Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Nah, sorry Louisa, you're just plain wrong. And bigoted. I've shopped at the butchers and fishmongers in Nunhead and ED - ED are better. William Rose isn't trendy or poncy, it's a good, reasonably priced shop. The people who shop there are just people, probably all of them with a greater sense of proportion than you.
But you would say that wouldnt you. You are exactly the type of person I am refering to! The fishmongers in ED is exceptionally overpriced, and the quality of the produce isnt any better than that sold at F C Sopers. It's yet another prime example of how the new people into this community want to destroy the local way of life and bring in their own fancy shopping habits and force them on everyone else. If I am bigoted because I want to save traditional local businesses which dont have Clapham written all over them then so be it.

'bigoted'


adjective

blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person";


"Screaming toddlers on a Saturday afternoon, loud mouth yuppies buying venison for a dinner party"


"certain snobs locally feel the need to denigrate something if it isnt trendy or from clapham"


"But you would say that wouldnt you. You are exactly the type of person I am refering to!"


"the new people into this community want to destroy the local way of life and bring in their own fancy shopping habits and force them on everyone else"



Am I out of the loop Louisa - do you know Dave or have you just blindly categorised him JUST because he shops at William Rose


And you may not mind being termed a bigot - have a look at the definition again - it's what you are trying to call people who shop at Sopers and Rose

Hi Everybody


Could I please pre-empt the lovely Administrator and ask you all to stick to the topic which is about


"planning permission for no6 and other sites in Lordship Lane"


It is a VERY important and useful thread for lots of us [especially me as a retail consultant] and we don't want to get it lounged for being too bellicose.


See you next Friday people? Ducking out intermittently with the French and Irish rugby fans - its all to play for!


Have a lovely Friday


Ultraconsultancy

Ko Wrote:

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

> What does 'hooky' organic meat mean? I think I

> may be on a slightly difference wavelength...



Hooky - London / cockney slang - generally either slightly dodgy (may not work properly) or from dubious sources (fell of back of lorry)


Hooky

you lot have been burning the midnight oil!


The fishmongers is not 'exceptionally' overpriced and the quality of the fish is better than Sopers. But how would you know Louisa? Surely you've never even been into Moxon's and bought any fish preferring as you do to continue to patronise the good old fashioned shops. That is your choice entirely and you are free to do that as we are free to shop in the places of our choice (all us poncy, sushi loving types that is).

Louise,


You made one absolutely correct and sensible observation with which I agree entirely.


"I find the suggestion that she should be forced to let out "prime commercial property" totally ludicrous". Agreed.


Thereafter the heat and anger you to generate personally over this whole thread is amazing.


I propose connecting you to the National Grid as a power source. If we can walk one "loud mouth yuppy buying venison for a dinner party" past every hour it should provide enough energy to power all the computers in use in East Dulwich.

Louisa and Marmora - agreed of course no-one should be forced to let out the retail or commercial sites they own, but there are additional factors at work.


If you own a retail site [and for the sake of argument lets say its a A1 shop] then you are neither allowed to live in it, nor allow other people to live in it, nor use it innapropriately for business [say as a resaurant]. Keeping it empty, either in the hope it will gain rarity value, or simply as a buffer to your domestic accomodation, is perfectly within your rights.


But essentially it is a low-key form of land-banking. And you can't argue that having the retail offer of a particular street is a good thing, surely; it lowers the business opportunity of that community, and it lowers the income of the authorities who collect NNDR to fund the local facilities. So keeping an empty shop is effectively subsidised by local ratepayers, both NNDR and Council Tax.


As a retail consultant I'm obviously going to say that there should be both stick and carrot for getting landlords and tenants together in the endeavour of starting new businesses; but I think one very effective way of doing this is to make landlords pay full NNDR on empty sites after say six months, with a right to appeal and hear their argument.


This would stop landlords sitting on empty sites, let them for the short to mid term, and make this kind of investment pay its way in the community.


Ultraconsultancy

> a traditional local butcher like W Head and sons was based at Peckham Rye for over 100 years, and was forcedto close due to a

> lack of customers. William Rose jump on theorganic(sic) band wagon and exploit the gentrificaton of ED.


I'm assuming it was forced to close by the lizards of the illuminati who hope to fulfil their destiny of world gov't by somehow exploiting gentrification?

Even for you Louisa, that was as daft an assertion as I've seen.


Did businesses start exploiting customers in the eighties by jumping on the good service bandwagon, rather than offering surly snootiness? The cads!!


Shops don't earn enough money because people don't shop there. If William Rose happen to have a better business model and offer a good service and a good product then they'll be a success. I'm guessing that queues are indicative of that, rather than of some sinister subliminal exploitation of gentrificants.

What was the 'old ED way of life', anyway? As I remember (not so long ago) it was infamous for scruffy pubs full of wheezing old drunks and dossers; tatty, understocked shops (Unwins?); an overpriced glaziers; rubbish dining and genuinely unruly kids in pushchairs. I think I prefer this way, thank you.

You know I?m so ignorant and must apologise for the offence and socio-economic damage my ignorance has caused. I didn?t realise that in order to support local businesses I should be shopping in Peckham and Nunhead.


I fear that as newcomers to the area we have been insensitive to local tradition and culture. When I get home tonight I think Mrs B and I should perhaps have a little talk about cutting down on our dinner parties so as not to unnecessarily aggravate the indigenous population.

Its the large, corner site, to the left of the florists as you face it, just across the road from the EDT. mirrored windows on all sides. Has been some kind of NHS treatment or admin centre in it's most recent incarnation. Genuine prime retail smack; fantastic potential. This time next year it'll be an estate agent.


Ultraconsultancy

Gentrification - the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, thus improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses.


This rings a bell...


Snob - One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.

One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect


Good grief now we really are on the ball...



Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Well if I am one of these then surely most of the ED newcomers fit into this catergory too! Intolerance isnt just about disagreement and stuborn obstinance, it's also about where you choose to shop. If the image isnt right, the above word 'snob' kicks in, and the people I refer to fail to support the business because it does not fit in with their lifestyle or way of living. try all sorts before I judge, some people on here dont even do that much!

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...