Jump to content

Recommended Posts

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I have been there -- when my husband was a student

> he shopped at the Iceland in Peckham regularly

> until I broke him of the habit. It wasn't any

> more expensive to eat fresh food from Peckham. He

> simply didn't like cooking but I do, so I made our

> meals.

>

> The name of the store is Iceland, so while they do

> sell other things, as the name suggests anyone who

> claims to do most of their shopping at Iceland

> would be buying a lot of frozen food.

>

> If someone is only buying eggs and milk there, the

> closure might be disappointing but its unlikely to

> make a real difference to the cost of their weekly

> expenditure.



So, you don't shop there, therefore this thread is really irrelevant to you, yet you still keep commenting on it.

No, I don't shop there now and I don't shop at M&S either but I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to comment or have an opinion. Can you please explain all the rules to me Mustard??


Louisa, I agree that the ready meals are crap at M&S as well. I also agree the Co-op is overpriced. Lidl in Peckham is much better value when you are on budget. I tend to most of my shopping at Sainsburys and the local shops both on LL and in Peckham depending on what I need.

Some people like to shop locally, or need to as they don't have transport, or can have mobility issues. Not everyone can go to Lidl in Peckham, nor will they want to spend ?35 online to have a delivery from Iceland.


Almost every time I have been in Iceland recently it has been busy. The staff are very efficient and get the lines moving quickly. Nowhere did I say you weren't allowed to comment on here. But as you don't shop there, and made your husband stop going there, your comments do seem irrelevant. Maybe you could charter a mini bus and conduct a shopping expedition to Peckham to instruct people who want to save money.


The only frozen foods I have bought in Iceland are peas, fish fingers and some oven chips.

The reason why this thread concerns me is because it shows a total lack of perspective.


Will those who like to pop into Iceland be inconvenienced, particularly if they don't shop there enough to warrant ordering a 35 quid bi-weekly shop. Yes. Will those who have come to know the staff miss the sense of community and routine. Of course they will and hopefully, M&S will take some of the staff on.


However, people framing this as the freeholder and M&S pushing huge swathes of ED's population (including vulnerable pensioners) to the brink of hunger are distorting things in a way that's totally not acceptable in my book.


First, DaveR's statistics do not measure economic deprivation and are not a proxy for how many people in ED are living below the poverty line. Here are some real economic measures for the ward:


There are over 12,000 people living in ED Ward. Of those there are only 295 people on income support in the Ward as of 2012. There are only 350 pensioners receiving pension credit (as of 2012) and there are only 1,175 people (in 2005) on housing benefit or council tax benefit (please note that the last group will include people in the first two categories). Also, since 2005, the income support and pension credit figures have fallen be circa 30%. If housing benefit has followed the same trend, the 2012 figure number would be around 800 people.


I do think that keeping affordable options for the less than 10% of ED's population that are on benefits is important and I support efforts to develop more affordable housing / social housing locally to keep the area economically mixed. However, having members of my own family that are on benefits I can attest to the fact that just because you are on benefits of some sort doesn't mean you want to or do shop at Iceland and vis-a-versa.


A shop is closing. Part of this is due to demographic changes. While inconvenient, there are affordable fresh food alternatives in walking distance and for those who like their unique frozen food offerings, you can get them delivered for free.



http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6263560&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=14&g=345137&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410855241995&enc=1&dsFamilyId=1354

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6263560&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=14&g=345137&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410855241995&enc=1&dsFamilyId=1037

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6263560&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=14&g=345137&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410855241995&enc=1&dsFamilyId=1362

Jessie Wrote:

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

> You don't need to be on benefits to be struggling

> financially, believe me.



I agree Jessie. However, there is a difference between strapped for cash and as some have asserted ?below the poverty line?. Saying huge swathes of ED are living at or below the poverty line is simply not true.

Lots of people suggesting I have been alarmist ("pushing people to the brink of hunger") or somehow misrepresenting the stats. I thought I made a simple point - the fact that ED shops now appear to cater disproportionately to those with more expensive tastes does not mean that those people are the majority, it just means that they have more money to spend. In those circumstances, assuming that Iceland giving way to M&S is not going to affect a large number of people is probably wrong.


By way of an aside, it's interesting how everybody feels qualified to dismiss statistics that are inconsistent with their own experience/prejudices. The point about indicators of deprivation is that it has been established through analysis that certain factors (on which data is available) correlate strongly with deprivation, so they are a fairly reliable proxy, but by degree (hence 1 - 4 indicators). Of course they are not perfect, but you can be pretty sure the dataset and methodology is more robust than 'what me and all my friends think'.

I wasn't referring to you as alarmist by the way.


However, indicators of deprivation are not a direct link to economic circumstances.and single indicator anyhow is usually not seen as a sign of deprivation in and of itself. Having a long term illness would account for a household having one marker. Sharing a household also counts.


A better measure is the data that has been linked to. I'm not going on gut feeling but using more accurate data on local economics from the same published source as you.

Yes-- the same site you have sourced your data from breaks down the deprviation stats in more detail. The stats I linked to come under economic deprivation statistics sub-category on the website.


http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadPage.do?pageId=1003&tc=1410865942308&a=7&b=6501600&c=SE22+9DJ&d=14&e=13&f=30636&g=6336684&i=1001x1003x1004x1005&l=2474&o=362&m=0&r=0&s=1410865942308&enc=1



Also, if you click on the explanatory notes from your link, you'll see what the non-economic factors are that are being considered, many of which have no direct relationship with how much money people have.

It's a bit disappointing to be told that a significant percentage of that generation who were able to make a dozen meals from a single chicken; make do and mend; fix mechanical and electrical devices; add-up without calculators; survive tumultuous and turbulent times - a generation brought-up on common sense, resourcefulness and organisational thrift - now can't manage when Iceland closes.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> However, people framing this as the freeholder and

> M&S pushing huge swathes of ED's population

> (including vulnerable pensioners) to the brink of

> hunger are distorting things in a way that's

> totally not acceptable in my book.



Totally agree that M&S / The freeholders are doing nothing wrong here.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> It's a bit disappointing to be told that a

> significant percentage of that generation who were

> able to make a dozen meals from a single chicken;

> make do and mend; fix mechanical and electrical

> devices; add-up without calculators; survive

> tumultuous and turbulent times - a generation

> brought-up on common sense, resourcefulness and

> organisational thrift - now can't manage when

> Iceland closes.


That generation is now mainly dead Bobby...this is the first wave of the spoilt, overindulged Baby boom generation hitting old age

The wonderful thing about this part of London is the diversity.


I think the loss of Iceland to an M&S is sadder not due to the loss of Iceland but the fact it's not going to be an independent or a shop that won't be competing with others near by.


After a cheap shop? Tesco on East Dulwich Road or Sainsbury's. Or even Iceland in Peckham is really not that far, and you get ASDA too. That's a lot of supermarkets in a relatively small area.

jjjjj Wrote:

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

> > After a cheap shop? Tesco on East Dulwich Road or

> Sainsbury's. Or even Iceland in Peckham is really

> not that far, and you get ASDA too. That's a lot

> of supermarkets in a relatively small area.


I don't think Tesco & Sainsbury's are that cheap

& it's not just about cheap for me as there are things

I like to buy in Iceland that I can't get in Co-op.

The Iceland in Peckham is crap compared to the one on Lordship Lane

& no way handy for me.

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...