Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Alice,


Thanks for your very thoughtful and considered post.


No I don't think all kids look the same. Some look like the type that you might want to steer clear of - especially if you're not a bloke (for all the reasons that the original poster has made clear re their conduct and language).


I think it would actually be very useful to know what they looked like - hence my question. Totally up to Dadof4 though.

Dulwichlad850 Wrote:

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

> hi,

> i was at the park when this incodent took place

> and i do not think the lady in question is telling

> the whole truth,

> it was her Son that started this little episode

> and the lady in question also pushed one of the

> boys with some force while letting her son call

> the kids Fing mugs etc.


Pretty sure that you must have seen a separate incident (or you must be a pre-programmed troll)

My wife was walking with our terrified/crying 8 year old and a very scared 11 year old when it happened.


But of course, she may have just turned out not to be the woman I've been married to for 15 years, who is a tecaher and has just decided to get into a verbal scrap with some 11 years olds for fun, then pushed them around and gone on to fabricate a story to the police .....because she had nothing better to do.


I have to say if I had been there, they may well have been called fing mugs.


In terms of descriptions - I'm with others on that - dont think its that appropriate - the police have dealt with this now

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> what is unreasonable about asking for descriptions

> of a group of people who have been aggressively

> abusing women in a public place?


They were probably about five ft high, medium length hair, wearing t-shirt, jeans, trainers. Go gettem, El P!

Maybe the incident @Dulwichlad850 describes is a separate incident in which these serial young offenders picked on a woman who reacted in a more heated fashion? Sounds like it wasn't a one off volley of abuse the little tikes were spewing. Absolutely no need to question the testimony of Mrs Dadof4.

I'm not going to give Dulwichlad the benefit of doubt. He joined the forum today to post specifically on this thread. So has some connection to the offending kids. Just what that connection is we'll never know.


Even if there had been provocation (which I don't believe for one minute there was), this kind of language and behaviour from 12 year olds is disgraceful. They are clearly not normal children. Most parents would be horrified if their children who behaved like that too.

years ago, the teenage daughter of one of my friends was verbally abused by a group of boys whilst in the park. They were a similar age around 15/16. She was with a group of friends so she ignored them. In the same summer holiday, at another trip to the park with a couple of friends, the same boys started verbally abusing the girls and followed them through the park. The girls were getting frightened now and made their way out of the park through the village, with the boys following swearing at them and making 'suggestions' A shop keeper in the village was outside his shop and suggested to the girls that they took refuge in the shop and he rang the police. The boys took off but police later picked them up. My friend and her daughter were asked to identify the boys. My friend, who is a teacher, was horrified to find that a couple of the boys attended her school and they were shocked to see her. The boys got a warning from the police and a good dressing down. My friend stated that when the boys returned to school in September, they were very sheepish whenever they saw her and were on their best behaviour the rest of the year. As a result of this incident, the Police patrolled the park several times a day during the summer holidays
All rational conclusions to make though Azira. You yourself displayed your intention to play devil's Advocate in your first post {Stir}{Stir}. Some of us just choose not to play games when someone displays genuine distress at the abnormal behaviour of 12 year olds, behaviour that should be challenged if only for the outcome of the post above by Pugwash.

They are all assumptions Blah Blah - rational conclusions need to be based on evidence, of which there is none sufficient here to support some of the conclusions people have drawn.


Your implication that I am "play[ing] games" once more is making an assumption about what I think about the OP. The "stir" comment was directed at the outraged keyboard warrior types not the OP (and is in the same vein as the ealier poster who mentioned popcorn, that I note you have refrained from taking a pop at).


I am not "playing Devil's Advocate" (and again, thanks for your assumption that I don't hold with the opinions I express). I am just pointing out that lots of people are leaping to conclusions with no more apparent substantiation than their own prejudices/assumptions.


I take this kind of behaviour very seriously. I also take making evidence-based conclusions very seriously.

Sigh. Does every thing posted on a forum have to be so analysed? It's simple. The OP posted an event that most people would agree is awful and would leave most people questioning the environment that kids grow up in to behave like this. And some kids DO behave like this. Children that don't behave normally often have poor parenting and peers around them (and I AM qualified to say that).


Dulwichlad notably (after making the effort to join and post) hasn't come back to defend his position. Again, it is perfectly ok to draw a conclusion from that. It's clear from his posts that he is trying to implicate the mother and children as having provoked that exchange. Well agin I'm sorry, but harassing anyone with that kind of language at 12 years of age is not defensible.


And finally I believe that a report to the Police WAS made. I believe those Police contacted the parents and I also choose to make the conclusion that Dulwichlad is connected to those children or parents, until he comes back to say otherwise.


Of course some of that is circumstantial. You don't need to point that out to anyone. But this is also not a court, it's a forum where people are free to mull over things posted. And my replies to you are based purely on your replies to me. No ulterior motive there (as you seem to want to imply). That's what usually happens in debates. If you challenge someone's view, they reply to you.

Hi I'm back firstly I'm not connected to the 4 boys I'm too young all I said was incident was not how the op stated she made it sound like she was on her own when 4 boys boys started abusing her no that was not the case, out of the 4 boys it was one boy that was arguing with her son who was giving it back she told boy to go away he carried on arguing she then pushed boy away her son was swearing as well she then put her middle finger up to boys and told one of them he should go weight watchers, very adult approach they did not say the things that was posted yes the boys swore but not in context that the op said I will not be commenting anymore on this subject I know what happened and so does woman in question I'll leave it there

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I'm not going to give Dulwichlad the benefit of

> doubt. He joined the forum today to post

> specifically on this thread. So has some

> connection to the offending kids. Just what that

> connection is we'll never know.

>

> Even if there had been provocation (which I don't

> believe for one minute there was), this kind of

> language and behaviour from 12 year olds is

> disgraceful. They are clearly not normal children.

> Most parents would be horrified if their children

> who behaved like that too.


I'm afraid I remember this sort of behaviour from my youth.

Most of the parents had no idea and most of the children were

just 'followers' with one or two ringleaders.


Problem is - as a child - it's safer to side with the majority.

Dulwichlad850 Wrote:

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

> Hi I'm back firstly I'm not connected to the 4

> boys I'm too young all I said was incident was not

> how the op stated she made it sound like she was

> on her own when 4 boys boys started abusing her no

> that was not the case, out of the 4 boys it was

> one boy that was arguing with her son who was

> giving it back she told boy to go away he carried

> on arguing she then pushed boy away her son was

> swearing as well she then put her middle finger up

> to boys and told one of them he should go weight

> watchers, very adult approach they did not say the

> things that was posted yes the boys swore but not

> in context that the op said I will not be

> commenting anymore on this subject I know what

> happened and so does woman in question I'll leave

> it there


I was the original poster - not my wife. I posted it here in case there was a pattern of behavior developing with these boys (and according to the police, they saw that immediately)


But, you're so outraged by this miscarriage of justice that you decided to go and register immediately on the EDF. You appear a couple of times, casting doubt on the incident and then say that you wont be commenting any more.....hmm


So, I think you should take your comments to the police. An incident allegedly happened which, according to you, was a distortion/fabrication. If it did happen like that, I think you owe it to the boys concerned to go and make a statement in their defence (they didnt get arrested, but their details were taken and logged i Guess). You also say that my wife assaulted a young boy - again, pretty serious stuff that you should take to the police


If you PM me, I'll happily provide you the crime reference number

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...