Jump to content

Recommended Posts

cate Wrote:

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

> sniffy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > shovel Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I was at the scene with the little girl this

> > > morning. I am so sorry to hear she didn't

> make

> > it.

> > >

> > > My prayers are with her family and with the

> > > driver. This was truly a tragic accident.

> >

> > So what exactly happened, did you see?

>

>

> Rubbernecker.


Whatever....!??!

My reason for asking is that there's a lot of speculation blaming the current traffic/ roadworks situation.

When in fact it could quite possibly be as simples as kid running out into road mucking around at bus stop??!!

This is from the Met:


Police are appealing for witnesses to come forward following the death of a 10 yr old girl in a road traffic collision in East Dulwich.

Police were called at approx 0800hrs to reports of a lorry in collision with a child on East Dulwich Road, jct with Peckham Rye, SE22.

Officers and LAS attended and discovered a girl, aged 10, suffering injuries. She was taken to Kings College Hospital where she was pronounced dead at 0844hrs.She has been identified as Latoya Smith aged 10 from SE27.

A formal identification has taken place and next of kin have been informed. A date for a post mortem examination is to be decided.

A man, aged 44, was arrested at the scene and has been taken to a south London police station. Enquiries continue.

Sergeant Simon Seeley, from the MPS Traffic Collision Investigation Unit said:?This incident happened at a busy time and lots of people will have witnessed this terrible tragedy. It is crucial that we establish the events that led up to this young child?s death and we appeal for anyone who saw this collision to get in touch. In particular, there were several people at a bus stop at the location, who kindly rushed to the assistance of the child before the ambulance arrived, we would very much like to speak to all of them.?

Anyone with information is to contact Collision Investigation Unit at Catford Traffic Garage on 020 8285 1574.



Very very sad news. RIP

Mine too. so so sorry to hear this. If the accident happened outside old Kings on the Rye at the junction then that is exactly the spot where another girl died a little while ago. (Can't remember the exact date but her school friends' ties are still hanging on the railings.) Where do we go to try and get something done about this awful spot?

Truly awful.


I have informed JBARBER - he already knew - who will I hope investigate potential solutions ASAP.

In the mean time I suggest we contact our local police and ask them to supervise the junction for both cars and pedestrians.

A real tragedy and my thoughts are with the family.


It was also only 3-4 months ago that someone else was very badly injured outside the Tesco, apparently by a car speeding through this junction. It's obviously an extremely dangerous junction: even without the roadworks, cars jump and speed through the red lights at practically every change - there should be cameras to try to reduce/stop this before there's yet another accident here.

Really sad and awful news.


I asked Barrie Hargrove (Labour transport spokesperson) to raise the roadworks with the council (which he has done) and I've contacted him about today's accident. I'll continue to press this as much as I can and it sounds that James Barber will too.


Obviously it's not yet clear whether today's accident is related to the recent works but either way the junction is busy and bad for pedestrians. The following plans, tragically, come too late but I understand that this junction should be the subject of improvements during 2010/11.


Council officers have proposed that the roads around the Rye are the subject of improvement using TfL funding. When they consulted on this last year they said: ?These busy streets carry significant amounts of through traffic and crossing them can be difficult for pedestrians. The junction with East Dulwich Road has a very high level of collisions... To address these issues a review of the timings of the junctions on East Dulwich Road could be carried out. Additional raised crossings could be provided on both branches of Peckham Rye.?


The last I heard was that funding should be confirmed by December (2009). I'll contact the council officer I had contact with and confirm what the latest is.


It's heartbreaking that such improvements may have prevented today's terrible events, though I appreciate that may well not be the case.


Victoria.

I had contacted James Barber and he already knew about this.

The accident you were referring to re another school child was the girl who was run over by a number 12 bus.

Coming down from Goose Green down ED Rd to turn right at the Rye has always been a nightmare, I now go down Nigel Road and go right (by Austins Court) so that I can go straight across ED Rd junction. It may take longer but it is at least safer.


I have avoided this area for weeks now with the road works as chaotic.


I think we should compile a list of all the dangerous crossings in ED and start a campaign for improvements. Unfortunately some of the major roads come under Boris not Southwark Council. Difficult as with Government money to the majority of London Councils being cut back for the next financial year - any council will struggle to get improvements.


My list would cover


ED Grove/ Lordship Lane.

Lordship Lane/Dulwich Common Road ( funding supposed to have been given)

Upland /Barry Roads.

Court Lane/Carlton Ave/Dulwich Village - despite the give way markings in this area nobody takes any notice.

its taken the death of a young child for the not so concerned parties to get the work at the said junction underway!! the workers are now as i type doing what should have been done weeks ago.... traffic will soon be back to normal at the junction with peckham rye, but sadly that wont bring back the life of this dear young girl.... to little done and to bl--dy late....... god bless and rest in peace....................
the gas leaks are now meraculasly repaired and the traffic lights at the junction with peckham rye are back to normal...thanks!! to all parties concerned - drive carefuly....... kill your speed, its 30 mph for a reason!!!!!!!

123-lisap Wrote:

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

> its taken the death of a young child for the not

> so concerned parties to get the work at the said

> junction underway!! too

> little done and to bl--dy late.......


xxxxxx


Yeh bloody disgusting and I hope some heads will roll over this (6)

If it did take the life of a 10 year old to get these roadworks sorted then someone should fooking pay for this. This is so so sad.


When is 20mph going to be introduced?? I thought it was to be the whole of Southwark?? Cannot come soon enough!


RIP!

Someone did post last night that the roadworks seemed to be coming to an end, "the Tarmac is on, the road markings painted, even the old lights seem to be on..". This doesn't make me think that the roadworks were finished because of the accident.

Mark Wrote:

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

> Someone did post last night that the roadworks

> seemed to be coming to an end, "the Tarmac is on,

> the road markings painted, even the old lights

> seem to be on..". This doesn't make me think that

> the roadworks were finished because of the

> accident.


The issue seems to be more about the time it has taken for the works to be completed. When I drove past at 3.30 this afternoon the temporary lights were still up and no-one was there to safely guide children on their way home from school. I know a number of people have been in contact with the council and contractors to demand action. What a shame that this action ie reinstating the lights is too little too late

Mark Wrote:

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

> Someone did post last night that the roadworks

> seemed to be coming to an end, "the Tarmac is on,

> the road markings painted, even the old lights

> seem to be on..". This doesn't make me think that

> the roadworks were finished because of the

> accident.



Fair play, if this is the case then I would retract what I posted.


RIP!

So so sorry to hear this sad news. I walked past that area this morning around 8ish and it was obvious there had been an accident on the road but I had no idea of this tragic outcome. Very shocked and saddened about this. xxxxxx

This is terrible. My thoughts go to the family.


But, can I ask a question? Is it standard practice for the driver in these incidents to be arrested? Surely the police only need to confirm name and address until they can ascertain the details (which, given they are asking for witnesses suggests that the full story has yet to be established).


I suspect the driver is going through a pretty rough time himself/herself. Playing a part in someone else's death, especially a child, must be awful, even if it was turns out to be an unavoidable accident. Adding the (possibly) needless trauma of being arrested only seems to be making a terrible time worse for no real reason.


(Of course, since the police have been actively DNA farming for a while, it's not a great surprise.)

These roadworks and terrible temporary lights have caused disruption for weeks now, and I have never once seen anyone actually working there.


It got so bad that I saw countless drivers racing through red lights out of frustration as the phase on the temporary lights was so bad. I find it disgusting that it took this tragedy for someone to pull their finger out and get these works finished. If they could have been finished this quickly and so not creating a dangerous crossing for both pedestrians and drivers, then why weren't they? Surely questions need to be asked here?

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...