Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just a word of warning, the idiots who go around letting people?s tyres down are back at it again. They have done quite a few cars on Eynella and left their ?climate violation? flyers on the windscreens of the cars. I do hope they get caught in the act and charged with criminal damage as it is utterly irresponsible and very dangerous.


I suppose it is only to be expected given the warm reception XR were given on Peckham Rye by some. BTW are some of the XR folks still camping out somewhere as I keep seeing a couple riding on a cargo bike with a big XR flag flying on the back of it or are they Dulwich residents showing their support?

It's presumptious. Okay, perhaps many should be less reliant on cars but on the other hand some are extremely reliant. I wonder how these activists decide who should be on the receiving end of their actions or is it just completely random? For those who are disabled or who have very ill relatives and might need to get to a hospital in the early hours, this is beyond inconsiderate and, as you say, potentially dangerous.

first mate Wrote:

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

> It's presumptious. Okay, perhaps many should be

> less reliant on cars but on the other hand some

> are extremely reliant. I wonder how these

> activists decide who should be on the receiving

> end of their actions or is it just completely

> random? For those who are disabled or who have

> very ill relatives and might need to get to a

> hospital in the early hours, this is beyond

> inconsiderate and, as you say, potentially

> dangerous.


They target SUVs as I understand it. It's pretty difficult to argue that people need to drive massive SUVs in London.

Well they have done a Q5 and Q3 which are hardly massive cars, what next estate cars and then every car? Looks like they have done a lot as saw some on Druce and Woodwarde that had been targeted too.


The group responsible have been warned by police that it is incredibly dangerous as the weight of a car on a deflated tyre can cause damage to the integrity of the tyre and if re-inflated could cause a blow out. It seems the vandals don?t care, again climate activists actually doing more harm to their cause.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Climate activists is possibly closer rahx3

> although its still vandalism of other's property

> so it shouldn't be applauded.


Yes, It's probably better to call them 'climate activists'. I am not applauding it btw, although I do admit to feeling ambivalent.


It's causing inconvenience more than damage, and I suspect that as the full impacts of climate change start to bite, we'll look back and ask why people weren't rioting in the streets demanding action, rather then why people were taking the 'radical' action of deflating the tyres of SUVs. Also, if it puts people off driving obviously unsuitable vehicles around London...


On the other hand, it's not likely to make much of an impact and it's going to alienate a lot of people, rather than win them over to the urgency of the situation. Feels a bit mean spirited, divisive and ultimately counter productive.


So like I say - I'm a bit on the fence.

Rahx3 - would you be sitting on the fence if it was groups of people taking direct action against cyclists riding on pavements?


Ambivalence is what let's these idiots get away with it and the problem with the type of people who do this sort of thing is that they don't know where to stop and somehow their illegal actions are for some greater good.

Rx3 you don't know for certain it is only causing an inconvenience. I completely trust that you think and hope that is the case, but if you find you need to get somewhere fast in the early hours and discover you have a flat tire it could amount to more than mere inconvenience. It is arrogant and presumptuous and playing god with the lives of others. The irony is that playing god with the future of the planet is what they are protesting about. It just feels wrong.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Rahx3 - would you be sitting on the fence if it

> was groups of people taking direct action against

> cyclists riding on pavements?

>

> Ambivalence is what let's these idiots get away

> with it and the problem with the type of people

> who do this sort of thing is that they don't know

> where to stop and somehow their illegal actions

> are for some greater good.



Depends if it was reasonable and proportionate.

So you think putting a car at risk of a blowout and all the devastation that can cause is reasonable and proportionate....one suspects that if they careered into your family on their bikes you might take a different viewpoint...?



The problem is a lot of people don't engage their brains on this stuff and allow their own bias to cloud their judgements. It's a very sad state of affairs.

You can go all hyperbolic about it if you want, but the fact is people will look back and judge our inaction in the face of the climate crisis, far more harshly than they will a few well meaning but misguided individuals letting down tyres and leaving a leaflet on the windscreen of a few (frankly ridiculous, dangerous and unnecessary) over sized vehicles.

Maybe rahx3 they should be targeting the companies that sell and promote SUVs to the masses


If they weren't available or advertised as status symbols, then they wouldn't be on the streets but people are sheep and buying something because it enhances their status is how advertising works 🤔


As someone pointed out, there are risks associated with partially deflated tires, imagine if the driver didn't notice, drove off, tried to do an emergency stop and lost traction causing an accident!

Would you still be sitting on the fence watching ?

@Spartacus - I agree it?s not a reasonable thing to do, as I?ve said. But if someone can drive off failing to notice a Leaflet on their windscreen, or the fact that the have a flat tyre, there are already problems.


I?m not defending the behaviour of the activists - but if one is to criticise their behaviour as dangerous and antisocial, then you can?t ignore the fact that driving an SUV in London is also dangerous and antisocial.

Rahx3 - the issue is not driving off with a flat tyre. It's a lot more dangerous than that I am afraid. Let.me explain



When a tyre deflates the weight of the car is no longer being supported by the air in the tyre but the wheel itself. That, in turn, puts pressure on the outer rim of the deflated tyre damaging it's structural integrity.


It's one of the theories behind why so much Russian hardware got stuck in the early part of the conflict as much of it had been in storage for years with no one keeping the tyre pressure up so once they had inflated them again and headed off to Ukraine they all started going pop.


So the issue is people will reinflate their tyres and then they could burst whilst driving. It's why the police have said you should replace any tyre that has been deflated by these idiots.


And the idiots were deflating the front tyres on some cars as well which is the most dangerous ones to mess around with.


Given that information are you changing your position?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I?m pretty sure it?s ok to reinflate a tyre that?s

> lost air Rockets. That?s why they sell air

> compressors and why they have them on petrol

> station forecourts.



Err no, they are for topping up tyres that are still under pressure. Again, the point remains that if people actually engaged their brains they would realise the potential danger they are creating but no, they are blinded by their own cultishness that they believe their actions are just and for the greater good.


Climate vandals seem not to care for anyone or anything other than their own particular branch of the climate crisis agenda they are following. It is unbelievably cultish.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> And I?ve said I don?t think it?s reasonable to let

> air out of tyres. So really all you?re asking me

> to change my mind on is the ?reasonableness? of

> driving an SUV in London.if you want to explain

> why I should do that, I?m all ears.



Not asking you to change your mind on SUV use (and I agree many of them are ludicrous and unnecessary) just wondering if you had come off your fence about the dangerous vandalism of car tyres for "climate violations" or are you still ambivalent?

Its equivalent of saying


"Some cyclists cycle dangerously on the pavement, so is it acceptable to use my key for the cycle locker and letting the tyres down on all the bikes to stop the few who flout the rules"


Without know why someone has a certain car, its unfair to treat all suv owners the same.


Ps I wouldn't do the cycles as a stick in the spokes is far more of a message when they ride on the pavement. 🤣

I have been reading this thread and could not decide whether to post or not. I don?t think this will change anyone?s mind; people are very entrenched.


We have an SUV. We don?t spend all our time in London, and when we are not in London, having the SUV is incredibly useful. We can?t afford a second car, and I am not convinced having a second car just for London would be the right answer anyway. This, however, is not the point of the post.


A few weeks ago, there was an accident at home and one of my children, who has just started primary school, was badly burned. I drove to A&E immediately, as the wait for an ambulance was over an hour. That I got my child to A&E within half an hour has meant that they have not needed surgery or a skin graft. Had someone deflated my tyres, I would not have got to A&E quickly enough and my child?s life would now look very different. A leaflet would not have helped me. Nor would the knowledge that they might have been acting for the right reasons.



We absolutely need to address the way we treat our planet, more urgently than we are doing now. If we don?t, my child?s life will soon look very different for different reasons. Interfering with the property of others is wrong in principle, and may have consequences that one does not foresee. I cannot think that it is the right thing to do.

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...