Jump to content

Recommended Posts

TillieTrotter Wrote:

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

> What is this thing you have about people saying

> "black" men/man. It doesn't matter what colour he

> was, he could have been any colour and it would

> still be just as threatening! He just happened to

> be a "black" man.


It was also the only description given for this apparent 'menace'. This is why I picked up on it, for as a description it is utterly useless, and, in context of the original post, appears mildly racist mainly due to no other details of this man being given.


You'd say 'a tall guy with ginger hair'


or


'a short guy with black hair and glasses'


but never


'this white guy approached me'



Jesus Christ.

Just read through most of the replies to Halicons email. Feel I should have a bit of a say now. I am sorry if this thread has upset people in any way who have ever had any sort of serious crime committed against them, I for one am not claiming in any way that this was a serious crime. Also I did not ask for this post to be written on my behalf but if it is making people more street aware then I am glad it has been. It is so easy to develop a false sense of security when you know an area so well and all this thread is asking you to do is to remember to look over your shoulder now and again and perhaps trust your judgements. This thread is certainly not about race, it is about providing a description of a man who very clearly frightened me on friday evening. I dont know why some of you think that it was only a come on, it wasn't, this man was following me from a point past Sainsburys and when I took a different route to the one he took , he very obviously noticed and doubled back to find me. I hope that most of you men who are on this thread ,do not chase a woman down the street without making any noise ( carrying the suitcase so it can't be heard) and then continiously ask her why she feels frightened and then side stepping her every move repeating ' Im not trying to frighten you, Ive left my bag over there so you are not scared, I just want you to come over and talk to me, why are you moving away I have nothing to harm you, why are you frightened, you look scared.....I just want to talk about your boots...'. Now I am not someone who gets frightened easily, but I was. I had put myself in a very vulnerable position and he was definetly playing on this vulnerability. Part of me wanted to say f... off, you are a 6 foot middle build male who has just chased after me down a quiet side street and is continiously trying to chat and side step my every move, that is why I am frightened, instead I told him I wasnt frightened, thanks for the chat and to go back and get his belongings before someone steals it and that I could see my sister coming down the road as we spoke, at which point the guy backed off. I dont know if this guy meant any intentional harm,I don't know if he just has a boot fettish, I don't know if he has mental health problems, I don't know if he thinks this is an acceptable form of chatting a lady up or a don't know if this is one more small step into carrying out a more serious crime, what I do know that he invaded my personal space and continued to do so whilst visably seeing how anxious I was, yet he was not put off by my anxiety in anyway, that to me ( in my definition) is not normal behaviour. The incident is over now and a positive thing that has come out of this thread is that it has generated alot of discussion about womans saftey, as sometimes we take it for granted.

Thanks for reading this.

Orla: Thank You for your lucid comments!


I'm delighted that Halicon and now you have takenthe time and trouble to mention and ALERT anyone reading this.


Surely, as the situation has been fully explained by you, we can ALL see that this Thread was necessary, can't we Guys...

I said, CAN'T WE GUYS!:)B)

Well done Orla for coming on here, and sorry to hear that you felt so frightened, and hearing your description it's not surprising. I do think however that this thread has gone a bit OTT, some people were making a bit of light out of it but not with any malice, whilst others were just trying to stop a general panic, which I know isn't what you or the OP were trying to instill in people, but it doesn't take long for a description of a weird and frightening incident can get turned in to attempted rape or murder by some. Anyway, whatever his intention, glad your sister turned up and you're okay.

So, if we distil this entire thread down, we're left with


'Ladies, be careful when out walking alone'


Can I just throw in


'Make sure you lock doors and windows when you go out'


and


'Over, Under, Round and Through' (Handy for shoelaces!)


Maybe we could get these printed up on laminated cards and put inthe flyer racks of all ED pubs as a matter of urgency.


Presuming no-one is found asphyxiated and blue in the meantime, having forgotten to breathe.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

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

> Chick Wrote:

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

> -----

> > A better description would have been useful.

>

> That IS a fair point though.

> The more detail, the better.


Ref more detail.

I felt that Dulwichdoll got in the neck a bit for her level of detail in her thread 'Free market excess and the credit crunch', so I guess some people try to keep it brief in hopes that they will not receive swingeing (love that word) comments.

Am I just not quite getting it Keef, TonyLondonSuburbs and all you other established forumites??? or am I right in thinking the forum has a MEAN streak??????

Love humor, not so keen on mean...

"It is about providing a description of a man who very clearly frightened me on friday evening. I dont know why some of you think that it was only a come on, it wasn't, this man was following me from a point past Sainsburys and when I took a different route to the one he took , he very obviously noticed and doubled back to find me. I hope that most of you men who are on this thread ,do not chase a woman down the street without making any noise ( carrying the suitcase so it can't be heard) and then continiously ask her why she feels frightened and then side stepping her every move repeating ' Im not trying to frighten you, Ive left my bag over there so you are not scared, I just want you to come over and talk to me, why are you moving away I have nothing to harm you, why are you frightened, you look scared.....I just want to talk about your boots...'. Now I am not someone who gets frightened easily, but I was. I had put myself in a very vulnerable position and he was definetly playing on this vulnerability. ".......


As the above shows, it is not simply about being aware in the time-honoured traditions.

There is "potentially" a problem in your area at the moment. Hopefully Not.


20 years ago there was a South London Train Rapist who notched up many victims.

Using your logic Honk we should not have mentioned it, even after the 6th Rape as every Woman already knows to be vigilant about potential Rapists.

Orla and Halcion,


Thanks for drawing attention to this incident. It sounds like it was an unsettling experience.


Honk you come across as a self righteous p**t. You were accused of being mildly sexist on another thread, is this a cack-handed attempt to show you aren't a racist too, or do you just have problems empathising with women? Either way your "point" about skin colour seems way off beam.

A 'Springer's Final Thought' moment..


On the incident itself: Orla, it does sound unnerving - I don't think anyone would question this. Most people do know not to shadow women and they walk in the street, but not everyone in a city of several million does. And just because they don't follow the rules doesn't mean they mean you harm. It certainly sounds like you dealt with the situation just fine and I personally think all women should be able to do so, because this stuff does and will happen. Women, let's try and also remember that the most dangerous thing to be in London is male and young. The statistics are on your side.


Regarding 'increasing awareness': three thousand views of a thread is surely better than two hundred, which would have been the case the only comments had been 'poor you, that sounds unpleasant'.


On the race issue: I don't have an issue with single word race identifiers per se, but the fact is that if you had the time to collate all the 'this person did something bad' incidents described on here, I'm absolutely sure the 'black' would outweigh the 'nothing at all' by a considerable margin: even more of an anomaly when you consider that 'black' people aren't even in the majority. Which either means that black people are considerably more likely to be a menace to you, or that 'black' is much more likely to be used as a single descriptive word in these situations. I know which one I think is true.


And as for 'chivalry'. This word should be confined to where it belongs: picture books and romantic adventures in film. It has nothing to do with helping someone in genuine distress, be the damzels of otherwise.

Am I just not quite getting it Keef, TonyLondonSuburd and all you other established forumites??? or am I right in thinking the forum has a MEAN streak??????


I don't know, show me where I have been "mean" in my 2 posts on this thread and I'll put my hands up and admit it.


I've only just seen this, and while I'm sure the incident was horrid, I am with *bob*, don't think he was being flippant, more just realistic about things.


Well done Orla for coming on here, and sorry to hear that you felt so frightened, and hearing your description it's not surprising. I do think however that this thread has gone a bit OTT, some people were making a bit of light out of it but not with any malice, whilst others were just trying to stop a general panic, which I know isn't what you or the OP were trying to instill in people, but it doesn't take long for a description of a weird and frightening incident can get turned in to attempted rape or murder by some. Anyway, whatever his intention, glad your sister turned up and you're okay.


Christ, I am a total b@stard!

charliecharlie


firstly, TonyLondonSuburbs an established forumite?? Has it come to this ;-)


Seriously tho, I thought orla's post was excellent and provided much more background in a way that I didn't get from the initial post. (Which I'm not knocking either btw) Up until that point I thought there was a fair bit of room for a discussion about what constitutes losing perspective. And some people's instinct leant more towards compassion whereas others, given the detail at the time, thought that it might have been an overreaction. And people do sometimes overreact and shout fire in a theatre so it's good to have people who question that too. I don't think it constitutes meanness.


Keef expressed it pretty well a few posts ago too.


As for Dulwichdoll - I don't think she got it in the neck on the other thread for the detail.. maybe the content and tone. In these times ( © every bleedin media outlet ) any businessperson accusing employees of being useless probably faces a less than sympathetic public

I don't think he was accusing you, Keef. I think he was asking for your opinion - as a respected long time poster - on whether the board has a mean streak.


Sorry charliecharlie, misunderstood. In my opinion then, I'd say no.


I think there are people on here who like to have a laugh and a joke, sometimes inappropriately, but I wouldn't say in a mean way. I think on here people made a couple of light comments at the beggining, and the OP seemed to go along with the joke, and it was all in good spirits. Then others came on and got a bit offended and high horses were gotten on.


I don't know everyone on here by any stretch, and I have never met *bob*, but I find him funny. On this thread however, I don't think he was trying to be funny as such, I think he was just trying to stop a tide of hysteria from people that had read the original post, which should have been taken as a warning to be vigilant, and taken it to mean there was a dangerous loon on the streets and lives were at risk.


That's the way I see it anyway.

Thanks Sean, yes all up for all views being aired, and the EDF provides a great space for debate, just felt that a few forumites can be a bit harsh/hard (mean even) at times, I think they're trying to be funny, and one of my all time favorite past times is laughter, but it's not always easy to 'read' if meant to be funny, guess that's cr*p humor for you!

Some of you EDF lot are brilliantly funny though... so loving it, only thing is I should be working... eeekkk

In many cases we (individually) come across something which is frightening or disturbing. We may have misread or misunderstood someone?s signals or intentions, this may be a wholly isolated incident.


Or we may not and it may not be.


As individuals we don?t know whether we ?ought? to report the incident (perhaps because the person is wilfully threatening, perhaps because they are in need of psychiatric help) or simply let it pass.


Flagging such an incident on a board like this allows others to be aware ? if it turns out that others have also been accosted (or whatever) then the pressure to report it becomes stronger; if no one else has had a similar incident then it may well be a one off (in which nothing untoward actually happened, even if the threat of that was real) and can be ignored.


It appears, so far, that no one else who reads the board has suffered a similar incident. Good


But if we say nothing, give no warnings ? and then something dreadful does happen?

charliecharlie Wrote:

.. and one of my all time favorite past times is laughter,


One of your "past" times??


Isn't laughter one of your Pastimes anymore?:))


Sorry:)-D


I'm not really pedantic.

In fact I never even mentioned Sean's spelling of Calibre, immediately below...::o

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...