Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Although the OP reported the men as 'taking' a bicycle and loading it into van, it would be helpful to have confirmed that the bicycle was in fact actually stolen - unless the van was also stolen it is pretty conspicuous and the thieves must be pretty brazen to be using it in theft.

I lost my key to my bike lock once. It was chained to a lamp post very close to the (old) New Scotland Yard. I hired a bolt cropper and removed it. Nobody batted an eyelid. On the belief that the activity was genuinely suspicious I am grateful to anyone reporting this; worst case is that it is totally innocent. If it was a legitimate removal of a dumped bike or one on private land then those taking it would be in some sort of livery.


Vehicles going up and down the road looking for scrap and junk are usually open caged trucks.


Of course normally I'd be defending those accused by the twitching curtains brigade.

The vehicle is Taxed and MOT'd till September 2021.


I cannot believe anyone would drive around in such a vehicle attracting attention

to themselves if they were on the Rob.


O.P. needs to change the title / Subject of this thread. (White LDV van stealing bikes) ???

How many Bikes ?? Stealing ??


DulwichFox.

Yes, I'll update if and when the police update me. In the meantime, to assuage the concerns of those generously offering the benefit of doubt above - the van pulled up, the driver stayed inside while the passenger opened the back up and then loaded a new-ish and reasonably expensive-looking bike into it which had been fixed to a lamp-post. The man pictured was wearing a cap and face mask and covered his face from me when he saw me filming. I could not see whether he cut the lock or had a key, so I can't confirm definitively that it was stolen as requested above. But the fact pattern strongly suggests so. Not clear why the possibility of them being scrap metal dealers and/or whether the van is stolen (unsure how you checked this?) would have any bearing on this.

Because you were not clear if the bike was actually stolen. You didn't see them cut or pick a lock, so the guy loading it could have had a key and been collecting it for someone.


I think until you hear from Police as to whether a theft actually did take place (an expensive bike would be reported as stolen if it indeed was), it is premature to post as though a theft had taken place and identify the vehicle you believe was engaged in a theft.


Given that you can not confirm the bike was indeed stolen, I suggest you amend the title of this thread to reflect that, because right now you are potentially libeling the driver and his passenger. Your impression does not constitute fact, until someone definitely reports that bicycle as stolen. To illustrate that, you believe you saw one bicycle being stolen, and yet you use plural in your title. See the problem?

Yes definitely innocent and not suspicious in any way. I expect they work for a charity and doing up old bikes for the NHS or orphans. I expect that probably people leave them to pick up chained to lamp posts. FFS. Good post.


The actions reported were certainly, on the face of it, suspicious, and recording details and even sharing them here (and certainly informing the police) was eminently sensible. But the van used, apparently not stolen, is very identifiable which makes its use in crime, at the very least, curious. Hence my initial cautionary note, supported by others who (unlike me) had bothered to check the van's status.


Perhaps because we are rarely exposed (in e.g. the news etc.) to good actions (because they are, generally, boring) but have a high exposure to bad we tend naturally to think the worst. Sometimes it's helpful to temper those thoughts, if remaining wary.

I don't want to get into the details but the reason I recognised the van and asked for the crime number is that a neighbour reported it to 111 a while back for behaviour that went beyond suspicious. No idea if it is the same people as dan saw but there may be a pattern here.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...