Jump to content

Recommended Posts

so what are you saying? that when behaviour is not, in your view, 'acceptable' then its most probably a mental health issue? One step out of your line and the police should 'put him in the right place'?

sounds completely weird to me but I see your view is the popular one. sad.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Preventing a possible crime?

>

> Well I suppose so, if you put it like that.

> Let's get him locked away for good. Before he

> possibly kills us all.


Glad you emphasised the word possible, there *Bob*.

That was the point I was making. This is someone whose behaviour will bring him to the attention of the criminal justice system at some time, and rightly so. I'd rather he was in the hands of mental health professionals, and I'm no expert, but it seems to me that's where he might get the best service. Possibly. But I of course don't know. Any more than anyone else.

Your last sentence is just Richard Littlejohn in Bizarro World. It's got nothing to do with anything I said before, and strongly makes me want to introduce the word 'arse' into this sentence.

I'm almost touched by HLB's conversion to serious discourse, but if I worry about any move to preventing any potential crime


Unless it's by this guy


http://www.pikesoft.com/blog/media/2/20060727-minority_report_gestural_ui.jpg


going back to the OP - I don't doubt the sincerity of the fear involved and hope she is feeling ok. But reading the description of the incident again...well... assuming there was no malice involved... doesn't it sound a BIT like a scene in a film where the guy does that, the girl likes him, they have a drink and Rowan Atkinson performs a marriage service?


Imagine someone less cynical than us who walked up the main street (not a badly lit back street for him) and though - I may never see her again. She was lovely! But if I go and tell her that now she will think I am mad. or worse, dangerous.


* walks some more *


But I have to tell her. She may laugh at me but I;m going to tell her


He could well have been more frightened than her. Seriously


I know I know it may have been more sinister than that. But if he meant harm then he surely would have done something?

alice Wrote:

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

> so what are you saying? that when behaviour is

> not, in your view, 'acceptable' then its most

> probably a mental health issue? One step out of

> your line and the police should 'put him in the

> right place'?

> sounds completely weird to me but I see your view

> is the popular one. sad.


Alice, please read the OP, read my posts and read yours. Then get back to me.

I'll be somewhere on planet Earth.

I can tolerate 'arse' perfectly well. Water of an arse's back.


What irks me is that what we have here is a one-off incident of nothing more than some Big City weirdo-strangeness that, naturally, gave someone a fleeting feeling of mild peril which I can understand. Fine. Get TF out of there. Walk away. But the man's got a suitcase, not a knife. And it's rush hour outside a busy pub. That should tell you something about him.


I mean, there's a bloke who's been knocking around Streatham barking at women and shouting random unintelligible things - for five years (that I know of). I'm not keen myself. But the police aren't going to lock him up either, because they know the difference between a bit of a weirdo and someone who's dangerous.


So let's concentrate on actual crimes first, rather than the ones which haven't happened yet and are yet to even hint that they might.


I bet if he didn't have a suitcase there wouldn't even be a thread on here about it.

Just wanted to give a little 'hurrah' for HonaloochieB. Sometimes I wonder whether the desire to prove the strength of their own wit overpowers people's ability to restrain themselves from mining a source of, admittedly, comedy gold in recognition that for the person involved it was a very unpleasant experience which they didn't take lightly and which, out of respect, perhaps we shouldn't either.

For once I think the sexy one known as *Bob* has nailed it. Give the guy a break, just because someone wanders round the street with a suitcase complimenting ladies on their boots doesnt mean he wants to abuse them/kill them and possibly do other unthinkable things. I personally would have stuck to the main road and not wandered off down the side street but thats just me. In a big city you get weirdos, always have done and probably always will do until the Daily Mail is able to get some sponsporship for some sort of Guantanamo Bay detention camp for all the worlds slightly loopy individuals. Let us be vigilant and not vigilante.


Louisa.

And I really don't want to get into an argument but I don't know that anyone other than you *Bob* has mentioned locking this guy up. As far as I'm aware, all that's happened is that the police have been aware that a man has run after (and I think this is quite a big point here - surely any sensible guy would know that running towards a woman by herself after dark who was evidently trying to get away from you is an out of order thing to do?) a woman, making her feel threatened. I can't really see what's wrong of making them aware of a situation where someone has felt threatened and intimidated?

Every time I return to East Street Market there's a Guy who parades up and down the area on the corner of Browning Street/East Street with flailing arms and a very loud manner.He stormed into the Shop I was in and shouted to the Jamaican Guy I was talking to "You B++ch!" in quite a threatening way but the Guy was cool and said he was always like this and,sure enough, last time he was there,in the Market again, shouting out about a Prostitute and everyone just carried on regardless!:))

Just part of the scene there..;-)

If I were the OP I would think the majority of you were a right bunch of T#ss~rs for the way you've played with this. She wasn't making it a big drama IMO but doing her bit as part of the community and I for one am happy with that. It won't make me (and hopefully most girls) paranoid just more conscious. Honestly:(
This guy may be harmless and then again he may not be, what is harmful is his manner. Doublebacking and running up behind a lone woman in a relatively quiet street is enough to scare anyone. The fear of crime often affects more people than the crimes themselves. TT absolutely

TillieTrotter Wrote:

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

> If I were the OP I would think the majority of you

> were a right bunch of T#ss~rs for the way you've

> played with this. She wasn't making it a big

> drama IMO but doing her bit as part of the

> community and I for one am happy with that. It

> won't make me (and hopefully most girls) paranoid

> just more conscious. Honestly:(



Well said!!!!!

what a pointless thread.


Are you trying to encourage the women of East Dulwich to be wary of all black people?

Or just those with suitcases?

Was there any offence actually committed here?

How can I steel myself against this menace exactly? Perhaps we should build a wall around our sacred borough to keep these types out.

georgia Wrote:

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

> It isn't pointless at all. The man chased after

> her - she didn't know what he was going to do. I

> would have found it found it a bit scary too. It

> has NOTHING to do with him being black.



So why were we told this fact, out of interest?


How am I supposed to do anything about this? Be wary of everyone who 'doesn't look right' from now on?


Forgive me if I'm wrong but I can't see any actual offence being committed here.

I am so surprised at the direction the thread has taken.. I dont think this thread is pointless nor is it about black people, the guy could have been purple with pink stripes and the initial post wouldnt have differed!!


The guy is clearly a wierdo regardless of whether he has a suitcase, knife or a bloomin hankie and the woman involved felt threatened and frightened and to be quite frank with you if it had of happened to me I would have posted also to try and warn other people that this guy was about.. Regardless of whether the woman was hurt or not the frightening experience remains the same and none of us would laugh off if it happened to us or want to have it happen to us or someone we know, does someone need to be seriously hurt or killed before a situation is taken seriously??!!


Surely we should just be able to see the thread for what it is which is a person who felt frightened and had a bit of a traumatic experience warning others to be careful, why does it then need to turn in a b*tch fest and mud slinging match!


I dont mean to come across cranky or abrupt as I am sure it could be read as I just think this thread needs a little reality check..

Strawbs Wrote:

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


>

> I dont mean to come across cranky or abrupt as I

> am sure it could be read as I just think this

> thread needs a little reality check..


Indeed - you live in a big, bad city. Things far worse than this are happening right now. Perhaps on your very street.


Indiscriminate eccentric chaps with wheely suitcases are the least of your worries.



My point being that there's not much a concerned party can do after reading this thread is there? Its basic premise is


person a:'I saw someone who was a bit odd the other day, just thought I'd let you know'


person b:'oh, I'll be careful then'


person b:'hang on, don't we live in London, where over half the population are a 'bit odd'?


person a:'good point. the only solution is to be afraid, all of the time'.

I've re-read the original post. Nothing wrong with individual bits like he had a suitcase and paid a compliment, but the sum of the parts really does have lunatic written all over it. What goes through the head of someone who carries out such an act in a busy part of SE22.. what next will go through his head in later, more discreet surroundings..


Let the police build up a profile of this character. There are more serious crimes than this but neither is this some petty incident that should be accepted because it's in big, bad London where you should be happy to wake up in the morning without your throat being slit.

Matthew123: I can't recall the last time someone in London got their throat slit whilst they slept, but you're right.. no doubt with this man (let's call him 'The Suitcase Killer') on the loose it's only a matter of time.


Looking forward to that police profile (Black. Suitcase. Hasn't acted aggressively or broken any laws.)


To everyone else spitting the dummy on behalf of someone else who posted:

"Hee Hee.. She hates the boots and obviously realised he must be a nut job just from that comment!!!".. well, you know. Reconsider. She seems to have taken those terribly out-of-order posts lightly. So spit your own dummy by all means, but not hers.


99.9999% of the people who mean you harm are not eccentric ones carrying suitcases. Nor do they leave a mongrammed playing card on the bodies of their victims. That's Taggart you're watching there, not real life.

Ladies - yes, be careful. Be careful of that bloke in the pub on the table opposite; someone living quietly down the road you've never met; your new boyfriend maybe. Your husband. The usual, real stuff.


Fair enough to the OP to mentioning it. Now we know who he is, it won't be a such a surprise if it happens to you. But let's not unleash DefCon one just yet on this one. And it is entirely possible to be 'made aware' of something without being made to adopt a stoney expression of utter doom.

honk Wrote:

So why were we told this fact, out of interest?


:-S

The initiator of this comment/thread thought that they would warn people of a possible threat in the locality.

It may or may not be a REAL threat but it is a valid point that because of the behaviour of this Guy "some" locals "might" be scared.

If thats the case then the FULLEST possible description should be given.


There has been 4/5 threads here lately (including "Dog-Snatcher) where people have been warned of potential problems and for people to be vigilant.

An outburst of common sense has occurred in that "eventually" everyone(I think) did give a description, some of the Guys mentioned were Black and some were White.

So why would you NOT want to be told this fact,when some Forumites HAVE expressed some concern, out of interest?

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

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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