Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Good morning (again)


I?m sorry to send out two Briefing Notes in quick succession but this second one concerns a tragic incident yesterday.


Yours sincerely ??



Inspector Tom Cornish | Neighbourhood Policing | Southwark | AS BCU | Peckham Police Station, 177 Peckham High Street, London, SE15 5SL???? tel: 0207 232 6495 | internal: 726495 mobile: TBA Twitter: @InspTomCornish



Thursday 9th July 2020


AS ? Central South


Briefing note


Murder - seeley Drive, SE21.


Police were called at 18:30hrs on Wednesday, 8 July to reports of a stabbing in Seeley Drive, SE21.


Officers and London Ambulance Service attended and found a male, aged 18, suffering stab injuries. Despite the efforts of the emergency services, he was pronounced dead at the scene.


A crime scene remains in place. No arrests have been made at this time and enquiries into the circumstances continue.


As a result of this incident a Section 60 was put in place from 1940 hrs on Wednesday 08 July until 0700hrs on Thursday 9 July. This covered the boundaries North A205 (South Circular) to the East College road all the way down to A2199. The A2199 formed the southern boundary to South Croxted road and then back up to the South Circular.



We have officers conducting reassurance patrols in the area and are supporting our investigation team. If anyone with information that could assist police is asked to call 101 or tweet @MetCC and quote CAD 6306/8July. Alternatively, you can contact the independent charity Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.


Please do contact my staff office or me if you have any questions or wish to discuss any further aspect of this incident with me.


Kind Regards,


Colin Wingrove


Chief Superintendent


BCU Commander ? Central South


NOTICE - This email and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may be confidential.? If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.? Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this email or in any attachment without the permission of the sender.? Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law and any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.? Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of the MPS by email and no responsibility is accepted for unauthorised agreements reached with other personnel.? While reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this email, its security and that of any attachments cannot be guaranteed.


?

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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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