London SE1 community website

Mugging by St Saviours footbridge

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Current: 3 of 6
Monday 29 November 2010 8.59am
The perspective is that this area has had many robberies, including a couple where I have intervened. The 'minor' crimes of begging, fruit stealing, bike stealing set the tone. It is sinister that there were 2 assaults of women in a couple of evenings. There is no fear of police foot patrol coming round the corner at night or being around to respond to a cry for help. If there is yet more crime in an adjacent ward, then that's a logistic argument for plenty of foot patrols at night in both. Rhetoric about favelas is no use to someone who's been attacked.
AD
Monday 29 November 2010 12.20pm
Actual crime and reported crime are often very different.

I'd like to stress the original point, I disagree that the lack of lighting doesn't affect the ease to commit crimes.

I believe fixing the lights would make it harder for anyone to get away unidentified with someones handbag/mobile/etc. Logically it would discourage any opportunists.

I'm on a mission to get these lights fixed!!
Monday 29 November 2010 8.47pm
markadams99 wrote:
The perspective is that this area has had many robberies, including a couple where I have intervened. The 'minor' crimes of begging, fruit stealing, bike stealing set the tone. It is sinister that there were 2 assaults of women in a couple of evenings. There is no fear of police foot patrol coming round the corner at night or being around to respond to a cry for help. If there is yet more crime in an adjacent ward, then that's a logistic argument for plenty of foot patrols at night in both. Rhetoric about favelas is no use to someone who's been attacked.

We've been here before, you're very attached to the notion that a costly constant police presence is the only solution. The reality is that the resources do not exist for everyone to enjoy some sort of static police presence, nor is there a willingness on the part of the public to fund it. Given the available resource the best you can hope for it simple displacement.

Regardless, I suspect you wouldn't be happy no matter what anyone did...
Monday 29 November 2010 8.49pm
AD wrote:
Actual crime and reported crime are often very different.
I'd like to stress the original point, I disagree that the lack of lighting doesn't affect the ease to commit crimes.

I believe fixing the lights would make it harder for anyone to get away unidentified with someones handbag/mobile/etc. Logically it would discourage any opportunists.

I'm on a mission to get these lights fixed!!

It is true that there's a gap between reported and actual crime. But I think you'll find that robbery isn't likely to be under reported in an area such as Shad Thames, the demographic and nature of the victim will assure that they're very likely to go to the police.

Clearly lighting does have a part to play, especially around the issue of 'confidence' on the part of the public. But it's not going to stop a hit and run crime like this.
Monday 29 November 2010 9.59pm
jonnyp42 wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
The perspective is that this area has had many robberies, including a couple where I have intervened. The 'minor' crimes of begging, fruit stealing, bike stealing set the tone. It is sinister that there were 2 assaults of women in a couple of evenings. There is no fear of police foot patrol coming round the corner at night or being around to respond to a cry for help. If there is yet more crime in an adjacent ward, then that's a logistic argument for plenty of foot patrols at night in both. Rhetoric about favelas is no use to someone who's been attacked.

We've been here before, you're very attached to the notion that a costly constant police presence is the only solution. The reality is that the resources do not exist for everyone to enjoy some sort of static police presence, nor is there a willingness on the part of the public to fund it. Given the available resource the best you can hope for it simple displacement.

Regardless, I suspect you wouldn't be happy no matter what anyone did...

I find this riposte so irrational (eg what is static or constant about a foot patrol?) that I'm tempted to ask if you have a connection with the police or some relevant special insight.
Monday 29 November 2010 10.27pm
markadams99 wrote:
jonnyp42 wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
The perspective is that this area has had many robberies, including a couple where I have intervened. The 'minor' crimes of begging, fruit stealing, bike stealing set the tone. It is sinister that there were 2 assaults of women in a couple of evenings. There is no fear of police foot patrol coming round the corner at night or being around to respond to a cry for help. If there is yet more crime in an adjacent ward, then that's a logistic argument for plenty of foot patrols at night in both. Rhetoric about favelas is no use to someone who's been attacked.

We've been here before, you're very attached to the notion that a costly constant police presence is the only solution. The reality is that the resources do not exist for everyone to enjoy some sort of static police presence, nor is there a willingness on the part of the public to fund it. Given the available resource the best you can hope for it simple displacement.

Regardless, I suspect you wouldn't be happy no matter what anyone did...

I find this riposte so irrational (eg what is static or constant about a foot patrol?) that I'm tempted to ask if you have a connection with the police or some relevant special insight.

Strangely enough I don't consider my reply irrational. I am in no way affiliated to the Met Police, but I don't really see why it's relevant.

Clearly a foot patrol would not be static, but it could be constant. But I dare say you're trying to take my comments out of context.
Tuesday 30 November 2010 12.05am
I'm at a loss. The context is your entire embedded quote.
Tuesday 30 November 2010 12.40am
I see someone has complained of the opposite problem near the Design Museum on FixMyStreet !!!

Perhaps the OP could post the problem on that site????
Tuesday 30 November 2010 10.58am
Instead of arguing, whom do I have to contact regarding the lightening?
Regarding the police, to be honest I think muggers are reasonable enough to not attack when one is around and usually there are few of them, while one is attacking the others are making sure no-one (police) is nearby.
Attacks also happens during the day in Shad Thames...
AD
Tuesday 30 November 2010 8.43pm
Sidi wrote:
Instead of arguing, whom do I have to contact regarding the lightening?

If you read through the thread, I think you'll agree the crux of the matter is no one is responsible so no one can be contacted. Originally I was informed of this by contacting Cllr Anood, who I wrote back to this week and I am waiting a reply to some questions that this thread has raised.

I share the belief that arguments about the level of crime and policing in general distract from the obvious problem that if a particular spot is pitch black it's dangerous (which was confirmed when I saw a poor women being mugged at 5pm).
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Current: 3 of 6

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions