East Dulwich station (Ticket checks)

[katie1997]

maybe its me but I feel that police presence only creates 'tension' for those who have something to hide...no? they never bother me, i'm very glad we have the police, they do a difficult job as anyone dealing with the public will tell you. if this prevents crime then good that we have paid our taxes on something useful for once.

maybe we have got so used to not seeing many policy around 'on the beat' that this is scaring us a wee bit too much than it should?

the people who go running off about infringement of their 'rights' and so on would be the first to complain if they were a victim.

[pearl1]

Basically, they have no reason to be at the station if fares are not being checked. It is unreasonable and they should be off doing something useful...

[Horsebox]

pearl1 Wrote:

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

> Basically, they have no reason to be at the

> station if fares are not being checked.

And you know this because?

pearl1 Wrote:

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

> It is

> unreasonable and they should be off doing

> something useful...

Such as catching 'real' criminals?

Yes, of course.

[eater81]

In fairness the police in this area are generally very good. They were spot on when my GF was victim of an attempted mugging a couple of years back, couldn't have asked for more.

There is however a difference between good policing, protecting the likes of you and I from criminals, and intruding into people's privacy. Through doing so with things like these dogs, they are alientaing people like myself, the very people they are supposed to be protecting.

[Timster]

katie1997 Wrote:

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

> maybe its me but I feel that police presence only

> creates 'tension' for those who have something to

> hide...no? they never bother me, i'm very glad we

> have the police, they do a difficult job as anyone

> dealing with the public will tell you. if this

> prevents crime then good that we have paid our

> taxes on something useful for once.

> maybe we have got so used to not seeing many

> policy around 'on the beat' that this is scaring

> us a wee bit too much than it should?

>

> the people who go running off about infringement

> of their 'rights' and so on would be the first to

> complain if they were a victim.

I don't like the suggestion that if you think that the police turning up mob-handed with dogs at your local railway station for no apparent reason is unnecessarily provocative then you must be guilty of something yourself! No one is objecting to the police doing their job and if this is preventing crime then it would be a good thing - but quite a few people on here are rightly doubtful that this is a good use of police time and would like to know why they're there. What crimes exactly are they preventing?

In my view, their time would be better used being on the beat around East Dulwich and Peckham. The explanation above from the British Transport Police is very vague (and doesn't entirely make sense since the police I saw did not appear to be British Transport Police but standard issue Met).

And if some people do feel comfortable with police in these numbers hanging around with sniffer dogs at a suburban railway station, then maybe that says something quite sad about the sort of society we've become. It wasn't necessary when I was growing up in South London - and I don't see why it is now.

[Mark]

Timster Wrote:

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

> the police turning up mob-handed with dogs

I say 6 of them and a Labrador. Tomatoe tomato.

[Domitianus]

Timster Wrote:

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

> katie1997 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > maybe its me but I feel that police presence

> only

> > creates 'tension' for those who have something

> to

> > hide...no? they never bother me, i'm very glad

> we

> > have the police, they do a difficult job as

> anyone

> > dealing with the public will tell you. if this

> > prevents crime then good that we have paid our

> > taxes on something useful for once.

>

> > maybe we have got so used to not seeing many

> > policy around 'on the beat' that this is

> scaring

> > us a wee bit too much than it should?

> >

> > the people who go running off about

> infringement

> > of their 'rights' and so on would be the first

> to

> > complain if they were a victim.

>

>

> I don't like the suggestion that if you think that

> the police turning up mob-handed with dogs at your

> local railway station for no apparent reason is

> unnecessarily provocative then you must be guilty

> of something yourself! No one is objecting to the

> police doing their job and if this is preventing

> crime then it would be a good thing - but quite a

> few people on here are rightly doubtful that this

> is a good use of police time and would like to

> know why they're there. What crimes exactly are

> they preventing?

>

> In my view, their time would be better used being

> on the beat around East Dulwich and Peckham. The

> explanation above from the British Transport

> Police is very vague (and doesn't entirely make

> sense since the police I saw did not appear to be

> British Transport Police but standard issue Met).

>

> And if some people do feel comfortable with police

> in these numbers hanging around with sniffer dogs

> at a suburban railway station, then maybe that

> says something quite sad about the sort of society

> we've become. It wasn't necessary when I was

> growing up in South London - and I don't see why

> it is now.

I agree. For someone to say that a large group of police, congregated in a small, cramped area, searching everyone who passes with a dog shouldn't create 'tension' as long as you are an innocent bod is ludicrous. This is not a case of the comforting sight of your local bobby passing by at a comfortable stroll, nodding politely and exchanging pleasantries. This is a large scale police presence (people have mentioned 6, I saw at least ten plus dog a few weeks ago) in a confined space and clearly signals some sort of event or anticipation of crime or trouble. No matter how innocent you may be, that level of police presence and the de facto dog search of every individual passing them is bound to create an atmosphere of some 'tension'. Police usually only seem to deploy in those types of numbers if they are expecting trouble so the sight of such a large group creates a perception of trouble afoot.

If the police were anticipating some specific sort of confrontation based upon intelligence then large numbers might be appropriate. If this was simply a random spot-check of sorts to reassure the public of their presence and make potential wrong-doers aware that they can never be sure when they might encounter the police unexpectedly - those agendas could very adequately be served by three or four officers maximum in hi-vis jackets, with or without a dog.

The issue here is the proportionality of the police presence not the fact that there should be a police presence at all. It seems that some here are trying to make this a black-or-white situation - either we have swarms of police all over the station or we are all left unprotected, helpless at the hands of evil criminals and about to be murdered in our beds, is the dicotomy they seem to be pushing. There is a vast continuum between these two extremes. I think those who have questioned the police presence are not objecting to seeing a visible police presence on our streets and at ED station, they are simply suggesting that it appears to be excessive in terms of numbers and, rather than creating a sense of safety, is somehwat intimidating and appears to represent a poor allocation of thinly stretched resources. I would rather see a couple of police officers routinely available (including getting on and off trains to deter trouble makers) than have a dozen or so turn up team handed on a couple of occasions and then never be seen again after they have made whatever point they are making.

If they are searching for drugs, the level of their presence is so overt that it will take next to no time for the word to spread on the grapevine that the rozzers are out in force at ED and to steer clear. I remember when there was the incident of the multiple stabbing on the 185 on LL. If memory serves me right there were fewer police turned up for that major incident than have been hanging around doing nothing at ED station!

[KidKruger]

Call the police, query them, get your questions answered, I do not think posters on this thread can change what the police are doing at ED station simply by arguing the toss on EDF.

DO something to address your fears, perception of threat, unhappiness with misuse of police resource, and frustration with how current deployment reflects how sad society has become.

And please share the replies with us.

[Mark]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> there were fewer police turned up for that major incident than have

> been hanging around doing nothing at ED station!

I don't know why I'm being defensive about the police, I guess it's just because it annoys me when people lie to make a point. Domitianus, after that stabbing there were police vans, a helicopter, roads cordoned off, traffic police, face-to-face and door-to-door enquires going on. Ask Karter, he was on the scene.

[Timster]

I don't know why you're being defensive about the police either. Criticism of the police and open discussion of how they exercise their powers is fundamental to a free society.

And your assertion that really you're just annoyed that Domitianus lied to make a point is somewhat undermined by your deliberately editing his comment to take out his "if memory serves me right" qualification. And if he did get the facts wrong on that, it doesn't undermine the validity of the rest of his post.

[Mark]

I apologise for not mentioning his memory. I assumed it would be hard confusing a handful of police outside the station against police vans, a helicopter, roads cordoned off, traffic police, face-to-face and door-to-door enquires on Lordship Lane.

[edited twice]

[Domitianus]

Mark Wrote:

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

> I apologise for not mentioning his memory. I

> assumed it would be hard confusing a handful of

> police outside the station against police vans, a

> helicopter, roads cordoned off, traffic police,

> face-to-face and door-to-door enquires on Lordship

> Lane.

>

>

I will let the "lie" allegation go. I was on the scene for about half an hour after the event, having watched it unfold from the moment sirens were first heard. My recollection was that during the time I was there there were at the most half a dozen police or so at the scene. You are correct in mentioning the helicopter which I had forgotten and if there were door-to-door enquiries later I was not aware of them.

Fact is, and the point I was making was, having ten or so police with a dog at a very small local station in a comparatively uneventful London suburb is the type of manpower I would expect to see deployed if there was either an actual major incident or a reasonable expectation of one. Neither of these seems to have been the case.

[pearl1]

Horsebox Wrote:

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

> pearl1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Basically, they have no reason to be at the

> > station if fares are not being checked.

>

>

> And you know this because?

>

>

> pearl1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > It is

> > unreasonable and they should be off doing

> > something useful...

>

> Such as catching 'real' criminals?

>

> Yes, of course.

Er.. I know this because I was there!

[Horsebox]

pearl1 Wrote:

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

> Horsebox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > pearl1 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Basically, they have no reason to be at the

> > > station if fares are not being checked.

> >

> >

> > And you know this because?

> >

> >

> > pearl1 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > It is

> > > unreasonable and they should be off doing

> > > something useful...

> >

> > Such as catching 'real' criminals?

> >

> > Yes, of course.

>

>

> Er.. I know this because I was there!

*Facepalm*

You completely miss my point.

It might appear to you that they had 'no reason to be there' but it could have been a pre-planned op based on intel.

There is a lot of work going on in Southwark to combat youth & gang crime. East Dulwich / SE22, believe it or not, suffers from its fair share of such activity. It's not all sourdough loaves and Saturday markets.

[Loz]

It might appear to you that they had 'no reason to be there' but it could have been a pre-planned op based on intel.

Pretty poor effort if it was. Any little crim worth half his salt would be back up the ramp and either on the next train or over the fence. Not as if you can't see the rozzers waiting.