Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I do think there is an excess of trees in East Dulwich and I think this can mainly be attributed to the laziness of the council.


This is not the countryside, it is a capital city. Therefore it seems quite unacceptable to allow the trees to get out of control in the way that they do. They lift up pavements with their roots which can cause people with mobility difficulties many problems, and dead branches and leaves can fall off and injure people or damage property. Drains blocked by rotting leaves can cause serious harm to buildings. They also encourage pigeons and other pests.


I am not anti-tree per se but I think they should be kept to appropriate areas. I would like to hear other peoples' views on this matter as I am currently drafting a letter to local councillors as well as Boris Johnston.

Please tell me this isn`t a serious posting....too many trees???? Can understand maintenance of trees and their leaves etc causing a problem for mobility challenged individuals, which is of course down to council but surely there are too many people not too many trees...if you cull trees then cull people who use the bi products of green things ie oxygen!!

Shaolin Wolf Wrote:

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

> Please tell me this isn`t a serious posting....too

> many trees???? Can understand maintenance of trees

> and their leaves etc causing a problem for

> mobility challenged individuals, which is of

> course down to council but surely there are too

> many people not too many trees...if you cull trees

> then cull people who use the bi products of green

> things ie oxygen!!


What do you mean too many people? Are you seriously suggesting culling people? If you do not cull people then you will have to relocate them, which will result in even more urban sprawl and even more pollution and CO2 emissions. And no countryside left to grow trees in, which is where they should be.


We need to be concentrating on making our cities denser, not filling up useful space with trees.

JamesG Wrote:

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

> I am relatively new to the EDF so am unfamiliar

> with the etiquette surrounding responding to

> people?s postings. Please therefore excuse me if

> I get it wrong.

>

> Are you a comedian? If not I suggest the

> administrators insist on psyche testing all

> members.


I am not sure if making implications about other posters' mental health is "good etiquette", if that is what you mean by "psyche testing".

Jrussel, just to be clear, since you say 'not filling up useful space with trees' are you talking about removing park space? I thought you were talking about clearing trees from pavements.


Either way, I couldn't disagree with you more. I too suspect you're winding us up.

If you can cull trees then hypothetically i should be allowed to cull people too..fairs fair when we all use the resources of the planet. A short trip to Japan and a quick chat with the G8 will sort it out perhaps?? Nonsense speak!!! Denser cities?? What on earth are you talking about? There should be more trees and less people, more resources and it should be shared equally amongst the species not kept for the `priveleged` nations. Perhaps we should have thought of all this a long time ago when it was brought to our collective attentions perhaps?

jrussel Wrote:

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


> We need to be concentrating on making our cities denser, not filling up useful space with trees.


No we don't that's just silly talk. We create a built environment where we can all live in decent surroundings and that includes having trees around make the place look nice.

Hmmm


Interesting post Jrussel


Personaly I enjoy having trees around me rather then staring blankly at concrete buildings as you would if you had your way and made this a concrete jungle without any trees in it


I am rather confused how "leaves can fall off and injure people" (okay I am taking it out of context here) and sure there are occasional problems with some of the more mature and well established trees lifting the paving stones with their roots, but that is nature for you and I for one wouldn't want to see a tree cut down jsut because it has grown taller over the years ... that is akin to saying that anyone with feet over a certain size damages the pavement when they walk so we have to cull them all... (yes I know not the same way as a tree root does but you see what I am driving at as a concept)


So what is an appropriate area in your mind, lets look at the tree lined streets of Paris for example (another major city and so much better for the trees growing in it) or Washington DC with the main mall (full of trees) and the Cherry trees near the Capitol building that look splended in the spring. Why shouldn't we be proud of trees that make the roads look more natural and less , well boring to be honest... and if we didn't have trees then where would the sparrows sing their dawn songs from, and sure the Pigeons use them as well but so do the magpies, crows, sparrow hawks, thrushes, robins, tits and a variety of other wonderful wildlife (actually it would stop those pesky squirels thought)


Still I guess if we didn't have trees in the streets then the local dogs wouldn't go to the toilet (poor puppies) no one would collect conkers, there would be a poor air quality as the trees help with that, sound from passing cars would be louder as the trees help to baffle that as well, Autumn would be grey (and concrete) and most of all spring would be so much less joyful when the local trees (that weren't here) fail to bud, produce blossm and then get covered in leaves.


I guess one thing to consider is who do the trees belong to, are they council property or public property, if they have been here for longer then the road then obviously they don't belong to anyone and they have the right to grow freely, but equally they are something that the majority of people actually enjoy (straw poll of 1 in my household and everyone voted for the trees).



I am not one to normally say things like this, and I believe everyone has the right to an opinion, but I feel driven by the concept of your post so much that I really have to respond with


"Get a life Jrussel"

I agree with him!


Just look at all the complaints that we have on the Forum that are caused by an excess of trees:


Lost Cats - with no trees you could actually see the little blighters

Stabbings - the potential murderers hide behind the trees, thus the trees are themselves culpable in these assaults and deserve the chop

Lost tortoises - see Lost Cats

Loud Birds - no trees, no nests, no birds, no noise

No social life - meet new friends chopping down trees

Falling property prices - prices have dropped since more trees have been planted, clearly there is a causal link between these two phenomena - down with trees, up with the prices

UFOs - Aliens hide in the trees and spy on us

Too much light from street lights - fewer trees means that more moonlight would penetrate to street level and so we would need fewer street lights

Oil prices - burn trees for fuel, if the Victorians could do it, so can we

Global warming - fewer trees means less woodage acting as a thermal blanket and so the Globe would cool down

Housing shortages for key workers - chop the trees down and build wooden houses on the municipal Parks for the key workers

Local pubs closing - fewer trees (and the resulting key worker new housing) means fewer parks to go for walks in and so more time to spend in pubs

Over-pressed NHS - fewer trees, fewer falling branches, fewer visits to A&E

Peckham - the key worker's new housing on Goose Gree and the Rye would act as a barrier to the Peckhamites

Public transport - erm ....DO I HAVE TO THINK OF EVERYTHING!

Mark Wrote:

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

> jrussel Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > We need to be concentrating on making our cities

> denser, not filling up useful space with trees.

>

> No we don't that's just silly talk. We create a

> built environment where we can all live in decent

> surroundings and that includes having trees around

> make the place look nice.


I assume you are not much of an expert on current thinking re. urban planning and development.


The Americans have been building their cities at very low density for years and they are now one of the worst-offending greenhouse gas polluters on the planet. Australia too. Only recently are they realising they can't go on like this, mainly because they are being forced to review their ways by increasing energy prices.


See here for example:


http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/669341.html


It is still possible to create a decent living environment with very few trees. Have you ever been to Venice? Instead of planting trees to soak up pollution and noise from road traffic, we should be getting rid of the road traffic. The road traffic generated by the kind of people who live in low density areas and who unfortunately are attracted to some parts of East Dulwich bringing their suburban nimbyism with them. If we got rid of some of the trees perhaps we would be less troubled by these types.


Prevention rather than cure, please.

Shaolin Wolf Wrote:

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

> Hmmm Venice..not the most shining of examples...a

> city held up by ballasts out at sea and one of the

> worst sewage systems this side of a cracked Thames

> water main! Again i say cull people..surely thats

> the best prevention!!


Venice's problems are quite unrelated to its lack of trees, so your comment is a rather silly one.

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...