*Be vigilant* Possible imposters in the area

[Hickory]

Hi all

Don't want to unnecessarily scare people, however I thought I should share my experiences this week.

Whilst at home during the week (I'm usually at work) a man came up to my bay window and stared in. I confronted him in the street and he said he was from Virgin to 'check the cables', but was so incredibly rude to me and walked off.

Yesterday evening the same thing happened. Different person, but faces up against the window, having walked all over the front garden. This bloke was incredibly rude and abusive so I called the non-emergency police as well as Virgin, who said no installation teams were expected in the area.

There's a small chance it may well have truly been Virgin workmen (albeit who lack basic human skills). However please, please be vigilant. Real Virgin installation engineers should be wearing a full uniform, have a Virgin van nearby and carry ID, which you should always ask for.

The police suspect these are have-a-go imposters, trying to see who is away for Christmas. Lucky that we are not.

Similarly, if you see anyone hanging around your street that you don't recognise, might be worth mentioning to the neighbours or asking if they're having any work done.

OK lecture over! :-)

[ironjawcannon]

Take a photo of them through the window? Also noticed someone has been checking my car door to see if it is unlocked... stays slightly out if you do that which is how I know. again be vigilant.

[jane1]

where abouts do you live

[edanna]

They are probably also looking to see what you have that's worth nicking - IT/audio etc and presents - so good to have all out of view (out of view of windows at the back too as I recently learnt the hard way).

[Hickory]

I live near Dunstans Rd in East Dulwich, but it goes for anyone living around here, no matter the street. Luckily we have good security measures and good neighbours AND I did take a photo of the bloke! But I echo the other recommendations of having anything valuable out of sight.

[Huguenot]

I wonder what the law would be on posting that snapshot on the forum, just so he would be kind enough to confirm his identity and set your mind at rest?

[Loz]

I think that the photo was taken on your property and as long as you do not make any libellous comment, you would be within your rights to publish the photo.

[Alec John Moore]

Loz is right and the same would also apply if the photo was taken in a public space including the pavement outside of your property as long as you weren't causing an obstruction. If the photo was accompanied by a caption merely stating the circumstances of the picture and you didn't accuse the subject of any wrongdoing then it could be quite useful as a safeguard and deterrent.

[Hickory]

I'm not going to post the photo. It might attract trouble, not the libellous kind. The message is simply, be wary and ask for ID of any maintenance folk.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's obvious these guys are up to no good and possibly working as a team.

I'd also pasit on to your Safer Neighbourhood Police Team as they are more likely to have the time to patrol with PCSOs to see if these guys reappear.

[jane1]

post the photo on here, sum one might no him.....................

[KidKruger]

Personally I'd post on forum and print A4 posters to stick on lamp posts in your street, why should you live in fear, the guy was out of order and you're entitled to know who he is and why he did that.

If he was legit he could have waited by your front door when you noticed him and explained what he wanted - it's obvious that sticking his face against windows unannounced will concern anybody who's inside.

I understand anyone not wanting to post-up the pic though.

[baggie]

jane1 Wrote:

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

> post the photo on here, sum one might no

> him.....................

Innit.

[DJKillaQueen]

Fear of what a stranger, apparently up to no good might do if he sees his pic online (and knowing where the person who took it lives) is an understandable fear. There are also issues around publishing pictures of people, especially as at this stage, no crime has actually been committed. It's a matter for the police, and only the Police imo. They can publish photos if they feel there is good enough reason to do so.

[polla2256]

How arrogant can you be - if you have a photo post it. Or are you happy that as long as the potential crime against you has been overted all is well ?

What about the old man who can longer go out to face the world ?

The wife who no longer feels safe in her own home and lives in fear of her own community ?

Why do criminals have rights and the community none ?

Post the picture if you have it, you could really save someone the hurt.

[Fabricio the Guido]

Rights are no good unless everyone has them and we protect them for everyone. To publish the picture of a 'potential' criminal, who actually has not committed any offence or has not even been charged with anything, on the spurious basis that it might protect others sounds like the plot for Minority Report, which as you may recall was actually a science fiction movie. Your community rights argument sounds like a leaflet for the Pitchfork Brigade. Put it down. We pay taxes so that a police force will detect and prevent and collect evidence to prosecute crime. You are not a genius for circumventing established civilised community standards but a numpty.

[KidKruger]

WTF is a guy doing looking in through house windows then leaving when he realises someone IS in the house ?

So you'd be happy for guys to do that all day long at your house then because there's no crime being committed ?

Give me a break.

Casing a joint is not a crime, true enough.

Neither is posting pictures of the guy doing it. How else could you take the photo if he's not trespassing on your property and glaring at you through your own goddamn window !!

Rights ???

[JohnL]

Don't post.

It will be the forum admin who pays the penalty if a mistake is made

Usually admins are very sensitive on these matters - who wants to risk being sued.

Fabricio the Guido Wrote:

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

> Rights are no good unless everyone has them and we

> protect them for everyone. To publish the picture

> of a 'potential' criminal, who actually has not

> committed any offence or has not even been charged

> with anything, on the spurious basis that it might

> protect others sounds like the plot for Minority

> Report, which as you may recall was actually a

> science fiction movie. Your community rights

> argument sounds like a leaflet for the Pitchfork

> Brigade. Put it down. We pay taxes so that a

> police force will detect and prevent and collect

> evidence to prosecute crime. You are not a genius

> for circumventing established civilised community

> standards but a numpty.

[polla2256]

Believe it or not people out there do have a motive against you. Yes rights needs to be protected but a line must be drawn. Its blatantly obvious the guy was / is up to no good. As a community we should be vigilant together. As for your minority report comment - ridiculous, please review the film. This liberal mind set has to end or would you actually see the point of view of the person who pulls a trigger against you and say you were in the wrong for the sake of their rights ?

Horse sh!t Lets start a name and shame board !

[DJKillaQueen]

But John is right. A forum is read by much more than a local community and unless a crime is committed the person in that photo does have rights. Yes we all know that it is likely that the guys were casing for burglary, but there is no evidence of that (as accepted in law) until it happens. That is why posting photos online of someone under suspicion of what he might later do is unwise (hence the minority report reference). Admin did remove a photo posted by someone who did just that after a young man was a bit anti-social towards them at ED train station.

And it's not a liberal mindset that points out the above, it's one that understands why laws exist and what would be the consequences if people were allowed to ignore them. I would like to see many laws changed, that I feel would give power back to the victims and take it away from criminals, but I'm not going to advocate breaking the existing laws to please my own feelings on them either.

[KidKruger]

JohnL's point is reasonable.

If admin / the forum could be compromised in some way then it's not OK to post on EDF.

However this is a technical distraction, just one example of where it may not be prudent to display the photo of Mr. Joint-Caser.

But the principle of getting the photo out locally or posting on other www channels where the hosts are OK with it I have no problem with.

Put pictures on the street, give a copy to police, on public notice boards, etc.

Mr. Caser can explain what he was doing if he does not like it.

Once the guy is on your property with no good intentions he's waived his 'rights'.

FFS

[Fabricio the Guido]

Ok. Lesson 101.

This individual may have intended to commit a crime. We do not know because we are not mind readers and there is no actual proof of his intention. If he committed a trespass, that is an offence and that could be reported to the police who will investigate and prosecute. What if there is an innocent explanation for entering someone's garden? What happens when you post a picture and someone else decides to take the law into their own hands the next time they see this person -because in their opinion, these 'criminals' get away with crimes because the police are too weak to prosecute? Why don't we just by pass the whole criminal justice system and issue on the spot penalties for doggy looking people or people who act doggy in our opinion? I would like to issue a penalty notice to anyone who looks doggy in my opinion, community sentencing you might call it. We could all draw up lists of people we don't like the look of, including suspected paediatricians and even pedophiles, chavs, blacks, travellers, swarthy looking eastern europeans, gingers, northerners. The list is endless.

Sure, they might not have committed any offence, but it is a strong generalisation that based on anecdotal evidence, these types of people are likely to commit certain crimes, sooner or later. You are right, I have taken the scenarios to it's logical extreme until the argument appears absurd.

Technically, if you post a picture and called someone a potential their and they have not done anything, that's libellous.

The Daily Mail did that to the Stephen Lawrence accused. They didn't sue. BBC tried that schtick recently, and are still paying the price. Leaving aside the underlying class issue and questions of evidence, nice when laws protect everyone. I feel safer in my snuggly liberal bed because I expect to stand up for others and I would hope they would do the same for me if my rights are at stake. So there is a sense of community here, but it's a community that tries to do the descent thing rather than take action to assuage some sense of knowing better than other people, because of self righteous indignation.

Liberal feathers, not even slightly ruffled. Always glad to try and explain why the principle of universalisation is a reasonable/ proper basis for human action. Means and ends and all that jazz.

[KidKruger]

Posting a photo saying 'this man has been peeping through windows of local house(s)' is not libellous - unless that's not how you took the photo.

[Fabricio the Guido]

So what exactly is the aim or purpose of posting the picture if they have done nothing wrong in the first place ? What description would you attach to the image ?

[Zebedee Tring]

This intruder is lucky that he doesn't live in the USA. He would by now have been blasted into oblivion.

I am of course being ironic and am very glad that, unlike US citizens, we don't all have the right to bear arms.