Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To the two old people in DP who just approached my 17 year old and said..

"for someone with a dog that big, you are very fat"


How FRICKING DARE YOU


1. approach a child

2. verbally abuse them


You have no idea of their mental state and I'm beyond words about how cruel you are.

I?m so sorry. I love the park but my teenagers have many tales of respectable older people having a pop there. You can reassure him there?s a certain type of bully who wouldn?t pick on a burly man or group, but singles out unthreatening people alone.

Thanks Alex - I'm sorry to hear that your teen has also experienced this.


It's not the first time mine has - previously it's been things like

"you need to move. you shouldn't be sitting there and you're in my way" or

"you need to put your dog on a lead" and so on.

She's also been shouted at for not letting a child pet our dog. I wouldn't let a screaming kid near our dog either, they are not a toy.


To these abusive people, do not think you have the right to tell a younger person off or berate them. or even speak to them.


Funny it's never happened to my husband or me. As said above, a special type of bullying.

Agreed mainly, but 17 is really not a child. 17 year olds can drive, go to war, etc. etc. (I can hold this fact and opinion and also agree that the person was abusive and should not have behaved like that so please, no online haranguing because it is not warranted.)

Also, the person may well be neurologically diverse and not act in the same way as other adults. If this is the case then my sympathy is mainly with them because they have a way harder time of it than most other people and may well not know that what they said is "cruel". But we don't know (though you did allude to the possibility).

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Agreed mainly, but 17 is really not a child. 17

> year olds can drive, go to war, etc. etc. (I can

> hold this fact and opinion and also agree that the

> person was abusive and should not have behaved

> like that so please, no online haranguing because

> it is not warranted.)


Legally, anyone under the age of 18 years is a minor, that is a child, whether or not that minor is mature for their age or not.


Two 'mature' adults bullying a teenager, child or adult is unacceptable and maybe you should have focused on that.

17 years old a child???????

Mummy, you need to do a systems reboot! Your soon is a young man!


He needs to understand how the real world is.

Many people are not nice or don't say the right things.

what is important is that is knows what to do in those circumstances.


If they are telling him that he is fat then they are not really respectable and nice people, so definetely I wouldn't engage further with them. That is the safest thing isn't it? If that is how they introduce themselves nothing better will come down the road for sure.


If you son is in really a bit more padded that most of the rest he needs to address it.

Does it bother him and he wants to do something or it doesn't bother him and he lives happily with it.

I would say better be fat than too thin. At least you can still die, but you will die happy!

I it no one's business other than his though!


I am very fat myself. I don't give a s***.


I would turn to those people and say. "I know, I feel like telling a stupid person how stupid they are when I see them, but then I think they wouldn't get it" - that should sut them up, no?

we should of course develop resilience as we mature.


It doesn't negate the fact that my daughter was out walking the dog quite peacefully and was approached and insulted by two random people.


Whether they are overweight or not (doesn't even matter and I won't comment), it's totally unacceptable.


My message was to these two people in case they read the posts on this forum. I would happily speak to them in person but I don't know who they are.


Child/ young person/ minor - all words being nitpicked here - the fact is that no one deserves to be randomly abused by strangers. Young people are probably less equipped to deal with it.

Alexthecamel


I am sorry that I don't meet your requirments vis-a-vis how I should think and respond to a public post on a public forum in a democratic country.

Also, as I stated explicitly in my post, I agreed that the abuser was wrong and should not have behaved like that. and that I could hold this view but also note that 17 years old is not common parlance for a child.

Yet you decided to ignore that and demand that I Think Like You.

Please be more adult (16+) and enjoy the freedom that comes with having your own thoughts, some of which may be contradictory but do not necessarily have to cancel each other out.

I also pointed out that the person may have been neuro divergent yet you chose not to acknowledge that possibility (even though the OP did herself) and not give me credit for looking for a reason that may have helped the mother of the young adult come to terms with the name calling.

The person is still 17. Teenagers mature at different stages, but NOBODY should have to put up with that type of abuse, if they're 17, 32 or 80.


Some people on this forum need to understand that the world has moved on from the "get on with it" mentality that we used to have in the supposed better days of the past.

Wow, this is a horrible and hostile thread to read. I remember being 17 (many moons ago) and I really was a child, despite thinking I was all grown-up. I also remember how precarious self-image and mental health feels at that age. To the OP: I'm so sorry your child experienced that and I hope they realise, with time, that for every abusive person there is someone with a kind word too x

Brideshead Wrote:

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

> 1st world (or should that be East Dulwich)

> problem?

>

> Impolite comment in a park? lol


Aren't you the guy that chucked a massive tantrum over a number of weeks because you couldn't get a free newspaper and you thought a librarian was rude to you?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Brideshead Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 1st world (or should that be East Dulwich)

> > problem?

> >

> > Impolite comment in a park? lol

>

> Aren't you the guy that chucked a massive tantrum

> over a number of weeks because you couldn't get a

> free newspaper and you thought a librarian was

> rude to you?



Click on their name and you can see the general tone of their posts.

Angelina Wrote:

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

> we should of course develop resilience as we

> mature.

>

> It doesn't negate the fact that my daughter was

> out walking the dog quite peacefully and was

> approached and insulted by two random people.

>

> Whether they are overweight or not (doesn't even

> matter and I won't comment), it's totally

> unacceptable.

>

> My message was to these two people in case they

> read the posts on this forum. I would happily

> speak to them in person but I don't know who they

> are.

>

> Child/ young person/ minor - all words being

> nitpicked here - the fact is that no one deserves

> to be randomly abused by strangers. Young people

> are probably less equipped to deal with it.




Regardless of age, if you are minding your own business no one has the right to bother you!


I?m sure the persons in question would not walk around Peckham or camberwell harassing people!

My motto is to respect those who respect me, if someone disrespects me then I have every right to disrespect them back if I choose to! (Regardless of their age) I am also aware some people have mental health issues??


Whilst out shopping in Peckham one day, many years ago, an old lady pulled my hair!

All sorts of obscenities were about to leave my mouth but when I looked at her I realised she may have had mental health issues??. On that note I just walked away.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Brideshead Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 1st world (or should that be East Dulwich)

> > problem?

> >

> > Impolite comment in a park? lol

>

> Aren't you the guy that chucked a massive tantrum

> over a number of weeks because you couldn't get a

> free newspaper and you thought a librarian was

> rude to you?


Yep one & only. Are you the local busybody guy that is compelled to forcefeed his opinions into every EDF thread subject going?


??Thought? was rude?. Hmm. Council investigated my complaint, upheld it & also formally apologised.


Your sinking further into ill informed babbling. Maybe think before you comment, I?m not sure what to suggest.


And whilst we?re at it, what has any of this to due with poor etiquette in local park?

LMCPR Wrote:

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

> Sadly there's a lot of nasty people out in the

> world bleeding their hate over everyone. You

> should teach your daughter to answer back and whip

> her phone out and video these pr*cks!

> I bet they wouldn't say jack S if they knew

> they're being filmed.



Unfortunately that might make the situation worse, particularly if there is nobody else around.

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...