Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Since i've only been in the area for a few months now, i tend to notice things (sometimes trivial you may say!) that others may have overlooked or prefer not to notice.


One thing i did notice was the amount of dog poo left behind on the streets of Dulwich by dog owners that are unwillng to clean up the mess after their own dogs have pooed on the pavements.


I had 2 altercations with dog owners already, one was just this week, when i saw a young man walking his 'status' Mastiff dog on East Dulwich Road, the dog fouled the pavement and the young man did'nt seem in the slightest concerned, i was so incensed at that, that i went up to him and indicated what his dog had just done and told him would'nt it be a sensible thing to clean up after your dog, otherwise don't keep one. Well the abuse that came out of his mouth is unprintable here, calling me a nosey fat c*w and to p*** off was the least expletives of the abuse! I thought to myself, i'm not having that and called the Police and told them what happened, their response was 'You can come and make a report at the local station' - well what use it that? I wanted the young thug to be preosecuted and not allowed to keep a pet if he could'nt look afer it, is;nt that why we have those fines and anti-social behaviour legislation for?.



I like to live in a nice, clean and friendly environment, so i think i was doing the right thing to confront those that choose to disregard basic good behaviour, maybe i'm being matronly, am i? i hope not!.


I have also many friends who happen to be responsible dog owners, so its really only a few and a minority that seem to think dog fouling is acceptable.

You like to live in a "nice, clean and friendly" environment yet, knowing the response you were likely to get still insisted on having it out with a "thuggish" dog owner? Is that not provoking an unpleasant environment and going against what you are aiming for? I assume you didn't just stand there saying nothing in reply to the verbal "abuse"?


I agree dog owners should be responsible for the animals mess and good for you for approaching a wrong doer but sometimes such actions can make a situation worse - as you described with the response you had received.

I wouldn't agree with the attitude that people such as this think it's acceptable to allow dog fouling but more a case of they can't be bothered to clear up the mess.

You mention prosecution? Of what kind would you think was acceptable? What really did you think the police would do when you called them? They weren't there to witness the scene. If they had have been what would the chances have been for getting a telling off yourself for creating a scene.


I appreciate your point here being if we let people off for the smaller crimes... stand up against those that openly do wrong... the move to stop crime... make an example... blah blah blah


But really... people will still get away with it and I'm not too sure you yourself (I mean no offense here) practise what you preach - "disregard to good behaviour" of which you were "incensed" to approach someone you didn't know, that you described as "thuggish", not knowing what the end result would have been. What would have happened if the "thug" had set his dog on you? Or pulled a knife/weapon? Did you think before acting?

No I'm not suggesting nothing should have been done but you could have put yourself and others at risk too. Social responsibility...

Good on you, Poppy. Not many people would challenge this behaviour (case in point Kalamity Kel), hence why it is considered acceptable by some dog owners.


Anyway, ignore the naysayers, of which you may encounter a few; perhaps they actually like treading in crap or perhaps are simply embarrassed by their own behaviour or spinelessness?

Well done too. I think the second posting misses the point entirely. The first paragraph suggests that by even confronting the dog owner you were by definition making it an unpleasant place to live in. What tosh.

I also confront those I see letting their dogs poo without clearing it up. But I always make sure I have a nearby witness too.

Yes you are right, i should have actually held those litterers to account, but was bit intimidated by them to be honest as they had one of those bull terrier type dogs that looked quite menacing, aswell as the adults themselves!. so no i thought it wise not to say anything just in case they turned on me. In many cases i would'nt have hesitated but i did then and for good reason.



Bit braver these days, good show.

so you want the young thug to be prosecuted and not allowed to keep a pet, you call the police,they ask you to come and make a report and judging by your response you don,t, and instead start another thread in the long list of whinging posts about this, that and the other happening. if you,re so bloody concerned i suggest doing what the police asked you to do in the first place, you might then find then a bit more action being taken.

Good for you poppylucky I quite agree, and I think KK has gone a bit over the top although she is normally a sane relaxed poster, it proves we dont get it right all the time.


The pea brained bruiser dog owners club, are seemingly too arrogant to look after their dogs in society, it is somehow beneath them to clean up, it is not macho.


To challenge one as you so courageously did takes 'balls', and I very much admire your determination and tenacity.

Why should these brainless louts inflict their filth on the rest of us.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> a bit harsh JSW?



i really don,t think so, if she was so concerned to confront this person in the first place and then contact the fuzz, why then turn down their offer and instead come on here, what are we going to do compile a dossier on anti-social behaviour before submitting it to a court in the hope of getting a summons or asbo etc. no we,re not but the right people will, ie the council and police. they,re the people who need to know about it not me.

Poppy, you're improving. You've certainly hit a richer theme, and it was a good idea to cut down on the dialogue, as you couldn't really handle it. The reported speech is, even so, a little rickety.


About 7/10 I'd say. If this thread rumbles on tediously for about 6 pages of discussion about social responsibilities, I suppose that'll be up to about an 8.

Everyone hates dog shit, it is a problem, if a Policeman or Park Warden had seen it, he would have been given a fine. I have a dog, if I see someone ignoring their dog crapping, I walk over and say "would you like a bag?" and hand it to them. I'm not as brave as Poppy and over the years I've learned that if I do it that way it means I'm less likely to have abuse hurled at me. I totally understand that at times it makes you so outraged that you have to say something, or write on a forum, simple as that. In Australia if you drop litter or allow your dog to foul a street, the level of social disgust and outrage lets you know you're a prize loser, as a result it happens less.


What I'd like to know is, what gives with some of the posters on this thread? Dragging up previously written paragraphs by Polly and scoring her evolving bravery and language skills! And anyone who doesn't want to read, can choose not to. And what's suburban about not wanting dog shit in your street? Perhaps some of us are so above the problems of dog shit that they saintly hovver over each pile they come across.


If you don't want your time wasted by posts that you think are beneath the forum, don't read them.


Good for you Polly, but be careful, there are a lot of dickheads out there.

who_cares - you seem to care a lot for someone who doesn't care.


At the risk of appearing cliquey - Poppylucky has a bit of a previous history as someone who gets into the most awful scrapes and some of us take them with a large pinch of salt.

It's all a bit of fun so don't get too uptight about it.

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...