Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We had to stop our car when driving on lordship lane by the south circular as so many of them were going past on both sides of the car, weaving in and out in front of us. Quite a few went up the pavement. Many also going in the opposite lane meeting traffic head on. An accident could have easily happened.
Took my five year old out trick or treating and saw the tail end of these idiots speeding up Forest Hill road past Francesca Cabrini school towards Honor Oak Road Forest Hill way. Weaving over both sides of the road and onto pavements with total disregard for anyones safety, motorbikes and quad bikes. Quite scary for my daughter, freind of mine posted a video of them going through Streatham, literally over a hundred easy. Massive bunch of twats.

It's the Mods and Rockers days all over again-form a gang and get on the streets but today we have Social Media to organise it better.


How the police will will deal with it, who knows?


Ever see any police around?


Rev it up! Cheers!

Hard to know what the police can do about mass anti-social riding. Sadly it will probably take something tragic to happen first. Looking at the footage online, it seems that it was a minority of riders on the pavemnts though. There's nothing new about motor cycle rallies. How to tackle the anti-social element is the problem.
There's quite a lot of footage on youtube now and there's absolutely loads of illegal and dangerous behaviour: riding on pavements, riding right across both lanes, riding without helmets, speeding. All which made much worse because of the number and also because they did this down residential streets (woodwarde road and side streets, for example) that were full of children in the dark. There's no doubt that there's excitement to be had in "occupying" en masse the roads of London but the police response is pathetic and outrageous.
I agree the Police response is pathetic (which is why I said it might take a tragic incident to force them to act) but what can they realistically do against 100 moped/ bike riders? At best they can catch and prosecute one or two for traffic offences. That will hardly stop similar events from happening will it?
And there was an illegal rave or something in London where petrol bombs were being thrown- it seems that these yobs and anarchists know the police are stretched and are taking the opportunity to make complete nuisances of themselves. Examples will need to be made of the perps that are caught, or the general public will mete out its own justice

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> And there was an illegal rave or something in

> London where petrol bombs were being thrown- it

> seems that these yobs and anarchists know the

> police are stretched


The police shut that whole thing down, they weren't so stretched they couldn't handle it.


Examples will need to be made of the

> perps that are caught, or

the general public will

> mete out its own justice


What?! Put them in the stocks? Bring back Borstal? Public flogging?

And as for your other opinion...yes, that's just what the police want, people taking the law into their own hands. That'll make their job easier, of course. No need for the niceties of proof, evidence, due process and so on, just kick seven bells out of some youngster that you think isn't being respectful. Which is exactly what would happen.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> And there was an illegal rave or something in

> London where petrol bombs were being thrown


The "petrol bomb" line was classic Met misinformation bollocks. They fed the line to the media as "a suspected petrol bomb was reportedly thrown", and then issued a release that said "a reported petrol bomb". There was no photo or video of such a thing, the Met did not formally claim one was thrown and there was only ever one spoke of.


But the target audience for the misinformation inferred exactly what they wanted you to infer - that there was an urban battle between police and anarchists where the sky was lit by the light of a thousand Molotovs - rather than cops using a few arseholes as an excuse to beat people with batons at an unlicensed disco.

rabbitears Wrote:

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

> uncleglen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > And there was an illegal rave or something in

> > London where petrol bombs were being thrown

>

> The "petrol bomb" line was classic Met

> misinformation bollocks. They fed the line to the

> media as "a suspected petrol bomb was reportedly

> thrown", and then issued a release that said "a

> reported petrol bomb". There was no photo or video

> of such a thing, the Met did not formally claim

> one was thrown and there was only ever one spoke

> of.

>

> But the target audience for the misinformation

> inferred exactly what they wanted you to infer -

> that there was an urban battle between police and

> anarchists where the sky was lit by the light of a

> thousand Molotovs - rather than cops using a few

> arseholes as an excuse to beat people with batons

> at an unlicensed disco.


Yes, the petrol bomb thing sounds extremely dubious to me. That said, if you're going to organise a weekend long rave (which was the original intention), there are better places to locate it than in a densely populated, residential area of central london. Really what did the organisers think was going to happen? It was always going to be shut down

>

> Yes, the petrol bomb thing sounds extremely

> dubious to me. That said, if you're going to

> organise a weekend long rave (which was the

> original intention), there are better places to

> locate it than in a densely populated, residential

> area of central london. Really what did the

> organisers think was going to happen? It was

> always going to be shut down


I don't believe the petrol bomb thing for a moment - it'd be all over the media if it really happened.


Regarding the organisers, if they're anything like the kind of people I used to know (and I readily admit this was in the 90's!), they probably had naive belief that if they behaved themselves they'd be left alone. Back then squat parties etc that were 'sensible' got ignored; I even remember police turning up to the door of some of them just to check there was nothing they were needed for, being very pleasant and then leaving us alone. Varied wildly from borough to borough of course. City of London police were the most open-minded, strangely.


Anyway, that was then. Nowadays? Different story indeed.

Back to the hooligans on bikes, a couple of things no-one seems to have mentioned. These amoebas have been riding around the area like this for months, usually on a Sunday and in smaller groups, but still in a pathetic, childishly reckless manner. Also the bikes are mostly off-road / motocross, which are therefore not road legal - no MoT, no insurance, no tax, no lights, and obviously no number plates. These aren't 'motorcyclists', they're not even 'bikers', they're just antisocial pond life on scramblers, making everyone's life just that little bit more miserable and unpleasant. No idea how the authorities can do anything, no amount of CCTV will identify any of them without registrations, just hope they get bored or see sense before someone gets hurt.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I agree the Police response is pathetic (which is

> why I said it might take a tragic incident to

> force them to act) but what can they realistically

> do against 100 moped/ bike riders? At best they

> can catch and prosecute one or two for traffic

> offences. That will hardly stop similar events

> from happening will it?



I was wondering the same thing. Once the event is underway, I think it becomes very hard to police. However, didn't the same event happen in S London last year? And wasn't this year's event coordinated via social media in advance? So if the Met pulls their finger out, they could have better policing in place next year to keep it from reaching critical mass (maybe)?


I'm not opposed to riding out and having a laugh, but on the pavements and doing stupid illegal stuff is going to end in tears.

Otta Wrote:

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

> Yep it's been going on a while (although not on

> this scale). Bunch of stupid spoilt little @#$%&.

>

> Frankly if one of them came off his bike in front

> of me I'd be laughing as I called the ambulance.


I've regularly seen groups on Lewisham Way / Loampit Vale the last few weeks.


On Halloween, my neighbour said some guy caught his own motorcycle on fire riding around Hilly Fields letting off fireworks (I didn't see it, as we were at a party in Ladywell). Funnily enough, she didn't mention anyone calling an ambulance. I guess he was ok?! :-0 I wonder if anyone turned up at Lewisham A&E with a burnt bottom??? Good luck explaining that to the night staff.

I did many illegal bikey things as a yoot and back then would have thought this was a fine act of stick-it-to-the-man rebellion, and even joined in.


Now I am old I want them all strapped to a tree so the dogs can piss on them


On the upside it might keep the trick and treaters confined to barracks next year

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

    • I thought that re ULEZ, but actually other places do have similar schemes, eg Bristol. I got caught by this a couple of years ago when Google maps sent me through Bristol en route to somewhere else. Though I did manage to get the fine waived. And other places are apparently going to have them, eg Oxford. As I found when I was considering selling the car in Oxford. Which I think is a very good thing, but not helpful if your car isn't compliant  Also in order to sell it I would presumably have to get it into working order, so I'd have to buy a new battery anyway. I use mostly buses and trains already, for travelling both within and outside London.  That's why I rarely use the car except for transporting bulky/heavy items, or going to places which aren't easy to reach via public transport, or giving people a lift who are not very mobile. The problem with hiring a car to go to a festival, for example,  is that I'd be paying for it to sit in a field for several days. And it would be impossible, or at least very difficult,  to transport a tent and camping equipment there by public transport. Not that I've been to any festivals lately. I think I'm talking myself into keeping the car. I did do sums when ULEZ came in. I've had a Freedom Pass for over fifteen years, gulp 😂 This is all true, but you have to factor in my age, convenience, and the waste of money in hiring a car if you aren't actually going to use it once you've got to your destination until you need to drive home. If there was a system like zip cars where you could drive somewhere and leave the car for someone else to use, then pick up another car just to drive back, that would be different. And hire charges are greater for older drivers (even though apparently the stats say we are safer) even assuming you can find a company which will hire you a car. Thank you, that's useful. I  keep meaning to  check for ULEZ compliance. A mechanic once told me I should do this, because his son had a similar issue and then found his car was actually compliant, and I never got round to it. It's a Micra so I probably need to contact Nissan (or could a garage check NOx output? Is this part of the MOT?)
    • We used to have local councillors posting on this forum - are there any who are still members?
    • I've never owned a car in the 25 years I've lived in London.  I would regard it as  a hopeless waste of money  I walk, get public transport and taxis for the rare occasions when public transport won't cut it. Anything large that needs to be transporting to or away from my property - well pretty much all shops deliver and for anything  else  there is always someone who willing do it for a small fee. If I need a car to go somewhere outside of London (you would be surprised at how little this issue occurs) then hire cars exist.
    • Hi, we're in a similar position with our old people carrier and did a look back at our usage and then looked at the costs for car clubs, taxis and car hire costs if we got rid of it. In our case the away trips to family, especially during school holidays, makes it cheaper to keep ours and pay ULEZ (the away trips is the big cost for hiring). We rarely use it for local trips and plan usage to aim for multiple purpose trips. We also share with our neighbours such as moving large items with our people carrier and share the ulez cost. Generally for low use alone it will not make financial sense to buy a newer car. Also, if you have a petrol car check its NOx output amount for ULEZ compliance as TFL wrongly categorised many older cars. Did this for neighbours 2001 car and it's ULEZ compliant when TFL originally said it was not (now fixed) and having the same issue with a 1997 petrol car.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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