Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi there,


This evening police cordoned off Glengarry Road from both sides (they are just leaving now) and men with automatic weapons and I think a battering ram entered a house and at least one person was taken away in cuffs. Quite dramatic and upsetting as you can imagine. Does anyone know anything more about this?


c

We should all be glad the police are doing their job and flushing out criminals! We live at the top end of the road and have seen 'suspect' dealings a couple of times now, not that this is evidence enough to suggest criminal activity, more a hunch really. What IS actually scary is what happened to me last month - attack and mugging outside my front door whilst putting the key in the lock. East Dulwich is lovely but there are some dodgy folk about. Please be careful!

This is just idle gossip and nothing to do with police incident but I parked at the top end of Glengarry Road on Saturday afternoon while the missus ran into William Rose and witnessed what I can only describe as two 'crackheads' - man and woman, buying something from a couple of people in a car. They then wandered off further down that road.

2+2=5 but worth noting.

nicko Wrote:

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

> This is just idle gossip and nothing to do with

> police incident but I parked at the top end of

> Glengarry Road on Saturday afternoon while the

> missus ran into William Rose and witnessed what I

> can only describe as two 'crackheads' - man and

> woman, buying something from a couple of people in

> a car. They then wandered off further down that

> road.


Whike this case may, or may not, have been a drug deal there is no doubt that drug deals are carried out on street corners in East Dulwich - and seem to me to be more overt and blatant. This implies that the dealers (and customers) are not concerned about police action. Discussions on the subject on this forum have, broadly, taken a liberal, anti authoritarian stance that such activity isn't important.


However, if the "broken window" theory is believed then ignoring these low level crimes sets a general tone that leads to the next level being ignored and so on - eventually ceding control of areas to criminality. Drug gangs and associated rivalry for territory and power involves guns. Stating the b******g obvious involving guns leads to their use, injury and death.


Stronger policing of the low level drug deals might reduce the likelihood of gun crime in the future.


> 2+2=5 but worth noting.

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

>

> However, if the "broken window" theory is believed

> then ignoring these low level crimes sets a

> general tone that leads to the next level being

> ignored and so on - eventually ceding control of

> areas to criminality.


xxxxxxxx


I agree with this, but do we have any evidence that the police are deliberately ignoring the drug dealing?


Cuts in funding for the police aren't exactly going to help the situation, though.

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

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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