Jump to content

Recommended Posts

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> I mean.. My home town was a shit place to live

> when I was 18.


Just checked.. nope, it's still a shithole.


However, a one-bedder there is coming in at ?74,930. So anyone who feels aggrieved at me exercising my right to buy in their hometown is more than welcome to exercise theirs in mine.

I think they're genetically grey squirrels with black fur, think albino but too much pigment rather than too little. They're also imports from N America, where they do rather well in the dark thick forests of the north appalachians.

Someone brought a load over at the turn of the (previous) century to put in Letchworth's parks, where they've done alright for themselves. Apparently they're being spotted across the herts/beds/cambs border region these days.



You can get black red-squirrels, though not sure if there are many in the uk; I've seen them in Austria.

Our letchworth pub* was the Black Squirrel and is East Dulwich in microcosm. A rough and ready place to get your drugs or a kicking, underwent refurb to be a shiny rough and ready pub where the locals looked uncomfortable drinking Peroni insterad of Carling Black Label, eventually to become a Thai food eatery/drinkery complete with garden awash with kids; failed, became a ditto mexican eatery, and a little bird tells me that too has gone under.



*It was originally a quaker town so had almost no pubs until the 60s and very few until the late 90s. Luckily it was surrounded by pubbed up villages, and Hitchin and Baldock, former coaching/market towns.

Maurice Wrote:

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

> It's the age old debate, yes Sean. Those who own

> property feel quite differently from those who

> have not. Indeed.


Not true, many home owners would be quite happy for prices to remain static, rising prices across the board just make it harder to climb the next "rung" on the "ladder".



SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> But the reason people can't afford to live in

> their own towns if they WANT to, is not because of

> people moving from other areas, it's the overblown

> housing market and property speculation/second

> homes which is doing the damage


Exactly right... I used to think that the market was self regulating, and that house prices would stop rising when investors couldn't break even on their rental income... but I think we passed this point in London some time last year.

My home town is also sh!t, I just use their internet forum and pubs :)-D


I don't usually agree with Maurice, but


Why do people believe if they are born and raised in a community they have a right to be able to afford to buy a property there?


Is a totally fair question, and that's from someone who is well and truly priced out.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> I mean.. My home town was a shit place to live

> when I was 18. So I left.


I seem to have done this in reverse. I was brought up in Dulwich Village until I was 18. I've been more or less slumming it in East Dulwich ever since.:'(

Maurice Wrote:

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

> Why do people believe if they are born and raised

> in a community they have a right to be able to

> afford to buy a property there?


It is understandable that a certain proportion of people born and raised in a particular community will want to remain there in their adult life and raise their own families there. Thus the integrity of the community is maintained, with a healthy balance of people who have always "belonged" in the area and feel they have a stake in its future, rather than the only non-incomers who can afford to live in an area being those of the older generation who have tiny mortgages which shrank into insignificance due to high wage inflation in times past.


The fact that UK tenancy laws don't give any long-term security of tenure leads to people viewing buying as the be-all and end-all for anybody seeking housing stability. Anybody who is neither old enough to have had a secure council tenancy when it was a working-class norm rather than the preserve of the very poor and/or destitute, nor unfortunate enough to have experienced hardship in the recent past leading to to the allocation of one of the few remaining council properties, has two choices - buy, or rent privately with no protection of either tenure or rent level.


I don't agree that anybody should see property ownership in their home town as a right, but I do think that for the most part it's important that people should have the chance of a secure home for the long term future.


(Obviously, borrowing ridiculous salary multiples on an interest-only mortgage is likely to be counter-productive!)

It's sort of like the job contract isn't RuthE? We want the three months notice when we're made redundant so we can get the cash. But when we find something better, we're always keen to reduce it.


Renters want protections, until they want to move.

"renters"


I need to wipe the spit from the INSIDE of my monitor screen Maurice..


the comparison with employers is telling. If an employer gives you as minimum notice as possible (that day?) the impact on you is potentially catastrophic (ask some of the homeless guys on the street - they had jobs, mortgages, families etc - some of them)


Whereas for many of us, leaving a company, with the best will in the world, isn't going to deflect it from it's general purpose is it or affecct it's bottom line anyway??


You SEE the difference???? Don't you???? No, I thought not

fish Wrote:

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

> Is ED becoming too posh?


Yes but not quite. I once made the grave and horrific mistake of walking into Inside 72 with my tailored suit and a tie on. I call this the "suit test". If people stare at you then the area is not officially posh.

If the barman welcomes you with a smile it almost certainly IS posh. The barman at Inside 72 did not exactly welcome me with a smile. So next time I went, I put on some skin tight black jeans, a sleeveless T Shirt with a daft slogan on it and a pork pie hat. And I got free shots.


Recently I dressed in a full gorrilla outfit and walked down Northcross Road, peering through the busy window of Thai Corner. It was....liberating. Because all people thought was "there is a strange man dressed as a gorilla".


The Bishop now has lots more suits on a Friday night as does Liquorish. They never used to. I have a large collection of suits but I also have an issue with wearing them out here based on how I'm judged wearing one (city boy, wealthy, arrogant, lack of indiviudality, probably votes Tory etc etc). So I get changed so as not to cause offence. I'm not a demographic I AM AN INDIVIDUAL! Weirdly I also dont like to see anyone else wearing them either. Do you all hate me already. Am I talking boll*cks? I'll stop then.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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


> I need to wipe the spit from the INSIDE of my

> monitor screen Maurice..


I reacted in the same way Sean but not being as diplomatic as you I refrained from commenting so as not to taint this forum with my unchecked bile.

Oh pardon me. I wouldn't want to cause distress. But I do believe there are two sides here and stand by my statement that renters are keen for every possible protection but when the shoe is on the other foot, they want to bear no responsibility.

MrBen Wrote:

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

I once made the grave and

> horrific mistake of walking into Inside 72 with my

> tailored suit and a tie on.

> The Bishop now has lots more suits on a Friday

> night as does Liquorish. They never used to. I

> have a large collection of suits but I also have

> an issue with wearing them out here based on how

> I'm judged wearing one (city boy, wealthy,

> arrogant, lack of indiviudality, probably votes

> Tory etc etc). So I get changed so as not to cause

> offence. I'm not a demographic I AM AN INDIVIDUAL!

> Weirdly I also dont like to see anyone else

> wearing them either. Do you all hate me already.

> Am I talking boll*cks? I'll stop then.


It was the tailored suit what did it in the 72, Mr Ben ... bog-standard M&S off-the-peg, nae bother. :))


I too see the proliferation of suits in ED but it ain't necessarily a bad thing. Perversely, by thinking that a suit gives off a negative impression of yourself, you are actually reinforcing the very stereotypes (ie you must be a city boy, Tory voter etc.) that you want to cast off.


In fact, if you think about it, what could be more individual than just waering a suit because, well, it's a suit, and my clothes don't really need to say anything about me.


I sometimes wear a suit and I'm an anarchist. I've even worn one a few times in the 72. I don't really care if someone thinks I'm a Tory.

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...