Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not us/them - plenty of room for both - I can think of a few empty units.


There was an open shop in Swansea selling fish I remember as a boy (MacFisheries - a chain ?)

- I didn't like the smell of that - so the fish smell for me is personal - even though I

like fish to eat.


I'd prefer to buy when I know it's been caught a few hours previous too (Billingsgate).




KidKruger Wrote:

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

> It's up to environmental health to address hygiene

> concerns (which is the point of the comments about

> smells, right ?).

> If EH are happy with those shops, they stay open.

> A lot of these comments come across as very us /

> them, just because you don't like another

> culture's habits don't try and squash them into

> how you want it to be.

> Maybe if you bought the produce and cooked it and

> ate it you'd be more accepting ?

> Thousands of shoppers daily are managing for the

> two decades I've known about it !

>

> No, stop. Someone says it's smelly.

Re what Louisa was suggesting about Planners deliberately clearing communities, if you watched the amazing 6 part documentary The Secret History of Our Streets on telly last year, that is exactly what happened in Deptford. Whole viable old communities were cleared after being 'condemned' by a council that had development interests. http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/qyj4r/the-secret-history-of-our-streets--series-1---1-deptford-high-street

As comedian Hattie Hayridge used to say, architects who's drawings were rejected as cold clinical landscapes devoid of human warmth just resubmitted the drawings, but this time with some stick people and plant pots superimposed on the original.

Just done a quick search of a few of the businesses I use. F.C Soper ranked 4/5 which I am more than happy with. Equally, I typed in "meat, fish, Peckham" into the search box and a few Rye Lane businesses selling fresh food came up. TWO out of TEN ranked 3/5, the rest ranked 0 to 2. Incidentally, Moxons received 5/5. So alice and KK, you can read whatever you want to into selective figures presumably NOT taken at random. But, the fact remains, just a quick general search of Rye Lane did not return a single business ranking 4 or 5. Try it yourself. Says it all as far as I'm concerned.


Louisa.

"But, the fact remains, just a quick general search of Rye Lane did not return a single business ranking 4 or 5. Try it yourself. Says it all as far as I'm concerned. "


Eh? There are loads of businesses on Rye Lane that score 4 or 5...


http://www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk/search.php?name=&address=rye+lane+&postcode=se15&distance=&search.x=48&search.y=18&gbt_id=0&award_score=&award_range=gt

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I have alice. All chains. ASDA, Morrisons, Tesco

> Express, Iceland scored 5/5. Send me a link to

> these independent businesses.

>

> Louisa.


8 out of the 20 scoring 5 are independent businesses

i was naive to think that facts would make you review your thinking

Just to clarify.


Rye Lane brings up SIX pages. The firt TWO pages bring up either chains OR other businesses not specialising in fresh food. The final TWO pages bring up mostly independent butchers and fishmongers- all around 0-2 in terms of ratings. But unlike some of you, I won't read too much into these figures because there is no explanation where they came from or in what ways they were measured so I will give those poorly ranked businesses the benefit of the doubt. However, the fact chains filled up the first two pages and fresh food indies filled up the final two pages is striking to me.


Louisa.

yeah but forgetting the magic numbers for a minute, people ARE managing to survive after shopping on Rye Lane - agreed ?


If so, how DO they manage it, what with all the smells n stuff ? Maybe because of their backgrounds they're, you know, sort of immune to meat and fish which is going off ? ....and (the old favourite) that's probably why they put curry powder in their food, to hide the taste of the rotting meat ? Does that about cover it ?!

Totes agrees, KK.


Ultimately if they all have customers who are fed and happy for what they think is a fair price then whatevs, eh?



I don't see either SE22 or SE15 going down en masse with food poisoning.


The hygiene rating thing is largely boxticking cobblers anyway.

After all - you don't get downgraded for putting stuff past its best out for sale.

Oh KK behave yourself. I clearly stated the ratings system was probably a load of unsubstantiated clap-trap, and you were the one who got oh so excited about it when alice posted it up.


Out of interest how do you know if people have become ill from eating from certain establishments down there or not? Where's the proof no one has been ill? I certainly wouldn't take my chances eating from some of those places based purely on sights and smells and nothing at all to do with any ratings systems.


Louisa.

Food hygeine ratings though (however they are measured) do not necessarily mean that an establishment is selling food that is more or less likely to be unsafe. Establishments that engage in unsafe practise, or are unsanitary are closed down by Environmental Officers. There is no grey area there. A business can for example be given a lower hygeine rating because it's records are not up to scratch. The EO will then advise on how that area can be improved. Similarly a business can be marked down for layout or lighting, things which don't actually impact on food that is prepared, cooked and stored in a correct and safe manner. Handling and storing the food itself in anything but a safe manner will get a business closed down, until it fixes those issues.
Louisa, all it would take is one complaint of food poisoning for an EO to investigate. If an establishment is selling unsafe food there would be many, not one who would become ill on any given day. There is just no evidence to back up your fears. Also if you were to laboratory test any chicken or fish product you buy from a supermarket before you cook it...you would find all kinds of bacteria. That's why cooking things properly is so important. It doesn't matter where you buy a chicken from. If you don't cook it properly, you will get ill.

What really concerns me is the piles of blooded chicken.

I feel it may well be that it does not all get sold by the end of the day.


Is it then sent to be destroyed ? or does it get stored back in a refrigerated compartment

or even non-refrigerated compartment only to be put back on display the next day

with more food added to the pile.?


Who Knows. ??


DulwichFox

That's where regulation comes into force Mr Fox. An EO looks at storage and procedure. So a food establishment without adaquate overnight refrigeration and storage would not be granted a license to trade. I find the assumption that these small businesses are not operating within the legal guidelines unfair. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?


As for 'blooded chicken'. Much of the meat on sale is Halal, which means it hasn't been mechanically bleached and then reinjected with colorant like the meat you find in supermarkets. Of course it will look different. But the process of sell by dates remains the same. Off meat will look and smell off. And like the issue of food poisoning above, it would be very hard for an establishment to get away with selling off meat for any length of time. They'd go out of business if nothing else.


And just edited to add that for me this is a really interesting discussion to have because most people have no idea how the food they buy is produced. Much of the chicken in supermarkets comes from disease ridden battery chicken farms (that's why they have to be bleach bathed after slaughter and plucking, to remove the bacteria from months of living in their own feaces). If most people were taken to one of those farms to see for themsleves how that chicken is produced, they'd never buy chicken from a supermarket again. Shiny and clean premises doesn't mean the food you are buying is healthy or clean either.

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...