Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Back in the stone age it wasn't uncommon to see dog turds in the street that had weathered and turned white -- probably  residual calcium from what they'd been fed.  At that stage I think they were pretty friable and close to disappearing.  Mother Nature doing her bit.

  • Haha 1
1 hour ago, ianr said:

Back in the stone age it wasn't uncommon to see dog turds in the street that had weathered and turned white -- probably  residual calcium from what they'd been fed.  At that stage I think they were pretty friable and close to disappearing.  Mother Nature doing her bit.

Well it's a pity that Mother Nature doesn't do her bit a bit faster round here 🤣

  • Haha 2

I think it’s often a lack of attention.

I’ve seen owners a few times around the area and in the park not pick up and it’s been because they’re not paying attention to their dog(s) - distracted by their children/friend/phone - and their dog is behind them off lead and has quickly squeezed one out unseen. Obviously I point it out to the owner.

The other gripe is that even if mess is picked up, it often leaves marks and streaks on the pavement that you equally wish to avoid stepping in. Better than a big chunky stool but still very annoying and can get in your shoe. 

  • Agree 2

As well as the above, has anyone else noticed the massive amounts of gum being spat out all over as well as marking pavements? This is not only disgusting as gum will be laced with human germs and saliva but also places a large cleaning cost on already stretched services.

Why do humans insist on spitting out gum onto the pavements? Why can't they dispose of it in a bin or take it home?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

One thing we agree on FM.  I expect that is not new and I remember looking out from a 5th floor over a pavement near Traf Sq 20 years ago and asking what the numerous spots were on an otherwise prestige light grey footpath. Some local authorities put out gum bins but as with all litter just don't drop it.  And fag ends.  And disposable vapes.  And nitrous oxide cylinders!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

On the original topic - there was more of this on Whateley Road today. Same place but the other side of the road. Could be the same dogwalker as for the other nearby roads?  

I don't have a dog - but would have thought it's hard for owners not to notice when a dog is doing it in the middle of a pavement? 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

There is usually loads around local schools, have seen on regular basis outside Harris and around Heber.  
And it’s probably deliberate!  
There is no thought to the kids who are cycling/scooting/running to the gates!

It’s disgraceful and pure laziness! 

  • Agree 1
On 18/12/2024 at 07:19, march46 said:

If you spot it, it’s worth reporting as the Southwark website says they aim to clean within 48hrs. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/street-care/dog-poo

This is very useful. I've reported it on Crystal Palace Road as its in lots of places on this road as you turn from Upland Road /Northcross Rd towards the leisure centre.

I agree with the original poster, pick up your dog mess!!! And also don't shove bags on the pavement or in the top of bins. Some people behave like animals.

  • Like 2

I think I am becoming addicted to reporting dog waste and fly tipping - so easy to use, who knows the council might actually put some dog waste bins back up (we used to have one on Ulverscroft Road) and signage to remind careless owners to pick up their dog's mess and put it in a bin - preferably their own bin or a black public one rather than someone's green or blue bin, or leave it on the pavement. So disgusting.

On 15/12/2024 at 18:09, malumbu said:

Most owners do.  Beyond getting it off you chest, or shoe, you won't change a thing by posting here 

Good sir/ madam, I find your stance on civil discourse deeply disquieting. In an age when so many bury their heads in the sand, refusing to confront even the most modest concerns, one cannot help but be reminded of a far darker era—when complacency and willful blindness paved the way for atrocities on the scale of Nazi Germany. Small problems, if left to fester, can swiftly grow into monstrous evils that threaten the very fabric of our society.

Allow me to draw upon a memory from my own family history to illustrate the gravity of this point. During the Blitz, when bombs rained down upon London night after night, my mother still found the resolve to pick up after our beloved Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Petuna. Even in the face of unimaginable chaos, she refused to shirk her basic responsibilities. Such simple acts of care and integrity, even under fire, stand as a testament to the kind of unwavering diligence we ought to uphold in more peaceful times.

Hence, I beseech you to look inward and examine what else you might be letting slip by with your ostrich-like aversion to conflict. Far too often, those who choose not to see are the ones who unwittingly allow true dangers to flourish. By refusing to speak out or engage, we risk enabling the very forces that degrade our communities and tear at the seams of our shared humanity.

  • Haha 1

Nice to see an AI fantasy in the New Year. And the late nineteenth century language model is well chosen. But what's being described is rubbish. Picturesque rubbish but rubbish nonetheless. Picking up after dogs is a very late 20th century habit, if even that - poo bags weren't a thing until then, even nappy sacks can't date back much earlier than the 1970s.

  • Haha 2
10 hours ago, Salmon Queen said:

Good sir/ madam, I find your stance on civil discourse deeply disquieting. In an age when so many bury their heads in the sand, refusing to confront even the most modest concerns, one cannot help but be reminded of a far darker era—when complacency and willful blindness paved the way for atrocities on the scale of Nazi Germany. Small problems, if left to fester, can swiftly grow into monstrous evils that threaten the very fabric of our society.

Allow me to draw upon a memory from my own family history to illustrate the gravity of this point. During the Blitz, when bombs rained down upon London night after night, my mother still found the resolve to pick up after our beloved Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Petuna. Even in the face of unimaginable chaos, she refused to shirk her basic responsibilities. Such simple acts of care and integrity, even under fire, stand as a testament to the kind of unwavering diligence we ought to uphold in more peaceful times.

Hence, I beseech you to look inward and examine what else you might be letting slip by with your ostrich-like aversion to conflict. Far too often, those who choose not to see are the ones who unwittingly allow true dangers to flourish. By refusing to speak out or engage, we risk enabling the very forces that degrade our communities and tear at the seams of our shared humanity.

Wow, that is the most confusing post I've seen on this site.  I'm sure I would agree if I understood it.  Perhaps you or others would like to translate.  

  • Haha 1
37 minutes ago, Enable said:

Also why do dog owners put the dog poo in poo bags and then throw the poo bag on the pavement? Happens a lot around ED. If there is no bin take it home and throw in your bin!

Well at least it's better than leaving the poo on the pavement.

navigating around and through some of the recent posts over the last few days and weeks here is becoming reminiscent of having to tread really carefully to avoid the many unexpected pitfalls just waiting to swallow you up, from a Victorian monologue that made no sense to a modern day blogger who prefers stacks. Always used the term stack in relation to burgers, but never a blog, where and what is the connection? I really have no idea. 

On 18/12/2024 at 07:19, march46 said:

If you spot it, it’s worth reporting as the Southwark website says they aim to clean within 48hrs. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/street-care/dog-poo

I've done this 3 times recently and they actually respond very quickly to clean the mess

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...

How on earth can the council spare the staff to go out and remove dog poo every time it is reported?

Where are these people based? Just the travelling time there and back must take up a fair chunk of their day.

This mess is all over the place. If people keep reporting it,  the council workers would scarcely have got back to their base before they had to go out again and remove another pile! Cushy job!

Maybe this is the answer. Keep reporting it, and someone with half a brain cell at the council will realise that it is far more cost effective to bring back the bins and just have someone make a trip round all of  them as required to empty them.

This does of course depend on why the bins were removed in the first place. 

Were dog owners actually using them?

It seems to me that the people letting their dogs poo (I really don't know why we can't use the c or s words) on the pavement or in the gutter probably wouldn't be bothered to use the bins either, plus you could hardly have a bin on every street.

I don't know what the answer is. There are many many dogs in East Dulwich now.  Maybe have some sort of test for prospective dog owners, like a driving test, before they are allowed to have a dog. To include picking up and proper training, including recall.

Sadly that is obviously not feasible, and never going to happen.

 

Edited by Sue

It does seem particularly bad at the moment and there are definitely fewer bins. The problem with those bins - and presumably the reason they keep getting moved / removed - is that the foxes get into them and empty the contents all over the pavement. It's never pleasant to be greeted by poo bags and dirty nappies strewn across your path first thing in the morning. 

I don't think the type of person who doesn't pick up their dog's poo is going to change or suddenly start using bins, even if the council issued more. Those of us who pick up after our dogs know where all the bins are and just keep hold of the bag until we reach them. 

  • Agree 2
1 hour ago, MCK100 said:

It does seem particularly bad at the moment and there are definitely fewer bins. The problem with those bins - and presumably the reason they keep getting moved / removed - is that the foxes get into them and empty the contents all over the pavement. It's never pleasant to be greeted by poo bags and dirty nappies strewn across your path first thing in the morning. 

I don't think the type of person who doesn't pick up their dog's poo is going to change or suddenly start using bins, even if the council issued more. Those of us who pick up after our dogs know where all the bins are and just keep hold of the bag until we reach them. 

There surely must be a way to make the bins foxproof whilst still allowing for bags to be put into them.

Some kind of latch which couldn't be opened by fox paws?

I suppose they would just get vandalised 🙄

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...