Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, LivinSaarfMan said:

nightclubs and venues  across UK are under pressure and closing at a shocking rate. A large event like this not only supports the artists playing and the  ‘scene. ’  It also provides traffic and income at local south London venues used for pre and post events/ drinking. 

I don't know if the relationship between festivals and nightclubs is as friendly as you suggest. If someone's spending £100 on a festival ticket, that's £100 they're not spending in a nightclub or bar or restaurant or pub. They're competitors...

...and I don't know how much football these festivals really create. Other people would know better. I happened to come past Brockwell Park exactly at the moment one of those festivals let out and practically no-one was going to the Half Moon, Bullfinch, anywhere along Norwood Rd etc. They were all being corralled towards Ubers and buses and trains. Admittedly that's anecdotal.

  • Like 1
18 hours ago, first mate said:

If music venues are closing in London I wonder if this is because they are having to compete with myriad park festivals, of which there has been an explosion. 

No it's not. Festival season is a short period, a few months in a year. Clubs are closing for numerous reasons.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9xkxngy95o.amp#:~:text=London's night-time economy businesses are "experiencing closures and,- the steepest fall for any English region.

Doing a quick search suggests that festivals may well be taking money away from other music venues. Outdoor festivals have created a different expectation of what is on offer and people would rather save to attend those than drip feed smaller or indoor venues.

Whether access to parkland should be sacrificed to prop up an ailing nighttime club scene is moot but as a starting point for event justification it is the thin end of the wedge.

In a city where there is so much noise and stimulation overall, the option to access quieter and calmer areas of green and nature should be heavily protected for the benefit of all. There is new research on just how vital for physical and mental health these green spaces are.

If a three day event could be mounted without taking sections of the park out of use for weeks in summer and without the need for extensive remedial work to repair damage, that would be best.

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Au contraire, I bet locals would love that, Coldplay being so soporific that it would send everyone to sleep.  But thinking about South Park, where the kids (and the whole town) discover ritalin, Phil Collins takes this one step further.  Goodness Gracious Me and the Mumbai students doing an English - "what is the blandest thing on your menu waiter - oh no not the Phil Collins" 

 

Brockwell Park is still fenced off and looks like it will be for some time. The council have put signs up saying that Brockwell Live are responsible for restoring the park (got to love it when council's point the fingers at others to aportion blame!) and that the fences will stay up "until further notice". Looking through the fence gaps I suspect the Brockwell Wall will be up for some time as huge swathes of the park are compacted mud.

The Brixton side of the park was very crowded due to the Herne Hill side being unusable.

Errr the signs on the fences....there were signs telling people how long the disruption was going to be under the original plans (diversions of public footpaths etc) and now the council has attached a new one over the top telling them that Brockwell Live are responsible for remedying the problems and the fences will be up "until further notice". I suspect they are going have to re-seed or re-lay large swathes of grass and that requires some time to bed in so I suspect the Brockwell Wall will be up for some time.

If you want to go look yourself head on over to the BMX track at the top of the hill and you will find one of the signs there - I was there today.

On 14/06/2024 at 16:27, DuncanW said:

First Mate, was it not Southwark Council that denied Gala's application for a license to run over two weekends? Am I missing something.

There was a consultation which provoked a huge response - 98% vehemently opposed to the proposed extension - after which GALA apparently decided to withdraw the application, citing issues with other promoters not being available, or some such reason. 

I suspect that Southwark would have happily given them the licence even with such opposition. They don't seem to care that every year GALA fail to uphold all the conditions they have set for the licence, and just give them another the following year with the same conditions. 

I'm afraid I get really annoyed with all the 'let people have fun' & 'they want a pretty place to dance' & 'it's really well organised' comments. If the punters that go had even an iota of respect & consideration for the park then fine, but they really don't. The amount of litter dropped is staggering - fag butts, filter tip tubes, ring pulls, bottle caps, disposable vapes - and it isn't cleared by GALA's 'waste management' team (as promised - again), so it's still all there - go and have a look.

And I've said before, if you haven't witnessed the anti social behaviour that goes on around the site for the whole weekend up close, then I don't think you're in a position to comment on the effect to the local community. I personally saw men & women openly p*ssing in the park, on the streets & pavements around the park, one group having a nitrous oxide party in the street opposite our home, and chucking the canisters into the park.

To say that the repair work is looking good is massively missing the point - it shouldn't need any repair work! It's a public park!! It looks like a building site in the middle of summer when it should look like a park! Where people can sit and enjoy the nature & wildlife, not try to pretend it's not really a rubbish tip.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Went for a 30 minute amble in our park last Thursday, managed to find all this just in the southern part of the ex-GALA site. Wasn't really looking that hard, although lots were hiding in the now grown grass or embedded in the now dried mud. So nearly a month after their 'clean up' there remains a huge quantity of non-biodegradable crap discarded by supposedly thoughtful & considerate festival goers & contractors. Just depressing.

IMG_20240620_114110575.jpg

Edited by fishboy
  • Sad 1
3 hours ago, fishboy said:

Went for a 30 minute amble in our park last Thursday, managed to find all this just in the southern part of the ex-GALA site. Wasn't really looking that hard, although lots were hiding in the now grown grass or embedded in the now dried mud. So nearly a month after their 'clean up' there remains a huge quantity of non-biodegradable crap discarded by supposedly thoughtful & considerate festival goers & contractors. Just depressing.

IMG_20240620_114110575.jpg

This could look like a lot or nothing ... 27000 festival goers and 1000s bau users????

I think if you walk through the park you have to agree  there was a  good effort made to clear up 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

The point I was trying to make is that this is a tiny fraction of what is still there, and this is after the organisers have apparently had a specialist clean up team do several sweeps. GALA made assurances (and their licence stipulated) that our park would be returned to the same state as they found it. A "good effort" isn't acceptable; our park is gradually being turned into a rubbish tip. 

All those items are from the festival - it's exactly the same items that were there in the days after the area was reopened to the public, so they're not from "bau" users. This is a public park - our park - why should we just accept & put up with this kind of thing?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

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...