Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I for one do not want or need to be told this fact when it is gratuitous and unhelpful. "Black" is no more valid as a single descriptor than "white". Agree with Honk and the others who have questioned why this was mentioned at all. Given the closeness of the encounter that seems to have taken place, I would have thought if the OP was trying to offer a useful description, they would have included some or all of these: age, height, build, hair style, hair colour, eye colour, accent, clothing...?


I am sure the woman involved was genuinely scared for her own reasons. This is obviously why she wanted the anecdote passed on to the wider community, but not sure how it was supposed to help.

I think what a lot of people are missing here is that the guy was following her, then she stopped, forcing him to walk on then she went in a different direction to get away from him and he was running up the street (with his suitcase) straight at her. This IS scary, whether or not his is a nut job or needs locking up is not really what the poster was trying to judge, she was just (kindly) informing women to be cautius.

Also there is a BIG difference between giving a woman flowers who you haven't met and running at someone and creepely saying you like their boots.....

Having been attacked in the street at 6pm at night (with people round the corner) before I know how terrifying it is. Yes she got away ok, but this is threatening behaviour and it is good to highlight it.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Apparently you're not allowed to mention race

> these days when describing someone. In fact, I'm

> surprised the OP got away with saying that it was

> a man.


Looking at the original post (I'll get one of my identikit guys on this asap) I've got 'black man' and 'wheely suitcase' to go on.


Presuming he might sometimes leave the house without his luggage, that just leaves 'black man' to go on. Which is ridiculous.


It was an irrelevant detail to accompany a vague description forming part of an even vaguer post alerting us to the existence of someone who hadn't actually committed an offence, who may or may not live in the area.


Keep your eyes peeled.

I absolutely disagree that it is an irrelevant detail. It is helpful in the description as it then excludes potential suspects of different races hence their search for the offender is narrowed..


I think there are people just being outright argumentative on this thread for seemingly no particular reason and they may have failed to notice but you are not really achieving much either!

Strawbs Wrote:

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

> I absolutely disagree that it is an irrelevant

> detail. It is helpful in the description as it

> then excludes potential suspects of different

> races hence their search for the offender is

> narrowed..

>


This doesn't get past the fact that the post basically warns forumites to 'be wary of black men', given lack of any other detail.


If you have a bogeyman story to share, perhaps give better detail in future, that way I'll know who to go chasing after with my pitchfork.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I agree, it is not especially useful without any

> further description (height, approx age) to go

> on.

>

> But if she had just said "a tall man", or "a blond

> haired man", people wouldn't be jumping on that.



perhaps that's because discrimination on the basis of race is a problem and discrimination on the basis of height or hair colour isn't (IMO)?


do you not appreciate that some people have negative stereotypes about black people (or perhaps people of certain religions) that they do not have about tall or blond people?

Hence my point about the "fullest" description.

One feature alone is insufficient(although anything that narrows it down can only be a plus point if there is genuine reason for concern.


Question: A Rape has been committed and a Guy is running off and crosses the road.


All a bystander can see about the obvious assailant is his skin colour.

Given that he was too far away, in my hypothetical example, would someone really say that as the only feature available is his skin colour then that should NOT be mentioned?

pk Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I agree, it is not especially useful without

> any

> > further description (height, approx age) to go

> > on.

> >

> > But if she had just said "a tall man", or "a

> blond

> > haired man", people wouldn't be jumping on

> that.

>

>

> perhaps that's because discrimination on the basis

> of race is a problem and discrimination on the

> basis of height or hair colour isn't (IMO)?

>

> do you not appreciate that some people have

> negative stereotypes about black people (or

> perhaps people of certain religions) that they do

> not have about tall or blond people?


That is true, in some cases, but if a crime(not talking now about this "incident" ) has definitely been committed surely one has to weigh up the safety and warning aspects against the fact that if the description of the Suspect happens to be Black then it should not be mentioned because "some" people have negative stereotypes about Black people?

I cant believe some of you are being such idiots!


It was just a warning for any women walking around ED on their own and BOB clearly you are single, or should be, chivalry is dead!!


This man may not be dangerous or he might be! You do not run at a single woman, walking along a dark street, on their own shouting "dont be scared", if you are sane and rational, especially wearing the ugly boots she was wearing! But more worrying he doubled back down LL to follow her and lifted the suitcase so she didnt hear the wheels!


It doesnt matter what colour his skin was, what he said or how he behaved the fact is he is clearly troubled and who knows where his mental state is going, so Ladies be careful!

Yes I realise that pk... doesn't change the fact that "black", "asian", "white", etc are all perfectly valid and inoffensive ways of describing someone. So the OP didn't include any other description... lack of detail is not a crime.


By all means continue to preach over-the-top PCness if it makes you feel better about yourself. I should have known better than to get involved...

> Question: A Rape has been committed and a Guy is

> running off and crosses the road.

>

> All a bystander can see about the obvious

> assailant is his skin colour.

> Given that he was too far away, in my hypothetical

> example, would someone really say that as the only

> feature available is his skin colour then that

> should NOT be mentioned?



In that case it would be relevant, as rape was a crime last time I checked. A police enquiry presumably conducted to a protocol would be launched, involving witness reports, CCTV footage etc.


In this case someone is warning people on an internet forum to be wary of black men.


To conclude I would say yes, there is a difference.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Yes I realise that pk... doesn't change the fact

> that "black", "asian", "white", etc are all

> perfectly valid and inoffensive ways of describing

> someone.


in certain circumstances i agree, have i suggested otherwise?


So the OP didn't include any other

> description... lack of detail is not a crime.


have i suggested that it is a crime?


> By all means continue to preach over-the-top

> PCness


what's over the top? i said that people are more likely to be discriminated against for being black than for being tall or blond - i pointed out why i think people would not respond in the example that you yourself set out - sorry if that offends you (well not really sorry). you think that that's OTT?


if it makes you feel better about yourself.

> I should have known better than to get involved...

halicon Wrote:

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

> BOB clearly you are single, or should be, chivalry is dead!!


I'm afraid not, halicon. Quite frankly I've been beating girls off with a stick (not literally) until Mrs Right (not her real name) pinned me down.


I assume they like me for my ability to treat them as equals, rather than any skills I might have in the laying-coats-over-puddles department.

Nothing to do with coat over puddles you T**T!


More to do with being concerned for Mrs Rights safety if she was walking home at 6pm in the evening and a stranger ran at her! Although maybe she is used to that sort of bullish behaviour being with you and should beat you with a very big stick!


And as for treating us as equals I dont think this guy would have followed or run at any of you male, insensitive, gits!


Be aware that the person it happened to reads these and how awful she must feel, when all she wanted was to prevent the fear being repeated on any one else!

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...