Jump to content

ED Picturehouse. Elitist*. (Louisa's lounged response)


Recommended Posts

I guess *Bob* predictably ridiculing, mocking and scoffing for the millionth time is hilarious. Why contribute to a thread with fun facts which are informative and helpful, when you can just rip into people for the sake of it?


Louisa.

Otta Wrote:

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

> aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> -----

> > So why has nobody been to Peckham cinema?

>

>

>

> Why do you think nobody has been there?




Is it because everyone in ED has always been so well off that they can afford to watch films in the West End?


Or got giant TV's and Sky so they can watch films at home on demand?


Or got their own private cinemas at the end of their gardens?


Or are under the false impression that if SE22's mix with SE15, they'll never get out alive?


I don't know Otta. I'm on a different wavelength. Tell me.

Crumbs this is going to be a massive distraction from the current trend of this thread but I have been to Peckham Plex a fair bit since moving into the area in 2008. It is a little gem of a cinema for those occasions when you're feeling a bit hard up or just want to see a new movie without paying ridiculous prices. When it was on orange wednesday (buy one get one free tickets) it was insanely cheap. In more recent times, I loved going there with my baby daughter for the mum and baby screaming and had a particularly brilliant time singing along to Sunshine in Leith jiggling my sleeping daughter around in her sling.


However, you get what you pay for: the cinema is not well-appointed and rarely very clean by the evening showings. There's no bar and nowhere nice in the cinema (though plenty of places locally now) to meet up for a pre-show drink. Worst of all, the sound quality for the films themselves is not the best.


Comparing that to the Ritzy (I've not been to the ED picturehouse yet) is a false exercise: aside from the fact that both show films, the experiences are miles apart. So, in the round I would always rather pay a bit extra and go to a picturehouse (unless they're not showing the film I want to see) but think we're all really lucky having the Peckham plex on hand for a cheaper treat.


Sorry for the distraction from the bickering.


As you were.

Despite being partial to drinking organic coffee in Islington, I frequented the Peckham Plex for a few years when it first opened. As SLad said, you get what you pay for - it was cheap with poor sound and projection quality but OK for the latest blockbuster - which was usually loud enough to cancel out the people chatting at full volume during the movie.

I go to Peckhamplex now and again. It's fine. So it's basic, the carpets are sticky, the seats are worn, and the projection and audio quality are not great - but you can still enjoy the film and you can't argue with the price.


aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> Just to add, ridiculing, taking the p*ss, talking bollox just

> to get a laugh isn't cool and isn't clever.


I disagree. Louisa's argument is ridiculous, so ridicule is a completely appropriate response. I have tried reason, and predictably got nowhere.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I go to Peckhamplex now and again. It's fine. So

> it's basic, the carpets are sticky, the seats are

> worn, and the projection and audio quality are not

> great - but you can still enjoy the film and you

> can't argue with the price.

>

> aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Just to add, ridiculing, taking the p*ss,

> talking bollox just

> > to get a laugh isn't cool and isn't clever.

>

> I disagree. Louisa's argument is ridiculous, so

> ridicule is a completely appropriate response. I

> have tried reason, and predictably got nowhere.



That's your opinion Jeremy.

We all have our opinions and don't deserve to be ridiculed and treated like sh*t just because we think differently to others.

It's not about being popular by posting crap that some will find funny, it's about posting thoughtfully and gaining respect by what you write.


I respect so many people on here (including you!), even some that I don't get on with. But there are quite a few that I don't. Maybe they will see sense and change. I live in hope.

Have you read the thread AQM?


Louisa complains about one cinema being more pricy than another cinema, argues for and against them, drawing ridiculous comparisons and spouting the usual relentless drivel that she is want to do like an old scratched record and then it turns out she hasn't even bothered to go to either of the venues that we've been discussing on two threads! That's no experience of either venue to draw proper comparisons with. It deserves ridicule and our withering scorn and I'm sure she's having just as much fun winding us all up as "Bob* is taking the piss out of her tired old shtick.

It appears to have an opinion on this forum, you need to have tasted a burger, visited a cinema or been to franco manca. It is becoming more and more like some sort of dictatorship. Apparently, a cinema isn't just a cinema these days. A cinema is somewhere you have to go to "experience". What a load of old tosh. You go to watch a friggin film FFS. My argument is watertight (as ever), and yet people ridicule and attack me simply because "she's going over old ground again". It's pathetic. I hope you're holding you're head in shame *Bob*, I've finished off two bottles and a bit of co-op's own Pinot Grigio tonight, that's what this conversation has done to me. I'm an emotional wreck.


Louisa.

Yes, I read it JL.


And it wasn't just this thread or just Louisa I was referring to.


It was threads in general, the picked on and the ones who get a buzz from picking. And the ones who don't care about others. It really isn't nice.

AQ, consider this: you have to work pretty hard on here to get a ban of any sort. The admins on here (whoever they are and of whom there have been numerous) have a light touch.


Consider that in - approaching a decade of existence - with tens of thousands of regular users and god knows how many posts, the number of posters who have been banned from the main section can be counted on one hand. What this means is that you have to work pretty bloody hard to get a ban on here.


Louisa has worked hard - and hence she is one of those people to be counted on that one hand. She isn?t banned out of personal malice, nor from some great injustice because of not being in with some sort of clique (yawn): she is banned because amongst the people (like me) who see her tiresomely ?provocative? posts for what they are, there are also a sackload of people - perhaps not such frequent visitors - who felt that she was like a dog weeing on the carpet (on purpose) every time you let it to the front room. In addition you should also know that there are also a good number of people who have been genuinely pissed-off, upset or just plain bored to tears (enough even to leave, in some cases) by her mischief-making over the years. For mischief is what it is - and mischievous contributions demand only mischief in return.


Personally I wouldn?t see her banned from the main section, but I find it highly amusing that she is - and am enjoying watching her twist and shriek as it become all the more clear that the main supply of her ?less knowing? targets has been restricted.


I?ve never had any desire to fall out with any regular, reasonable person (such as yourself) - and there?s no need to - not when there is always a plentiful supply of pompous, snobbish, ignorant - or just plain bizarre contributions to come in on. Long may it continue.

Well said *bob*, spot on. I sometimes agree with things Louisa says, but in a "boy who cried wolf" way, these good points do get lost in the whole "blow-in" stuff which people have just tired of seeing.


Every good comic needs to update their act.



Although there are some posters that can't stand Louisa that I really enjoy seeing her wind up.

OK. Firstly, your observation about people who have been banned is plainly wrong *Bob*. If you go back to the thread in the main section which caused my restriction, even you with your witty retort will struggle to defend it. The likes of you *Bob*, who jump in to many a thread with sarcasm and banter could by some be considered a troll! but for whatever reason admin overlooks those contributions. The same could be said of a number of folk on here who have said far far worse than anything I have ever said. I am I opinionated yes, but if certain people don't like my style that's just simply not a good enough reason to ban me. I'm sure many on here don't particularly like your style, or anyone else you choose to mention, do they get their account restricted? Absolutely not.


I think it a bigger thing than just me. I think it is aimed at anyone who has family or heritage in ED or lived in the area long enough to remember the old days. JOHNNYBOY put up a great thread in the main section the other day - it was thrown carelessly by admin into the lounge. I politely requested information from admin via PM the other day, it's been read and I've received no response. Foxy is constantly undermined by various people on here when all he is doing is being and informative. Even edhistory was rudely interrupted the other day for politely asking why thread had been lounged.


If people can't see any of this and how it gets certain peoples back's up, then you're either ignorant to the fact or just enjoying winding up some old timers for the hell of it.


Louisa.

steveo Wrote:

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

> Anything on at the pictures?



Cabaret, The Last Laugh, Sabotage, The Muppet Movie, Eyes Wide Shut, Intolerance, Fight Club, Performance, The Good The Bad and the Ugly and Trouble In Paradise.

I thought it was blindingly obvious that Louisa was a...let's be kind...exagerrated character. Fairly harmless, 'she's' not racist, homophobic, threatening etc. The forum does a pretty good job of self-policing itself, and anyone posting along those lines soon gets short shrift. I always saw her character as either a deliberate alter ego set-up by whoever created Dulwich Mum, or someone trying to muscle in on DM's popularity. DM was funny, but as Ots implies, over time it eventually becomes hackneyed.

AqM, do you know why Louisa was banned?...

Louisa Wrote:

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

> OK. Firstly, your observation about people who

> have been banned is plainly wrong *Bob*. If you go

> back to the thread in the main section which

> caused my restriction..


I know you only heard the leaky tap dripping last night, but it's actually been dripping for quite a while.

I don't think Louisa is a troll in the classic sense.


She seems self aware enough to play up to her image by starting threads such as this, but when the argument deepens that mask of lightheartedness seems to disappear and the 'trolling' no longer feels like deliberate baiting and antagonism for lulz, but desperate defence of a genuinely held position.


In this thread, it was *Bob* who did a relatively amusing job of trolling Louisa in the classic sense.


I think Louisa should be reinstated elsewhere - she needs it.

miga Wrote:

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

> I don't think Louisa is a troll in the classic

> sense.


I'd agree with that.



The interesting thing (to me, anyway) is that Lou's restriction to the lounge has really exposed the one-dimensionality of the contributions - when starved of the regular supply of oxygen they?ve enjoyed up to now.


The usual class-based button-pressers now fall upon ears who've heard it all too many times and lack any real motivation to engage - and all we're left with are these lame, manufactured ?I was in my garden the other day drinking Lambrini? type offerings, which read like a sixth former's first attempt at a theatrical farce.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> and all we're

> left with are these lame, manufactured ?I was in

> my garden the other day drinking Lambrini? type

> offerings, which read like a sixth former's first

> attempt at a theatrical farce.


I'm not sure if this is too much credit, or not nearly enough.


And perhaps that's the rub - the conscious brain calls nonsense, yet still plenty of buttons are pushed as witnessed by the popularity of threads such as this.

*Bob* are you a real life failed comedian, who took the act online to get a rise out of the nasty world that didn't give him a gig?


It would appear so.


If my record has skipped a beat half a dozen times, your's has been skipping one for over 8 years. And yet, I'm the troll? Clever move though, take the emphasis off of your own same old tired repetitive misgivings.


Louisa.

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...