jelly

In that case we're just as entitled to follow, or act suspiciously towards - thus, without fear of reproach - fellow members of the public.

I don't know about any laws that could or would be broken, but if I saw that I'd been photographed by a member of the public with no visible or apparent reason for doing so (I'm not easily flattered), I'd certainly feel that my privacy has been impinged upon. Wouldn't you? I might even indulge my suspicion by personally by demanding why the photographer had taken my picture, thus rendering their motive in this particular scenario counter-productive. And the result of having my photograph taken by a complete stranger in public might give me cause to warn others in East Dulwich via this forum that there's a potential predator stalking the area for otherwise unsuspecting victims. Vicious circle, anyone?

@Saffron Steady on there, 007. The risks outweight the positives, and if you "think" that snapping ordinary members of the public, however 'shifty' they might look, should be done from a distance, then you should've said so in the beginning seeing as you're the one who suggested such a bizarre measure against people who still remain innocent of anything except rousing your own suspicions. What you're encouraging is a more intrusive measure than CCTV, without official sanction. It would be against the law and could potentially leave you vulnerable to litigation served by an aggrieved party who objects to being photographed in public by an anxious and/or paranoid pedestrian. How would you react if you saw someone secretly or "serreptitiously" taking pictures of another member of the public who you didn't feel threatened by? One can only assume that you'd think the worst. Sorry, but the risks do outweigh the positives. By quite a lot, in fact.

@Saffron Your suggesting reuniting the dog's dropping with its owners via their letterbox reminds me of what one of my exes did to a local Pizza Hut near our uni. Him and his mates got tired of getting olives they didn't order. They took an envelope full of the olives they'd picked off their pizzas and returned them to the shop to see how the owner liked taking delivery of olives he didn't want. Still makes me laugh now. And am I alone in revulsing at soft brown shit on the pavement, but having to turn my back on people who are picking up after their dog's mess with one of those little plastic bags? Think how warm it still is:(

@Saffron Surely taking pictures of seemingly suspect men and women in public - however 'dodgy' they may be acting, towards you or others - could eventually (or instantly) invite/spark an aggressive, or at least suspicious, reaction from one of the potential rogues in your gallery? Good idea in theory, but unnecessarily risky in practice.

Just echoing some sentiments mentioned earlier, is all. We re-located from Hants in '92 and when we arrived Lordship Lane was a welcoming reflection of my native Totton High St. Plenty of established family-run businesses and cosy pubs with character. Selfish was the wrong way to describe the change in atmosphere that came as a result of all the gentrification. Self-absorbed is probably a lot fairer.

"Some people don't want to share, they want to have." ED's dogma incarnate;-)

@ Jeremy Please don't lend some sort of legitimacy to the barbaric and utterly selfish acts of filicide in the muslim community by pre-fixing killing with honour. However percieved, there's no 'honour' in it at all. It's murder, plain and simple. Nothing against you persoanlly, it's just that I can't tolerate the air of justification carried by the word honour when used to describe murderous acts at the behest of their chauvinsistic, Stone Age culture.

To be fair, Jews are just as guilty as Muslims of practicing genital mutilation. I agree with ????. Cristians - especially Catholics, of which I am - are taking an underhand bashing on the strength of their faith's unfortunate association with a few very bad apples among a far greater number of good.

@SJ Thank you for taking the time to explain what's clearly gone straight over my head.:-$ @???? I'll remove my comment. Heartfelt apologies.

@TM SNAP

Comment romoved after clarification.

I hope for his sake that he is drunk. That was an incredibly vile and offensive comment to make.

What do you mean by that? My choice of newspaper isn't entirely representative of who I am.

I read the Daily Mail. What's the big deal?

Do they sell Blackjacks & Fruit Salad? I haven't seen them in ages!

Urgh. I can't stand 'gangsta rap'. It's larded with aggression and misogyny. Hardly the kind of thing you should play around young and/or impressionable kids.

As far as I'm aware the police aren't in a habit of informing those who've alerted them of their suspicions with regards to a potential suspect to avoid inducing undue hysteria. It must have been a fairly extreme case for them to say that they suspected him of being in possesion of a weapon, seeing as they hadn't apprehended him and thus wouldn't have been able to reference any data relating to any previous he may have had. Rather a bizarre thing of them to do if I'm honest.

Sorry, disregard the last of my previous post. Wasn't paying enough attention. :-$

I haven't seen any young men who are exhibiting such a concerning pattern of behaviour, and I live quite close to the area in question. Seems like he could be one of our local care in the community cases. The lack of physical despreiption is a bit odd as well. What does he look like: what kind of clothes was he wearing, what colour is he, was he short, tall, fat or thin? Pretty basic stuff you'd expect from someone who seems so keen on warning everyone about this possible threat.