Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes yes Moos. You, quite clearly, are not intellectually subnormal.


Growlybear, since when has jeering been a compliment? The point about this kind of behaviour is that it's bullying, pure and simple. And as a woman on your own, you never know what reaction you're going to elicit, whether you choose to respond or ignore such crass and insulting behaviour.


I have on two occasions been threatened with rape when I chose to ignore the group of beered up lechers. Do I believe in hindsight that I was in real danger - on one occasion yes, on the other possibly not. Was I scared witless at the time - absolutely. I have had a bloke in a van shout suggestions about my genitals just as I met up with a client, because I had chosen to ignore his offers of taking succour in the back of his van. Not scary, but embarrassing as hell. There are countless other incidents of dealing with boorish morons like this. I haven't taken a single incident as a compliment.


prettyflowers, don't let the fuckers get to you - talk to the pub. And if that doesn't work, let's go down there and kick their asses.

Growlybear Wrote:

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

but personally, I would

> rather think that I'm not too much of a munter to

> warrant the odd teensy leer from the drunken

> intellectually subnormal oiks who are forced to

> stand outside the Castle if they want a smoke :))



Ah, ok, I get it now. See, I know I'm hot stuff and don't need a man several rungs below me on the attractiveness ladder to let me know. OF COURSE they're going to think so - statistically, probably about 70% of the population is going to be hot compared to them. I aspire to greater glories than being part of that 70%.


Edited to say that I am of course being sarcastic and I mean no offence. I'm a bit tipsy and this is a subject that really gets my dander up.

Growlybear, the penny has just dropped - now I get it. You know these people. You know their smoking habits, you've been a regular at the pub for 30 years, with your husband.


OK - so you are offended by people referring to your friends as drunken morons. That's very understandable. And perhaps when it's people you know, a friendly wink and a comment is a fun thing.


So, now we've found our ambassador. Please could you speak to your friends and tell them not to shout at girls they don't know, but stick to the ladies they do know enjoy this kind of banter? I'm sure, being normal, nice people, that they will understand.

Prettyflowers, I'm so sorry you've suffered the double insult of firstly being leered at by drunk men while on your own and secondly being told by other women that you should be grateful. Extraordinary.


Whistling, jeering, shouting and any other form of objectifying or intimidating is not flattering, it's rude.

And if it upsets pretyflowers then it is, by definition, not harmless, since harm has been caused.

No Moos, I said that I had used the Castle on and off over the years. I did not say that I am a regular, or that I would class the people with whom I am acquainted there as anything more than acquaintances, so you're not offending me in the least by referring to the customers as morons.


If anyone seriously felt that they were at risk of being raped, then that is an entirely different issue altogether and of course is completely unacceptable, but that isn't what the OP said. My comments have been based on the fact that I think a number of comments on this thread have been serious overreactions to wolf whistling and comments - particularly the ludicrous comment about posting photos of the people concerned.

Please don't misrepresent me - I have never said that the customers of the Castle are morons, and I never would. I said that people who jeer at girls are behaving in a moronic way, and I stand by that.


I agree that photos on this website would be totally inappropriate, for the record. But I'm still not seeing quite where you stand here - is it that anything less than genuine fear of rape is a compliment to one's appearance, or are we inching to a middle ground? What we have to go on here is the OP's original statement, which I quoted when I said 'jeering and leering', and which also described these people as pests.

Moos Wrote:

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

> But I'm

> still not seeing quite where you stand here - is

> it that anything less than genuine fear of rape is

> a compliment to one's appearance, or are we

> inching to a middle ground? What we have to go on

> here is the OP's original statement, which I

> quoted when I said 'jeering and leering', and

> which also described these people as pests.


No, I don't think that anything less than a genuine fear of rape is a compliment, and I haven't said that at all. My first post was to express incredulity at the comment on posting photographs of the 'offenders'. I rarely post on this forum and doubt that I would have commented on this thread had I not read that particular post, because I actually thought at first that the thread was a joke when I read the first post.


The OP didn't say exactly what comments had been made to her, and I have done the same as I expect most people did, and assumed the type of remarks which were made given the use of the words 'jeering and leering'. My personal opinion is that for someone to be offended by wolf whistles, and coarse and suggestive remarks to the point where they bother to start a thread on an internet forum is an overreaction. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest, or anyone else I know. The OP didn't suggest that she felt physically threatened by the 'mean people' outside the Castle; had she done so, my view would have been very different.

I don't think it was an overreaction at all. People post about all kinds of trivia on internet forums, and given your subsequent attempts to trivialise the OP's experience, her posting here was entirely appropriate. Plus as there is clearly at least one woman in East Dulwich who'd rather make crass comments about being 'not too much of a munter' than acknowledge that many if not most women would rather not deal with this hassle, it's been a more useful post than most in creating a forum for people to articulate their frustrations with catcalling and such.

annaj Wrote:

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

> Prettyflowers, I'm so sorry you've suffered the

> double insult of firstly being leered at by drunk

> men while on your own and secondly being told by

> other women that you should be grateful.

> Extraordinary.

>

> Whistling, jeering, shouting and any other form of

> objectifying or intimidating is not flattering,

> it's rude.

> And if it upsets pretyflowers then it is, by

> definition, not harmless, since harm has been

> caused.



Anna - this post is the voice of reason in this thread.

If for any reason the "first 4 hours" grinds you down, then psychology could be your next field of expertise.

Growlybear, I feel I should clarify my post last night when I didn't really get my point across due to a slightly drunken fuzziness.


The thing about this kind of behaviour is that you have no idea where it could lead. When you're being jeered at by a stranger, you don't know if that stranger's going to be annoyed, encouraged or completely unbothered either way if you choose to respond or ignore. In most cases it will be the latter, but how to judge? And why should you have to?


Of course the incidents I mentioned were extreme to try to convey a point. There've been yet others where I've been physically manhandled (and I don't think my experience is uncommon) but in the vast majority of cases, (god knows how many over a lifetime) absolutely nothing further has happened at all. Except that I've been annoyed, sometimes embarrassed, occasionally humiliated. So does that make it ok given that I haven't felt remotely threatened? I don't think it does.


I can say with utter certainty that the reason I've never got my tits out for a site full of builders is not for want of being invited to do so.

Growlybear wrote:- I actually thought at first that the thread was a joke when I read the first post.


No one else saw it that way.


Growlybear wrote:- My personal opinion is that for someone to be offended by wolf whistles, and coarse and suggestive remarks to the point where they bother to start a thread on an internet forum is an overreaction.



Often people use this forum as a sounding board to see if they are misunderstanding their position and getting unnecessarily irate about what you consider to be a small detail.

I don't like the idea of people feeling troubled by jeers and leers and being made to feel uncomfortable. Just ignoring it, laughing it off or having to face up to drunken men and tell them off not always the best advice for everybody. It could even escalate and cause bigger problems. Some people can deal with that kind of thing, other can't. True - it is better if any of those solutions above resolves the issue - but does that excuse that behaviour in the first place? It is anti social behaviour - and causing alarm, distress or harassment to others (however harmless the intent) is an offence. The SNT should be told and hopefully they might have quiet word and tell them to behave a little better. The pub also has a responsibility for how its patrons behave - and words could also be had with them. i am sure those drinkers are not really aware of the effect they are having, and hopefully once they realise, they might behave a little better to passing people.

I'm amazed this hasn't been lounged, as it's more a general debate than one about the Castle, but anyway.


For me, blokes shouldn't be shouting that kind of stuff to random women they don't know, it's not on. I agree with whoever said that these blokes would probably never do this if they were sober, so perhaps the problem is that they're drinking too early.


I know you can't just blame the booze, but you only have to witness the behaviour of a lot of women on hen dos to know that this isn't an exclusively male issue.

Keef Wrote:

but you

> only have to witness the behaviour of a lot of

> women on hen dos to know that this isn't an

> exclusively male issue.


xxxxxxxx


So far as I'm aware, groups of women don't stand outside pubs and deliberately make men on their way home from work feel uncomfortable, Keef :-S

I wasn't really trying to suggest that women do the same thing, and make it a gender thing, I was just making the point that drink makes some people leary.


And as you've mentioned it, of course it's not as common, but believe me, I have seen groups of girls that I'd cross the road not to have to walk past. I can also safely say that I'd rather be a female stripper at a party than a male one!!! But I am going off topic.

hello - just a quick thought or two on this;

Absolutely the publican should be formally made aware of the bad behavior of his attendees, it is his responsibility to ensure good behaviour at the pub.


Someone above mentioned not worth contacting the police - this is not the case - make a formal complaint in writing every and any time this occurs - pub owners have to adhere to set rules and standards to maintain their license - if they do not they can loose it / not have it renewed or have any extensions etc - this is the type of action that will encourage the landlord to get his house in order.

Given the choice between a sun-kissed dark-haired swoonboat, sipping a coffee whilst resting against his Lambretta and blowing you a kiss.. and someone covered in Dulux with slightly cross eyes and a dribbly chin making groping gestures.. I know what I think most girls would plump for.

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...