Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Keef Wrote:

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

> EDmummy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Not me...but I am not sure whether to take

> > offence, Snorky! Is this defamation?

>

>

> Have absolutely no gripe with you EDmummy, but

> were you being serious here? Frankly, if I bag up

> stuff for a shop, then walk it down there, and

> they're shut, then I would feel no guilt leaving

> it outside. I would be properly pissed off if

> someone took stuff from the bag, not through need,

> but because they fancied it. In my book, it's them

> who are scum, not me for leaving the bag,


Keef, I think edmummy was jokingly referring to the title of the thread and to her own moniker. Not sure how snorky knew it was a 'mummy' but no doubt he has his methods.

There's no point in doing that, it doesn't add value or worth to anything a bit like the comment I suppose. I just disagree with bagging in general. I know some people could not care less about it but I just think it's a bit orf if you get what I mean.
macroban - That submission from any prosecutor would make for an interesting hearing! If the stuff is dumped with knowledge that it was not being accepted in that form as a donation, it is being dumped. I can't see how the person dumping the goods would retain any form of title. On your analysis, the person who dumped the stuff could bring a civil claim against people taking the goods, in conversion - or even against the charity shop for breach of bailment if they negligently allowed the stuff to be nicked?! I somehow doubt that argument would fly very far.

indiepanda Wrote:

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

> Agree it's bad that anyone would stoop to stealing

> from a charity shop - but don't most have signs

> outside begging people not to leave their

> donations outside for precisely that reason?

>

> If people wants to ensure their donations make it

> to the people who need them rather than getting

> stolen, then waiting till the shop is open to drop

> them off is a good idea.


agreed

Many years ago the charity Sense put a bag through my letterbox saying they would collect a couple of days later, a

common practice I'm told. Anyway they didn't collect on the agreed day and I left the bag outside, it was hidden in alcove.

A guy delivering leaflets (Safeway supermarket specials! Thats how long ago!)rummaged through the bag and took a leather jacket. I gave chase but couldn't find him. I contacted the police and as the jacket was in a MARKED charity bag, this was a crime of theft. It annoys me to this day but now I always deliver to the charity shop myself and ONLY when it's open. And no this isn't always convenient.

It was one of thhose instances where about 5 minutes later you realise what you have just seen and think ...wait there!.......the pretty much new family car with kids seats in the back/ the JAGS sticker , all fooled me . I intially though she was was leaving stuff as I approached, then realised the was stripping the piles and loading her wheels up.I have verbally assailed a couple of people in the past I musts admit and used language that if far far too fruity for a family site like like this

Indiana Wrote:

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

> Peckham Rose - I agree that it's very low when

> people rifle through the charity bags and take

> stuff but my point is that it wouldn't happen if

> people didn't dump their litter there in the first

> place.

>

> They are not technically stealing as it's just a

> load of bags on a pavement.....the shops always

> ask people not to leave bags out of hours as by

> the time they open it's either ruined by rain or

> all the good stuff has been taken and they have to

> deal with the litter.

>

> Why can't the people return when the shop is open

> and give their bags to the staff instead of

> leaving a load of litter for them to deal with!


Someone may already have addressed this point but I will stick my oar in anyway. Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and it must have been known to the culprit) was that ownership of the goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was being passed over to MIND. For someone to take property that clearly had been donated to another party (and was therefore the recipient party's property) is without question theft.


I recently had a parcel stolen from outside my house because the postman had decided to leave it on my doorstep rather than fill in one of the little collection cards and return it to depot. I have previously asked for the Royal Mail not to do this in case stuff was stolen/spoilt. Are you trying to say, just because it was left outside my house when I had asked that it should not be, that that wasn't theft?????

Can I also add (and I think I posted about it here a couple of years ago) that a similar incident happened outside the St Christopher's charity shop and I did challenge the thief. She looked very embarrassed and told me to mind my own business. I believe I told her I would be sure to mind my own business if I ever saw her being mugged in the street or saw someone breaking into her car!

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> Can I also add (and I think I posted about it here

> a couple of years ago) that a similar incident

> happened outside the St Christopher's charity shop

> and I did challenge the thief. She looked very

> embarrassed and told me to mind my own business.

> I believe I told her I would be sure to mind my

> own business if I ever saw her being mugged in the

> street or saw someone breaking into her car!


Had the same experience and was asked " is it yours ? "


I wish I could say I came out with an urbane Wildean response , but just came out with a Haddockian tirade of propa abuse that ensured they scuttled back into their wheels and scarpered. probabaly to come back 5 mins later when I has passed of course.

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and it must have been

> known to the culprit) was that ownership of the

> goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was

> being passed over to MIND.


but the charity has said that they don't want stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier, if i come and leave my junk outside your house, does it become yours and your problem? the intention of the owner is surely not enough, does the recipient not need to agree that they want it?

pk Wrote:

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

> Domitianus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and

> it must have been

> > known to the culprit) was that ownership of the

> > goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was

> > being passed over to MIND.

>

> but the charity has said that they don't want

> stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier, if

> i come and leave my junk outside your house, does

> it become yours and your problem? the intention of

> the owner is surely not enough, does the recipient

> not need to agree that they want it?


Irrelevant! Possession is still that of MIND. I didn't want my parcels left out in the street but I sure as h**l wanted my parcels! The fact that they had been deposited contrary to my instructions didn't entitle anyone to come along and pinch them. Same goes for MIND.

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> pk Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Domitianus Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention

> (and

> > it must have been

> > > known to the culprit) was that ownership of

> the

> > > goods concerned (absurd to call it litter)

> was

> > > being passed over to MIND.

> >

> > but the charity has said that they don't want

> > stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier,

> if

> > i come and leave my junk outside your house,

> does

> > it become yours and your problem? the intention

> of

> > the owner is surely not enough, does the

> recipient

> > not need to agree that they want it?

>

> Irrelevant! Possession is still that of MIND. I

> didn't want my parcels left out in the street but

> I sure as h**l wanted my parcels! The fact that

> they had been deposited contrary to my

> instructions didn't entitle anyone to come along

> and pinch them. Same goes for MIND.


but possession was not that of mind - presumably these things were on the street?


the mail analogy really doesn't work


also, as you say you wanted your parcels (thus surely agreeing that the intent of the recipient is important) , mind have stated that they do not want stuff left on the street


as i asked above, if i came and left my junk at your house (say in the same place as your parcels) would it become yours?

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...