I ate in LM once, and it was actually OK-ish. But even my parents would find the decor and the menu hopelessly dated. People's tastes have changed in the last 30 years, and if a business can't grasp that simple fact then I'm afraid they are going to struggle. Being local/independent doesn't give you an automatic entitlement to a loyal customer base.

So does that mean we can have a Waitrose and Marks and Spencer.

As a radio program would say

Mornigton Cresent.

However I do object to a serious but possibly over reactioned set of postings to be hijacked as a way having a slagging match between various parties.

Shall I start a slagging match thread?

Quote:

Louisa
I promote people to be cautious of strangers and always on your toes when your human instinct kicks in and you suspect someone of being threatening or ever so slighty dodgy. Many of the middle-class people in ED, with the greatest respect, tend to live in a fantasy wet behind the ears world where e regime is lovely and you won't come across harm if your nice to people etc - this is London, it's been a vile, corrupt, suspicious and crime ridden city for centuries

What a nasty and suspicious person you are. I was born and brought up in London and have lived here on and off over the last 50+ years. In the 50's I caught buses and tubes, went to the Children's Exhibition with other school friends, went on Green Rover trips, got drunk in Soho and elsewhere as a young man, went to dodgy pubs at strange hours, wandered dark streets at night and I have always, always found that assuming the best and expecting the best pays dividends. This has stood me in good stead in some really dodgy spots (Harlem in the 70's; Amsterdam docks, Glasgow on a Saturday night in the 70s).

Only a few years back my then 11 year old son caught the wrong train back from school and became completely lost in South London and ran out of juice on his mobile phone - a stranger recognised his uniform, asked what the problem was, bought him a cola, sat him down in a cafe and rang home to advise of the problem. They then stayed with my son until I arrived to collect him, buying yet more cola and biscuits and refusing all recompense from me when I arrived. That's the sort of London I inhabit and the sort of London most of us inhabit. Suspicion engenders suspicion and damages community relations.

Be nice and people will, usually, be nice back to you.

Mark you it does perhaps help to be 6'5" and well built



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was 2012:03:20:16:42:52 by Marmora Man.

Here's a real story that happened at a school: There was a sports event and parents watching. One group of parents decided that a parent over there doing nothing special away from them looked dodgy so they decided to call the police. True story. Actually, I'm a little ish white woman and the same thing without the police happened to me... I was watching something my son was involved in and I was on the wrong side of a chain link fence and people decided I was dodgy and treated me like a dodgy person. hmmmm in fact there are people who know me who think I am dodgy

mynamehere Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a real story that happened at a school:
> There was a sports event and parents watching. One
> group of parents decided that a parent over there
> doing nothing special away from them looked dodgy
> so they decided to call the police. True story.
> Actually, I'm a little ish white woman and the
> same thing without the police happened to me... I
> was watching something my son was involved in and
> I was on the wrong side of a chain link fence and
> people decided I was dodgy and treated me like a
> dodgy person. hmmmm in fact there are people who
> know me who think I am dodgy


hi if you are thinking that the man was like you innocently watching his own child then this is def not the case. The re was know-one else in the park except myself and my children. He was standing by the flats as we approached the park, on seeing us entering the park he then came in too And was watching me and my children only,there wasn't anyone else there.

also following up comments that are suggesting he is perhaps special needs/care in the community I of course can't be sure but I don't think so. Ive worked with people with special needs and I didn't get that impression from him.

There's dodgy and there's dodgy. A young man hanging around a playground may be doing so because he knows there will be lots of distracted mums not keeping enough of an eye on their handbag. Let's take heed of the warning and watch bags and children but also remember that there are some terribly lonely people out there with limited social skills and whose attempts to make contact with the rest of the human race may come across badly at times.

I was helping my friend build a shed in his garden once when his wife asked him to
take his children to the park - I went too. While he played with the children on
the slide, I was left standing rather embarrassed at the edge of the playground.



AbDabs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's dodgy and there's dodgy. A young man
> hanging around a playground may be doing so
> because he knows there will be lots of distracted
> mums not keeping enough of an eye on their
> handbag. Let's take heed of the warning and watch
> bags and children but also remember that there are
> some terribly lonely people out there with limited
> social skills and whose attempts to make contact
> with the rest of the human race may come across
> badly at times.

Why didnt you join in?

Just to say thanks for the info, I regularly take my daughter to the park as we live on the estate. We are there on our own more often than not. I've never seen anyone hanging around, that I can recall. Just to say though there has been a police presence on the estate over the last 3 days or so, one policewoman 'patrolling' as it were. Maybe this is the reason?

From what ice been told there were quite a few reports from different people last week with concerns about a man all fitting the same description so that prob is the reason.

A friend who has lived in London many years gave me this advice: Take a pic of the suspected dodgy person on your phone and send it to a friend or your partner. Then if the worst is true and you are mugged for your phone etc, at least someone has a record of the person's face. Also, simply taking the pic might deter the person from approaching you. That's just some advice I was given. Thankfully I've never had to use said advice.

Also re "care in the community", the sad but honest truth is that being in some way less able mentally or physically does not necessarily mean that the person is not up to something dodgy. I'm not at all casting aspersions. I'm making a statement about the corruptability of human nature. Rotten people can come in all shapes and forms.

Especially for women, follow your instincts. Lone women or women with small children are easy targets for crime. If it is truly a case of mistaken identity, the innocent person shouldn't feel insulted. An honest mistake is just a mistake.

@Saffron

Surely taking pictures of seemingly suspect men and women in public - however 'dodgy' they may be acting, towards you or others - could eventually (or instantly) invite/spark an aggressive, or at least suspicious, reaction from one of the potential rogues in your gallery? Good idea in theory, but unnecessarily risky in practice.

It's no riskier than doing nothing, b/c you don't want accidentally to insult an innocent person.

I think the idea is that you're supposed to take the pic in public view at a distance. If someone is dodgy enough to make aggressive actions towards you from a distance just for taking a picture, then it's a good thing that you've got a pic for your police report. If you felt uncomfortable, you also could take a pic surreptitiously.

If someone is acting dodgy towards you somewhere out of the immediate view of others (or within close range in public), you should contact the police as others have suggested. This is the kind of issue their service was meant to address.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2012:03:21:18:54:01 by Saffron.

Surely there is a risk that on realising they are being photographed, a person who wasn't actually doing anything sinister initially, could respond aggressively.

@Saffron

Steady on there, 007. The risks outweight the positives, and if you "think" that snapping ordinary members of the public, however 'shifty' they might look, should be done from a distance, then you should've said so in the beginning seeing as you're the one who suggested such a bizarre measure against people who still remain innocent of anything except rousing your own suspicions. What you're encouraging is a more intrusive measure than CCTV, without official sanction. It would be against the law and could potentially leave you vulnerable to litigation served by an aggrieved party who objects to being photographed in public by an anxious and/or paranoid pedestrian. How would you react if you saw someone secretly or "serreptitiously" taking pictures of another member of the public who you didn't feel threatened by? One can only assume that you'd think the worst. Sorry, but the risks do outweigh the positives. By quite a lot, in fact.

jelly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Saffron
>
> Steady on there, 007. The risks outweight the
> positives, and if you "think" that snapping
> ordinary members of the public, however 'shifty'
> they might look, should be done from a distance,
> then you should've said so in the beginning seeing
> as you're the one who suggested such a bizarre
> measure against people who still remain innocent
> of anything except rousing your own suspicions.
> What you're encouraging is a more intrusive
> measure than CCTV, without official sanction. It
> would be against the law and could potentially
> leave you vulnerable to litigation served by an
> aggrieved party who objects to being photographed
> in public by an anxious and/or paranoid
> pedestrian. How would you react if you saw someone
> secretly or "serreptitiously" taking pictures of
> another member of the public who you didn't feel
> threatened by? One can only assume that you'd
> think the worst. Sorry, but the risks do outweigh
> the positives. By quite a lot, in fact.

Out of curiosity - what law would this break? If taking photographs of people in public breaks the law we must assume that probably millions of unlawful acts are committed on a daily basis in this fashion.

Photographing people in public does not break any laws!

I don't know about any laws that could or would be broken, but if I saw that I'd been photographed by a member of the public with no visible or apparent reason for doing so (I'm not easily flattered), I'd certainly feel that my privacy has been impinged upon. Wouldn't you? I might even indulge my suspicion by personally by demanding why the photographer had taken my picture, thus rendering their motive in this particular scenario counter-productive. And the result of having my photograph taken by a complete stranger in public might give me cause to warn others in East Dulwich via this forum that there's a potential predator stalking the area for otherwise unsuspecting victims. Vicious circle, anyone?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit was 2012:03:21:22:08:29 by jelly.

You could "demand" as much as you like, but they won't have broken any law if you're in a public place.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like it either, but if you're in a public place there's no law being broken if a complete stranger takes your photograph.

In that case we're just as entitled to follow, or act suspiciously towards - thus, without fear of reproach - fellow members of the public.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2012:03:21:23:28:23 by jelly.

but if you're in a public place there's no law being broken if a complete stranger takes your photograph

Open season on snapping kiddies then...and nothing anyone on the forum can (legally) do about it, apparently. Actually, it's strange that you can photograph anyone in a public place (and that's right, you can) but you can be arrested for photographing a station or a public building or a bridge (from a public place) under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Indeed, you could be arrested if in photographing a person (legally) a building was in the background.

Strange how the west is so often wrong and aboriginal people's right.

Taking a photo DOES steal your soul.



Husker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You could "demand" as much as you like, but they
> won't have broken any law if you're in a public
> place.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like it either, but
> if you're in a public place there's no law being
> broken if a complete stranger takes your
> photograph.

Don't take pictures and potentially provoke a reaction! If your instinct kicks in, as it should do with any animal, then do the right thing and call the police. At worst the person will be questioned and if thought to harmless let on their way. It's common sense surely? All this wishy-washy crap about thinking the best in people is coming from those least likely to ever be attacked or at risk of attack because they tower above the rest of us and hold themselves in a certain way, a vulnerable mother and child doesn't have such a luxury does she?

Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't take pictures and potentially provoke a
> reaction! If your instinct kicks in, as it should
> do with any animal, then do the right thing and
> call the police. At worst the person will be
> questioned and if thought to harmless let on their
> way. It's common sense surely? All this
> wishy-washy crap about thinking the best in people
> is coming from those least likely to ever be
> attacked or at risk of attack because they tower
> above the rest of us and hold themselves in a
> certain way, a vulnerable mother and child doesn't
> have such a luxury does she?
>
> Louisa.


Here here!

The paparazzi wouldn't exist if photographing people in public were illegal! And what about all of the CCTV and the police filming of protestors, etc.? I seriously doubt the police would be doing it if it were illegal..?!

Yeah of course the Police never do anything illegal.

Sticks head in Sand and Wonders if NOW and Levinson ever happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2012:03:24:10:37:55 by the-e-dealer.

Look, can we have just a smidgen of common sense here please? People have been taking photographs of other people in public places since cameras were invented. With the limited exceptions of certain potential terrorist targets or photographing someone to the extent of it being persistent harrassment over time, or intruding on someone's privacy by photographing them in a palce where they are entitled to expect privacy (such as their own home or secluded garden) the notion that taking a picture of someone is illegal is just absurd. If it was illegal you would have hundreds of celebs queuing outside police stations to make complaints that would have paparazzi slammed up in their droves.

That is not to say, of course, that people won't object to it personally and some might get a bit belligerent,but the notion that it is illegal is simply untenable.

Don't even think about taking your camera to the park Damien, if you do you're a braver man than I *sharpens pitchfork*

Damian H I agree. I was dancing in my seat to entertain a toddler behind us in McDonald's in the old
Kent road on Sunday and somebody else seemed it worthy of filming without asking me.

I am secretly hoping it might go viral ;)

fuzzyboots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Damian H I agree. I was dancing in my seat to
> entertain a toddler behind us in McDonald's in the
> old
> Kent road on Sunday and somebody else seemed it
> worthy of filming without asking me.
>
> I am secretly hoping it might go viral ;)

If it does, we will know you by your fuzzy boots :-)