Jump to content

Recommended Posts

jennyh Wrote:

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

> I understand the comments regarding cafes catering

> for kids but I think part of the reason that so

> many of the cafes are over-run with buggies is

> because the area is lacking in a space that is big

> enough and that caters specifically for that

> market.

> As a parent of 2 young kids I hate having to

> squeeze into small places that are inappropriate

> such as Blue Mountain, (formerly) Lucas and Duck

> Egg because you know that its not really geared up

> for hordes of children and you have to shuffle

> around apologising for your buggies being in the

> way etc. I welcome a big space that has been well

> thought out and meets the needs of the huge

> population of young kids in East Dulwich and would

> imagine that if it is a success it will free up

> all the other cafes for people who don't have kids

> to sit peacefully or work etc. All in all it has

> to be a good thing, particularly because the old

> cafe was rarely busy and didnt work. As someone

> said before, its great that it is being used!



Very well said :)

They don't really encourage people full stop, that's the problem.


ortuke Wrote:

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

> Try le chandelier if you want peace - they don't

> really encourage kids I'm there so it remains a

> mostly adult only area I believe and the food is

> nice too...

le Chandelier is fab and very people friendly and serves the best tea, coffee and cakes around. However they are not tolerant of buggies or rampaging children...as someone else has mentioned the space is too small for that and since everyone pays the same for their chosen repast it seems fair too. Unfortunately some mummies get very snippy about this and choose to trash the reputation of the place.
Why not either not come out with a buggy, once in a while, or leave the buggy outside? I haven't heard of any buggy-snatchers in SE22. It's unrealistic to expect that each parent has a "right" to bring a buggy inside a small venue. I wouldn't dream of bringing a similar sized amount of luggage or purchases etc out of sheer practicality and consideration to others.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> What fabulous news. All the buggy brigade with

> their screaming kids can now go here and free up

> the other caf?s for the rest of the population of

> ED who are sick of rampaging kids when we want

> some peace and quiet whilst nursing out coffee and

> cakes.

>

> Louisa.



Well said!

Especially as every time I see the mummy-buggy brigade they appear to sit for hours nursing a cup of coffee and a shared slice of cake, Cant be much of a money spinner for the local cafes having them in.

My other half and I often manage to get through a full english breakfast and coffees and be out of a cafe within half an hour where-as the tables full of the mums and buggies who were there when we arrived are still sat with their empty cups gossiping when we leave.

One of the worst instances of this was recently when I went for a quiet lunch at Dulwich picture gallery, I sat outside and ordered my meal, a mum came with a buggy and sat at the table next to mine, to be joined very shortly after by 4 other women with babies and toddlers, who had chairs moved to join their friend, high chairs brought out, and then proceeded to take out tupperware boxes containing their own food, pots of yoghurt then call the waitress and order one slice of cake, a pot of tea and ask for spoons and forks to eat their own food.

Not only was my meal disturbed by the noise and being hemmed in by buggies and high chairs but despite the waitress coming several times to ask if they wished to order from the lunch menu (it was a busy warm day at 1pm)nothing further was ordered.

There was a kind of arrogance and disregard for the other diners and the restaurant concerned.

Frankly I think offering a dedicated place for them to go can only be a good thing.

As a mum to a toddler I think it is great news that The Gardens is going to used and that it will cater for the fast growing ED population of parents with children. I find it the most unrelaxing thing to go to a cafe with an active toddler as I am so concerned not to disrupt anyone around us so welcome somewhere that I can get a decent coffee, meet friends and let the little one burn off some energy without this worry.


I do wish however that the people of ED would not always parent/child bash on the forum. We are all at different stages of life with different priorities and it would be nice if we can co-exist pleasantly.

niwi Wrote:

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

> I do wish however that the people of ED would not

> always parent/child bash on the forum. We are all

> at different stages of life with different

> priorities and it would be nice if we can co-exist pleasantly.


As a new-ish parent myself I can see both sides. I can totally understand people getting frustrated when they want to find a place for a quiet lunch or drink, and there's buggies everywhere, kids running around, and crying babies. Perhaps we need more places than either cater to one market or the other, instead of every pub and cafe trying to find a middle ground to keep everyone happy (and failing)!


The problem is... intentionally opening a non-familiy-friendly place in ED would be a bit of a punt, to say the least...

Well said!

Especially as every time I see the mummy-buggy brigade they appear to sit for hours nursing a cup of coffee and a shared slice of cake, Cant be much of a money spinner for the local cafes having them in.

My other half and I often manage to get through a full english breakfast and coffees and be out of a cafe within half an hour where-as the tables full of the mums and buggies who were there when we arrived are still sat with their empty cups gossiping when we leave.

"One of the worst instances of this was recently when I went for a quiet lunch at Dulwich picture gallery, I sat outside and ordered my meal, a mum came with a buggy and sat at the table next to mine, to be joined very shortly after by 4 other women with babies and toddlers, who had chairs moved to join their friend, high chairs brought out, and then proceeded to take out tupperware boxes containing their own food, pots of yoghurt then call the waitress and order one slice of cake, a pot of tea and ask for spoons and forks to eat their own food.

Not only was my meal disturbed by the noise and being hemmed in by buggies and high chairs but despite the waitress coming several times to ask if they wished to order from the lunch menu (it was a busy warm day at 1pm)nothing further was ordered.

There was a kind of arrogance and disregard for the other diners and the restaurant concerned.

Frankly I think offering a dedicated place for them to go can only be a good thing.


Tis a bit strongly worded in my humble opinion NewWave. Was the food theirs or their babies'/toddlers'? If the latter then it's perfectly acceptable to take your own baby/kiddie food unless you want to feed them on cake. I hear you about disruption and sorry about that - but despite appearances - most mums and dads are acutely aware of it and will try wherever possible to minimise it. Also the 'dedicated place for them to go' sentiment feels a bit off. Yes I'm a mum but I'm also a woman who probably likes going to the same places you do for good coffee, good food and good company. Can't we all play nicely?

CocoC Wrote:

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

> Sorry, the first para above should be in quotation

> marks (as they're not my words) but I don't know

> how to do it. Probably because I spend too much

> time nursing a cup of coffee and slice of cake at

> a too-cramped caf? somewhere.


xxxxx


:))


CocoC, if you click on "Quote this message" instead of "Reply to this message", the post you are quoting will automatically come up in your post (as yours has above mine).


You can then delete any parts of the quote you don't want to include.


Hope that helps.

My problem with the mummy-buggy-brigade as they seem to have been named now, is that many of them remind me of the women who, 28 years ago sneered at me and made judgements because I was a young mother.


There was no thought at that time, of making things easier for mother's with young children to stay socially involved in their communities. These women wanted untidy young children's issues kept out of their way. They had important things to do, such as make money to buy garbage they didn't need, but which let them know they'd arrived.


Now that they have had kids, the same people who made no allowances for me or my contemporaries, appear to want everyone to notice how clever they are because they are now parents and their wants/wishes are expected to be catered for by everyone else.


I don't really feel like catering for you or your kids. You didn't care about the mothers who came before you and the issues they faced.


You need to stop acting like you are important just because you had a kid. This happens thousands of times every day to women all over the world. Stop shouting 'look at me' and just get on with it.

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

>

> There was no thought at that time, of making

> things easier for mother's with young children to

> stay socially involved in their communities.


I agree



> I don't really feel like catering for you or your

> kids. You didn't care about the mothers who came

> before you and the issues they faced.


Disagree. How do you know what I do or don't care about?

>

> You need to stop acting like you are important

> just because you had a kid. This happens thousands

> of times every day to women all over the world.

> Stop shouting 'look at me' and just get on with

> it.


Couldn't agree more. I'm not important for having had a kid. I've no desire to be 'looked at.' I just want to get a bloody coffee from time to time. And where I go, my 7 month old comes too. Unless you'd rather I left her at home on her own?


Anyway, this is all going off topic. I will leave it there.

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

>" ... the women who, 28 years ago sneered

> at me and made judgements because I was a young

> mother..."


I doubt whether many of today's young mums were able, 28 years years ago, to sneer at anybody!




>

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Now that they have had kids, the same people who

> made no allowances for me or my contemporaries,

> appear to want everyone to notice how clever they are


You realise that they're not actually the same people, right? You seem awfully pissed off with them...

With so many first sproggers round here in their 40's, many may well be, but even the ones in their 30's, I'd guess looked down on anyone who became a mum under the age of 20, before they had their little miracle (some probably still do).


Something that indicates to me that there are still these prejudices in the current crop of mummy-buggy-brigade is when I'm out with my 7 year old granddaughter and someone who assumed she was my daughter is hardly able to hide the look of horror when I explain that she's my granddaughter.


It's happened so often, I'm developing a barely controllable punch-them-in-the-mouth urge as soon as I spot them.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...