Moped mugging on East Dulwich Road by Goose Green

[geobz]

This Sunday at about 14:30 two Caucasian idiots on a scouter that was coming from the opposite side of Grove vale, made a U turn just where I was standing on the pavement having a phone call with my back to the road.

I turned and saw them doing that Uturn, understood that they were most likely trying to grab my phone, looked at the guy on the back and he looked at me, signaled the driver and they just speed up and left.

They had NO PLATES on the scouter.

As of now that indicates to me that they tried snapping it while I was talking, but obviously when I turned around they got scared and left.

I am a muscular lad 6.4f height. If they tried that at me, means nothing will stop them from trying it with force to more vulnerable targets.

Of course the lovely police plays a huge role in the whole thing, as they are just letting them cruise through with no plates, and noone cares about pity thefts... What the police is actually going to do about your iphone if it gets stolen? Have a peon taking a statement of you, putting it down davy jones locker.

So be careful and try to avoid talking on the street. If you like talking on the street like your somehow in a Civilized Country and not in South Africa, then I dont know start complaining to those ugly politicians of ED that are doing nothing about the issue?

[James Barber]

Hi geobz,

I can't dispute the ugly comment.

But what do you expect a local councillor to do to fix this?

I can't make the Police break their London wide held rules for chasing people on scooters. You'd need to convince the Mayor of London to change that policy. You can email them him at - [email protected] I suspect he doesn't read this forum.

What Cllr Rosie Shimell and I are doing around crime prevention - and have been since 2007 - free home property marking kits, anti attack alarms (we'll be restocked with these shortly), alertboxes to help businesses protect each other, free motorbike ground anchors to make it much harder to steal these scooters in the first place, purse bells, gating alleyways.

If you can think of any other crime prevention please let me know.

[DulwichLondoner]

James Barber Wrote:

> I can't make the Police break their London wide

> held rules for chasing people on scooters.

James, do you know where the policy of not chasing motorcyclists with no helmet comes from? AFAIK the policy applies throughout England (I have no idea about Wales, Scotland and NI). I don't think it's an explicit law, is it? Has each police authority reached the same conclusion independently? In our case, would it be down to the Metropolitan Police and therefore the Mayor of London?

I find it insane not to chase these people because otherwise they could hurt themselves, but I do understand that chasing them might end up hurting other people - e.g. if these distinguished gentlemen hit other passers by while trying to escape.

[James Barber]

Hi DulwichLondner,

It is immensely frustrating. But would you want a son, daughter, partner, friend, neighbour killed by an out of control moped or scooter ridden by someone being chased or even the police car or cars chasing them about a smartphone theft. Epseically when those phones can be valueless if the owner uses some common sense.

The obvious solution is to make smartphone valueless once stolen. It is imperative we all ensure our smartphone locks/pins/passwords are used and remain hidden and not 1111. Regulation about their design so they can be deactivated remotely (that means us all noting the IMEI code for our phones), the speed phone companies can process a theft report and deactivate a phone, not buying knock-off goods/smartphones.

[geobz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi DulwichLondner,

> It is immensely frustrating. But would you want a

> son, daughter, partner, friend, neighbour killed

> by an out of control moped or scooter ridden by

> someone being chased or even the police car or

> cars chasing them about a smartphone theft.

> Epseically when those phones can be valueless if

> the owner uses some common sense.

>

> The obvious solution is to make smartphone

> valueless once stolen. It is imperative we all

> ensure our smartphone locks/pins/passwords are

> used and remain hidden and not 1111. Regulation

> about their design so they can be deactivated

> remotely (that means us all noting the IMEI code

> for our phones), the speed phone companies can

> process a theft report and deactivate a phone, not

> buying knock-off goods/smartphones.

A mobile phone doesn't become valueless if it gets blacklisted. You can easily bypass the lock.

Not being able to talk on your phone while walking because the police can't do anything is a joke of an answer. Its called MOBILE PHONE.

The police clearly doesn't wanna spend anytime on chasing them due to budget reasons... or else they could easily catch them.

Also about me emailing the mayor, have you emailed him? I don't think he cares about what I have to say, you're closer to him since your eating from the same table.

[JohnL]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi DulwichLondner,

> It is immensely frustrating. But would you want a

> son, daughter, partner, friend, neighbour killed

> by an out of control moped or scooter ridden by

> someone being chased or even the police car or

> cars chasing them about a smartphone theft.

> Epseically when those phones can be valueless if

> the owner uses some common sense.

>

> The obvious solution is to make smartphone

> valueless once stolen. It is imperative we all

> ensure our smartphone locks/pins/passwords are

> used and remain hidden and not 1111. Regulation

> about their design so they can be deactivated

> remotely (that means us all noting the IMEI code

> for our phones), the speed phone companies can

> process a theft report and deactivate a phone, not

> buying knock-off goods/smartphones.

Just read up that their are some people who remove or

clone IMEI numbers (and it's highly illegal).

IMEI spoofing it's called so tech needs to catch up and catch

these people as that's whats happening I think.

Why do phones even allow it to be changed - make it part of

the hardware

[DulwichLondoner]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi DulwichLondner,

> It is immensely frustrating. But would you want a

> son, daughter, partner, friend, neighbour killed

> by an out of control moped or scooter ridden by

> someone being chased or even the police car or

> cars chasing them about a smartphone theft.

> Epseically when those phones can be valueless if

> the owner uses some common sense.

Of course not, that was my very comment. However, there have also been cases of thieves of brand new motorcycles, worth tens of thousands of pounds, not chased by the police, either. The press wrote the police didn't give chase because the thieves had removed their helmets and so might get hurt in a chase - worrying about the thieves' wellbeing is quite different from worrying about that of innocent passersby. Of course the press' description might be inaccurate, I'm not sure about that.

One such case in Manchester: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-told-not-to-chase-motorbike-896469

[KrackersMaracas]

James,

I'm quite interested in how I could make my phone valueless once stolen? It seems from your comment that it is something that's relatively easy to do. I've had my phone nicked on more than one occasion- I use a password on all my devices (different from each one) and I have a note of the IMEI numbers. I had thought that once the phone was stolen thieves turned it off, cloned a new imei and sold it on at a phone shop - so even though it didn't hold my data any more, it would still hold a value for the thief?

Thanks

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi DulwichLondner,

> It is immensely frustrating. But would you want a

> son, daughter, partner, friend, neighbour killed

> by an out of control moped or scooter ridden by

> someone being chased or even the police car or

> cars chasing them about a smartphone theft.

> Epseically when those phones can be valueless if

> the owner uses some common sense.

>

> The obvious solution is to make smartphone

> valueless once stolen. It is imperative we all

> ensure our smartphone locks/pins/passwords are

> used and remain hidden and not 1111. Regulation

> about their design so they can be deactivated

> remotely (that means us all noting the IMEI code

> for our phones), the speed phone companies can

> process a theft report and deactivate a phone, not

> buying knock-off goods/smartphones.

[Nigello]

A young man (description not relevant in this case) on a micro-scooter, with no lights and not plates, turned left at speed into Wood Vale from FHR on Sunday at around 2030. missing me by a few inches. I rang 101 to report it but gave up after ten minutes hanging on.

Had he bumped into me or anyone else, I doubt I'd have been happy - not least because I suspect he would have been riding without insurance, given his lack of lights and plate.

[geobz]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Just read up that their are some people who remove

> or

> clone IMEI numbers (and it's highly illegal).

>

> IMEI spoofing it's called so tech needs to catch

> up and catch

> these people as that's whats happening I think.

>

> Why do phones even allow it to be changed - make

> it part of

> the hardware

It is a part of hardware, thats why its being spoofed in the first place. (Meaning the cracker puts a mask on it and changes its real values so network providers can't detect any fault)

You can't really secure something... when there is a will there is a way. In engineering/cs world, whatever can be created, can be reversed the exact same way it was created.

Mobile phones industry is a massive one, stolen phones etc is massive as well, so you have a ton of crackers focusing on breaking the software of the actual phone and not only software used for your Operating System but software used by Hardware as well.

Also those crackers will always catch up with newer methods no matter what.

KrackersMaracas yes it still holds a value for the thief. Even if police shuts down all those 2nd hand stores you see around peckham etc, they'll still hold their value in other countries, so yes blacklisting your phone doesn't make it useless.

[James Barber]

Hi geobz,

You do the Police a disservice. Crime has fallen dramatically in the last 20 years. Both reported crime and crime levels recorded through annual crime surveys. This is partly from an aging population. Partly from lead being removed from petrol. Partly from designing crime out.

And I thought I made the point mobiles should be designed to be useless once deactivated remotely. That gov't legislation.

I 'don't eat from the same table' as the London Mayor. Apart from being different political parties being a councillor is something I do as well as have a full time day job. As indeed do almost all other councillors or they're retired.

As for listening. If you don't try you definitely wont get a response from the London Mayor. You can ask the mayor questions via this page - https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/questions-mayor

[KidKruger]

James, I'm interested in your comment about lead removal from petrol contributing to crime rates falling.

Is that really a thing - I was not aware of that.

[Penguin68]

The police can change their internal operational 'rules' at any time - hence the armed force now deciding that in certain circumstances shooting at moving vehicles will be acceptable (following the Westminster Bridge attack). However there is always a need to balance security with safety (and justice) - to cause the death or serious injury of a moped criminal may not be considered a proportionate response.

Better to track them (e.g.with helicopters) on the basis that they have to stop eventually and can then be more safely seized. Of course this means that at times the little sh1ts get away with it, but on balance this may be better in a civilised society. However I believe that sometimes this 'use of appropriate response force' may have segued into 'don't really bother even to try, we probably won't catch them' - and this isn't an acceptable police response.

I would like to know, where police could be in a 'hot pursuit' mode how frequently they have pulled back and not tried alternative methods (i.e. following/ tracking and later arrest). I also wonder whether the police could, for instance, spray the criminals with dye or marker, without intercepting their vehicles, so as to later identify them more readily.

[rendelharris]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> James, I'm interested in your comment about lead

> removal from petrol contributing to crime rates

> falling.

> Is that really a thing - I was not aware of that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615

[Penguin68]

James, I'm interested in your comment about lead removal from petrol contributing to crime rates falling.

Is that really a thing - I was not aware of that.

A prime example of mixing correlation with causation. Lead particulates from tetraethyl lead are heavy and fall to the ground - so you'd be having to lick the road a lot. Tetraethyl lead was added to petrol as an anti-knock additive, it was removed because the lead bunged up catalytic converters which filter exhausts for lots of other nasties.

The most likely sources of environmental lead are in fact from lead based paints (now fully withdrawn from use) - their removal additionally from most wall etc. surfaces over the post war decades probably accounts for any reduction in environmental lead - whilst this removal happened at the same time as reductions in criminal behaviour there is no clear link to this and lead levels.

Lead is a poison, and high enough levels will lead to sickness and death (and can lead to irrational behaviour as a symptom) - however this makes an assumption that criminal behaviour is the result of either sickness or insanity (which if it were true would suggest that all punishments would be inappropriate).

Amended to note that the BBC article is making an assumption that leaded petrol is the primary source of environmental lead, although as I have said lead based paints (whose flakes are very light and easily windblown) are a far more likely source. And although it is also true that lead poisoning can lead to ghastly symptoms (and can effect the unborn) - the lead from petrol fell mainly on the roadside (the particles in the exhaust are very heavy and not so easily windblown). A simple study would look to see if lead workers were peculiarly prone to criminality -as they are certainly most exposed to lead poisoning and have to have regular health checks. I know of no such study with any useful conclusions.

[taper]

Like pirates and climate change. Although I do personally believe that one.

[DulwichLondoner]

More spurious correlations here: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> A prime example of mixing correlation with

> causation. Lead particulates from tetraethyl lead

> are heavy and fall to the ground - so you'd be

> having to lick the road a lot.

How Does Lead Get in the Air?

Sources of lead emissions vary from one area to another. At the national level, major sources of lead in the air are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead smelters.

As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts including the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, levels of lead in the air decreased by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014.

US Environmental Protection Agency

ETA: How much of a problem is air-borne lead in Australia?

The amount of lead in Australia's air has decreased significantly since the introduction of unleaded petrol in 1986. Before the phase-out of leaded petrol, which began in 1993, the national air quality standard for lead was regularly exceeded in urban environments. Levels are now less than 10 per cent of the national annual standard of 0.5 micrograms per cubic metre of air.

Australian Environment Department

The correlation between lead in the air and criminality is certainly debatable, but the idea that lead particulate pollution from car exhausts simply fell harmlessly on to the road would seem not to be the case.

[Penguin68]

As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts including the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, levels of lead in the air decreased by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014.

So nothing to do with the stop of use of leaded paints and the eventual over-painting or removal of these from the built environment? Removing lead from petrol was about making the catalytic converters work - it was a (happy) accident - if the converters which remove un-burnt hydrocarbons had worked with leaded petrol no changes would have been made - the lead additive was otherwise very beneficial for both the engines and fuel efficiency.

[Administrator]

Despite the amusing statement about the correlation of lead in the air/on the ground to crime rates, a polite reminder that the topic is "Moped mugging on East Dulwich Road by Goose Green".

[Sue]

geobz Wrote:

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

If you like talking on the street like

> your somehow in a Civilized Country and not in

> South Africa,

?????

[Administrator]

And please don't feed the troll (I'm talking about geobz)

[geobz]

Administrator Wrote:

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

> And please don't feed the troll (I'm talking about

> geobz)

Yep there it goes now am a troll, go out for a beer with your councilor friend. retard.

[kford]

The press were correct - the (very courteous) police who attended one the many thefts/attempted thefts of my bike confirmed this.

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Hi DulwichLondner,

> > It is immensely frustrating. But would you want

> a

> > son, daughter, partner, friend, neighbour

> killed

> > by an out of control moped or scooter ridden by

> > someone being chased or even the police car or

> > cars chasing them about a smartphone theft.

> > Epseically when those phones can be valueless

> if

> > the owner uses some common sense.

>

> Of course not, that was my very comment. However,

> there have also been cases of thieves of brand new

> motorcycles, worth tens of thousands of pounds,

> not chased by the police, either. The press wrote

> the police didn't give chase because the thieves

> had removed their helmets and so might get hurt in

> a chase - worrying about the thieves' wellbeing is

> quite different from worrying about that of

> innocent passersby. Of course the press'

> description might be inaccurate, I'm not sure

> about that.

>

> One such case in Manchester:

> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate

> r-manchester-news/police-told-not-to-chase-motorbi

> ke-896469

[rendelharris]

At the risk of being a crawler, another good decision by Admin there - geobz was a nasty bit of work.