Jump to content

Recommended Posts

>>>messageThe Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?

>>>Posted by DadOf4 September 22, 10:49AM



>>>But they?re a charity right ? ? they?ll take that income and redistribute it to the poor scholors (sic) and brothers?



That's where you started to go wrong.


Then your let your bigoted socialist ideas merge with the politics of envy.


Better to accept that we don't live in a socialist ideal where everyone has to conform to the lowest common denominator. That died in Berlin in 1998.


Why not also consider that in a meritocracy everyone benefits by virtue of the increased competitiveness of the nation as a whole and the trickle down factor.


Also an old chestnut of a thread (Is Alleyn's a cuckoo?) was resurrected recently. Was it you that did it by any chance?

.......................

Aside- Isn't it amazing that these themes of inequality and injustice seem to crop up around the time our Socialist brothers have their annual party conference?

.......................

GG

Hi P68,

The Dulwich Estate decided to limit the space for the Judith Kerr state funded school - they have no plasyground - so that they could build houses that will be used to subsidise local private school more.


It ensured a gagging order in the lease so that the government department and school are not allowed to even mention this for fear of breaking the lease.

Clearly even the Dulwich Estate realise that what theyve done is morally wrong else why the gagging order?


Such behaviour is clearly contrary to what Edward Alleyn would have ever expected and the Dulwich Estate Governors should be ashamed of themselves.

"Such behaviour is clearly contrary to what Edward Alleyn would have ever expected and the Dulwich Estate Governors should be ashamed of themselves."


Hmmm ... Edward Alleyn set up the Foundation 400 years ago when things were very, very different. Very little education, none of it state funded, the Dulwich area hardly built upon at all and the population a miniscule proportion of what it is today. I don't think it's possible for anyone to hazard a guess what Edward Alleyn would have expected!

so that they could build houses that will be used to subsidise local private school more.


Interesting to see a local councillor not wanting more housing locally - the Estates job as far as administering the charitable donation is to fund their (not other people's) education delivery - including offering bursaries to allow a wider range of chidren to benefit (so not quite the spirit implied by 'local private school') - you don't like private education - that's your (political) right of course, but to suggest that the Trust isn't acting properly because they aren't following your political prejudices is unhelpful - it's like being a Wee Free and complaining (and suggesting they are acting unethically) because the local Catholic Church isn't giving land for your church to be built on.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> so that they could build houses that will be used

> to subsidise local private school more.

>

> Interesting to see a local councillor not wanting

> more housing locally - the Estates job as far as

> administering the charitable donation is to fund

> their (not other people's) education delivery -

> including offering bursaries to allow a wider

> range of chidren to benefit (so not quite the

> spirit implied by 'local private school') - you

> don't like private education - that's your

> (political) right of course, but to suggest that

> the Trust isn't acting properly because they

> aren't following your political prejudices is

> unhelpful - it's like being a Wee Free and

> complaining (and suggesting they are acting

> unethically) because the local Catholic Church

> isn't giving land for your church to be built on.


Completely agree Penguin. There seems to be a weird presumption that certain charities should curtail their own activities for the benefit of separate groups. Would this be expected of other charities or is it just that private schools are considered to be a fair target?


If there's a gagging order, why do we know about it? ... Uh oh, who breached the gagging order? :p

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

There seems to be a

> weird presumption that certain charities should

> curtail their own activities for the benefit of

> separate groups. Would this be expected of other

> charities or is it just that private schools are

> considered to be a fair target?

>



It's quite a complicated question of interpretation of the 2006 Charities Act, I think, which requires a "public benefit" test to be met in relation to the charitable status of all charities. "Education" as a charitable aim ceased to be a sole justification for charitable status and it was required that charities also provide a public benefit.


As private schools provide a service to a small number of people for a large amount of money their status as charities is questionable. They must provide benefit to the wider public which they argue they do via bursaries and "sharing" facilities with other local schools. (other sports clubs don't count if the charity's original purpose to provide "education"). Quite how much has to be shared, whether through bursaries or sharing of facilities hasn't been established.


Some schools make the argument that they meet a public benefit test merely by relieving the burden on the state (this was tested in court and found not to be a satisfactory argument); likewise, the argument has been made by those opposing private schools' charitable status that there mere existence is a public detriment rather than benefit (ie no private school should have charitable status) but this argument too has been tested in court and found wanting.


There's a very helpful outline here: http://www.sjol.co.uk/issue-3/private-schools


So, it's not clear and there's an ongoing wrestling match. Complicated, I would have thought, by the free schools and academies who have state funding and charitable status.

Am I right in thinking that bursaries are just a discount in the cost. So if you put the prices up by a couple of thousand and then give everyone a discount you are fulfilling the 'we give bursaries'. Surely its who gets these discounts that makes it a charity not that you give discounts at rates that most are still priced out?

mako Wrote:

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

> Am I right in thinking that bursaries are just a

> discount in the cost. So if you put the prices up

> by a couple of thousand and then give everyone a

> discount you are fulfilling the 'we give

> bursaries'. Surely its who gets these discounts

> that makes it a charity not that you give

> discounts at rates that most are still priced out?


I'm not sure but certainly there are very few 100% bursaries. That question is dealt with in the document. I think that they need to be substantial to meet the criteria but I think they needn't be 100%.

Really? I don't see that. It's easy to justify - choice in how to spend your money and doing what you thinks best for your kids. I have no problem with people making those choices. It's quite easy to spot chippy, lefties with stereotypical views in this thread too


*kids at state school, btw.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi P68, nxjen, EDLove,

> So you think it morally acceptable to ensure state

> school kids don't have a playground so that bigger

> subsidies can be given to private schools?


My response to you had nothing to do with what's morally acceptable with regards to larger subsidies being given to private schools though by DE holding on to land which belongs to them does not amount to giving a subsidy to the private schools. For what it's worth, I agree with posts further up the thread that state schools should be allowed access to the largely unused playing fields of Alleyns and pressure should be brought on the Estate to enable this. My post to you was an objection that you feel you know what would be going through Edward Alleyn's mind regarding events nearly 400 years after his death to enforce your argument - sloppy, just your opinion. Bequests were given in the 17th century, not so much as a philanthropic gesture to help one's fellow man but to ensure a place in heaven, and building a Chapel, almshouses and enabling education were popular means. Alleyn, as well as an actor, was a business man (with brothels among his interests), and my opinion is that he would primarily be a business man today.

???? Wrote:

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

> Really? I don't see that. It's easy to justify -

> choice in how to spend your money and doing what

> you thinks best for your kids. I have no problem

> with people making those choices. It's quite easy

> to spot chippy, lefties with stereotypical views

> in this thread too

>

> *kids at state school, btw.



Well you're no fun today. Be gone with your reasonable posts when I'm trying to make mischeif.

"access to the largely unused playing fields of Alleyns "


this amuses me - who imagines the school's fields are largely unused? They have - what - 1300 pupils from 4-19. Perhaps you walked past at break time? lunchtime?? when they were out of commission due to rain/waterlogging??

They are being used pretty much all the time otherwise.


What a laugh - largely unused!!

Before slandering the estate, why not actually figure out what they do. I know 100% of the money they provide to Alleyns goes to bursaries and that many of the bursaries are significant 50%-100%. Alleyn?s are trying to offer more 100% bursaries through donations. Not sure about the other schools (I have a friend whose kids go to Alleyn?s) but if the others use the Dulwich Estate income similarly, I think it?s a bit harsh to criticize them for trying to increase the income they receive to provide means tested bursaries.


If the other schools don?t use the money to provide means tested / significant bursaries, then the Charity Commission to challenge them to do more. However, the Dulwich Estate has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the financial interest of the endowment and its stated aims and has done just that.

bawdy-nan wrote:-


> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

There seems to be a

> weird presumption that certain charities should

> curtail their own activities for the benefit of

> separate groups. Would this be expected of other

> charities or is it just that private schools are

> considered to be a fair target?

>


Actually, the quote attributed to me was a comment by EDLove to a comment of mine - not that I would necessarily distance myself from it, but it wasn't actually my expressed view.

The fields on the left hand side of the road if you are coming from LL are very hardly used at all.


Neither is my garden, in winter, but I don't feel any obligation to give it up to a third party.


Please also remember that using land has a cost - I suspect that if a local school had to take over the expense of land management, and indeed the necessity of regular upkeep if the land was being extensively used, cost of groundsmen etc. etc. (together possibly with the costs of risk associated with that use) then the 'benefit' might not be affordable - and if the Trust took on those costs bro-bono for the school then it might be in breach of its own duties re expenditure on its own stated aims.


If the grounds are not used very much, then the costs associated with them are undoubtedly going to be lower - high use leads to high cost.


I recall the local furore when it was suggested the Rye could be used as sports fields for local schools - that is a public amenity to be used by state schools - that was strongly resisted (I'm not saying it shouldn't have been) - but diverting use of private amenity to a state school is apparently be be applauded - as are plans to build more state schools (i.e. that in the old ED police station site) without any access to outside field areas. Or should access to local gardens now be demanded for this school?

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi P68, nxjen, EDLove,

> So you think it morally acceptable to ensure state

> school kids don't have a playground so that bigger

> subsidies can be given to private schools?


Hi James


Morality is not the issue. I just don't think it's our place to cast aspersions on a charity when it opts to allocate its funds or resources to furthering its own charitable functions and not to a cause that you felt to be more deserving.

EDLove,

We should not turn a blind eye to the Dulwich Estate gagging a new local junior school from talking about the disservice the Dulwich estate has done to them.

The Dulwich Estate has ensured this new state funded school has no playground so that the Dulwich Estate can maximise funding for better facilities and subsidies to local private fee paying schools.


You are right in that the terms of their references are being strictly followed but those terms don't mean they have to be so brutal in the execution of property management.

It is hard to accept that they are being charitable or working charitably for the greater good.


So with respect to this threads title - for the Judith Kerr state funded school on Half Mood Lane the Dulwich Estate is indeed a latter day Robin Hood in reverse.

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...