Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Happened to me on Monday night 9.30 pm walking on champion park road from Denmark Hill station, was on the way home. Same thing. young guy on a bike came up behind me and yanked my phone out of my hand. I screamed too but unfortunately he was off and phone is gone. Could still see it on the map about 10 mins walk from East Dulwich station, reported to police who essentially called me the next day to say nothing will be done. Just keep your phones close by and be aware of your surroundings folks, definitely people in the area are being targeted. Few passer bys saw it happens and nobody asked if I was ok which was fairly upsetting on top of it!

  • Sad 3

So sorry Hun. It is a really scary experience.  This is a real.crime and the police should be doing something about it. How dare they not bother.  It isn't good enough.  Maybe get on to whoever might drop some weight MP.  Is there a minister responsible for.crime in the commons.   Someone is going to get hurt and that shouldn't have to be what happens B4 anything is done.  I can imagine the police would be quick enough to arrest a victim of they were able to catch the spineless so n so. x. 

Liv so sorry to hear that - unfortunately there is so much of this type of crime the police can't/don't bother with it. Our son's friends' stolen phone was showing as being in a house on Barry Road but the police were not interested.

 

The stats on how much of a problem this is are really scary - not only in Dulwich but across London as a whole - 28% increase in London in 12 months and some 51,000 phones stolen - that's 150 a day and nobody seems to know what the solution to fix it is! The phone manufacturing industry isn't likely to embrace any measures that mean they can no longer make money from the lucrative trade-in/global re-sale market.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67125411

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

Liv so sorry to hear that - unfortunately there is so much of this type of crime the police can't/don't bother with it. Our son's friends' stolen phone was showing as being in a house on Barry Road but the police were not interested.

 

The stats on how much of a problem this is are really scary - not only in Dulwich but across London as a whole - 28% increase in London in 12 months and some 51,000 phones stolen - that's 150 a day and nobody seems to know what the solution to fix it is! The phone manufacturing industry isn't likely to embrace any measures that mean they can no longer make money from the lucrative trade-in/global re-sale market.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67125411

A step in the right direction would be to prevent children falling into the hands of gangs:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68615776

Sorry to hear of the phone snatching, it must have been horrible.  There is a lot of concern that the Met should be doing more.  Perhaps one of you will contact them and the Mayor to ask why this is not higher priority. I looked at the MPS website and there is some good (if obvious) advice about reducing the likelihood of theft: 

https://www.met.police.uk/police-forces/metropolitan-police/areas/about-us/about-the-met/campaigns/be-safe-campaign/be-safe-mobile-phone-theft/

https://www.met.police.uk/cp/crime-prevention/personal-safety-how-to-stay-safe/protect-your-mobile-phone-against-criminals-on-bikes-and-mopeds/

Ten years or so most of us would not have been carrying around such expensive and relatively light equipment.  I had a brick mobile taken when my house was burgled 20 years ago and they used this to make some expensive calls to abroad, I suspect to family members as most probably went to answerphone.   T-mobile, as is, profited from this  before I called them maybe a couple of hours after the break in, when  I got up in the morning,

I think it is useful to look at the numbers, 150 phones taken each day in London, maybe equates to maybe two dozen criminals.  Hopefully many will be caught.  There are probably 7 million mobile phone users in London, so less than 1% chance (1 in a 100) of your phone being stolen in a year.  That sounds like a lot (and is too much), but around twice as many bikes are stolen each day across the whole of the UK with about the same number of users (7 million).  And about 1 in 20 of us will be victims of fraud.

Crime is a societal issue, and very much for the government of the day, as well as us as good citizens.  I'm not sure where mobile phone theft lies in police priorities, as this is usually direct crime against the individual I understand that it should be higher than bike theft (which has certainly slipped down the order with the disbanding of a small special group which was part funded by TfL).  This is not a discussion on bike theft, just a comparison.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
On 21/03/2024 at 12:17, Rockets said:

Liv so sorry to hear that - unfortunately there is so much of this type of crime the police can't/don't bother with it. Our son's friends' stolen phone was showing as being in a house on Barry Road but the police were not interested

 I get that with the reduction in police numbers,  those who are left have to prioritise the type of crime they choose to investigate/deal with.

What I cannot understand is why - when there is clear evidence of the whereabouts of a stolen item -  they cannot go to that house, search it, and ask questions which might well lead to any other people involved being caught as well 

Is there some aspect of police process which prevents them from doing this?

Or do they think the phone by the time they get there will no longer be there? I saw a photo recently online somewhere of hundreds of stolen  mobiles which had been found in one house, so presumably the police had some kind of lead in that particular case?

13 minutes ago, Sue said:

 I get that with the reduction in police numbers,

Actually, Police numbers have risen and are rising https://www.statista.com/statistics/864928/officer-numbers-of-the-metropolitan-police/

By this January there were over a thousand more police in London than last January. The link shows the changes since 2003 - we now have more police employed than at any time in the last 20 years, apparently!

  • Thanks 1

well yes - but that overlooks the point where this govt massively reduced police numbers (against much advice) and have been playing catch up ever since

 

Found a thread from over 10 years ago that touches on this type of crime and the kind of discussion we had then

 

 

Edited by Sephiroth
  • Like 2

Met numbers are currently the highest they have been, very slightly more than the previous peak in 2010 at the end of the Brown Government. You are right that they fell and have taken time to rise again, but they have now reached their previous 21st Century peak. Despite this rise I see (anecdotally) far fewer 'on the streets' now - and they seem very reluctant to attend reported crime which doesn't involve personal injury (and not always then!). They are of course much occupied in 'policing' public protest and marches.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
1 hour ago, Sue said:

 I get that with the reduction in police numbers,  those who are left have to prioritise the type of crime they choose to investigate/deal with.

What I cannot understand is why - when there is clear evidence of the whereabouts of a stolen item -  they cannot go to that house, search it, and ask questions which might well lead to any other people involved being caught as well 

Is there some aspect of police process which prevents them from doing this?

Or do they think the phone by the time they get there will no longer be there? I saw a photo recently online somewhere of hundreds of stolen  mobiles which had been found in one house, so presumably the police had some kind of lead in that particular case?

I think the issue is often kids are stealing these devices and securing a prosecution is very difficult - the kids are just the do'ers in a much larger network as these phones are not being flogged in pubs to mates but shipped internationally and part of a well organised network. The kids are often armed with all the information and background they need to make the police's job very difficult - they know what to say and what not to say, they all dress identically and ride identical bikes and wear face coverings as they know the police will struggle to identify them and the police will know that without a positive id securing any sort of prosecution is impossible.

 

The raid you are referring to is probably the one in Brockley and I bet a lot of those phones were taken from people in Dulwich.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/men-arrested-brockley-stolen-mobile-phones-london-met-police-b1130365.html

 

 

  • Agree 1
30 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Met numbers are currently the highest they have been, very slightly more than the previous peak in 2010 at the end of the Brown Government. You are right that they fell and have taken time to rise again, but they have now reached their previous 21st Century peak. Despite this rise I see (anecdotally) far fewer 'on the streets' now - and they seem very reluctant to attend reported crime which doesn't involve personal injury (and not always then!). They are of course much occupied in 'policing' public protest and marches.

I can only speak anecdotally but there certainly don't seem to be as many police around, either in cars or on foot. Around 25 years ago I was pulled over twice in the same month (I was innocent) and was even stopped by a bobby on the beat for cycling on the pavement. Can't remember the last time i saw a bobby on the beat.

Different policing, no bobbies on beat and much lower involvement in traffic offences.  No longer pulling people up for rear lights not working.  Rely on ANPR a lot of the time I expect.  Worth going to Neighbourhood meetings.  I also get updates from community police.

  • Like 1
25 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Different policing, no bobbies on beat and much lower involvement in traffic offences.  No longer pulling people up for rear lights not working.  Rely on ANPR a lot of the time I expect.  Worth going to Neighbourhood meetings.  I also get updates from community police.

Very much different crimes as well - you could have hundreds more bobbies on the beat and you still would not stop kids riding up behind people and snatching phones. The problem is victims of robbery now carry an expensive device with a high resale value on their person and often walk down the road using it and not paying attention to their surroundings (the lady I shouted at on Townley some months ago to warn her she was about to be robbed was utterly oblivious to the fact that someone was circling her like a shark as she pushed her pram with her phone to her ear) - the risk/reward of that robbery is weighted way towards reward for the criminal. Compare that to street robberies in a time before phones where someone would have to confront someone for something on their person - there is a much higher risk that that person may not have anything of value on them or might wallop/apprehend you.

 

Phone snatching is a very high success/high reward/low risk rate crime and that is why it is so prevalent.

  • Like 1
18 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Very much different crimes as well - you could have hundreds more bobbies on the beat and you still would not stop kids riding up behind people and snatching phones. The problem is victims of robbery now carry an expensive device with a high resale value on their person and often walk down the road using it and not paying attention to their surroundings (the lady I shouted at on Townley some months ago to warn her she was about to be robbed was utterly oblivious to the fact that someone was circling her like a shark as she pushed her pram with her phone to her ear) - the risk/reward of that robbery is weighted way towards reward for the criminal. Compare that to street robberies in a time before phones where someone would have to confront someone for something on their person - there is a much higher risk that that person may not have anything of value on them or might wallop/apprehend you.

 

Phone snatching is a very high success/high reward/low risk rate crime and that is why it is so prevalent.

I think the frustration is also due to what was touched on in a post above - when a valuable phone is stolen we can see on a map exactly where it is and the police still do nothing about it. Never mind apprehending the culprit they don't even help you retrieve it. 

Edited by sandyman
  • Agree 1
4 hours ago, Sue said:

What I cannot understand is why - when there is clear evidence of the whereabouts of a stolen item -  they cannot go to that house, search it, and ask questions which might well lead to any other people involved being caught as well 

Is there some aspect of police process which prevents them from doing this?

Quite possibly. I think the Police need a search warrant issued before they can enter a suspects home. It's not as straight forward as just turning up and gaining access because it has to be authorized. The warrant needs to be specific for both the item (s) being searched for and the location. There are exceptions to the rule for things like hot pursuit etc.

3 hours ago, Dulwich dweller said:

Quite possibly. I think the Police need a search warrant issued before they can enter a suspects home. It's not as straight forward as just turning up and gaining access because it has to be authorized. The warrant needs to be specific for both the item (s) being searched for and the location. There are exceptions to the rule for things like hot pursuit etc.

But surely it can't be a huge time consuming task to get a search warrant issued? 

Because although it would seem a relatively small thing they were looking for, it probably wouldn't be just one phone they found there, unless they were all passed on elsewhere very quickly.

Edited by Sue

A kid on a bike tried but failed to grab mine from my hand outside Denmark Hill station on Wednesday morning. Right in front of a cctv camera and didn’t even bother to cycle off especially quickly.

And another one looping around suspiciously on the pavement outside East Dulwich station this evening, although I didn’t see him try anything.

It does seem to be a bit of a trend.

It's a serious and demanding business getting a search warrrant.  The constable has to satisfy a judge of the reasonableness of the suspicion, and then some.  Scroll down to 'Application' in this guidance from the College of Policing to get an idea of what's involved.   This guidance is obviously a gold standard A+ exemplar  of what's required, and I dare say that in RL things may sometimes be a bit more relaxed.  But remember, get it wrong and it's the police who may end up in court being sued.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-strategies/search-powers-and-obtaining-and-executing-search-warrants

One critical thing that comes to mind.  A Find My Phone app may well seem to pick out a single house, but there's no guarantee that it's the correct one, or even the right street, and there are a number of factors that can affect the accuracy of the process, to varying degrees at different times.  If the phone doesn't have its Location switched on -- I only switch mine on when I need it, as it's an appreciable power user -- that in itself is likely to lessen a Phone Finder's accuracy.  It might  be a useful experiment  to try such an app, with one's phone in different types of location, and with GPS use both and off.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Another factor is this - if phone theft is as widespread as many fear, then let’s assume there is a big screen at police hq, showing all of the phones in their current location - how exactly  would you manage that number of locations with the number of officers at your disposal

 

and yes, it being difficult for police to obtain a warrant is a net Good Thing

 

lastly - when I had my phone nicked I assumed “find my phone” would help.  But I discovered that most stolen phones are immediately switched off and kept that way to prevent tracking 

 

Edited by Sephiroth
10 hours ago, ianr said:

It's a serious and demanding business getting a search warrrant.  The constable has to satisfy a judge of the reasonableness of the suspicion, and then some.  Scroll down to 'Application' in this guidance from the College of Policing to get an idea of what's involved.   This guidance is obviously a gold standard A+ exemplar  of what's required, and I dare say that in RL things may sometimes be a bit more relaxed.  But remember, get it wrong and it's the police who may end up in court being sued.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-strategies/search-powers-and-obtaining-and-executing-search-warrants

One critical thing that comes to mind.  A Find My Phone app may well seem to pick out a single house, but there's no guarantee that it's the correct one, or even the right street, and there are a number of factors that can affect the accuracy of the process, to varying degrees at different times.  If the phone doesn't have its Location switched on -- I only switch mine on when I need it, as it's an appreciable power user -- that in itself is likely to lessen a Phone Finder's accuracy.  It might  be a useful experiment  to try such an app, with one's phone in different types of location, and with GPS use both and off.

 

 

All good points, thanks ianr!

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

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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