Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Fox - I thought you frequently enjoyed kebabs and curries? If you're happy to eat that stuff (inevitably the cheapest meat they can lay their hands on) then I don't think you need to worry whether this place will meat your standards.


James - yes I have no doubt that a diet heavy in veg with less meat (especially red meat) is much more healthy. But the public get what the public want - and the Meat Liquor chain is phenomenally popular. Besides, people eat out for a treat, it needn't reflect your daily diet.

Quite, although I'm sure Jaflong will only source the finest free range ingredients that money can buy.


Look forward to a cheeseburger soonish from MeatL.


Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Fox - I thought you frequently enjoyed kebabs and

> curries? If you're happy to eat that stuff

> (inevitably the cheapest meat they can lay their

> hands on) then I don't think you need to worry

> whether this place will meat your standards.

>

Is it possible to be an evangelist vegetarian and/or an advocate for animal welfare without coming across as a humourless, smug, patronising idiot?


Discuss. With reference to this thread (it's not looking good).


I liked the Sea Cow, and I'm sure I'll like Meat Liquor. The folks at GBK must be a bit nervous though.

Go and see a Morrissey concert. Even if you love him, the pro-vegan video show he puts on is very disturbing and has made me reduce my animal product consumption.

I am hoping that posher fast-food places use some of their profit to buy from excellent suppliers which care for their animals (before they do the opposite of caring by slaughtering them).

James Wrote:

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

> More and more people are cutting down on meat. 'Flexitarianism' (being a part-time vegetarian) is

> on the rise, as evidenced by restaurants like Ottolenghi and meat-eating celebrity chefs like

> Hugh Fearnley W bringing out vegetarian cookbooks. All the evidence says we eat too much meat as a

> nation - both for health and sustainability reasons, let alone animal welfare. But of course,

> there will always be those who choose to turn a blind eye to all of this.


That's all true, but people eating vegetarian/vegan are still in a very small minority. I'm not saying that targeting a business at the niche 10% can't be profitable, just that market economics will always have the majority of business targeting the majority of consumers.

Angelina Wrote:

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

> well sadly that attitude of 'don't care' about

> welfare standards is exactly what makes the meat

> farming industry allowed to keep on with it's

> awful practises.

>

> I suppose, what you don't see doesn't impact you -

> right? LMAO



Middle class problems.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Fox - I thought you frequently enjoyed kebabs and

> curries? If you're happy to eat that stuff

> (inevitably the cheapest meat they can lay their

> hands on) then I don't think you need to worry

> whether this place will meat your standards.


I seldom actually eat Take-Away kebabs these days. Back in the days when Yilmaz made their D?ners by hand on

site from lamb shoulders I used to eat more. I seldom eat the Smooth Pate like D?ners that are factory made.


I am concerned about Halal meat. as a concequence of late I tend to eat Prawn curries or vegetable biryanis..


Even meat bought in major supermarkets is no better generally that that found in most restaurants..


DulwichFox

>>Is it possible to be an evangelist vegetarian and/or an advocate for animal welfare without coming across as a >>humourless, smug, patronising idiot?


>>Discuss. With reference to this thread (it's not looking good).


Obviously touched a nerve there. If the facts make you feel uncomfortable, perhaps you should take a look at yourself?

Hang about guys - there has been a question asked about sourcing but no response. Until we have one, let's not jump to assumptions that they buy poor quality meat from mistreated animals. Given Yianni's early interviews, that wouldn't appear to fit with his original ethos of quality.

>>Is it possible to be an evangelist vegetarian and/or an advocate for animal welfare without coming across as a >>humourless, smug, patronising idiot?


>>Discuss. With reference to this thread (it's not looking good).


Obviously touched a nerve there. If the facts make you feel uncomfortable, perhaps you should take a look at yourself?



The evidence mounts....

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > James Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Bit of a shame it's another meat-obsessed

> > restaurant. Seems out of step with the times.

> >

> Considering that well over 90% of the UK are meat

> eaters, I'd say it is well in step with the

> times.


>

> ..and also explains the increase in instances of

> Bowel cancer..

>



How could that figure explain an increase, unless more people are eating meat, which I really doubt?

Nigello Wrote:

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


> I am hoping that posher fast-food places use some

> of their profit to buy from excellent suppliers

> which care for their animals (before they do the

> opposite of caring by slaughtering them).



It's probably a discussion for another thread, but I lived on an organic farm for a while which had cows, sheep and sometimes pigs, all out in the fields and very much cared for by the lovely farmers, who also had a mill producing organic animal feed.


I too always thought it odd that the animals ended their lives by being slaughtered, however when I thought about it a bit more closely, I realised that if it wasn't for the farm they wouldn't have had lives at all.


If people didn't eat meat, there would be no animals in the fields in our countryside.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Nigello Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > I am hoping that posher fast-food places use

> some

> > of their profit to buy from excellent suppliers

> > which care for their animals (before they do

> the

> > opposite of caring by slaughtering them).

>

>

> It's probably a discussion for another thread, but

> I lived on an organic farm for a while which had

> cows, sheep and sometimes pigs, all out in the

> fields and very much cared for by the lovely

> farmers, who also had a mill producing organic

> animal feed.

>

> I too always thought it odd that the animals ended

> their lives by being slaughtered, however when I

> thought about it a bit more closely, I realised

> that if it wasn't for the farm they wouldn't have

> had lives at all.

>

> If people didn't eat meat, there would be no

> animals in the fields in our countryside.


Well, given we're big net importers of beef and lamb, people could halve their meat consumption without much of a dent in land given over to livestock in this country. The UK imports 240,000 tonnes of beef and veal per annum (while exporting 90,000 tonnes) and imports 84,000 tonnes of lamb and mutton per annum (while exporting 70,000 tonnes). But of course most meat eaten in this country is chicken and pork, very little of which is reaered outdoors.

Sue Wrote:


>

> I too always thought it odd that the animals ended

> their lives by being slaughtered, however when I

> thought about it a bit more closely, I realised

> that if it wasn't for the farm they wouldn't have

> had lives at all.

>

> If people didn't eat meat, there would be no

> animals in the fields in our countryside.


What do you mean they wouldn't have had lives at all? They wouldn't have existed? As for there being no animals in the fields if it weren't for meat eaters, I can't get my head around that either.


These lads headed straight for a field...........


voltore Wrote:

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

> Willard Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Flying Fish Camberwell

>

> Seconded. Surprised I hadn't seen a mention of it

> earlier.

> Consistently spot on. Used to eat here when I

> lived in Cambers but will happily go out of my way

> now I'm in ED.

>

> Just don't ask if they have anything 'ready'.. !

> The owner will take offence (saw a guy get his ear

> chewed off!)



Agree completely. We never returned to the Sea Cow after we discovered The Flying Fish.

Sue Wrote:

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

> DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > James Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Bit of a shame it's another meat-obsessed

> > > restaurant. Seems out of step with the times.

>

> > >

> > Considering that well over 90% of the UK are

> meat

> > eaters, I'd say it is well in step with the

> > times.

>

> >

> > ..and also explains the increase in instances

> of

> > Bowel cancer..

> >

>

>

> How could that figure explain an increase, unless

> more people are eating meat, which I really doubt?


It's more to do with the type of meat we are eating.. and how much..

A lot more of the meat we all eat is processed.. and we have been eating a lot more of it..

Bacon, Ham, Sausages, Chorizo, Salami, Pate,

Bowel Cancer is mainly found in people over 60 so we are now the first generation to reach that age with

a history of eating processed meats..



Foxy

gingerchris Wrote:

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

> They should keep with the heritage of this

> building and call it The Ground Cow


I believe it was another Fish & Chip shop. Much smaller with just a couple of tables at the front.


It was a lovely place and I often sat in and enjoyed a fish n chip supper there.


Foxy.

Lambs bouncing around the fields and happy cows eating clover is how meat should be reared. It isn't the case in the most - and as consumers we have a voice in supporting the methods in place.


There is a vast industry in factory farming, where animals are pumped ful of drugs to make them fat, leaving them in really disgusting conditions - which is tantamount to cruelty and abuse.


The antibiotics and fat-inducing drugs do actually make their way into our own body, which really isn't healthy.


No-one is saying that we shouldn't eat meat - just saying that individuals shoudl be aware of the choices they are making and the behaviours they are condoning by the choices they make.


Organic meat is better for you, better for the animal and that has to be good.


If you're not sure about how the meat reaches your table, perhaps you could find out.


Compassion in World Farming advocate http://www.ciwf.org.uk/ woudl be an informative read. They are not saying 'let's all go vegan' but are working toward ending the cruelty of factory farming.


PETA - are advocating being vegan - no end of real clips of what actually happens in the meat industry. Quite nasty.


If we are having a new burger chain in ED, then I would hope it would make choices that are ethical and supportive of compassionate farming. In which case, thta's great as we know that by supportig the place we are also making those choices (inadvertently) - which can only be better than the methods we support passively by going to KFC, for example.


Imported meat means that standards do not need to be adhered to as they don't necessarily apply in other countries - and then we would be looking at transporting livestock and that is a whole other area that is unacceptable.


It's not a middle class problem, to care for the welfare of other life on this planet. It's not a problem at all - the more people that care, the better. What is the problem, is the apathy and treatment of animals that this apathy allows.


I will ask the new restaurant to communicate their Food Ethics Policy. Hopefully they'll post it on here. I will, however, when I get a response. Hopeing it's a good one and we can all enjoy knowing that the burgers were once happy cows, frolicking in the clover....and not the other end of the scale

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...