Jump to content

Recommended Posts

silverfox Wrote:

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

>people like me who've got better things to do than queue

> up for hours for a couple of pork chops.


...Such as go on the internet and complain about queuing for pork chops?


I don't know how you fit it all in, I really don't...

During easter i took my little nephew and niece to the horniman to see the aquarium, all buggies were left in "parking" areas around the museum, made me smile as it looked like an enormous buggy show room.

A little girl came up and hugged kissed my surprised 18 month old niece by giving her a kiss and a hug, her mum rushed up and said, " sorry about that i dont know where she gets that from, its not me, it must be her nanny". Only in Dulwich :)

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

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

> Stop........I think small shops have a planning

> issue with access so 2 doors may not be possible

>

> Anyway think of the people queuing as an

> attractive "garnish" on LSL

>

> OK now go get 'em Gabbers

>

>

> *unleashes swarm of hornets....zzzzzzzz zzzz*


You may well be right woofmarkthedog and your point about garnish is interesting. That may explain why some idiot had the bright idea of having onion sellers outside WR a while back to further exacerbate the obstructive queuing. Thinking about it though, it may have been another marketing idea of WR to entertain the long-suffering customers in the queue.

I like the queue outside WR, it's one of the sights of the area and the parents of ED can start interesting and informative conversations with their children about rationing in WW2 and how people used to do this in butchers shops all the time.

Then take them home and show them episodes of Dad's Army, focussing on Jonesy's butcher shop.

Blimey, SM's choleric today, too much red meat perhaps?

silverfox Wrote:

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

> woofmarkthedog Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Stop........I think small shops have a planning

> > issue with access so 2 doors may not be

> possible

> >

> > Anyway think of the people queuing as an

> > attractive "garnish" on LSL

> >

> > OK now go get 'em Gabbers

> >

> >

> > *unleashes swarm of hornets....zzzzzzzz zzzz*

>

> You may well be right woofmarkthedog and your

> point about garnish is interesting. That may

> explain why some idiot had the bright idea of

> having onion sellers outside WR a while back to

> further exacerbate the obstructive queuing.

> Thinking about it though, it may have been another

> marketing idea of WR to entertain the

> long-suffering customers in the queue.



Yeah but NICE ONOINS eh !



W**F

I think there is a genuine point behind BETSY555's rant - namely that certain middle-class parents over-indulge their children and allow them to disrupt other people. It's a shame that anyone who says this is instantly branded a reactionary, miserable child-hater. On the contrary, I think children brought up with boundaries and a sense of respect for others are happier and more well-balanced.


We seem to have a bizarre Jekyll-and-Hyde approach to kids in Britain - a basically child-unfriendly society where 'youths' are contantly demonised in the press combined with pressure to over-indulge your kids, treat them as mini-adults and cater to their every whim.


Other European countries do it so much better - children are welcomed in shops, restaurants and 'adult' environments but expected to behave, and generally speaking, they do!



I'm more inclined to think it's a LACK of red meat this week - I may well go and rectify that in the next 30 mins or so. Although silverfox's faux-concern about how WR customers could have better access is undermined by his constant subtext of "prats" and is not helping my disposition

James Wrote:

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

> I think there is a genuine point behind BETSY555's

> rant - namely that certain middle-class parents

> over-indulge their children and allow them to

> disrupt other people. It's a shame that anyone who

> says this is instantly branded a reactionary,

> miserable child-hater. On the contrary, I think

> children brought up with boundaries and a sense of

> respect for others are happier and more

> well-balanced.


The point may be a genuine one, but there are ways to go about saying such things without sounding like a miserable, moaning old git!

silverfox Wrote:

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

> woofmarkthedog Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Stop........I think small shops have a planning

> > issue with access so 2 doors may not be

> possible

> >

> > Anyway think of the people queuing as an

> > attractive "garnish" on LSL

> >

> > OK now go get 'em Gabbers

> >

> >

> > *unleashes swarm of hornets....zzzzzzzz zzzz*

>

> You may well be right woofmarkthedog and your

> point about garnish is interesting. That may

> explain why some idiot had the bright idea of

> having onion sellers outside WR a while back to

> further exacerbate the obstructive queuing.

> Thinking about it though, it may have been another

> marketing idea of WR to entertain the

> long-suffering customers in the queue.



Why not go to another butcher.


Or don't.


I don't think WR have a 'marketing department'.


They are just a butchers.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> I'm more inclined to think it's a LACK of red meat

> this week - I may well go and rectify that in the

> next 30 mins or so. Although silverfox's

> faux-concern about how WR customers could have

> better access is undermined by his constant

> subtext of "prats" and is not helping my

> disposition



I'd allow a couple of hours if I were you Sean. Might be an idea to take a 'meaty' tome with you as well - Tolstoy's War and Peace perhaps

I suspect if WR had been able to buy the premises next door then the two-door option might have been pursued. But the pavement there is pretty wide anyway and there's no real obstruction. What used to get my goat was people who queued for various ATMs at right angles to the building, thereby truly blocking the pavement. Thankfully people in LL seem to be more civilised these days, and form a queue at the curb so that passers-by are not hindered. Anyway for a real obstruction you cannot beat the queue by Sparkes on a Saturday morning, because their van always parks by the narrowest part of the pavement on NCR. But hell, it's a popular shop in a popular market on a Saturday, so it's all part of the fun!
I think there is a genuine point behind BETSY555's rant - namely that certain middle-class parents over-indulge their children and allow them to disrupt other people. It's a shame that anyone who says this is instantly branded a reactionary, miserable child-hater.


Hmm. I was about to write a similar response and add that it's a strange day when someone can't offer an opinion without having a plethora of posters jumping down their throats - but then I re-read the OP and it was written so unpleasantly and with so many tiresome hackish generalisations that I thought I'd leave 'em to it. And I was surprised to see you join in the class war, James - surely over-indulged (in the sense of undisciplined, disrespectful) children of any background are a shame?

WONDERGIRL Wrote:

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

> I'm sure that most parents would prefer shopping

> on their own, but being a parent is a 24 hour a

> day 7 day a week job. London is London and if you

> want peace and quiet move out of London. You won't

> find less kids in the country though.



Um, at least outside of cities you also don't get people imposing their 'this is a family borough' values on a place either.


If you want lots of space for your kids and don't want the little darlings to be corrupted by the tewwible cwimes in the city I heartily recommend it.

James Wrote:

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

> I think there is a genuine point behind BETSY555's

> rant - namely that certain middle-class parents

> over-indulge their children and allow them to

> disrupt other people. It's a shame that anyone who

> says this is instantly branded a reactionary,

> miserable child-hater. On the contrary, I think

> children brought up with boundaries and a sense of

> respect for others are happier and more

> well-balanced.

>

> We seem to have a bizarre Jekyll-and-Hyde approach

> to kids in Britain - a basically child-unfriendly

> society where 'youths' are contantly demonised in

> the press combined with pressure to over-indulge

> your kids, treat them as mini-adults and cater to

> their every whim.

>

> Other European countries do it so much better -

> children are welcomed in shops, restaurants and

> 'adult' environments but expected to behave, and

> generally speaking, they do!


Agree with this.

Well behaved kids are usually always welcome anywhere, or at least they should be. I was in a certain cafe not too long ago and a dad had his little boy with him, probably about 3 years old. He allowed the boy to run amok while he sat and stared out the window. The little boy started pulling the skin (not petting) of well behaved dog who politely sitting in the cafe. I asked the chap to come and get his child as he was misbehaving. Guy got up, grabbed his child and left the cafe without saying anything to anyone. Could have been worse I suppose; he might have blamed the dog!

I support the rant to a degree. I have no problem with kids or parents per se but what drives me nuts is the fact that many people who have children seem to think it entitles them to disregard the comfort and wellbeing of others and confers upon them some sort of superior status. I think it owuld be a good idea for people to have to pass some sort of test before they have chldren. this would include, among other things, buggy steering skills, discipline protocols, noise control etc. If they fail the test they should be barred from procreation.

I agree.


There should also be an alcohol test. Anyone incapable of getting through a boozy evening without being polite and charming to others at all times, retaining full control of their bodily functions and making complete sense should be banned from drinking. If we're going to get all judgywudgy, why restrict it to parents? Let's ensure that everyone has to be perfect at all times, otherwise they will be taken outside and shot by the Superiority Police.

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...