Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree with BlueOne in terms of pubs in the evenings - on the rare occasion that I do manage to go for a drink in the evening, I certainly don't take baby Pickle with me. Even parents enjoy time without kids occasionally ;-) Although I thought most pubs round here had a "no kids after x o'clock" rule anyway? Apart from maybe the Herne which seems to cater towards families more than others?

Sorry Spangles: you've got the wrong end of my stick entirely.


Matt: I think you're getting mixed-up between getting irritated by a baby in a pub with foolishly having a go at families everywhere just for walking down the street.


Jocelyn: Matt is gay, i believe. My point is that moving to Dulwich and complaining about there being too many prams is akin to moving to Vauxhall and complaining about there being too many gay men.

I think you will find, Matt, that this is an old theme that has been discussed here many times before and the camps are already thoroughly polarised. I think I was the first person to raise the issue about a year ago and am still picking dagers out of my back.


For the record, I am largely with you on this one and I am also sure that you do not "hate" children (although this is the popular criticism levelled at anyone who suggests children should perhaps be subject to a modicum of control when in public places). I think the issue is boundaries and the fact that many of these Yummy Mummies expect absolute 100% tolerance of their children's right to run riot, scream, shout, bang cutlery etc ANYWHERE THEY PLEASE with no consideration for others. In return, unfortunately, many of the YMs show absolutely no tolerance or respect for those who might find the aforementioned behaviour disturbing. It's about a bit of give and take and, to my mind, in ED a great majority of the YMs take everything they can and give sweet b***er all!

LOL Pickles. I don't get out much of an evening either currently!! :(


Domitianus and Matt, there is validity in some of your points. However, "many of these Yummy Mummies expect absolute 100% tolerance of their children's right to run riot, scream, shout, bang cutlery etc ANYWHERE THEY PLEASE with no consideration for others."


In truth, I haven't seen much of the latter, and I am REALLY critical!! Most of the local kids are pretty well behaved in my humble opinion.

Moos, I am 'letting' them power pram! How am I interfering with their ability to do said activity in the local parks? If they want to do such a thing with their bug-a-boos, let 'em. It doesn't mean I have to agree it is a worthwhile exercise, and it does look daft. It is also expensive at ?5 a time.

Spangles30 Wrote:

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

> 'poncing about in the park'? I take it you are

> referring to 'power pramming' Peckhamgatecrasher?!

> Yes it does look very poncey. It doesn't even

> WORK. The exercises are so slow and daft.


But they are ever so POOOWWERRRFFFUULLLLL!!!!

I think you know that I was wondering why you have brought up powerpramming several times in this (non-exercise related) thread. I wasn't envisaging you running round the park tripping up the participants.


Do you have a personal point to make? You are certainly determined to let no opportunity pass to have a go at it.

It seems to me that those people vehemently in favour of unconditional child freedom in public places are also demanding unconditional acceptance of *their* right(and by extension their childrens) to live and behave in the way they wish without any consideration of the needs, rights or preferences of those around them.


I don't mean all parents of young children by any means, but the vocal "We will do as we wish, and damn any member of the community whom this may inconvenience" group.


Conversely,they seem to not ackowledge that the "against" group also has a right to live the way *they* think is appropriate,and this might include being uncomfortable or plain old unhappy with the behaviour of people with whom they share their neighbourhood, streets, shops and pubs, and that includes well-heeled mothers and their children.


We live in an urban environment, and as such will find ourselves rubbing up against all sorts who have different lifestyles, behavioural habits and values to our own. I have certainly been at the wrong end of "attitude" in ED from women who seem to think they are the lady of the manor in some posh market town, and whom would receive a very different response than my baffled shock if they tried the same attitude in less gentrified parts of London.


There are all sorts of anti-social behaviour, not all enacted by youths in hoods.


Matt has an equal right to want to live the way he chooses in his community, just as the affluent mums have the right to want to live in their way. Unfortunately balancing everyone's rights means that compromises need to be made by all of us, not aggressive total repudiation of someone's right to an opinion that differs from your own, as I have seen in some responses to Matt's post today.


So maybe we child-free should spare a thought for the parents with their hands full on our streets on the weekends, be more patient and smile. Slow down. Maybe the mums should think about doing shopping at less peak times when the child-free are out of East Dulwich (thats pretty much 8am - 6.30pm Mon-Fri). If the child-free can handle kids in the pub, then maybe the parents can try to control the kids - but if the kids are uncontrolable in that environment, is it fair to bring them in the first place? And finally, for eveyone's sake, in the evenings let's leave pubs for all adults regardless of breeding status.

Maybe the 18 in Mattindulwich18 stands for AH like in Combat 18??? :O


BTW screaming kids in pubs does my head in too and I have got one! If mine starts screaming in a pub we leave so as not to disturb the other punters. That's just manners!


And he's in bed by 6:45pm so we never get to the pub in the evening! :(

Whilst I'm all in favour of everyone enjoying the locale in the daytime it does peeve when trying to have some quality adult time in the evening one is prevented from doing so by the uncontrolled presence of babies, toddlers and under 10s, and their inconsiderate parents. Granted there may be many parents on this board who are raising wonderful, well-mannered children but you are sadly outnumbered by those without your good fortune and skill.

Was out at gbk last night with a couple of friends for a quiet meal and conversation. Come 8:45pm (that's 20:45 as in quite late in the day really!) a family piles in with 2 children who promptly begin to wail, bang and misbehave. Mothers, no doubt p'd off because they couldn't get childcare, then proceeded to swear, smack children and otherwise ignore the disruption they were causing.

Yummy or not, educated or not, wealthy or not there are far too many parents who now have no ability to establish proper boundaries for their childrens' behaviour or indeed for themselves. This society is far too selfish now to support anything but the kind of slanging match that flared up on this topic.


By the by, I haven't seen any yummies around ED, then again, guess I'm spoilt by all the lovelies and their nannies in SW London. Perhaps you ladies shoud try harder! Better still whip your daddies for more cash to up your bling factor, gym memberships and salon treatments ;P Any mums caring to prove how yummy they are, perhaps in the absence of dad AND kiddies (photo proof is sufficient), please feel free to set up an evening of glamour we can all attend to carouse in adult fashion.


Peace (-out? innit?)

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...