Jump to content

Recommended Posts

God, here we go again!


Some poor soul gets mugged (sympathies to you BTW) and it rapidly degenerated at full speed into a slanging match.


Maybe I could helpfully suggest that those likely to be at risk (kids, ladies etc) take sensible precautions like walking home together in pairs instead of squabbling like a demented cyber-harpy?


I don't really care about the whys or where-forths. If has happened it is likely to do so again so why don't you all put your c0cks away and be helpful for once.


Over and out.

Keef Wrote:

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

> (kids, ladies etc)

>

> The OP was with her other half, the guy on

> Whateley Rd, was early 20s male, and the guy on

> Bassano St was late 20s (and pretty big actually)

> male, so this group don't seem to just be toturing

> the weak so to speak.


(Groan!)


But would you argue that it is NOT a sensible recommendation to make to kids or women that they might pair up on the way home as opposed to walk alone?


I'd have thought that would be precaution number one, no?

Just to clarify, when I said ED was better than Brixton or Peckham it was solely in the context of street crime. There are many reasons why those two neighbourhoods are great places to live, but this thread is about street muggings. I don't have the statistics to hand, but it is my perception that there is less street crime in ED than Brixton or Peckham.


Many thanks to Lizziedjango for apologising and making it clear that she wasn't accusing me of racism. That is very much appreciated.


But my main point in my post was to suggest that we should use this forum as a practical tool to help fight crime.

What Sherwick said, Domitianus.


Maybe I'm just confused, but if you make a point about concealed weapons reducing crime on a thread about local muggings, then I'm assuming that there's a relevance between this point and the thread?


Ergo that concealed weapons would reduce the likelihood of this crime happening?

I indirectly know the couple mugged in Whatley road - it was on Friday night, 11.30pm, group of guys and at knife point. They took her handbag and then left them alone.


Like what Snorky said - the risk / reward just doesnt stack up unless these people are totally desperate. And the sheer gall of doing 3-4 muggings over a 3 night period within the same area +/- 500 yards tells you THEY are laughing in the face of the police.


We're a bunch of soft relatively wealthy namby just-out-the-pub targets....so what can you do?

MrBen Wrote:

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

> We're a bunch of soft relatively wealthy namby

> just-out-the-pub targets....so what can you do?


Well, depending on who you listen to..


1. Be vigilant when you're out and about, don't be a hero if you get unlucky, and hope the police pick them up soon.

2. Stay and home and hide under a duvet.

3. Buy a gun and blow away anyone who looks at you in a funny way.

Sherwick Wrote:

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

> If you can't compare the US with the UK then

> what's the point of stating 'in areas of US

> allowing concealed carry of firearms, there has

> been noticable reduction in crimes of violence

> against the person.'.

>

> This implies that it would have the same effect in

> the UK. But as you just stated, one shouldn't do

> that.

>

> In fact, even if your'e correct that introducing

> handguns led to a reduction in crimes of violence

> in the USA, indtroducing handguns in the UK could

> lead to the opposite because it is 'a culturally

> ethnically and geographically different region'.

>

> Ergo, there was no reason for your initial post.



You completely miss my point. Let me reiterate it. Legislation permitting concealed carry of firearms in the US showed that it contributed to reduction in crimes against the person in the areas where it had been introduced - therefore these analyses compared like with like, a necessity for assessing the impact of a change in one variable. Hugenot's post seemed to imply that since the US generally has a significantly overall higher level of crime than the UK, the findings in the US, ON THIS SPECIFIC POINT OF CONCEALED CARRY, were meaningless. In other words his statement was a complete non sequitor in terms of the validity of the US studies on the impact of concealed carry legislation. He introduced a global (and I mean that in the sense of grand scale, not geographically global) comparison that had no relevance to and simply confused the issue of the studies in question. This is the point I was making. I am amazed that people cannot grasp such a simple element of research methodolgy.


IF the US studies are accurate (and that can be debated by looking at them in detail if people want to do so) then this might at least hint at the POSSIBILITY that such trends MIGHT be reproducible in other places. Pointing out differences in overall crime levels between the US and the UK completely misses the point as these are subject to a whole range of variables. What is useful to look at is whether there are specific, isolatable factors that have been shown to reduce crime levels WHATEVER THOSE LEVELS MAY BE. We look at a controlled sociological phenomenon (or as controlled as it can be), assess its validity and THEN we can debate whether there might be principles that can be generalised from it into other contexts.


Let me give an analogy. If I was to suggest that the provision of free condoms might be a way of controlling the spread of AIDS in the developing world, I might point out studies in the US that pointed to a reduction in the spread of AIDS when similar condom provision was made available in parts of the US. It would be utterly irrelevant to that point if someone came along and pointed out that the US has a less than 1% incidence of HIV infection amongst its population, whereas some African countries have around 14% of the adult population infected.


The point would be WHATEVER the overall infection rate might be, did the provision of condoms reduce the rate of infection? Differences in overall infection rates TO BEGIN WITH are irrelevant - it is the CHANGE as a result of the measure that is introduced that is meaningful.


Same with my allusion to concealed carry legislation. The "reason for" my "initial post" was to stimulate informed discussion and I pointed out that I was not championing any particular case. I am sorry the discussion turned out to be less than informed.


This sort of thread is the very reason I stopped posting on EDF a while back. It is pointless as people simply misconstrue what others say and the whole matter becomes silly. My contribution to this thread is ended. The studies can be looked at on Wikipaedia if anyone is interested. Search for "concealed carry".

I can see the 'research' point about condoms, but a more direct analogy would be free distributiuon of condoms if it was the prevalence of condoms causing the HIV in the first place. (I'm not the Pope, it's a debating point).


I think Dom is suggesting the the prevalence of gun crime in the US is unrelated to the distribution of guns in the US, which is making me scratch my head with some confusion. No guns, no gun crime.

Having weapons to defend ourselves is surely not the right way forward. Look at the U.S mess...

Let's tackle the problem at the root rather than trying to patch things up:

Where are the parents, what the f.. are they doing with their kids? Should we fine the parents to make them more responsible?

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...