Jump to content

warning. big brother police state tactics in effect at herne hill crossroads


Recommended Posts

Just received in the post this morning a notice from Lambeth Council. A ?60 fine for turning right at the crossroads by Herne Hill station / Brockwell park. Caught by a hidden CCTV camera! I am not amused at the pathetic underhand tactics employed by which ever idiot at the council it was that thought it was a good idea to put a camera there. Are there any warnings of the presence of these cameras? No. Is this right? No. Yet another example of the big brother police state in which we live.


Anyway, my point is do not turn right at said crossroads, no matter how safe or innocent such a manoeuvre might appear to be. Otherwise those who believe in treating the citizens of this country like children will have their 60 quid off you.


?60 quid!! Lambeth Council "Hidden Camera Department", may the flies of a thousand plagues infest your rancid corpses.



In 2008 is it STILL "underhand" tactics?? There are road signs and road rules and the chances are that if we knowingly break them there IS a camera catching us - might not like it but only the very slow could still claim to be surprised?


If only there were cameras to catch people making noise in the bars of LL eh??

If you're turning right from Railton Road to go under the bridge (where there is a no right turn) you have to cross a pedestrian crossing while the green crossing signal is lit.

In that case you deserve the ?60 fine in my opinion.

But see, eater81 isn't complaining about the fine - but BIG Brother society


...

...

...


Except he/she IS complaining about the fine and couldn't give a toss about cameras unless directly affected, and would normally say to liberal do-gooders "if you have nothing to hide...." etc


Or that's my guess anyway

The fine is a pain in the neck, however it is the secretive tactics used to catch me which I hate. I did not hear about this offence until 28 days after it was commiteed! Trial, judge and jury all completed by a computer.


Why are there no signs warning of the cameras? Surely that would act as more of a deterent than sending people a fine in the post THREE weeks after they have already comitted the offence.

And it is a bit pathetic isnt it? A 60 quid fine for turning right when not supposed to......big deal. Tis not the actual fine which annoys me but the pathetic waste of time I must undergo in order to deal with the council's tedious money catching tactics.


SeanMacGabhan, you say "In 2008 is it STILL "underhand" tactics?? There are road signs and road rules and the chances are that if we knowingly break them there IS a camera catching us - might not like it but only the very slow could still claim to be surprised? "


It is a sad day when we are forced to assume that we are being watched on camera, and I for one refuse to accept, and will play no part in such a society.

it's a sadder day still when so many people assume the rules don't apply to them (have you seen the road-casualty stats lately?) that authorities have to resort to that kind of thing. It's not really up to you to decide what is and isn't safe.. when you take your test you learn teh rules of the road and you must know they apply to you.


If only one or two people were breaking the law then there would be no need for the cameras - simple.

Would you rather a nice traffic policeperson standing in the middle of the road?

If there were no methods to catch people making the dangerous and illegal right turn, there would be no deterrent. Not likely to do it again are you? May mean you won't knock down some unsuspecting pedestrian.

It's usually at this point that someone says people like Asset and me are "holier than thou" or summat. Next time I see a road accident I'm going to go up to the driver and shake their hand for sticking it to the PC brigade...

It makes me laugh when people complain about "money-grabbing" from traffic cameras... as if the govenment are in some way selfish for enforcing the law. Do you imagine that this money is just going straight into some councillor's pocket? Besides, you obviously won't be doing it again, so the camera and the fine has served its purpose.


In the meantime, accept that you've f***ed up and pay the fine. If you don't want to be treated like a child, don't act like one, with all this talk of "big brother police state".

If there were no lights there, but roundabouts instead, encouraging people to think for themselves and make decisions and be sensible, then what happened would not be illegal.

But we're in a society where our abilities to learn to make decisions and informed choices and practice our art of common sense are being killed off by politicians and councils and Big Brother.


But the signs say don't turn right and you did. Pay up.


I am fighting one in Westminster Council. I parked on a double yellow Line. I will pay but only when they explain why they put the fine in an envelope saying "This is a warning only you do not need to pay"! I shall let that one go to court I think.

I refuse to accept this fine. Inspection of the camera images reveals that there was not a single pedestrian or vehicle anywhere near my car at the time of the manoeuvre. In my mind what I did was perfectly safe, indeed I have never had an accident in over 10 years of driving.


If Lambeth council want to make that junction safer, putting a warning sign up re the cameras would prevent more "right turners" than by sending them a fine, 3 Weeks after the horse has bolted. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are more interested in cashing in on "stealth" fines than actuall improving road safety at Herne Hill.


Anyway, I have voiced my opinion, which people are entitled to agree or disagree with. The original point of my post was to warn others of the dangers of this junction. Don't let them get u!

Simple solution, eater81. Just remove the licence plates from your vehicle. This will prevent the cameras identifying your vehicle.


After all if it's just up to what you consider to be safe, then having no number plates isn't going to hurt anyone, is it?



: P

"I refuse to go to jail for this burglary. There was no-one in the house, no-one was hurt and they are absolutely loaded so they won't suffer in any way at all. I'm just warning others that teh police are about in this Big Brother society so be careful if you go on the rob!"

Now I understand. Road signs telling you not do something are not enough. You want another sign to tell you to definitely not do this, as you are going to be caught.


Why not just follow the rules or get off the road.

eater81 Wrote:

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

> Inspection of the camera images reveals that there was not a single

> pedestrian or vehicle anywhere near my car at the

> time of the manoeuvre. In my mind what I did was

> perfectly safe....


Let me get this straight. You think it's perfectly fine to make a judgement call on whether or not it's OK to toss that particular traffic regulation? Do you know how many f*ckwits there are on our roads (ballpark figure someone, anyone?). Jeez - imagine them all driving round Lambeth making judgement calls. I would never leave home again.

No, it's fine for _me_ to drive around while talking on my mobile 'phone. I'm terribly important, you see, and of course I'm a better driver than everyone else so when I make a judgement call I should be outside the law. The law's really only for those stupid people that get in my way. Tsk, I don't know, ridiculous pathetic nanny state trying to tell _me_ which laws I should avoid. I'm crossing my arms and ignoring it, la la la.



: P

Pierre - it's you isn't it? You're the **** with the blue BWM on Sylvester Road. Let's get two things absolutely straight. Number one, I wear very high heels and I don't run fast. Number two, if you're going to flip me off then don't do it whilst singing along to Bon Jovi because that's just so wrong.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> But see, eater81 isn't complaining about the fine

> - but BIG Brother society

>

> ...

> ...

> ...

>

> Except he/she IS complaining about the fine and

> couldn't give a toss about cameras unless directly

> affected, and would normally say to liberal

> do-gooders "if you have nothing to hide...." etc

>

> Or that's my guess anyway


I reckon eater81 should get on his bike. Then he wouldn't have any cameras taking pix of his registration, and he might stop moaning about Big Brother when he's really complaining about his alleged right to mow people down.


I have a suspicion that eater81 is committing quite a few other offences too. Someone should put a tail on him ;-)

"I refuse to accept this fine. Inspection of the camera images reveals that there was not a single pedestrian or vehicle anywhere near my car at the time of the manoeuvre. In my mind what I did was perfectly safe, indeed I have never had an accident in over 10 years of driving. "


So do you go through red lights when no-one else is around? I agree that some road rules seem pretty petty, but why should any rules apply to some and not to others?

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...