Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, first mate said:

As for the unnecessary tone on your part (mush);

Proper south London lingo that, mush.

 

3 minutes ago, first mate said:

the forum supports difference of opinion and I will continue to state my views, including on this.

Absolutely and ditto.

 

4 minutes ago, first mate said:

n regard to Gala, no implication, Cllr rose has stated she wants to increase events in our parks, so probably not just Gala if she has her way, more the Brockwell Park model and you probably know what many local residents feel about that. If you don't believe me

Oh i do. I also know that many residents aren't fussed about Gala doing their thing. It's all about opinions isn't it!

Gala doing their thing for three days, what about when it becomes 6 and then yet more events are added to that? In earlier posts you said you were not aware about Gala extending as something that nearly happened and was withdrawn at a late stage.

James McCash has also stated in meetings that he would like to see all cars taken off the streets of Southwark and streets open for children to play in- presumably all the time. So you see, the Council suggestion to have a 'lil partee' to celebrate no cars is underpinned by an intention that extends well beyond just one day.

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

Gala doing their thing for three days, what about when it becomes 6 and then yet more events are added to that? In earlier posts you said you were not aware about Gala extending as something that nearly happened and was withdrawn at a late stage.

James McCash has also stated in meetings that he would like to see all cars taken off the streets of Southwark and streets open for children to play in- presumably all the time. So you see, the Council suggestion to have a 'lil partee' to celebrate no cars is underpinned by an intention that extends well beyond just one day.

In your opinion

The opinions expressed are partly mine but much more me just passing on what the council has said it wants to do to increase park hire for private events and ridding the streets of all cars.
 

 I will add to that a possibility that councillors may be seduced by the Lime dollar and remove parking space on every street to make way for Lime e-bike and scooter storage and use. I don't quite know how a proliferation of e-bikes and scooters sits with the aim of getting children to play in the street, not at the speeds I have seen some of them go...

Edited by first mate
4 minutes ago, first mate said:

The opinions expressed are partly mine but much more me just passing on what the council has said it wants to do in increasing park hire for private events and ridding the streets of all cars.

All cars? Every single car parked on the road? First i've heard of that. Hardly a vote winner and it would be a huge hit in revenue streams for them.

Yes, so it is about balance. Quite how we decide who deserves to use a car remains to be seen but Cllr McAsh did say that; perhaps it was a moment of levity, playing to the 'stakeholder' gallery, who knows. 

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, first mate said:

The opinions expressed are partly mine but much more me just passing on what the council has said it wants to do to increase park hire for private events and ridding the streets of all cars.
 

 I will add to that a possibility that councillors may be seduced by the Lime dollar and remove parking space on every street to make way for Lime e-bike and scooter storage and use. I don't quite know how a proliferation of e-bikes and scooters sits with the aim of getting children to play in the street, not at the speeds I have seen some of them go...

Have you seen the proliferation of Lime bikes on Blenheim Grove? Sooooooooooooooooooooo many Lime bikes in front of All Saints Church. 

10 hours ago, Dulwich dweller said:

All cars? Every single car parked on the road? First i've heard of that. Hardly a vote winner and it would be a huge hit in revenue streams for them.

You are right, the Southwark Labour Party manifesto I think 2 elections ago, but it might have been 3, only declared that it wanted to drive out privately owned cars from Southwark. Private ownership of anything is of course anathema to a certain part of the socialist universe, including those who have only recently withdrawn 'Marxist' from their personal description. 

And, yes, their hatred of privately owned cars and their reliance on revenues derived from the same does show a lack of consistency and common sense. 

Edited by Penguin68
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
11 hours ago, first mate said:

I will add to that a possibility that councillors may be seduced by the Lime dollar

Discussion of a street party has moved into full-on conspiracy theory mode.

#southwarkderangementsyndrome

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Seeing as most roads have existed well before cars,  maybe its car drivers rather than pedestrians should be applying for permission to use the roads. 

More seriously there seems to be a small hardcore of people on here worried that someone,  somewhere might actually be having fun. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
1 hour ago, Cyclemonkey said:

Seeing as most roads have existed well before cars,  maybe its car drivers rather than pedestrians should be applying for permission to use the roads. 

Existed as dirt roads maybe in ED, but as paved roads with pavements here not until the advent of motor vehicles, I think you'll find. As far as paved and user friendly roads in the suburbs it was cars wot done it. 

33 minutes ago, snowy said:

I think the cycling touring club and the Roads Improvement Association in the late 19th century would correct you on that assumption. 

Yep, there are reports in the South London Press and South London Chronicle that Camberwell Vestry (the former body reponsible for local administrative matters) ordered the paving of some streets in East Dulwich in the 1870s which extended the entire width of the road. Advertisements for houses to rent in, for example, Ulverscroft Road in the 1880s boasted the street was paved as a selling point.

Edited by Jenijenjen
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

What is road tax?

Road taxation has existed since the 17th century to pay for building and maintenance of Britain's highways, and in 1909 the Road Fund was established to collect road tax for the financing and administration of road building and maintenance.

A tax specifically for motor vehicles was first introduced in 1920, but after 1937 the Road Fund and any ring-fencing of the vehicle excise duty for the specific financing of roads was ended. 

Since then all UK road tax is paid into the government's Consolidated Fund and road maintenance is financed out of general taxation.

I am interested to know how many posters here support Southwark's stated intention to remove all private cars from the streets. For those that need to use a car how do you see this working? 
 

If a major intention of getting rid of cars is to free up streets for children to play, for socialising etc., how does e-bike and scooter use fit into this idea? Given other cities have now banned these because they are so dangerous I am interested to understand the thinking. Southwark is looking at removing car parking spaces on every street and installing e-bikes and e-scooters in the space instead.

you seem personally offended that there may be a suggestion that there are too many cars on the roads and people are aware of that.

Just fancy, the whole entire world having a car free day yet there is an issue in a little burb of london.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Blimey o'reily 

This really has moved from its intended purpose, promoting street parties as part of World car free day to anti southwarks anti car policy.

Personally, I think we need to separate the two (southwark and world car free day) and concentrate on a simpler view.

1. Which roads are interested in hosting a street party ? 

2. Has enough time been left to organise street parties? 

Let's be frank here, when we used to have "the big lunch" street parties no one really objected to roads being closed so the issue here seems to be that it is associated with a car free day. 

I agree with other posters that Southwark has expressed an opinion about removing all privately owned cars but let's not mistake that as the sole reason for a street party,the two things are separate and its not about kids playing in the streets in general but streets getting together to party. Surely not a bad thing after covid locked us all up for ages and reconnecting with Mrs Miggens down the street who lost her husband is a good thing after all.

I fear if we drive this down the anti car road any further it will get moved to the transport section rather than being a place to discuss the good things that come out of street parties. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
22 minutes ago, first mate said:

I am interested to know how many posters here support Southwark's stated intention to remove all private cars from the streets.

Is that before or after the Bill Gates COVID microchips are implanted in us? 

 

1 hour ago, Cyclemonkey said:

Romans were also well kown for producing a good walkable road surface.

The woke active travel conspiracy goes back further than I thought!

  • Haha 2

Okay, let's just say we'd like some street parties and to do that we need to close the street- to all traffic. A nice side benefit is kids can play in the space while the adults socialise and have fun. 

I can see that residents think, yes, a party would be nice and they organise it. Supposing there is a good turnout, you just know this will be spun as overwhelming support for Southwark's car/street plans. 

3 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Is that before or after the Bill Gates COVID microchips are implanted in us? 

 

The woke active travel conspiracy goes back further than I thought!

Are you denying Southwark have said this- about the cars, of course.

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...