
Domitianus
Member-
Posts
1,116 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Domitianus
-
East Dulwich station (Ticket checks)
Domitianus replied to Dog's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
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! -
East Dulwich station (Ticket checks)
Domitianus replied to Dog's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have tried to establish the reason for the > police/dog activity as several people in the > thread wanted to know WHY. > > First I called the Met Police, they gave me the > no. for British Transport Police, the chap at BTP > said the following: > "It's happening at several stations in the area, > we are trying to maintain a presence and make > people a bit more aware that we are around, > hopefully people will feel safe in the knowledge > that we are around and hopefully we can deter > petty crime". > > The chap did say there was no specific > intelligence on ED station or suspected activity > there itself. > > If you have a problem with this (as some people > here seem to) and want to know more or argue the > case (as some people here seem to) call BTP on > 0800 405040 and let us all know how you get on. > > So it seems they are attending certain stations in > South London for a while then will probably move > on elsewhere. Whatever the motives it has to be said that they could cover three stations at same time with the amount of officers I have seen deployed at ED. -
"THANK YOU" from Vals Store (Joseph & Nisha)
Domitianus replied to valstore's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
Hurrah for Joseph and Nisha! -
East Dulwich station (Ticket checks)
Domitianus replied to Dog's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
LegalEagle-ish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The right to go about your lawful business without > unwarranted inteference by the state. The right not to have my scrotum snuffled by a dog unless I have paid for it.....I mean, given my consent to it. Joking apart, it is easy to say that there is no real infringement of liberties here but every slight escalation of intervention by the police, every gradual, subtle pushing back the boundaries of what they are able to do with nothing but a sigh of resigned forebearance from us all is a gradual erosion. It is an erosion of the will to stand against an overt, formal extension of police power. If legislation were to be introduced to give the police formal powers to have people stand against a wall without reasonable suspicion and be sniffed by a dog, people might be much more likely to say something like "Well, effectively that's what they have been doing for years - all they are doing now is making it official." A great many people (even I believe the Information Commissioner?) have stated that the Labour government of the last number of years has presided over an alarming erosion of civil liberties - perhaps greater than that seen ever before in peacetime. Things like this happen bit-by-bit, little-by-little, drip-drip-drip, through a process of social desensitisation that is then capitalised upon. It is also of course helped by pushing through legislation amidst public panics over terrorism etc. Look at Dunblane - used by Blair and his witchy wife to drive through gun control laws. Has it had any noticeable effect upon gun crime? Not that I am aware of. Has it seriously inconvenienced legitimate, law-abiding, sporting gun users? Yes. For example, the British Olympic shooting team now has to travel abroad to train! -
HeidiHi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have only been once and not been back after I > could not get my nappies, cabbage and other > various bits at Sainsbury's, had to go to Val's > and Costcutters. > I might pop to Sainsbury's now and again but it > will be very rare and I like DKH Sainsbury's, just > not impressed with the local. I wished they had > listened to us and put in a Marks Food Hall, that > would have done much better! "They" being?
-
East Dulwich station (Ticket checks)
Domitianus replied to Dog's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OutOfFocus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I'm more concerned that a private company > gets > > to > > > use public police for their own revenue > > > protection. I want the British Transport > > Police > > > (or the general Police if they were there) > > > protecting the public, not a company's > income. > > > > So the Police shouldn't get involved in bank > > robberies - only protecting the assets of a > > private company. > > Of course they should - that's attending a crime, > not protecting an income stream. Do we have > police guarding Sainsbury's making sure that > everyone has paid? No. Do they attend Sainsbury's > if a crime has taken place? Yes. > > Here, no crime has yet taken place. If a ticket > inspector is assaulted, the police should be > involved - that is the correct use of them. But > having them manning each and every mobile ticket > inspection 'just in case' and acting as the train > operating company's heavies is not. > > No other private company gets to use the police > force in this way. I could be wrong but I believe travelling without a proper fare is a civil matter for the company to resolve through civil processes - hence no right for the police to stick their oar in at all. There is no criminal offence as there would be in the case of a bank robbery. I just don't buy the "they are only there to protect the revenue inspectors" angle at all. If that was the case two or three of them would be more than ample - no need for about ten. I have seen the police en masse assisting revenue inspectors on the number 12 bus at Elephant. One guy got off the bus and legged it rather than be accosted by a revenue inspector. A copper ran off after him. I wonder why? If the guy had merely avoided paying a fare then it was no overt business of the police. Perhaps they simply found a guy running away suspicious but unless they had reasonable grounds for assuming that he had committed a criminal offence (not fare dodging) they had no right to accost him. I am, of course, happy to stand corrected if I am wrong on the law here. What alarms me a little more is the use of effectively a people bottle-trap (exit from station) to submit people to a de facto dog search. It has always struck me that this would be a highly traumatic experience for anyone who had a dog phobia - having a frisky dog foisted on you unexpectedly by a man in uniform as you were forced forward by a crowd behind you with no escape. I wonder if the rozzers ever give any thought to that. -
Personally, I am not at all against Sainsbury's opening their store and I have started to use it simply because it does decent stuff and is local. I also still use Vals if all I want is some teabags or a pint of milk. I do not, however, approve of the COuncil getting arsey with any shopholder in the way described.
-
Whatever the facts are, 20 minutes warning is hopeless. How can someone move a display like that so quickly? To do so in such a lightly staffed shop would take her away from dealing with customers and would potentially make the shop vulnerable to thiesves or shoplifters while the owner struggles with the external display.
-
jeanne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Obviously East Dulwich!! Could just as easily have been Denmark Hill, North Dulwich or even Peckham.
-
Fight in Sainsburys this afternoon (January 03) (Lounged)
Domitianus replied to sawyerphin's topic in The Lounge
Only reason I knew you were wrong about Sainsbury's was I have always been delighted that they have actually correctly used punctuation when the populist temptation would have been to ditch a "superfluous" apostrophe, even though it was correct. Good for Sainsbury's I say. -
Fight in Sainsburys this afternoon (January 03) (Lounged)
Domitianus replied to sawyerphin's topic in The Lounge
ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Probably not.. ;-) Of course, I should have added - Crime Scene Preservation #101! -
Fight in Sainsburys this afternoon (January 03) (Lounged)
Domitianus replied to sawyerphin's topic in The Lounge
I think that all Sainsbury's staff, from the lowliest new recruit to the General Manager, should be trained in krav magna, sniper skills, hostage negotiation, ninja super-secret stealth skills, field surgery and advanced life support. Will that satisfy everyone? -
Fight in Sainsburys this afternoon (January 03) (Lounged)
Domitianus replied to sawyerphin's topic in The Lounge
Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ms B Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Must have been scary at the time for all > > concerned. However, while I wasn't there > myself, > > some of the comments about Sainsbury's > management > > of the situation seem a bit unfair. I've been > > there a few times in the past when there has > been > > some kind of incident that the police have been > > called to, though not at this level, and I got > the > > impression that the staff are trained to deal > with > > them without causing all-out panic - telling > all > > staff to go the back of the store bears this > out. > > Sorry - but I have to disagree. Asking staff to > move to a safe area protects staff whilst failing > to protect customers, which is just wrong. > > And its not the blame game - By looking closely at > how these situations are dealt with, we can deal > with them better in future. If I was a customer > there with a child, I'd like to have been told to > move to a safe area of the store. "Staff to the back of the store" was hardly likely to have been an order for all staff to go to the back of the store - how the heck could the check-out staff have walked away from their tills letting people bugger off with goods just because of a scrap in one of the aisles? I suspect it is much more likely to have been a coded announcement to alert security staff that there was an incident. When I worked in a major shopping mall in Belfast which also housed government offices it was well known that the announcement (which was heard more than once in my time) "Plumbers to the basement please" was actually a coded announcement to security staff that there was a suspect device in the building. It was done to avoid uneccesary panic pending a decision as to whether to evacuate the centre or not. -
Fight in Sainsburys this afternoon (January 03) (Lounged)
Domitianus replied to sawyerphin's topic in The Lounge
huncamunca Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > chica1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In US, security guards in depots or warehouses > > (B&Q, Homebase equivalent in UK) even have guns > > (not that I want same practice here). But that > > role is taken very seriously and those guards > are > > also totally alert. > > > > I've observed some SGs in Sainsburys sometimes > and > > they are yawning, dragging their feet, staring > at > > a distance, I feel like making this point to > > Justin King (CEO) actually...and same goes with > > the cashiers who more often than not have long > > faces and rude. > > > I take it you have never worked in this kind of > environment ? I can appreciate that the tedium of the job and lack of acknowledgment/appreciation from customers leads to these behaviours but I still think we are entitled to expect the SGs to wade in when there IS a bit of action. -
Fight in Sainsburys this afternoon (January 03) (Lounged)
Domitianus replied to sawyerphin's topic in The Lounge
chica1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Security guards are just that, they are there to > provide a secure environment be it against > shoplifters, fights, nuances, etc. > > They are trained for such role and if the > Sainsburys's SGs are not then they should not be > employed. I agree, although I have to say I am most concerned at the prevalence of nuances in the High Street these days. Just the other day I encountered a nuance that, had it not been for swift intervention by a Community Warden, might have become an insinuation. -
Fight in Sainsburys this afternoon (January 03) (Lounged)
Domitianus replied to sawyerphin's topic in The Lounge
sophiesofa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow what a lady Nikki is, I'm glad she's ok. > > I don't think a security guards job should involve > breaking up fights since they could end up > seriously injured, they are probably trained not > to intervene but to call the police. Sorry that > was slightly off topic and I'm just speculating. Then they should be called "Observer/Telephonists" rather than Security Guards. -
The use of Body Scanners which reveal intimate body parts...
Domitianus replied to Ladymuck's topic in The Lounge
monica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lol slightly puzzled by the whole male on male > search and female on female search. Everytime I go > to N. Ireland I get searched, last night I > returned and the woman frisking me really went for > it, to the point of me making a complaint. > Travelling back from the USA this summer I was > frisked by a guy in Colorado!!!! And boy he really > frisked me, to the point my Hubby was slightly > concerned. So my question is do I have the kind of > body that may imply I have concealed weapons.B) You just have a deeply suspicious face, Mon. I very rarely get searched when I travel regularly to and from Norn Iron. They have on occasion however been so kind as to valet my laptop - they take it out of the case and dust it over with little delicate white swabs - a wonderful service. Next time I may ask them to polish my shoes for me. -
There will be further revelations of scientific fraud undermining the alarmist perspectives on global warming. At least one more restaurant and one more pointless tat shop will open on LL. A Premiership footballer will be convicted of rape or assault. Someone will buy a boat. DM will buy something she doesn't want/like/need because it is trendy.
-
I had a similar experience many years ago that used to go on into the small hours of the morning with a neighbour two floors below me slamming doors, screaming at non-existent people and smashing pans on walls and work surfaces. It went on for months and drove everyone else in the block to distraction. She was seriously mentally ill and had discontinued her medication and was suffering herself. Best thing to do perhps is speak to local mental health agency and see if this person is known to them. It may be that some sort of intervention is needed by them if this person is disturbed.
-
Just what we need - a shop selling soap. As there is nowhere else on LL you can buy soap!
-
So who is it - who is on Come Dine With Me?
Domitianus replied to SeanMacGabhann's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A lecture on maturity from one who takes almost > any opportunity to make what actually amount to > vaguely mysoginistic attacks on mothers and their > kids. I also noticed the other day that your lack > of empathy meant you didn't understand why broken > pavements bothered people - er those with > disabilities, the elderly and those with poor > sight could probably explain but it's all just > about you in your world and anything not in your > place is an affront. I guess your just another > passive aggressive idiot poster. Hey ho. I read your response with hilarity, Quids, as I can only reflect that perception, for you, is projection. "Passive aggressive" from the guy who bandies round abusive terms to other posters who disagree with his world view. It is rather sad that you feel the need to misinterpret so much of what I say wrongly and then launch into your silly little tirades. And your statement "but it's all just about you in your world and anything not in your place is an affront..." is just such a blatant example of more projection. I make comments and observations that are not about 'you' in 'your world' and you engage in abusive language and statements about someone who doesn't match your precise set of filters and prejudices. Instead of discussing the point you have, for the umpteenth time, chosen to post a childish personal insult about me. Tell you what, Quids, I am really glad that my posts occasionally annoy you as you sound like the sort of t**t who thinks he has the right to police the world, everyone else's opinions and that everyone should agree with him. Instead of venting your spleen here (and then going into denial and accusing others of doing the same) why not take it to your therapist, suck your thumb and say "There's this really mean guy on an internet forum who has views and says things I don't like. How dare someone not agree with me ? The bad man makes me want to cry!" -
So who is it - who is on Come Dine With Me?
Domitianus replied to SeanMacGabhann's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
I mean, let's face it, it was such a useful post to declare that one couldn't make a social occasion as one had a new baby. I can see why you would want to laud such a worthy and germane publicising of progeny. -
So who is it - who is on Come Dine With Me?
Domitianus replied to SeanMacGabhann's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
You still the complete t***er, Quids? No respect. But don't worry, one day you will mature and outgrow this need to defend the sanctity of conspicuous reproduction. Does pitying shake of head. -
So who is it - who is on Come Dine With Me?
Domitianus replied to SeanMacGabhann's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
I wish I had been invited to be on Come Dine With Me and had to turn them down because I had a NEW BABY!!! That way, I would know I was really important and had arrived socially.
East Dulwich Forum
Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.