Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Going to the West Village you can't imagine that in the 90s prostitutes used to work out in the open and people did drugs like mad. I'm not saying either of those things are good but its just remarkable how quickly its completely shed all of the crime, drugs and sex.

Willard, Stephen and Daisy Malley exemplify for me the whole outcome of this process. Artisan coffee guzzling artistic socialist vegetarians who move to London's poorest neighbourhoods to try and fit in with the existing working class culture, but in turn end up destroying the neighbourhood by forcing existing businesses out and organic avocado shops in. It's nice to see that young Stephen has become aware of this fact, and now maybe his cleaner can have a live in role (maybe the garden shed is available?) rather than traipsing daily up on a slow train from Gravesend.


Louisa.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Global cities like London, San Francisco, New York

> feel like they are at the very beginning of a slow

> but terminal decline.


That's what lots of people were saying in the late 70s and through to the mid 80s. There was massive flight from these cities and what was left was often (rightly or wrongly) perceived as undesirable. And that was working class and middle class flight. But the doomsters were wrong, these cities changed in ways no-one had foreseen and I suspect that will happen again.

Yes, you are totally right. This is different as its the reverse but I know what you mean. Cities constantly change and evolve. I suppose what I'm saying is that the features of these cities as we know them and what I like about them (hubs of artistic creativity, social diversity, etc) will become less salient as other features replace them. I don't think they'll disappear, just transform into something less appealing.


BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Global cities like London, San Francisco, New

> York

> > feel like they are at the very beginning of a

> slow

> > but terminal decline.

>

> That's what lots of people were saying in the late

> 70s and through to the mid 80s. There was massive

> flight from these cities and what was left was

> often (rightly or wrongly) perceived as

> undesirable. And that was working class and middle

> class flight. But the doomsters were wrong, these

> cities changed in ways no-one had foreseen and I

> suspect that will happen again.

You know what I find even more sad? 30/40 years ago this country had a real sense of civic pride both North and South. Following the needless destruction of major industries, and a London centric attitude from government, once great cities such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and I could go on were totally decimated in favour of London. Where are we now? Our chancellor talks of a northern powerhouse? Would this be the north that was neglect if for over a quarter of a century and now finds itself lagging seriously behind the South East? Ask any tourist when they are visiting the UK, will they visit any of these cities? No of course they won't, they all head straight for London. And London has now started eating itself. There is something wrong with a country where they can't given dilapidated Victorian terraces away in Liverpool and something similar in a relatively poor district of our capital is selling for over a million quid. And people wonder why I get so angry? It's no all about London, no other country in the world is so reliable upon one city (unless it's a city state of course). We have a population in excess of 60 million people, is it any wonder people away from the south east are so damn upset with the progress we make down here whilst whole regions elsewhere are lagging so far behind.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> no other country in the world is so reliable upon one city


I get what you're saying Louisa, but this statement is not really true (Thailand and Hungary are good counter examples, although of course they are not major economic powers)

I've only been for a week but I really liked it, especially East LA and downtown. Its like several small cities in one each with its own really distinct flavour. Really affordable independent theatre (in the north), great hiking, crazy beaches, a terrific arts and culture scene, great food etc. Its really ugly in parts and the traffic is beastly but I loved it.


???? Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > LA? Eurgh...

>

>

> LAs a great place, I'm a big fan

There's lots of good stuff there (arts, music, nightlife, fantastic restaurants) but it's such a pain to get around. And I don't like the huge sprawling layout with no obvious centre, no green spaces, nowhere pleasant to just take a stroll.


Good weather though.

The greenest bit is in Los Feliz (near Silverlake). The neighbourhood is very walkable and green and is right by Griffith Park which is amazing snd quite lush in large parts near the ground but also with great hiking trails up to the observatory. If I were ever going to live in LA, that's where I'd live for sure.


With the exception of that neighbourhood though, I completely agree with that general characterisation of LA as not nearly green and walkable enough compared to London.

Well you see jacks09, my solution would be a seismic shift in power (further city, regional devolution so budgets are controlled outside of the capital), along with redistribution of business incentives to encourage investment in other regions with large urban conurbations. I also think we need infrastructure to be directed to these places so that we can encourage people to move away from the magnet of London, which of course would help to ease the housing crisis. Let's be clear, this is a nationwide housing crisis, this is a south east of England housing crisis.


Louisa.

That's right miga, this is a good article on Mcr's transformation...


http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/nov/03/the-great-reinvention-of-manchester-its-far-more-pleasant-than-london


It's not perfect, there's still areas of severe depravation, but this highlights how a sensible Labour led council can work with business rather than seeing it as the bogey man...

@Louisa - all sounds very sensible - I much prefer reading your posts that offer solutions ~(personal preference)......are you doing anything to push this cause? Involved in any movement or charities?


Please don't feel I am singling you out, more a comment on what this forum has. Lot's of people with clearly very strong and in most cases, well informed, opinions. They all count for nowt if you don't do anything about things you feel strongly about.

I moved here at the end of the 90's as I sold my studio flat in Brixton and it was cheaper here to buy another larger one. I remember driving into Lordship Lane for the first time thinking "Nice, but a bit dull" and carried on going out to my old haunts in Brixton and clapham rather than here.

How things change ( although I'm a bit older and greyer now...and wouldn't go into half the bars/clubs I went to in the above places back then now ):)

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...