Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Nigello Wrote:

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

> It is common sense that not everyone can

> accommodate a pushchair so I think it is fair for

> cafes to (sometimes) say no, politely - in the

> same way they would to someone who was carrying

> large amounts of luggage, for example. Nobody is

> going to run off with a buggy, especially if it is

> being eyed from the inside by the owner so it's

> not too much of an ordeal to be asked to not bring

> it in.

> People shouldn't take it as a slight or an assault

> on their (or their baby's) sense of self (but I

> have seen reactions that fit that description,

> alas).


The baby was asleep in the buggy so couldn't leave it outside. Small buggy and v small baby. My wife and I had carefully put it into a nice corner, not in anyone's way. When we had then sat down at the table next to it she asked us to move - there clearly wasn't anywhere to move to, it was busy.


They wont mind losing one couple as customers but her attitude was v poor and that was what irked me. They have to live with the feedback in the internet review age.

It may not have been smelly, but the point is she's got a bit of a cheek, and completely misses the irony of

moaning about buggys being left in doorways and then saying she's buying grub to eat on a bus, which I think is an equal display of bad manners.


Throwing stones and glass houses is a phrase that springs to mind.

Otta Wrote:

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

> How do you know the food was smelly or that

> slobbering was going on?


It's not a question of whether or not the food was smelly or if anyone was slobbering... ?


It's just plain anti social to eat on Public Transport...


There has to be a total ban.. otherwise who can dictate what can and what cannot be eaten...

Cheese & Onion sandwich.. ? Jamaica Patties...? Fish & Chips.. ? Kebabs.? Curry..?


I find flavoured crisps can be nasty..


DulwichFox..

Mick Mac - It wasn't a go at you at all. It was just a general thought. My point was that sometimes it's OK to bring in a buggy/bulging rucksack/kitchen sink, but not always (which is not what plenty of people think). Proprietors are put in a very difficult position so I would prefer it if people just thought a bit before thinking it's always OK to do what they want. I can't say I hold out much hope.....

earlydoors Wrote:

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

> I bet your fellow bus passengers wished a better

> job had been done of blocking you in with that

> buggy so that they didn't have to endure you

> slurping and slobbering over your smelly food on

> the bus.



How pathetic.


It was cold baguettes and there was no smell.

earlydoors Wrote:

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

> It may not have been smelly, but the point is

> she's got a bit of a cheek, and completely misses

> the irony of

> moaning about buggys being left in doorways and

> then saying she's buying grub to eat on a bus,

> which I think is an equal display of bad manners.

>

> Throwing stones and glass houses is a phrase that

> springs to mind.



WTF?


Are you for real?

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > How do you know the food was smelly or that

> > slobbering was going on?

>

> It's not a question of whether or not the food was

> smelly or if anyone was slobbering... ?

>

> It's just plain anti social to eat on Public

> Transport...

>

> There has to be a total ban.. otherwise who can

> dictate what can and what cannot be eaten...

> Cheese & Onion sandwich.. ? Jamaica Patties...?

> Fish & Chips.. ? Kebabs.? Curry..?

>

> I find flavoured crisps can be nasty..

>

> DulwichFox..



Hot food which has a strong smell is one thing.


I cant see how eating cold food which doesn't smell is anti social in the slightest.

earlydoors Wrote:

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

> Get over yourself. You've had a moan about what

> you consider anti social behaviour (someone

> leaving a buggy in your way) and when you get

> pulled up about what many others consider anti

> social behaviour ( eating on a bus) you have a

> hissy fit.



A buggy blocking the only entrance to a shop is in the same ball park to you as eating a baguette on a bus? To be absolutely clear, the buggy was actually immediately in front of the doorway. Nobody could get into or out of the shop.


And you consider my posts on this are "having a hissy fit"??


I don't think it's me who needs to get over myself :))


I see you only registered on the forum a fortnight ago. Maybe you should de-register and start again in a more pleasant frame of mind :)


ETA: And I never said anything about anti social behaviour. I said it was a lack of common sense. If you are going to criticise my posts and myself in such an extremely personal manner, at least get them right!

Eating food of any kind on a bus or train is not good sense, let alone good manners. Things spill, not everyone is likely to do the right thing and dispose of food and packaging correctly and some foods and drinks do smell unpleasant.

Neutral behaviour ought to be the name of the game in public spaces like transport. (I've had to pull people up from dropping freshly-sucked peach stones on the bus floor and eating a ketchup-enhanced chiili burgers in a packed Tube train and would do it again.) Nobody needs to eat on a bus, except perhaps a very young child/baby or a diabetic every now and then.


If you are hungry, go to Le Chandelier and eat your food in the correct place (to get this thread back on track!)

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Eating food of any kind on a bus or train is not

> good sense, let alone good manners. Things spill,

> not everyone is likely to do the right thing and

> dispose of food and packaging correctly and some

> foods and drinks do smell unpleasant.

> Neutral behaviour ought to be the name of the game

> in public spaces like transport. (I've had to pull

> people up from dropping freshly-sucked peach

> stones on the bus floor and eating a

> ketchup-enhanced chiili burgers in a packed Tube

> train and would do it again.) Nobody needs to eat

> on a bus, except perhaps a very young child/baby

> or a diabetic every now and then.

>

> If you are hungry, go to Le Chandelier and eat

> your food in the correct place (to get this thread

> back on track!)



That wasn't really the way to get the thread back on track, was it? :)


I'm interested in how people are much more keen to have a go at me than to comment on a buggy placed so that it prevented people from either entering or leaving a shop/restaurant.


To reiterate: It was a cold baguette. There was no smell. There were no crumbs. There was no litter left. We were on our way to a walk by the river the other side of London, travelling on two buses, and had no time to sit for ages in a cafe waiting to be served in order to spend five minutes or less eating a baguette.


If eating a cold baguette on a bus is bad then I'M SORRY!!!


I agree smelly food on a bus is bad (but ours wasn't smelly)!!!


I agree people who drop litter are bad (but we never drop litter, in fact we pick it up)!!!


I agree it's not good to do things which may annoy other people (but quietly eating cold non-smelly baguettes did not appear to be annoying any of the very few other people on the bus)!!!


I agree our time management was bad and we should have got food in the day before, got up earlier and eaten it before we left (Yes! We're crap, nasty, disorganised people) !!!!!


Let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone!!!!

I agree about a buggy being left in front of a door being annoying and ignorant....but eating on a bus can be considered in the same way by many people.

You have to accept that really whether you agree or not.

I'm sure the person who left the buggy in front of the door did it absently minded and didn't intend it to ruffle your feathers so much.

Both examples of mildly anti social behaviour and we are indeed all guilty at some time or other.

fonread Wrote:

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

> Embarrssing.

>

> Not sure what's worse, the guff written about the

> Brick House buns or this drivel. It's just insane!



Christ, so now I'm not just anti-social, I'm embarrassing too. Or rather, embarrssing.


I'm off to the river again to throw myself in :))

earlydoors Wrote:

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

> Sue does the world all revolve around you?



Yes, my world does.


Who does your world revolve around?


:))


And my feathers weren't "ruffled so much" by the buggy. They were ruffled by the ridiculous assumptions and personal attacks on me made on this thread. Which if memory serves were started by you.


And now I'm off to do other things. Enjoy your day :)

When we had young children we had two (second hand) buggies - one packed flat down to nothing (we used that on public transport, and when visiting places) and one was slightly more commodious and comfortable - nowadays buggies are massive and obtrusive (and I am sure much more comfortable for their occupants). I can quite understand why some small outlets would wish to restrict these 4X4 Chelsea Tractor buggies entrance. On the other hand, if you are running an expensive cafe in ED and expect to survive whilst making the yummy mummy brigade unwelcome then your business plan is badly flawed. Setting aside a secure buggy park would seem the sensible option. Not to take it (and to make those with pre-school children feel unwelcome) is asking for failure.


And if you are travelling at lunch time into town from ED by bus it is often logistically sensible to take a snack on route so that you can use your (often 45 minutes to an hour, with all the cr*p at the Elephant) journey time effectively - but I would absolutely agree that hot and smelly snacks are unsocial.

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...