Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't see how that could be considered a big leap. If people had taken note of the signs and done something about it as cinders has then suffering could have been stopped and her death prevented. If this is how this father behaves in public then behind closed doors is unlikely to be like the Waltons. FGM is also culturally relevant but unacceptable nonetheless.


I agree with you cinders that the emphasis should be on this father being identified so that official bodies can assess and draw their own conclusions about the nature of his behaviour and what intervention is appropriate

binkylilyput Wrote:

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

> I don't see how that could be considered a big

> leap. If people had taken note of the signs and

> done something about it as cinders has then

> suffering could have been stopped and her death

> prevented.




Totally different set of circumstances. The point is that a lot of abusers probably appear like ideal parents when out in public.



Anyway, the OP has now told us that the bloke has a London accent, so the whole cultural argument is irrelevant (although strongly disagree with Huggers that it's all bollocks - and I am from a social care background).



cinders Wrote:

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

> There was nothing to suggest this

> was anything to do with culture and to be honest

> can we just focus on finding this bastard instead

> of even insinuating there may be a good reason for

> it.



1. NO ONE has even remotely insinuated that there is a "good reason" for this behaviour.

2. You've called the police, and you've written your OP. Unless you're thinking of forming some sort of search party*, there is nothing more to be done here. People are just discussing the subject.



* Please don't do that.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> its about humanity - people love their children

> the same the world over - why anyone thinks

> hitting them is a good way to demonstrate love is

> beyond me.




I very much doubt that anyone thinks that hitting their kids is demonstrating love. But some cultures are A LOT harsher to their kids than we are. But in terms of abuse and sick people hurting kids, look at the human pond scum that hurt and killed Peter Connelly (baby P), white English home grown scum.

alice Wrote:

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

> child abuse is culture free. if not show me

> evidence to disprove that.


Oh, for Heaven's sake. The thread, before you contributed to it, was attempting to address the point that the definition of child abuse, the understanding of what constitutes child abuse, is highly culture-dependent.


"Child abuse is culture free." This, or that, or the other thing is what Alice says it is and everyone else, with their opinions, can go hang. Oh, dear.

I consider feeding junk food to kids is abuse. I also think that some kids need a slap around the legs on occasion to halt unacceptable behaviour. I also think that the OP take on what she saw is very subjective. I wonder if things wouldve gone this far had the father not been black African in appearance but white.

subjective - maybe

tainted by our own values - probably

racial / cultural differences? not a chance. This is UK law and values and child abuse is defined by emotional abuse, violence, witness to violence....


It's not acceptable - whether you think it's ok personally or not.


Clearly a distraught child is something we should all care about. Not find reasons they might have deserved it - or mitigating circumstances (perpetraor was of any particular race/ culture).

And "I consider feeding junk food to kids is abuse" - for heaven's sake! Read the op, read the actual words he/or she posted and try to understand them. Giving a kid the occasional McDonald's isn't in the same league!

Quite clearly the child in question has attended school at some stage, and I would hope that if any abuse is going on then signs of this would have been picked up and acted on appropriately.

Allowing young children to get fat is abuse and not an occasional burger treat.

I believe the OP did the right thing based on her subjective view of the incident.

Subjecting children to war is abuse but how many wanted Syria bombed. Sorry off topic. No one in their right mind would condone child abuse but dismissing cultural differences on evidence of a subjevtive description is dangerous also.

How this thread has deviated! There's very little subjective room for describing a grown man hitting the back of a child's head imo. How else could the OP have described that? And that the child was crying as he did it. Not really much room for interpretation there either.

the cultural norms argument is so off the mark - Penguin is usually a reasoned and reasonable commentator that i am truly surprised at his post


in any culture, a grown man hitting a child is considered unacceptable, whether it happens in Glasgow or Ghana or Gloucester. what might vary is whether people consider it their business to intervene.

I note that the OP comments that none of the people passing intervened to help the child. Does that imply that this man's behaviour is an ED cultural norm?


I do hope this man and child have been identified and the social services have been involved.

Plenty of room.


I am appealing for any help with finding a man who is clearly physically and mentally abusing his child.


Is the OP qualified to make these judgements? No.


They are African in appearance


What does an African look like? White or black African? What does an African look like compared to a west indian black man? Is the OP already making cultural conclusions?


He was shouting at his child (she looks between 8-10). Hitting her on the back, and back of her head. Swearing and shouting she wasn't going to school. She was screaming every time he hit her and saying she wanted to go to school please Daddy.


Who doesnt have to raise voice to kids sometimes? Hitting or pushing along? Smacking, slapping, punching? Tantrum screaming like all kids can or crying out in pain? Swearing bloody, flipping or other?


I reported this to the police this morning as soon as i'd walked past them.


Then the OP has done what she believes is the right thing so why come onto a public forum and potentially cause massive problems in the life of a possibly innocent man and maybe even get him bashed up on OP subjective views? What if OP is disgruntled ex being nasty and claim is false?



Yes I reported what they were wearing - didn't get a good look as it was all so fast.


So fast but OP is certain of all facts in OP even though happened so fast.


I think i have driven past them before, around Alleyns and at that time I also saw him shouting and hitting a child but then it looked like a very young boy. So either it was the same child or there's more than one.


So if OP has seen this before, which sounds exactly the same scenario but boy allegedly being hit instead of girl why was this not reported to police by OP at that time?


There were other parents with kids around so someone else must have heard and seen them.


Maybe they were not concerned? Maybe they reported it to police and did not need to come onto a public forum vigilante mode.


However, if you see a man hitting a child so hard, repeatedly, so that she cries out each time, he is dragging her along the street shouting obscenities,


Dragged along street? OP kid was being pushed along street.


I really don't care what 'culture' he thinks he is following. He is a child abuser and must be treated as so.


So why did this not apply to the "abuse" seen by OP previously?


The man was shouting (effing and blinding) to his daughter in a London accent. She had a London accent.


So the previous description of a black African was not needed, just a black man maybe?


They were not dressed in anything unusual.


What, like a fez? Traditional African wear?


There was nothing to suggest this was anything to do with culture


No? Maybe African culture in OP view. See above.


and to be honest can we just focus on finding this bastard instead of even insinuating there may be a good reason for it.


Bastard, more vigilante terminology. And swearing


Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> How this thread has deviated! There's very little

> subjective room for describing a grown man hitting

> the back of a child's head imo. How else could the

> OP have described that? And that the child was

> crying as he did it. Not really much room for

> interpretation there either.

Penguin is usually a reasoned and reasonable commentator that i am truly surprised at his post



I am sorry, but any study of history will show that, even in the UK, cultural attitudes to domestic violence have changed dramatically over time. What was once acceptable (if not universally encouraged or lauded) in terms of parental violence towards children is now, and properly, seen as well beyond the pale. Cultural norms in some other societies are still in places where we were years ago. Remember that slavery is still acceptable in some parts of the world today (and sadly is still practiced, behind closed doors, by some visitors to the UK even now).


It is a perfectly reasonable philosophical position to be a cultural absolutist and say that where we now are is the only place to be, and that anyone who takes a different view is, and always must be ?wrong? ? but that is just one philosophical position. A multi-culturist approach suggests that there is a moral equivalence between different cultural norms and that to place one culture ?over? another is not correct.


I am closer to being a cultural absolutist than not, but I am not so blinkered as to assume that people who take a different philosophical position are inherently evil, even if I think they may be wrong.


Which does not excuse or condone behaviour taking place on our streets today which challenges our cultural norms (although in a 100 years time what we accept now on our streets may well be unacceptable to our successors).


The person as described doing this needs to be found, and perhaps the child placed into care or otherwise protected, but whether from someone who is bad, is mad (mentally disturbed, i.e. ill), or is different can only be discovered once he is found.

Oh my. How this thread has deviated indeed. The OP had legitimate concerns about a child, full stop. There was no need for the cultural norms/devil's advocate brigade to stick their oar in to derail it. It was a cri de coeur, with the welfare and safety of the little girl at stake. This should have been everyone's concern. But sadly, no. And now it's deteriorated so much that we have this ridiculous nit-picking reply by ED123 to the OP's last comment that the pair were not unusually dressed: "May I ask what you consider to be 'unusually' dressed?", followed by a comment about silly Christmas jumpers. Shame on you. All this is classic trolling, hijacking the thread out of pure mischief. But, don't forget, there's an abused little girl at the heart of all this.


Do you know what. If I had a pound for every time normally intelligent and articulate people have told me they're terrified of posting anything on this forum no matter how innocuous due to the ensuing likely torrent of weirdness and criticism that inevitably follows from the usual suspects, I'd be rich. Of course, there has to be room for disagreement and contrary opinions, but in this thread it has finally reached the heights of madness.


I think it's time admin reined some of these people in, to be honest. I think hundreds of locals who would love to post their thoughts and observations don't because they are scared to because of this behaviour, which really amounts to nothing more than bullying.

@Grok


> Who doesnt have to raise voice to kids sometimes? Hitting or pushing along? Smacking, slapping, punching?


In the part of the world where I am from, smacking, slapping or punching a child is illegal and the mere thought of this being somehow ok makes me feel thoroughly shocked and appalled. No, you mustn't ever smack, slap or punch a child. Ever.

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...