Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was happily doing my usual school run route when I hit some congestion on Hillsboro Road. This is not unusual but on most occasions it sorts itself easily. However, the other day when I saw the congestion, I past what I thought were parked cars dropping children of at Alleyn's and I pulled into a gap, I was soon approached by an angry man that accused me of being stupid and couldn't I see that they were waiting. NO I couldn't, I thought you were parked! Anyway, it wasn't long before a woman joined in to say, very nicely, that the parents of Alleyn's have a rule that Hillsboro Road is a one way street that comes down from the opposite direction I was going in. I was getting fed up at this point so smiled, said it wasn't usually a problem and swiftly turned round to change my route.

As the day went on I kept thinking how cheeky it was that parents of Alleyn's have decided to change driving restrictions on a PUBLIC road. I do appreciate it's difficult to find parking near any school for morning drop off and it's also a problem at my child's school but why don't you try parking a little further away, I DO! Many of us residents of nearby streets are perfectly entitled to use Hillsboro Road anyway we want, THANKS!

I've seen this kind of mutually agreed one way system work extremely well in a similar situation in North London. However the school there worked very hard to have strong links with the local community. Sadly Alleyns doesn't, & the parents have set up this system whilst neglecting to tell 80% of the local residents of their plans. Note I say 'tell' not, 'negotiate' or 'suggest this course of action to'. They did post notes to those on Hillsborough rd, but not to anyone on the Dutch Estate, or Thornecombe, Glengarry, Tarbert or Trossachs Rds - all of whom use Hillsborough to get to & from their homes (when we can). It could work well with a little good will and effort, I'm sure many in the local community would be willing to give it a go, but it needs to be mutually agreed & adequately policed (by this I mean two or three parent volunteers out each drop off, pick up time for a week or so informing people of what they're doing, plus some basic signage reminders of which way the traffic should be flowing pinned on Alleyns fence - nothing fancy)in the set up period in order to work sufficiently well enough to ease the congestion.


It does seem to me to be another typical Alleys "we're doing this & *!%* the lot of you" scheme. they've been very cackhanded in their approach & management of this. Poor show from them again. Shame really.

I think the appropriate reply in this situation would be along the lines of:


"You can make whatever agreement amongst yourselves you like but I adhere to the law of the land and your cosy little agreements are b****er all to do with me so **** off!"


Alternatively, you could tell them that you and a group of ED residents had decided amongst yourselves that the road in question was to become a toll-road and that you were there as designated collector to take ?10 of all the other users, so hand over the dosh! See how they react to that.

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> I think the appropriate reply in this situation

> would be along the lines of:

>

> "You can make whatever agreement amongst

> yourselves you like but I adhere to the law of the

> land and your cosy little agreements are b****er

> all to do with me so **** off!"

>

> Alternatively, you could tell them that you and a

> group of ED residents had decided amongst

> yourselves that the road in question was to become

> a toll-road and that you were there as designated

> collector to take ?10 of all the other users, so

> hand over the dosh! See how they react to that.



^


totally that!! ha ha ha ha that cracked me up

I viewed the situation described in the original post slightly differently ie that Alleyns parents, having realised the problems that drop off traffic cause on that road, have decided that they will operate a one-way system for Alleyn parents only thus reducing the impact of the school run. In this case there was confusion between the original poster and the parents dropping off as to who the rule was applied to. Perhaps they thought she was a parent trying to pick up her child.

Domitianus Wrote:

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

>

> Alternatively, you could tell them that you and a

> group of ED residents had decided amongst

> yourselves that the road in question was to become

> a toll-road and that you were there as designated

> collector to take ?10 of all the other users, so

> hand over the dosh! See how they react to that.


LOL! I'm so gonna try that one! Perhaps TheAllSeeingEye could join me?

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> Does it matter? Fact is. whether one is an

> Alleyn's parent or not - they can still choose to

> obey the real law rather than the made-up law of

> the Alleyn's "We own the roads" posse.



It's good news is it not that peer pressure rather than laws can improve the traffic congestion outside a school. KC should not have been asked to turn around but aside from that its great that parents can come up with a partial solution to this problem

It might be good news if it hadn't taken them 11 years after the suggestion was first mooted to instigate it. I've grown people in the time it's taken them to realise that this approach could work (well, it might if they handled it properly). Rubbish response time from Alleyns really.

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> I agree that parents agreeing a practical solution

> amongst themselves is positive. I am not so

> comfortable with the fact that some appear to be

> trying to 'enforce' this rather than seeing it as

> a type of voluntary code.


I agree entirely.

> Domitianus Wrote:

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

> I agree that parents agreeing a practical

> solution amongst themselves is positive. I am not

> so comfortable with the fact that some appear to

> be trying to 'enforce' this rather than seeing it

> as a type of voluntary code.


It's not a matter of comfort, nor of community relations, nor of positivity. Obstructing the highway is a matter for the police.


If they want to campaign to have the status of the road revised, there are legal and democratic means to do so, and they are free to approach the proper authorities. As it stands, their actions amount to mob rule and should be condemned outright.


paragraph removed following complaints The Administrator

Very rarely does this forum make me cross. I find it most useful on many an occasion. BUT how dare you Burbage use such language talking about other people and their children. 'nauseating spawn' - what makes you say such appalling things about young children??? What is it that enrages you so much?

Sorry, totally forgot to say what I was going to say in the first place.


No, Hillsborough is not a one way street and that is obviously for good reason. But what is wrong with parents trying to make it work for all involved by going in one way and going out another for half an hour a day? Anybody who has ever been in the unfortunate situation of having to go through this road at school time may think it is a good idea. Random parking, dropping off etc on both sides of the road are really dangerous and the traffic jam causes road rage with no extra help needed.


Obviously...doing the vigilante thing is overstepping the mark on many levels...and I think you should be cross Knackered Cow, I would be. But most of these people take their children to school and go off to work, they don't like driving through this road any more than anybody else would.

Perhaps a solution would be for said parents to collect their children on one of the other roads nearby rather than having to congregate on this street? If my information is correct Alleyns pupils are above ten years of age and can presumably be expected to stroll a hundred yards or so without walking in front of a car/falling down a mine shaft/taking sweets from strage men etc etc?


Or would that be an 'elf an' safety issue?

They shouldn't be using so many cars to take their precious babies to school. They should carpool or how about this - make their children walk/use public transport!


Do you have any evidence that (some at least) of 'them' don't do these things? Alleyn's is a very large school, if all parents were just bringing one of their 'precious babes' (I'm glad that you, if you have children of your own, obviously and rightly disdain and despise them, it's just so middle class to value and love your own children) there would be horrendous jams (much more than now) all around the school.


As I said in an earlier message (expunged as the message it was replying to was also expunged) it is clear that Gordon Brown's belief that he can win the next election on a class war basis clearly still has some mileage in SE22.


I should add that I too believe that the action of these parents in trying to enforce a unilateral chnage of road use is out of order

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> They shouldn't be using so many cars to take their

> precious babies to school. They should carpool or

> how about this - make their children walk/use

> public transport!

>

> Do you have any evidence that (some at least) of

> 'them' don't do these things? Alleyn's is a very

> large school, if all parents were just bringing

> one of their 'precious babes' (I'm glad that you,

> if you have children of your own, obviously and

> rightly disdain and despise them, it's just so

> middle class to value and love your own children)

> there would be horrendous jams (much more than

> now) all around the school.

>

> As I said in an earlier message (expunged as the

> message it was replying to was also expunged) it

> is clear that Gordon Brown's belief that he can

> win the next election on a class war basis clearly

> still has some mileage in SE22.

>

> I should add that I too believe that the action of

> these parents in trying to enforce a unilateral

> chnage of road use is out of order



It's not entirely surprising that such a response to my generally light-hearted post should appear! What on earth are you going on about though re "disdaining/despising"? Are you inferring that middle class people "value and love" their children more than other people? If not, forgive me but I found your post confused and ever so slightly bizarre.

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...