Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This happened a month or so back, and given the current climate, thought I would put it on here.


I was buying some wine with my brother in the newsagent near Locale near Goose Green. I was at the end of the shop and my brother was buying some cigarettes.


A guy came in and asked him for 50p. My brother said no, so he asked again. My brother again said no, later telling me he was fed up with feeling intimidated on his doorstep.


The guy then lend up against my brother, opened his coat, and exposed a small kitchen knife. He then said, 'I respect your decision, bruv, but will be waiting for you later'. Luckily, we both walked out the shop together quickly and nothing happened. The shopkeeper was shaken up, but told me it happens regularly.


It does worry me so much - if this was late at night, he could have been waiting in the alley by the play ground.


Should one just give in and hand over the money, even if it is just 50p?


On the other hand, we all work hard to afford to live here, so why should we give in?!

Blame the council and react accordingly - some of us (not I!) voted them in. There are now so many halfway houses along East Dulwich Grove, filled with druggies and assorted riffraff, your hair would stand on end if you realised what's happening. Parts of East Dulwich are more than 'unsafe' - they're dangerous. Do you see police patrolling on foot, early or late? No. I no longer go anywhere on foot on my own after dark, as I used to. (And I've been told it dangerous in broad daylight as well.)

RoseK Wrote:

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

> Blame the council and react accordingly - some of

> us (not I!) voted them in. There are now so many

> halfway houses along East Dulwich Grove, filled

> with druggies and assorted riffraff, your hair

> would stand on end if you realised what's

> happening.


I know exactly what is happening thanks and my hair is not standing on end at all! NIMBYism at it's worst. As a member of society we have an obligation to look after those more unfortunate than ourselves.


I am really hoping your post was tongue in cheek.

ratty Wrote:

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

> RoseK Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Blame the council and react accordingly - some

> of

> > us (not I!) voted them in. There are now so

> many

> > halfway houses along East Dulwich Grove, filled

> > with druggies and assorted riffraff, your hair

> > would stand on end if you realised what's

> > happening.

>

> I know exactly what is happening thanks and my

> hair is not standing on end at all! NIMBYism at

> it's worst. As a member of society we have an

> obligation to look after those more unfortunate

> than ourselves.

>

> I am really hoping your post was tongue in cheek.


As a member of society I have a right to feel safe where I live. Perhaps these more fortunate members might consider not attempting to mug less fortunates as they go about their business.

I find the following comment laughable:


As a member of society we have an

> obligation to look after those more unfortunate

> than ourselves.

>


Yes, to a certain extend, we are. However, by 'look after' do you mean hand over my wallet, phone, and car keys, and say 'thanks for not stabbing me, on your way now'.



Please. I think if a relative/friend of yours was attacked, your somewhat altruistic attitude may change somewhat.

Agree with the response to Mr Liberal. Not sure what the solution to this knife crime issue - there probably isn't one - but trying to feel sorry for these criminals isn't it. There will always be poorer sections of society who lack the opportunties that the rest of us have but that doesn't mean we should treat them with compassion when they turn to crime. I am disappointed by the police though. You only ever see them when they are driving at 50mph with sirens wailing. They should be patrolling on foot more often.

MitchK - When did anyone say we should feel sorry for criminals?


Someone tried to suggest that riff-raff in half-way houses were criminals, to which someone said, not unreasonably, that less fortunate people could do with care rather than condemnation. At no point has anyone suggested that someone in a "half-way house" is DEFINITELY a criminal, I hope. I've lived next door to one for 7 years and get on fine with the people that live there

Repeated stats show that police foot patrols do little or nothing to reduce crime. The average foot patrol sees one crime being committed every fours years and even then isn't guaranteed to catch the perpitrator.


They are one of the most ineffectual methods of policing and yet people still clamour for them. Bizarre.


I live nearly opposite said newsagents and have never experienced any trouble there or in the nearby area. I sympathise with Seanmlow's situation but do not think it is representative of a more widescale problem.


Nor is the idea that "half-way houses" are full of "druggies" whose aim is to do nothing but steal your valuables with threats of violence particulary helpful. These are often societies most vunerable members, suffering from mental health issues of with histories of being victims themselves. The idea that "parts of of East Dulwich are more than 'unsafe' - they're dangerous" is frankly ridiculous. Both myself and my two female housemates often walk around alone after dark and have never encountered any problems.


The culture of fear that some members of this forum insist on trying to foist on others is beginning to become depressing. You live in a lovely part of one of the world's greatest cities and yet continually seek to find reasons to loathe it and its inhabitants. Problems exist, of that there is no doubt, but for the vast majority of the people, for the vast majority of the time this is a safe and pleasant place to live and work. Enjoy it for once.

Fook me, I have never been called Mr Liberal before. I cannot see where I suggest that we pander to muggers either. In fact my opinion is totally the opposite. What I do take offence to is people blaming the "half way houses" and calling the inhabitants riff raff.


These people are my clients, they do not mug people, they are a world away from the cowardly little coonts that do.


Just my opinion of course.


Mr Liberal?? PMSL! http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/frech/o050.gif

I heard from a customer that a couple were standing at the bus stop by the post office on LL and the lady was on the phone, a couple of guys walked up to them and asked her to hand the phone over she said no and they took it off her and walked off. How much do we have tp put up with before we say enough!!!!
Where do you draw the line about what constitutes being mugged? Is there a difference between someone asking you for 50p and a cigarette or for your phone/wallet? Luckily i've never been asked for the latter but am repeatedly asked on a daily basis for the former and i always say no, can't stand the thought of being intimidated into doing something. Can't honestly say it would be the same if it was someone asking for my wallet, guess it depends on how you assess the situation at the time and at how much of a risk you perceive there to be, although this is arguably becoming increasingly difficult to assess.
Just to add to the general picture: this morning, on Peckham Rye, an elderly woman mugged by young black male. He asked her for directions and then ripped a necklace off her neck. She was very badly shaken and incredibly upset and this is the second time she has been mugged in the area in the last year.

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...