the

> road? The tables are not blocking both pavements.

> It's a quiet residential side street so not

> difficult to walk on the other side.


I am sure many people will help this cafe but the entitlement of some on this forum is summed up by the above.


But then that is ED.

sorry but I dont see what 'entitlement' has to do with the post you've quoted?

It IS a quiet residential side street.

And when open Blue Brick just opens Weds-Sunday (or maybe thurs Sunday?) It doesn't trade at night has been there years and doesn't charge stupid prices either.

rupert james Wrote:

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

>

> I am sure many people will help this cafe but the

> entitlement of some on this forum is summed up by

> the above.

>

> But then that is ED.


Seeing as that post seems to be aimed at me may I respectfully disagree?


I don't think it's entitled to want to support a small independent business in what has clearly been a difficult time for them.


As other posters have suggested, the first port of call in a situation like this should always be a quiet word with the owner, who seems like a nice chap from what others have told me (I don't know him personally), rather than going in all guns blazing with an official complaint to the council and a slagging-off on a public forum.


As for mobility issues, I do have every sympathy. But it is a road with two pavements. If you have mobility issues you'd be better off using the other side of the road anyway, as it has no side roads running off it (the other has three lots of dropped kerbs to navigate). And even in the incident described in the OP, it sounds like the the dog and chairs were moved out the way when requested. Complaining to the council over having to wait for a minute for a couple of chairs to be moved out the way seems a wildly disproportionate response.

My last reply to some on this Tread.

Have a nice meal at the Blue Brick Cafe.

Stick your feet out, put your bike up by the edge of the pavement,

leave you pushchair sticking out and watch pedestrians cross the road.

It just shows what society has got to, self self self.

ENJOY YOUR MEAL OR MEALS. sorry i forgot to tell you, I'm a 68 year old vegetarian

and have been for 60 years

Gaby, I agree with you about bins. Some houses have to house their bins on the pavement due to the design (stairs leading to the front door, etc.) but others don't. It is so lazy and renders parts of the street impassable for some people with a disability, with children/prams, etc. Also, they really do make the place look untidy - ironic, seeing as they are rubbish bins!

Local councillors do very little to enforce the rules, likewise with overhanging branches (which also can make life harder for the blind, those with limited mobility and pretty much anyone who doesn't like getting whacked in the face with a twig or three), because they don't like doing the "bad cop" kind of politicking (even though it would be popular with the majority of would-be voters who don't let things go).

I know that it may seem trite, even petty, to some but everybody deserves to be able to walk/wheel down a street without having to turn back, go into the road or get thwacked by privet (worse when wet) and if that means a local "leader" or two has to get down to brass tacks with a very small number of people, so be it.


As for relevance to the cafe, as stated in my previous post, it is a great asset and any problem can be solved by talking to the owner/manager in the short term and, in the longer term, by asking the council to build out the pavement. In the meantime, could a table or two be put on the road where there is a DYL, meaning there woudl be full width on at least part of the footpath as a passing place? I have eaten often outside there and have never seen a situation where nobody could pass, though I agree that a diner ought to be always aware of that possibility.

I have a vague memory from previous posts some time ago that in order for a cafe/shop to have tables/chairs outside for customers, they must have a licence and pay for the number of tables etc. This was a couple of years ago and related to a query concerning Franklins.
I again reiterate - give these guys a break - they have about 6 tables outside on a very quiet street - I cycled past yesterday and there was nothing untoward about the layout. I for one love seeing all the chairs and tables outside where ever possible - franklins have been really creative (and safe) as has number 57 on northcross road. I wish all these businesses nothing but the best and I am pretty sure they are all doing their absolute utmost not to antagonise anyone in order to keep their businesses going.

I would suggest that if you or a member of your household are a wheelchair user and this is actively preventing you from getting around, then you need to have a word with the owner.


Otherwise - just try to put up with it until they can serve customers indoors again, and then reevaluate the situation.

Gah what a demoralising little thread this is at the end of the year we (& that lovely little cafe and all others like it) have had and thank the lord for those of you who chipped up and agree. little cafes like this one and little tables outdoors (for the paltry few weeks of the looong year that's actually possible in UK weather) are what make ED ED.


Please redirect all this energy to causes worthy of such indignation.

There is room for both concern about a potential hazard, especially for the elderly or disabled, and support for a local institution that is much-frequented and supportive of the wider community. So yes, hooray for small businesses like this and, at the same time, hooray for making all of our area as passable and pleasant as possible. See - a smile and a good word for everyone!

Nice to walk passed Blue Brick Cafe on Saturday. But a man with a dog had to make a point and put a s/steel bowl with water in the middle of the pavement to make a roundabout and the dog was asleep under the chair.

As for Smooch. Hope you was in the road, as its against the law to cycle on the pavement

where did it say I cycled on the pavement?

as a cyclist I do not use the pavement


I would also add that I always stop at red lights and make a point of bellowing, in an angry middle aged manner, at those cyclists who do not think a red traffic light is anything to do with them.


yes that means you, dulwich dad with your two lads on bikes who decided to jump the red light at the junction of dulwich village and turney road in the afternoon last week. Should add the boys were mortificed, but Dad wasn't

lucerne Wrote:

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

> Gah what a demoralising little thread this is at

> the end of the year we (& that lovely little cafe

> and all others like it) have had and thank the

> lord for those of you who chipped up and agree.

> little cafes like this one and little tables

> outdoors (for the paltry few weeks of the looong

> year that's actually possible in UK weather) are

> what make ED ED.

>

> Please redirect all this energy to causes worthy

> of such indignation.


What Lucerne said

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...