Jump to content

Recommended Posts

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> If it's in the bin, who would expect it to be

> still wanted?

>

> Personally I leave unwanted stuff that might be

> useful, by the side of my bin and it's always gone

> by the next day, but if someone wanted to root

> through the rest of my rubbish, why would I care?

> I don't want it and I'm not stupid enough to put

> anything with personal information on, in my bin

> or recycling.



Agree!

NunheadRising Wrote:

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

> These women have been doing the rounds in East

> Dulwich Nunhead Forest Hill area for months, there

> have been other posts about the same thing. Coming

> onto my property and taking anything without

> permission is theft. Don't be soft in your view of

> the world thinking they're not up to something

> dodgy, if you're not bothered by it then invite

> them in for a rummage through your house whilst

> they're at it.




My house isn't a rubbish bin, is yours?


I'm officially declaring the contents of my bin free for anyone to root around in, any time they feel like it, so long as they don't leave a mess.

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> With all the burglaries in the area I keep all my

> most prized possessions in a tin at the bottom of

> my bin (green one) in between collections. Figured

> it was the last place robbers would look. With

> this news I?m going to have to rethink my

> strategy.


Try the brown bin. They won't look in there but remember to move it the night before collection.



I have no problem whatsoever with people going through my bins, one mans trash is another mans treasure and all that. As for inviting them in for a rummage around my house - that's where I tend to store items that I want to keep hold of so I'd rather they stuck to the bins.

Sue Wrote:

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

> They must be pretty desperate if they are going

> through bins to find clothes and shoes which

> aren't even good enough to take to a charity

> shop?

>

> If I'd known, they could have had a pair of shoes

> I've just binned because they had holes in :))

>

> ETA: But is there really a problem if they are

> "stealing" things which have already been thrown

> out? Unless you think this is a guise for looking

> for information to be used in identity theft?


Exactly!! If something is thrown in the bin and someone wants to make use of it, wats the problem? Lol how is that stealing.. We dont know peoples situations.

Wow I am shocked by the responses. How is it remotely relevant what ethnicity/ background the girls are. Again these are things that you have discarded in a bin. Is there any evidence from all these reports that any criminal activity has occurred. I applaud preventing waste and would be happy for anyone as long as they don't make mess to take anything from my bins. If people in a multicultural area of london are making racial slurs, is it any wonder that nick farrago has done so well in the rest of England.

I can't give a reason as to why my neighbour thought it would be ok to leave the items in the bin. What I do know is this :

The girls had been previously and had been told not to go through the bins or else the police would be called. They chose to ignore this and came back and took items belonging to my neighbours late sister who had died suddenly from a massive stroke. Therefore this is theft.

The bin was hidden but because they knew where to look they went straight to it....premeditated theft.

A description is relevant and helpful to warn others and to see if they have been spotted anywhere else doing the same thing which it seems they have

I was only trying to warn other residents.

I can't understand why people throw away useable stuff when it should be recycled or donated to charity. There would then be no reason for people to go through the bins -UNLESS they are up to the old identity theft rubbish again and that began in the last 15 years when our doors were flung wide open to anyone who wanted to exploit us.
The thing is that not everything left on a forecourt or drive way is rubbish, I used to leave my motocycle cover behind the bins when I went to go out, someones pinched it. They would have had to come on to my driveway to get to it (the binmen have never touched it and only take the bins to empty). So no, it's not acceptable to rumaage through peoples bins, property, on privet property unless invited - I think thats obvious.
Well the harm is that they are making the decision for you as to what wanted or not, thats my choice, on my property! I don't want people going through bins and I haven't invited anyone to come through the gate and take my bike cover coz hey think it's rubbish (or just pinched it) So, yes, thats the harm in going through my bins. Frankly if I saw them I'd tell them to F off.

I dont think so Lady D., we would take anything of any value to the charity shop, or even offer it on this forum but it's just accepting that strangers are OK to rifle through our bins that I'm not OK about(I'm sure Im not alone here)


Despite my motorbike cover vanishing from my own front yard I dont want to think that ID theft or anythng else we've chucked out is being riffled through, sorry but it's not the favela here, if I saw someone going through my bins I would definatley tell them to P--- Off. (loudly)and I'd be perfectly entitled to do so.

I believe it is more sinister than just rifling through rubbish. A neighbour saw two women with shopping trollies pick letters - documents - and think they are looking for anything that could be 'identity'. Make sure you never throw paper with your name, address and any kind of bill or letter heading that could possible be used for identity theft.

The point is not about the rubbish, it's about somebody opening your gate, coming onto your property without permission and rifling through your front garden - which is as much your own space as your toilet.


There's a difference when somebody puts something out on the street, or if your bins are on the street due to no front gardens/flats - then yes, open season.


But all these virtuous dolts trying to appear green are missing the bigger point - about normalising strangers poking around your front garden with implicit permission, and what that can lead to...

We take unwanted clothes to charity shops, clothes banks etc and sometimes leave stuff on the pavement next to our bins (for no more than a day) with a note saying that it can be taken by anybody who wants it.


However, even though we don't want landfill to be stocked with discarded items and feel that it is better that they go to those who would make use of and/or are in need of them, I would probably find it quite unsettling to see strangers rifling through my rubbish, regardless of motives and where the bins are placed (I don't agree that it is 'open season' if your bins are on the street). It does, of course, take it to another level if people are coming on to private property to do it.


Posters who claim to be happy for people to look through their rubbish are failing to provide home addresses... Surely it's a meaningless statement without this information? Perhaps those who are willing to have their rubbish looted should make this clear with a sticker on their bin?


In any event, hopefully this thread will encourage more people to donate their unwanted stuff to charity or perhaps leave it in a separate, clearly-marked box for any takers.

janicemuir Wrote:

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

> I can't believe this post. What is wrong with you.

> You should have some sympathy. What else was going

> to happen to contents of the bin anyway? You

> really need to get a life and perhaps start

> thinking about the way other people have to live.


Which post? I clearly said - 'hopefully this thread will encourage more people to donate their unwanted stuff to charity or perhaps leave it in a separate, clearly-marked box for any takers'.


I'm sure these girls would prefer if the potential clothing was placed for them to take without having to look through dirty bins.


I don't want people looking through my rubbish but I do want people who need clothing etc to have the ability to take it if it's clearly no longer wanted by the owner, which is why a lot of people do leave out boxes with a little note to say that the contents can be taken.

I have sympathy with those in need, but I also don't want to encourage the normalisation of people rooting through other people's bins, especially when they intrude on private property. Who knows the real motives for these - or others' - people's rooting? Perhaps they are amazingly entrepreneurial, green-minded-but-badly-shod to boot, or maybe they are ground-agents for an ID-theft operation. Nobody can know unless they ask them, and they might not be willing to tell the truth if it is the latter.

janicemuir Wrote:

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

> I can't believe this post. What is wrong with you.

> You should have some sympathy. What else was going

> to happen to contents of the bin anyway? You

> really need to get a life and perhaps start

> thinking about the way other people have to live.


I don?t think ED Love comes across as unsympathetic Janicemuir, quite the opposite in fact. The contents of a bin by definition is rubbish and the point has already made that anything of value would be taken to a charity shop or left out clearly for anyone to take (although I think the charity shop is better qualified to distribute clothing etc.). I agree with those who don?t want people rifling through their rubbish on their property and besides the point about identity theft, I actually think it?s also an invasion of my family?s privacy. The way other people have to live does not extend to pilfering rubbish, as i said earlier - this is not the favela.

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...