lenk

mark_bowen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lenk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > indiepanda Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Administrator Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Title changed from "Stabbing" to "Mugging" > to > > > > clarify the intent of the incident. > > > > > > Sorry, but personally I don't find this very > > > helpful. Do you have evidence they never > meant > > to > > > stab anyone? If they weren't prepared to do > any > > > physical harm to anyone they wouldn't have > been > > > carrying a knife in the first place. I > wouldn't > > > have thought carrying a knife is exactly > common > > > among the law abiding of us. > > > > > > > ?Stabbing? suggests someone was stabbed. > > > > They weren?t. Hence the clarification. > > > > Imagine if newspapers wrote ?stabbing? when > they > > meant ?armed mugging?. > > I really don't get why there is such suspicion > about the report of the poor girl getting stabbed. > Lenk - this isn't the first time that you've > adopted the position that 'bad' things being > reported aren't true. Obviously some things that > are presented as facts do need challenging, but I > think you should apply a bit more thought before > jumping in. This isn't an attempt to induce > hysteria, more an attempt to provide more > information. Often it's devil's advocate - is it wrong to adopt that stance on a board where from time to time wildly inaccurate statements are liberally flung around as fact? It's important to discuss these things on here, but it's also important for the right and proper version of events to be portrayed - I would never accept another poster's version of events on something like this over anything official. So I stand by being able to question another poster's account until I am able to make judgement from an accredited source.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just a few thoughts, > > Crime = Bad > > People talking about what?s going on in their > community = Good > > Thinking that people talking about what is going > on in their community is somehow invalid because > of who you perceive these people to be = Stupid where does wild speculation fit in ? predjudice? misrepresentation? scare-mongering? distortion? plain inaccuracy? Are they in the 'good', 'bad', or 'stupid' categories?

sophiesofa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > evelknievel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- My point is that these incidents occur accross the country frequently but > most of them we just don't hear about. How do you know they happen then? Do you have one of those police radios?

ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A stab wound close to the heart sounds serious to > me! It is fortunate the injuries were not worse > than they were, the fact its not "newsworthy" > doesnt make it any less significant. There is an > awful lot of crime that doesn't enter the public > domain, this is an active choice for public policy > reasons. The only bit of evidence for this seems to be a post on this forum though. If it's OK I'll wait until I see this somewhere with perhaps a bit more rigour in the fact-checking department before I take to my roof and commence with the screaming.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lenk Wrote: > > ?Stabbing? suggests someone was stabbed. > > > > They weren?t. Hence the clarification. > > > > Imagine if newspapers wrote ?stabbing? when > they > > meant ?armed mugging?. > > "Leah" on the first page seems to say that the > victim received a stab wound close to the heart. > Am I missing something? It?s never been mentioned since, and would be a particularly news-worthy item, no? I would at least expect coverage in The Standard for what would amount to a fairly serious knife crime. As mentioned Googling anything of the sort brings you back here. To this thread, in fact. Have we beat Sky and the wires, or should I assume the post was factually incorrect?

indiepanda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Administrator Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Title changed from "Stabbing" to "Mugging" to > > clarify the intent of the incident. > > Sorry, but personally I don't find this very > helpful. Do you have evidence they never meant to > stab anyone? If they weren't prepared to do any > physical harm to anyone they wouldn't have been > carrying a knife in the first place. I wouldn't > have thought carrying a knife is exactly common > among the law abiding of us. > ?Stabbing? suggests someone was stabbed. They weren?t. Hence the clarification. Imagine if newspapers wrote ?stabbing? when they meant ?armed mugging?.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lenk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nothing like anecdotal, subjective evidence to > > whip the board into a frenzy...here we go. > > > What?s so anecdotal or subjective about this from > the 5th post, ?Just found it was a friend of a > friend. She's ok. She was mugged on her way home > and she tried to fight him off. The police said > she was lucky she was wearing a big coat as the > wound was millimetres from her heart. Her hands > are pretty cut up too. She's in hospital and very > upset and shocked.? > It was referring to Louisa's comment about Peckham being a lawless badlands, 'because she says it is so'.

Nothing like anecdotal, subjective evidence to whip the board into a frenzy...here we go.

You hear of people with UNBORN, NON-EXISTENT children on waiting lists for nurseries around here. that's quite weird, isn't it?

evelknievel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not belittling the fact that someone was > attacked with a knife here, but I think sticking > to what we actually know happened might be a > better foundation for dicussion about it. Indeed. None of the news reports (and there are very few) mentioned a stabbing. Ok, so I'm lying there. The only hits returned from anything recent when searching 'stabbing+east dulwich' direct you here, to this very forum. NB Evelkneivel - you're not allowqed to mention Peckham directly - better to refer to 'nearby notorious areas we're all aware of'

evelknievel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mikecg you seem to be terrifying yourself into > quite a state. > > You now have 'maniac knife wielding crack > heads...desperate for a fix' roaming the streets. > I think the crack head desperate for a fix bit is > an upgrade on your previous knife wielding maniac > post. I thought we were talking about a bag-snatch > gone bad. Not a good thing obviously, but lets not > get hysterical, it ain't Hamsterdam out there. > > Unless the gradual buildup of hysteria in your > messages is a subtle comment on the prevalent > fear-stoking mood in media, government, and > society. In which case, nicely done. I also see that at last the title of this thread has been downgraded from 'stabbing' to 'mugging' to reflect what actually happened. Well done whoever that was. EDIT: ah. *points up*

The white heat of epidemiology is alive and well in ED.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe everyone should be able to walk around > safely at night, not just women. Call me a square > from the past Have you considered moving to the 1950s? I hear you can leave your front door open and children call you 'sir' and everything.

skidmarks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mikecg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > surrounded by some > > very un savoury places > > Well that is London. You can turn from a seemingly > nice area into a place where the German?s could do > us a favour by carpet bombing it again. > > I?m new to this area; are there any places where > one would be best to avoid at all times. Dark alleys Unlit areas Quiet, out of the way streets late at night More as and when I get it

Jump the fence? It's not very high... There's a fair portion of the Rye that can't be locked, maybe run around that part until the other bit gets opened?

LostThePlot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lenk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Anyone eaten there or had a takeaway? > > I went in there about 2-3 years ago, and had to > leave before we ordered. The reason being the > design of the tables. For some reason,there is a > bar between the legs, about 4 inches below the > bottom of the table-top, which in effect stops you > getting close enough to the table to eat. > > So not wanting a bad back, or food on my lap, we > left. > > I so want to eat there, but until the tables are > changed then I won't/can't... you sure it's the same place? This place looks new - as in 'still smell the paint' new - 2-3 years ago I'm sure Bellenden Brasserie (serving whatever it was they served - definitely not African iirc) was still open wasn't it?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some years ago I developed the theory of skip > equilibrium (based on personal experiences in the > late ?80s in SE Dulwich, and some previous > observations in Clapham). This theory does not > apply to skips used for builders rubble or garden > waste. > > On day one, the skip is delivered and you fill it > with household rubbish. On night one the skip is > half emptied by scavengers and a quarter re-filled > by surreptitious neighbours. On day two you refill > the skip by adding a further 25% skipfulls of your > rubbish. On night two it is again half emptied and > a quarter refilled. On day 3 you add a further > 25%, now having thrown away 150% skipfulls of > rubbish into one skip. > > On night 3 the skip is emptied by only a quarter > and refilled again. The skip has now achieved > equilibrium; small amounts will disappear and be > added until day seven, when someone throws away an > old, wet, carpet which covers the (now mounded) > skip and discourages either further additions or > more scavenging. The skip is now collected. > > The important point is that the skip being used as > a public object actually allows you to throw away > more than if it wasn't. The only caveat is that > you must fill it quickly with your own rubish on > the first day. This should be in all maths textbooks - Along with ?devise an approximate general formula for calculating the volume within the skip on any given day? It could be printed on the side of all skips as a handy ready reckoner too... : )

My mate got an immaculate steel drum, complete with beaters out of a skip a few years ago. Amazing what people can't be arsed to eBay. There was a nice Weber BBQ in one on Dunstan's Road off the top of The Rye last week, couldn't face carrying it home though. Should have an EDF 'skip challenge'. I see a lot of good furniture being cast away all the time..

I saw someone with a mask heading from Rye Lane towards Bellenden Road area last week... couldn't tell if it was genuine or 'ironic artist' though. Either way, pfft.

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lenk, the day we went there were a few people in > for lunch.. That's promising... the night I walked past last week no-one entered or left for 2 hours (from my vantage point of the pub opposite)

Hmm, US health secretary playing it down, a country with more potential for infection, what with being connected to Mexico and all... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/05/swine-flu-cases-britain

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cash converters is a favourite for getting rid of > bikes quickly. The one near me when I lived in Liverpool was pretty much a legalised 'fence'. It was often a game to see how soon after being burgled it took for missing posessions to appear in the window.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i have been away for the weekend so have not been > keeping up. is this more dangerous than normal flu > or is its ability to spread that concerns > everyone? I have children at goodrich so > potentially it will progress to there soon so > perhaps someone who knows what they are talking > about could let me know. Thanks. That's the thing - no-one DOES really know what they're talking about. The usual scientific realists, such as the likes of Ben Goldacre, rather than say 'it's a load of rubbish' or 'we're all doomed' have sensibly said 'it's still too early to tell'. By all accounts anyone who's had it has suffered with nothing more than a normal bout of 'flu, no more life-threatening than the usual yearly 'flu that does the rounds.

danrees Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Might I suggest sending Boris Johnson a Twitter > message about the Brick Lane bike "sales": > > > > It is ridiculous that people are openly selling > stolen bicycles with impunity. Thing is, even if they shut that whole section of Brick Lane down / regulated stallholders, there's still a million other parts of the East End where you can openly buy stolen goods I'm afraid...

I just hope this whole pundemic doesn't get any worse