Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Are you sure?

In my diary it's not till Thursday 4th March.

Who told you it's tomorrow?



Nik Wrote:

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

> The next Peckham Rye Police Ward Panel meeting is

> tomorrow evening at Harris Girls School at 7pm.

> The meetings are open to all and are usually

> attended by local Police, PCSOs, Community

> Wardens, representatives from Friends of Peckham

> Rye Park and residents.

PR, What a shame the date was changed, cannot make tonight- can you please let us know of any news with regard to this issue and indeed of the concern of many forumites that something is done to the owners of dangerous dogs and dogs not under control, but that this concern is not twisted into a means to penalise the majority of law abiding dog owners.
I went along tonight to the Peckham Rye Ward Panel Meeting. I raised this issue with the panel - which included Police, PCSOs and Community Wardens. No one was aware of the specifics of the attack as no formal complaint has been made. They were aware of some of the discussions on the forum. The Police and PCSO will discuss the wider issue of dangerous dogs over the course of the next three months and we will discuss the best approach to be taken at the next meeting. The Police take the whole issue seriously but need incidents to be reported to the Police. I would encourage anyone with an interest in this issue, or any other local concerns to attend the next meeting on Thursday 20th May 2010, 7 pm at Harris Girls School

Nik Wrote:

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

> I went along tonight to the Peckham Rye Ward Panel

> Meeting. I raised this issue with the panel -

> which included Police, PCSOs and Community

> Wardens. No one was aware of the specifics of the

> attack as no formal complaint has been made. They

> were aware of some of the discussions on the

> forum. The Police and PCSO will discuss the wider

> issue of dangerous dogs over the course of the

> next three months and we will discuss the best

> approach to be taken at the next meeting. The

> Police take the whole issue seriously but need

> incidents to be reported to the Police. I would

> encourage anyone with an interest in this issue,

> or any other local concerns to attend the next

> meeting on Thursday 20th May 2010, 7 pm at Harris

> Girls School



Come on people, if you have had cause for concern about dogs and their owners you should report it to the authorities. Nothing is going to happen unless you complain. This forum should not just be a talking shop, it should be a means to action. Mobilise!

Emilydrab was quite clear that she had given the police all the details she had plus involving the SNT and the RSPCA, so it is odd that the police claim to have heard nothing other than via the forum. I wonder did the police ask her to make a formal complaint or as she seemed to imply were they not that interested and so advised that there was little point?

Oh sadly I didn't see the message that the meeting was changed. Just to tell anyone new to this debate who didn't see my earlier post (I'm the owner of the poor dog that got attacked, Woody) that it was reported to the police on the day it happened - there was no way I was just going to let this just happen without taking action.

And I've got some update for followers of this thread. The police told me yesterday that the dog who attacked Woody is going to be destroyed. Apparently the owner of Monty the American bulldog took his dog to be put down a couple of days after the incident - I was really pleased to hear this as it showed he wasn't so uncaring as he seemed at the time of the attack. Apparently the vet wouldn't put him down immediately because he hadn't attacked a human but they took the dog off the owner. But now the police are involved the dog is going to be destroyed. It's sad to think of a dog dying but I can't see how any amount of training would take away the instinct of this dog to want to kill other little dogs and maybe move onto kids you could see it in the dog's eyes - I am sure it's the right decision.

Other news is that Woody is recovering well, the light has come back into his eyes and I'm sure he's going to be all right even if he does have a limp. Thanks to everyone for their support through this nightmare.

PS I can't understand why the police at the meeting say they don't know about the case when they've been so heavily involved. Two policemen have been round to see me and they've taken action against the owner. This is really strange. I'm going to email them and ask. I think this must be a case of non joined up thinking which is not a good thing to help sort out problems like this in the future.

emilydrab,


Yes, you've highlighted a lack of joined up thinking by the police on a very public forum- it does not invite confidence. Let's hope the MET, SNT, relevant councillors etc.. take note. I'm sure we will all do our best to make the meeting in May.


On another note, I cannot help but feel mixed reactions about Monty. Some dogs, like people, are born bad bad most are made that way by their owners. I very much doubt that Monty's owner encouraged his dog to attack other dogs, but simply couldn't be bothered to train him or deal with his specific breed traits. Had he done so, Monty might have lived his life out happily and Woody would not have had to pay such a high price. Very sad.


Well done Emily, you did the right thing.

I very much doubt that Monty's owner encouraged his dog to attack other dogs, but simply couldn't be bothered to train him or deal with his specific breed traits. Had he done so, Monty might have lived his life out happily and Woody would not have had to pay such a high price. Very sad.


I doubt if we know (please correct me if I am wrong) the full history of this dog - if it was a legal breed then it could have been a rescue dog, in which case Monty's last owner may not have been responsible for its disposition - as a rescue dog of this type it might have been initially trained as a fighting dog - these are 'given' small dogs by their trainers to practice on (which is what can happen to small breeds which are stolen - dreadful thought). If the dog was later abandoned and 'rescued' it may already have been trained to attack small dogs, and simply have reverted in this dreadful incident. (I don't believe that dogs known to have been trained to fight are put up for rescue, but an abandoned stray without a history might be). I know a number of people with rescue dogs, some of these have led very hard early lives and can be untrainable regarding some habits. My brother-in-law had a dog which had been cruelly treated by children before its rescue and had to be kept very separate from them, - it was a very small breed and thus not particularly dangerous - but it would be very uneasy around 10 year olds - roughly top-end primary - (its tormentors) - babies and older adolescents didn't cause it a problem. It didn't go out to attack children, but would defend itself aggressively if it thought it was cornered by them and couldn't escape. Given its history it couldn't be blamed for that, but its owner had to ensure that it wasn't placed in that position.

In the case of this dog there are a number of accounts of it attacking other dogs, not just Woody. Woody was the last that we know of. Any responsible owner, knowing that their dog might attack other dogs would not let their dog offlead toroam a public park. In this case this is exactly what the owner did. I do not believe this dog was a rescue, but even if he was, the facts point to the fault for the attack on Woody being the fault of the owner, absolutely.

if it was a legal breed then it could have been a rescue dog, in which case Monty's last owner may not have been responsible for its disposition - as a rescue dog of this type it might have been initially trained as a fighting dog - these are 'given' small dogs by their trainers to practice on (which is what can happen to small breeds which are stolen - dreadful thought). If the dog was later abandoned and 'rescued' it may already have been trained to attack small dogs, and simply have reverted in this dreadful incident. (I don't believe that dogs known to have been trained to fight are put up for rescue, but an abandoned stray without a history might be). I know a number of people with rescue dogs, some of these have led very hard early lives and can be untrainable regarding some habits.


I would have assumed (and know) that rescue centres do valuations on rescue dogs to see what their behaviour is like in diferent situations i.e. with kids, food, aggression etc before they rehome it to anyone and if they feel if the dog is too aggressive then they would have to make the decision to put the animal to sleep. I would guess that no rescue centre would rehome a dog if they believed it posed a risk at all.

I've spoken to the police and the reason they didn't raise the issue of this case at the meeting was because the case wasn't complete. By the next meeting we'll be able to talk about it. I must say I'm really happy with the way they have dealt with the whole incident. They did take it seriously and did take action.

Go the SNT!

Yes as I suspected, this is what happened. The Peckham Rye team and the Lane team are totally separate and it's the Lane team who have done all the work in this case. The Lane sergeant said he is goiing to let the Peckham Rye team know about this so everything is joined up.
Before we judge the police too hastily my impression is that The Lane SNT would have let Peckham Rye SNT know as soon as the case was completed - anyone who works for an any kind of organisation knows it's pretty common for delays in internal communication. But in fact Peckham Rye SNT were my first port of call and then they passed me onto The Lane so they should have known anyway... and as she said in her post, Peckham Rose emailed them too...
most dogs were bread to fight in one way or another many many years ago , they had a job to do like flushing rats out, sheep herding protecting farms etc, some dogs was bread to safe and help life's. in the right hands any breed can do the right job. working dog is a happy dog. but its us humans that have tried to keep a wild animal in our homes and treat them has humans and not understand what make a dog tick. take us humans out of our natural environment without the right guidance's we would act the same. i see it every day in the park a unbalanced dog or dogs. each dog in my pack have a job and i exercise them well i like to think they are balanced dogs. please dont blame the dog or breed of dog blame the human. we all have been unbalanced in our lifes in some way and got the help or advise to get us back on track, dogs cant ask for help so lets help them to give them and us a happier life in our homes and in the park.
Totally agree with you Dulwich dogman - but the most unnatural thing of all is keeping your dog in a crate for six weeks believe me and that's what I have to do with Woody after he was attacked. Yes it's not the breed it's the deed but some breeds are harder to handle than others and I do think after what I've read that you should need a special license to keep certain breeds. Basically an unbalanced pug is going to be a lot less of a pain in the bum than an unbalanced American bull dog.

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...