Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I dont understand, I thought they took upmarket stolen cars away for respray and sale abroad or is that a myth. Whats the point in them stealing it and leaving it a few streets away? Surely they attract more attention geting out of a porsche than if they just left the burglary in their own transport.


Anyway - i hope you recover it.

The advice from the police is correct based on a friend's experience. It wasn't the car that was targeted if you read to OPs post but rather the house that was burgled and then the keys stolen as part of that burglary. The car was likely used as an after thought to transfer goods as another poster pointed out. A professional car thief stealing the car to order as you suggest wouldn't have bothered breaking into the house to steal other items.
Hi all, thanks for your thoughts and advice. I think it's very odd they took Porsche "for transport"as so distinctive, and they only took fairly light items from house, AND, my own rather less distinctive car was also outside the house and they took the keys to that too. We thought the car was stolen to order, but it was the police who said this was less likely! My husband is in touch with the loss adjuster, and there's no sign of the car turning up.....

Peckham Rye Snt

DATES FOR OUR STREET BRIEFINGS

Thursday 8th August 1100-1130 Peckham Rye Caf?

Thursday 15th August 1900-1930 Harris Boys Academy

Saturday 24th August 1100-1130 Harris Girls Academy

Consider "befriending" Peckham Rye Safer Neighbourhoods Team on Facebook. They're trying to be more accessible/ modern. Tell them directly/electronically what your thoughts are. After some thought I think one way forward is CCTV shared by neighbours for cost and placement. Then shame perpetrators / post their images like after the riots. What do you all think? Just put up with endless break-ins?

The riots were a crime against the state, and the people involved now

know the lengths to which a state goes. So they won't do that again.


We won't see sweeping up work like that for normal crime, and I don't

know if we would be allowed to set-up private CCTV crime ID networks to

allow others to do it on the same level.


mynamehere Wrote:

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

> Peckham Rye Snt

> DATES FOR OUR STREET BRIEFINGS

> Thursday 8th August 1100-1130 Peckham Rye Caf?

> Thursday 15th August 1900-1930 Harris Boys

> Academy

> Saturday 24th August 1100-1130 Harris Girls

> Academy

> Consider "befriending" Peckham Rye Safer

> Neighbourhoods Team on Facebook. They're trying

> to be more accessible/ modern. Tell them

> directly/electronically what your thoughts are.

> After some thought I think one way forward is CCTV

> shared by neighbours for cost and placement. Then

> shame perpetrators / post their images like after

> the riots. What do you all think? Just put up

> with endless break-ins?

Just to be perfectly clear what I'm talking about is CCTV entirely on private property and entirely directed on to your own entrance points. I don't think there is anything controversial about this. And then, if someone crowbars up my windows as they did within this last week, I have an image of them doing it. Better than prints of their gloved hands as a way to identify someone.

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 mentioned  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...