Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can see Shaila's point. It might have been nice for the PH marketing team to contact members in the new catchment and ask them if they wanted to swap their home cinema - and be counted as an ED member. Or offer them spare seats if there were any left.


After all, founder members have been able to use the others during the wait.

Must admit I'm a little confused here.. but seem to be getting the picture. (No Pun intended)


So ... Unless someone becomes a Member they cannot gain access to this New East Dulwich Facility.


I know I have not been to the Cinema for nearly 40 years but then I could turn up at virtually ANY

cinema, buy a ticket and see any film that I wanted to see.


I did not need to be a Member. Did not need to live in the area for years as some people have hinted should be

the criteria to automatic right gain access.


Trying to imagine Pubs and Restaurant adopting that approach.


DulwichFox

Jennys Wrote:

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

> No, that isn't the case, Dulwich Fox. After this

> opening weekend I am sure the cinema is available

> to anyone who wants to buy a ticket, member or

> not. I think it will be open properly later this

> week.


Thanks..


I was confused because of Jah Lush's comment :-


Get a grip Shaila. Just because you're a member of one establishment doesn't automatically mean you can just waltz into another.


After Shaila had been refused entry despite having seemingly transferable membership and also spare tickets

being available.


DulwichFox

I think this is the situation:


This weekend there is a "soft opening" for founder members.


From next weekend anyone and everyone can go to the cinema. If you are an ED "founder member" or a member of any other PH you get a discount on drinks, food and tickets.


After this weekend there is no restriction at all re who can go to or use the cinema / bar etc.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Anyone got anything else to moan about re the

> cinema? It would be uncharacteristic of the EDF

> for nobody else to register a complaint.

>

> Let's just be pleased that ED has a nice new

> asset.



Haven't seen a single negative post about the cinema. But how many "went today, WOW it's amazing" posts do you really want. That's not particularly interesting either.

Miss Wiggy you have explained things so well to this illustrious group of .......EDF folk - thank you.


I also agree with Zebedee - what a wonderful addition to Lordship Lane - yesterday the sun came out in East Dulwich albeit with the cold wind - from the moaners!!


pandg


PS can the post be amended to ED Picture House now open?

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Get a grip Shaila. Just because you're a member of

> one establishment doesn't automatically mean you

> can just waltz into another.



Hi Jah Lush


The Picturehouse is a chain. And yes, I can waltz into another - the same benefits regardless of which PH you attend. But obviously not the members' events for founding members of the ED PH!

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Must admit I'm a little confused here.. but seem

> to be getting the picture. (No Pun intended)

>

> So ... Unless someone becomes a Member they

> cannot gain access to this New East Dulwich

> Facility.

>

> I know I have not been to the Cinema for nearly

> 40 years but then I could turn up at virtually ANY

>

> cinema, buy a ticket and see any film that I

> wanted to see.

>

> I did not need to be a Member. Did not need to

> live in the area for years as some people have

> hinted should be

> the criteria to automatic right gain access.

>

> Trying to imagine Pubs and Restaurant adopting

> that approach.

>

> DulwichFox


Of course you can attend as a non-member and pay non-member ticket prices. I had thought that being a very long standing member of PH, and them having tickets available, that they would relax their "Rule"!

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Negative posts? See Keston Kid and Shaila for

> example.



Shania had a bit of a complaint that as a long standing PH member of 20 odd years she wasn't allowed to go to the opening weekend. Some people think she has nothing to complain about, others think she had a point.


But a post that opened with her saying she was looking forward to visiting the new cinema can hardly be viewed as negative about the cinema.


People that see negativity everywhere are as bad as the ones that are negative.

No negatives from me unless you count regretting that the cafe/bar is fairly small so might be tough to get a seat in.


Seats are very comfortable, the rake (that makes me think of Borough Market) isn't psrticularly steep but the fact that the seats can recline slightly encourages people to slide down so even a shortass like me could see. The food, drinks and snacks have something for everyone - prices vary!


And Alan Rickman came across as a lovely guy with an interesting outlook on life - although the young guy asking the questions could probably use fewer words and less of his own thoughts when posing them in future.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> It's a soft opening weekend... if they have to

> select a small group of people to invite, then

> choosing people who have signed up as members of

> the ED branch seems a perfectly reasonable way to

> do it.



I don't disagree. Just saying that Shalia hardly came on here and started slagging the place off. I don't think many would suggest having a new cinema is a bad thing.

Otta Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's a soft opening weekend... if they have to

> > select a small group of people to invite, then

> > choosing people who have signed up as members

> of

> > the ED branch seems a perfectly reasonable way

> to

> > do it.

>

>

> I don't disagree. Just saying that Shalia hardly

> came on here and started slagging the place off. I

> don't think many would suggest having a new cinema

> is a bad thing.


Good morning and thank you Otta. I am sure that I will sing the praises of ED PH, loudly and eloquently, after I visit. Along with many others, I too have been waiting for a local cinema, and when it was announced that it was a PH, even more so. I am a PH fan!

I feel for any long term Ritzy member who wasn't able to get in at the weekend - but also I'm assuming the East Dulwich picture house founder member subscriptions were in some way directed towards helping with the cost of the new enterprise.


Anyway - it's brilliant.

Hi all,


I'd just like to add some colour to what Picturehouse have done with its newest installment - the ED Picturehosue is absolutely fantastic! The three cinemas are great - cinema 2, where they showed the film on Friday night, sports big, comfy seats with ample leg room and even has a few rows with couches for loved-up couples to enjoy. There are an impressive array of craft beers, wine and gourmet snacks on offer and the reception area looks and feels trendy and spacious, allowing plenty of natural sunlight to stream through.


To those of you who are members of other Picturhouse franchises and feel aggrieved for not being permitted entry for the founding members' weekend, I think you are misguided - some of these perks for founding members were offered to get members on board early and such members being rewarded with an exlusive pre-opening event is perfectly acceptable.


Again, bravo Picturehouse ED! I hope any local residents who are not yet members decide to spend the quid to be a part of this awesome cinema franchise right in our backyard.


Cheers,


Phil

One person has an opinion.


Another person has a different opinion.


Neither has said anything negative about the new cinema.


Really really nothing to see here.


Basically just founding members feeling the need to feel a bit special and claim a slice of the place. Bless.

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...