robbin

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi sizemore, > If someone did paint or add something else on such > an illegal advertisement would that be or not be a > criminal act? > It appears council officers won't act unless it > causes visual harm. > Someone could have some fun with this... James, are you confident that is not an incitement to cause criminal damage? Vandalism of the sign (property belonging to another) would surely amount to criminal damage just as damaging an illegal vehicle parked on the public highway without tax or MOT would be. It's entirely up to you James, but you might want to reflect on that posting (particularly the last sentence!). After all, you are an elected representative and presumably in favour of upholding the law.

Ha! Excellent.

Latest: Remain a member of the European Union 96 81% Leave the European Union 19 16% Unsure 4 3% Other 0 0% Don't get me wrong, it's very interesting and a good idea, but asking the EDF users how they would vote on this issue is a bit like doing a straw poll of Guardian subscribers in Hampstead! It's certainly way out of kilter with the rest of the UK.

Walked past it this morning. The palm tree looks really good. The old printer, ironing board, plastic shelving and broken pedal bin and other crap next to it don't look so good though. Anti-social scum will always be about, dumping their litter, I'm afraid. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Thanks James.

Otta wrote: James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes the M&S store applied for longer times to sell alcohol than their planning permission allows. > I objected to the licence application. Why? (just out of interest) James - I think you answered the wrong question (or at least I thought you did). Why did you object to the licence application? (not why did M&S apply for longer times). I'm also interested in why, as a local representative, you objected to the licence application.

It's also not a relevant consideration here - shouting "fire" is meant to get attention and that may or not be the case, but here there would obviously have been staff and customers all over the place - it was not a problem getting attention, the problem was that the police (are said to have) taken a while to get there. Calling the Fire Brigade obviously would not have helped with that! I don't think you would be thanked for wasting the Fire Brigade's time! Just saying.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For the sceptics accusing me of making a big deal > out of nothing, > > I was NOT trying to spark yet another debate about > gentrification, or coffee or anything else. Just > letting people know that a particular chain was > coming to the area... > Hmmm... From Louisa's original posting - "From a negative point, is this yet further evidence that Peckham is gentrifying at a pace now? What do we all think?" LOL Louisa!

Oh, I see. So nothing to do with vents then.

That was a real selling point, I thought.

So?

Fingers crossed that gets waved through!

We'll see. If not, at least I can sit on the next old dumped sofa and enjoy the view.

A better sort of more neighbourly tenant might be the only thing that prevents scumbags dumping their rubbish there. I walk past there a lot and there's often crappy furniture fly tipped there. Clearly it is dumped by some loser who is moving out but who doesn't care about anyone else. Unfortunately, I suspect no number of palm trees will deter feral/antisocial people like that. Still, fingers crossed I'm wrong.

Quite. The chances of catching a scumbag who is hiding in gardens and moving from one to another with several different escape routes is not very great with only a couple of plod available. Better swarm the place for a few minutes and have a decent chance of catching the offender, surely?

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote in response to Nigello: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > So, how many officers would you expect it to take > to contain a suspect in a potential 'live' crime > scene? With numerous escape routes including the > park. > > I'm sure that like most keyboard warriors you > could have wrestled them to the ground single > handedly. I suspect that the reality would be that > you'd run off and then complain about the lack of > Police assistance. > > And for the record, the average burglar is a > career criminal with no qualms about doing > whatever it takes to evade capture. So going mob > handed is the sensible thing to do if there is a > chance of capturing them in the act. The last time > a burglar was caught locally and banged up, the > rate of burglaries dropped through the floor > overnight as they tend to be so prolific. > > Police bashing seems to be a theme of yours, if > memory serves. Buy the Guardian much..? Well said!

Went once - thought the service was less than adequate and the food wasn't great, although the tea was quite nice. That was a few years ago though - I never bothered going back as it just wasn't welcoming enough or good enough to justify a second visit.

Hooray! - we are finally getting the M&S. Personally, I'm glad the nimbys lost. Most of them will probably come round to liking it too.

They are left in a location which is different to that in which they were taken, so it's not that simple (the police wouldn't have a precise location to check). Also they are not necessarily left where they are to be found at a time close to when they were taken. There's also not that much CCTV in residential streets (not like a main road or high street). I think the best chance of catching him or her must be for someone to be suspicious/see someone they know with gruesome images or remains and to tip off the police, or for a member of the public to see something as its happening or as he/she is planning/hunting for an animal and to dial 999 as requested (not 101).

No officer, it's not my coat. I'm just bringing the coat over to give to someone here in Hannover. No officer, I don't think he's from Hannover. No, nor from London. Well, I think he's from Australia. No, I have never met him. Actually, he's the brother of someone I met who posted something on the internet about him having lost his coat. No, they are from London. No, I hadn't met them before but they seemed nice enough ... err, what are you doing with those handcuffs?!

No worries - no need for PM. I'm sure we all share the hope the sicko is caught in double quick time. It's likely the publicity will be beneficial - ED must have only a handful (if that) of police officers on patrol at any one time, but if large numbers of the general public are being vigilant when they are out on the streets (or people who know the offender may notice incriminating behaviour), then that must increase the chances of the person responsible being caught.

LondonMix wrote I absolutely agree with every word of this. mrsilencio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, but I'm not sure how giving the colour of > his skin is going to help in any way. It could > have been a completely innocent incident, so if I > tell you it was a short white guy then what, > you're going to hunt down white guys feeding cats > with malicious intent and ignore everyone else? We > aren't vigilantes here, and it is extremely > unproductive sharing what could be misleading > information. > > 101 took a full description and have passed it on > to the team dealing with it. They are the experts > here and will use it to help build a profile or > eliminate it as they see fit. If they deem it > useful information, they know where they can look > for CCTV footagr too. I have also spoken to > someone at SNARL. > > I appreciate this is an extremely emotive topic, > but let's be rational here. Vigilance is more > helpful than hysteria. I thought this had moved on, but as you chipped in, I can only suppose you haven't read the earlier post where mrsilencio gave an otherwise very full description (omitting only IC classification) - that is the weird part - why only leave that one fact out of an otherwise full/decent description which was plainly intended to let us know what that person's appearance was. Anyway, it's her/his call if he/she wants only to give a partial description - my objection was that the 'argument' advanced to justify it was entirely flawed and illogical. There was actually no need to 'justify' anything with a bogus argument - he/she could simply have said sorry I don't care to do give any more detailed ID description.

I for one certainly think you should have told us about what happened and applaud you for doing so (as was clear from my earlier post) - so that we can be forewarned with some information about location etc. It sounds very suspicious. You may (but may not) have seen the serial cat killer. Beyond that, your argument is weird (in the extreme). Based on your own reasoning you should have given no description - yet you gave an otherwise full description. It is the fact you gave an apparently full description but left out one of the most obvious parts of any ID description that is odd. That's up to you, but the absurd argument you advanced to rationalise not doing so is what I couldn't get my head around. But if you can live with that sort of (non) reasoning - that's cool. Good for you. Thanks again for the original heads up.

Your description said - "...he was late teens, early twenties, 5'8" - 5'9", skinny, possibly wearing glasses. He was wearing a dark coloured deerstalker type hat, and a baggy tracksuit top with light panels at the sides on the back. He was also carrying a large, empty Sainsbury's bag for life." So, if you added, "white" to that description, suddenly (you say) that could be "misleading" or "extremely unproductive", or maybe not "rational", but not otherwise. Rationally extending your argument, you are now suggesting that you think we might wrongly discount anyone who is not "early twenties", or anyone who is not "5'8"-5'9"", or anyone not "male", or "skinny"? (all part of your description). Why on earth is their racial background different to all of that? It's either all or none surely - your argument can't be that some description is fine but not the rest. That would be irrational. Anyway, thanks for posting the partial (albeit, as you now suggest, possibly very misleading) description.

So with the greatest of respect, why on earth did you give such a long description??!!! That's just weird.