Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know that the problem with pedestrians having phones etc stolen by thieves on mopeds locally has been discussed but I couldn't find the thread....


Anyone else feeling concerned about how this is escalating into more violent attacks? I have read about 3 assaults in the near vicinity over recent days- Ladywell, Brockley Rise (Honor Oak) and this terrible attack caught on camera in Sydenham.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/moment-brave-passersby-foil-violent-moped-mugging-in-london-a3590136.html


I'm sure everyone is aware of these attacks (including the huge press covering of acid attacks)but just a reminder to be vigilant (is that even possible when simply going about one's daily business?) and report anything that could be dodgy.


Obviously this is not just locally but across London.


Is there anything else that can be done?

Yep, I guess there hasn't been a moped attack reported specifically in East Dulwich (to my knowledge) but given the number of other moped crimes that have been reported in East Dulwich, and the fact that Brockley Rise, Sydenham etc are pretty local I thought the conversation warranted the main section......but not to worry.


The main thing is that these attacks seem to be more than one off, isolated incidents and certainly relevant to ED. I've not heard or read any plans by the police or particular advice....other than put your phone away.


The attack at Brockley Rise reportedly involved a lady and her daughter in her 20s- the lady pinned to the ground and daughter attacked with a penknife as they crossed the road- 18th July


The one in Penge (link above) has been shared widely on social media- poor guy

As a motorcyclist myself, I am constantly worried about having my bike nicked (several attempts made) and given the increase of bikejackings whilst riding, I now always check my side mirrors when at a red light.

Riding a motorbike has its own dangers to now not also have to worry about being attacked (with acid or a knife) and your possession taken from you.


So far the mayor has done very little to address the bike related crime wave over the past few years.

Completely agree - the Sydenham attack was actually Penge High Street, ironically directly out the front of the old police station. The attacker took off his helmet after jumping off his friends bike, knowing there was no chance of being pursued. I'm a motorcyclist and often have kids on mopeds eyeing up my bike when next to me at the lights, and I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before I have to defend. Reading on social media (assume it's true but it may not be) that there are vigilante groups starting up in North London to hunt down the gangs.


IMO, police should chase them, and if the perp is injured/killed in the chase, so be it.

red devil Wrote:

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

> bobbsy Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > IMO, police should chase them, and if the perp

> is

> > injured/killed in the chase, so be it.

>

>

> And how would you feel if innocent bystanders were

> injured/killed during the chase?...


But I thought they chased them if they were wearing helmets

but didn't if they weren't.


So bystanders are at risk anyway by the helmeted chase.

yep, that's the point and that's why they take their helmet off......


red devil Wrote:

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

> Well if that's official policy then it's a green

> light for them not to wear a helmet, just cover up

> with a bandana etc, scot free getaway...

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...