Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Quick message for everyone around the East Dulwich area to warn you of a gang stealing motorbikes. Last night at 1:30am my partner and I woke up to the alarm of the motorbike. We went outside of the house and we saw 2 blokes dress in black clothes, wearing baclavas and full face helmets. One of them was next to the bike and had broken the lock the other one arrived with a scooter as soon as they heard the shouting going. They run off down underhill road.

We have already informed the police...

Its exactly one year since we had our motorbike stolen around the area. Be careful.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/70165-motorbike-stealing-gang/
Share on other sites

Oh no here we go again. we had a motorbike stolen on Landcroft road around 7 months ago. A second attempt was made 2 months later. Lock them up follow bikers and keep your eyes peeled. I wish that the council could put bike anchors on the road - front gardens not ideal when you have a tourer type bike.

We are on Belvoir road and we've had two def stolen ,one last year and one a month ago . Another one was I think taken abit further up the road but I don't know them . We've got a neighbourhood watch and someone at the meeting did witness the same thing as in hooded with their own bike aswell to escape on !

The bikes that were def stolen belonged to two different neighbours of mine , the latest one was discovered dumped and then pounded so the neighbour had to pay to get it back !

  • 2 months later...

We've some spare ground anchors and free installation spare - so if anyone who lives in East Dulwich ward wants one installed in their front or back garden or side return please get in touch.

These spare ground anchors are in stock and the contractor are raring to install them - this is part of the East Dulwich ward Crime Prevention fund 10th year and still running.

Hi PeckhamRose,

Sadly councillors in those wards haven't set up such a fund - I did apply to do this in those wards after residents asked me to but a firm no.


Hi steveo,

Motorcycle theft costs the owner and our local community a lot of money. So if these anchors reduce bike theft it should be self funding releasing Police officer time as well for other harder to prevent crimes.

Just to add more to this thread:


I had to scare off a group of 4 youths on 2 scooters from getting at my motorbike. They did not seem professionals but where equipped with a crow bar. that was around 2.30am back in October.

Anyone out there with Scooters/motorbikes/bicycles: invest in good locks. they are worth it. Thieves go for the easy targets. I tend to use oxford monster chains, oxford disc locks, Abus chain and a Abus D-lock.


I thought about CCTV, but then I read somewhere you are not allowed to direct the camera onto a public road. Hence not much point then IMO.

I think that a security system which over-wrote footage as part of the design (except where that footage was of a malefactor and was intentionally retained) would escape any censure - that is the effect of cameras used on cars to record journeys in case of incident. I do not believe that anyone should be discouraged from installing a camera security system (CCTV) which overlooks the areas outside their dwelling and which may additionally overlook public highways or footpaths. Nor do I believe that having such a system would require registration under the DPA.


The UK is the most heavily CCTV covered country (it is reported) - had this been a real issue we would have heard of it by now. Public use of footage gathered by a CCTV system, for instance by posting on the internet, may in the future be an issue, but I doubt it.

There's an ECJ preliminary ruling in a recent case that possibly impacts on the DPA exemption. The following is from the ICO's "code of practice for surveillance cameras" of 21/5/2015, https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf (357kB).


"The use of surveillance systems for limited household purposes can be exempt from the DPA.


"The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in the case of Ryne? on 11 December 2014. In this judgment, the CJEU concluded that where a fixed surveillance camera faces outwards from an individual?s private domestic property and it captures images of individuals beyond the boundaries of their property, particularly where it monitors a public space, the recording cannot be considered as being for a purely personal or household purpose.


"This means that cameras attached to a private individual?s home may, in certain circumstances, no longer be exempt from the requirements of the DPA under section 36. Those circumstances are likely to include where the camera monitors any area beyond the interior and exterior limits of that individual?s home. This would include any camera to the extent that it covered, even partially, a public space such as the pavement or street. It would also cover cameras which captured areas such as neighbours? gardens.


"This decision does not mean that using such a camera is not possible but it does mean that individuals will have to ensure that its use is legitimate under the DPA. The CJEU made clear that use of cameras to protect a property in this way can meet the legitimate interest condition in the legislation. The ICO has produced a short complementary piece of guidance for the public on how to ensure the use of a surveillance camera on a private domestic property complies with the DPA."


What looks like the new guidance seems to be at https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/. Ryne?'s case arose as a result of his being fined for a DP breach after having taken his surveillance recording to the police to enable a prosecution http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/11/home-surveillance-cctv-images-may-breach-data-protection-rules-european-court-judgment-says. But what might happen here, if a DP breach was alleged in similar circumstances, I don't know.

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

    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
    • Totally agree with you.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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