Jump to content

Recommended Posts

fredricketts Wrote:

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

> Make Mr Barber Right.

>

>

> I would like to object to the granting of a 24

> hour licence to the co-op at Lordship Lane SE22

> for the following reasons:

>

> 1. We already have too many outlets for 24 hour

> Intoxicating liquor licensing in Lordship Lane.

>


xxxxxx


Please read the whole thread.


THE CO-OP HAS NOT APPLIED FOR A 24 HOUR LICENCE TO SELL ALCOHOL!!!!!


And why James Barber has not come onto this thread to correct this misinformation he is putting about, I have no idea.


But unless he has a very good excuse, my opinion of him has plumeted.

Goose Wrote:

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

> So from this website (below) for application lodged on 27th Feb, open 24 hours but alcohol 0600-2300 (except Sunday).

>

> Has my support but what defines 'late night refreshment'


"Late night refreshment" is defined, in Schedule 2 of the Licensing Act 2003, as "hot food or hot drink" provided between 23:00 and 05:00. For that a licence is required. The schedule even states that hot drinks containing alcohol do not fall within its specific provisions. They'd presumably fall within a standard alcoholic drinks licence.


I've so far found no law specifying that any shop in Southwark requires permission or licence to be open 24 hours on any day other than Sunday. I don't know that the the statement within the licence application that it's intended to open for 24 hours a day imports anything beyond a wish to be clearly accurate and truthful. If anyone knows anything more about 24 hour opening where there's no provision of either alcohol or late night refreshment, please do contribute.

Oh dear.....only James Barber would publish the details of a variation of licence application and not read them properly. Or am I being too kind in not assuming he's up to his old tricks of misrepresenting the detail of an application?


Four pages later and James still hasn't acknowledged his error. Meanwhile, the licensing committee may just be wondering why they are receiving objections to the extension of an alcohol licence that hasn't been applied for!

Didn't James say they are extending alcohol license AND applying for 24/7?


Aren't both facts true?


Doesn't mean they are opening to sell alcohol 24/7


More personal abuse of a local elected representative (even if we disagree whth him or he gets his facts wrong) is just indicative of childish, petty minds.


I'm willing to bet he works a lot more than betsy vickers for example. I can let some typos pass. "Just sayin". Pathetic

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The Coop has applied to extend it current alcohol

> license and apply for a new one to enable it to

> open 24/7.

> This is possible under the Licencesing Act 2003.

>

I understood this to mean they want to open 24/7 and extend the time they can sell alcohol within that period. Who would be silly enough to think it meant they want to sell alcohol 24/7? That would have zero chance of being allowed I'm sure.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Oh dear.....only James Barber would publish the

> details of a variation of licence application and

> not read them properly. Or am I being too kind in

> not assuming he's up to his old tricks of

> misrepresenting the detail of an application?

>

> Four pages later and James still hasn't

> acknowledged his error. Meanwhile, the licensing

> committee may just be wondering why they are

> receiving objections to the extension of an

> alcohol licence that hasn't been applied for!


They have actually applied for an extension. You would know that if you read the application. Are you going to say sorry?

Sue Wrote:


>

> THE CO-OP HAS NOT APPLIED FOR A 24 HOUR LICENCE

> TO SELL ALCOHOL!!!!!

>

> And why James Barber has not come onto this thread

> to correct this misinformation he is putting

> about, I have no idea.

>

> But unless he has a very good excuse, my opinion

> of him has plumeted.


Perhaps you can clarify where you feel misinformed before your opinion further plumetes?

@SJ...


Nope ...


This is how the opening post reads, as at 0700, Saturday 9th March.



The Coop has applied to extend it current alcohol license and apply for a new one to enable it to open 24/7.

This is possible under the Licencesing Act 2003.


This seems like a bad idea. It's one thing having a small corner shop open 24/7 which is likely ot just serve locals and the odd passing trade. We fear the Coop being open 24/7 will become a night time destination and have formally objected.


But what do you think?

If you think it's a good or bad idea please do tell council officials before the 27 March deadline.

Email [email protected] and cope me [email protected]


We don't want such a potentially big decision affecting East Dulwich Night Time Economy to be taken without as much local input as possible.


Sounds pretty unambiguous to me and a misreading of the application, whether deliberate or not.


I've edited my post above because, with hindsight, it was perhaps a tad cruel. So I'll stick to the main point. Seems to me JB has - deliberately or otherwise - misrepresented the application. As to whether JB works "a lot more" than I do, as you're willing to "bet" (FFS), then perhaps he needs to work "a lot more" on how he presents this (and other issues on which he evidently has a personal position) to the East Dulwich Forum.

They are only applying to extend the alcohol part by one hour from a 7am start to a 6am start....hardly any difference at all. Not quite the insinuation of extended hours into the night that has been inferred.


The main part of the variation is for late night refreshment. But can't really frighten a local populous with the night time sale of tea and coffee can we.


I suppose Alan that you would say James pre-Christmas inferrment that an application for change of use of a premise would probably lead to another chain supermarket is also in our imagination. James has a history of misrepresenting facts to seek support for his own agenda. There's more than enough evidence of that on EDF alone.

My view exactly Betsy.


Had James written instead 'The Coop has applied to extend it current alcohol license by one hour and apply for a new one to enable it to open for the sale of other goods 24/7' then it would read very differently. And had he written that, the following fours pages dedicated mainly to how bad the idea of 24/7 sale of alcohol might not have continued. At no point did James post again to correct those comments. Sue is the person that has pointed out the disproportion in the discussion (and rightly so).

The point is DJ that you said no extension was applied for and now you are saying well yes one has been applied for, but only a little one. So you posted misinformation. Something you can't accuse JB of.


JB attached the application to his post where the details are quite clear and asked people for their opinions having given his own. Just because there may or may not be 4 pages worth of the ramblings of idiots who couldn't be bothered to read the application is hardly JB's fault and more a reflection on those who incorrectly made an assumption.

Alan, there are plenty of examples of james being vague and deliberately misleading. Perhaps if he didn't have a history of it then people might be a bit more forgiving of the vagueness of his opening post. So I stand by my view and we'll have to agree to disagree yet again (funny how you rear your head as soon I as post though - a thread you seemingly had no interest in before).


Edited to add....James second post reads 'I don't think it's fair to say people living in areas that were quiet when they moved there, and if pre Tessa Jowell licensing 2003 law it wasnt legally possible to have late night bars and pub let alone 24/7 alcolhol sale, should move if they're unhappy rather than objecting.'


Now if that isn't connecting 24/7 sale of alcohol to the present debate then I really am the fool that James takes us all for.....

There is no single thing that has destroyed lives and the high street more than betting shops. I do not think the Islington High Street is riddled with them. How could any right minded adult have open pandora's box of evil except to think the poor need their pursuits. No different at all than Payday Loan companies helping the underclass through xmas.


I have a great respect for ... almost all your posts DJ but in this instance what are you on about?


Of course, it must be, that any discussion about the hight street can be connected to all discussions about the high street. Really there is a 1984 tendency to "thought police" on this forum with clear right to rule political overtones.


Please do not think I am taking "sides" on "Lordship Lane Co-op", I am not.

What have betting shops and payday loan companies got to do with a supermarket wanting to extend its opening hours (and ONLY to extend the hours during which it can sell booze by ONE hour, not, repeat NOT, to offer 24/7 off-licence facilities)? Jeez, Louise ... talk about missing the point!

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

>

> >

> > THE CO-OP HAS NOT APPLIED FOR A 24 HOUR

> LICENCE

> > TO SELL ALCOHOL!!!!!

> >

> > And why James Barber has not come onto this

> thread

> > to correct this misinformation he is putting

> > about, I have no idea.

> >

> > But unless he has a very good excuse, my

> opinion

> > of him has plumeted.

>

> Perhaps you can clarify where you feel misinformed

> before your opinion further plumetes?


xxxxxx


Yes. James Barber said earlier something like "Effectively they can sell alcohol 24 hours". I think it is on the second page.


I will find and copy and paste the post, but I have a laptop problem at the moment.

Re: Lordship lane Co-op wants to open 24/7

Posted by James Barber March 05, 01:50PM


Hi worldwiser,

The Co op have appleid to extend existing licence from 6am-10pm to 5am-11pm and applied for a second licence to sell alcohol 11pm to 5am. Effectively they can sell 24hours.


xxxxxxx


The part in bold is incorrect so far as I can see, as the second part was for refreshments, which do not cover alcohol.


So basically, James posted correct information in his original post on this thread, but has subsequently muddied the water with incorrect information, which other people have now picked up on and are repeating the inaccuracy that the Co-Op are wanting to sell alcohol 24 hours, rather than just wanting to be open 24 hours.


With a tiny extension of an hour for alcohol sales in the morning.


So perhaps the person accusing me of accusing James Barber wrongly could apologise :)) :)) :))


Unless I turn out to be wrong, in which case I shall grovel :)) :)) :))

My point mynamehere is the same as Sue's above. That the extension of the alcohol licence is a red herring as it is only an extension of one hour, at the beginning of the day and will not change the hour at which the co-op stop selling alcohol each day. And that James B has deliberately mislead people by confusing that with premises that sell alcohol 24/7.


If there is a second application it should be up on the southwark site. I'll have a look.

With the number of people working into the evening in LL in the eating and drinking establishments, together with shift workers at e.g. Kings - the offer of extended opening for shops where you can get necessities (and a hot drink and snacks) seems like a very good idea which adds to the amenities of the area - or maybe these sort of people don't vote Lib Dem.


24/7 life marks a vibrant city - I don't want to live in a one pony burb where the only sign of life is the smoke rising from the (CPZ surrounded) crematorium.

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...