Pickpockets in London?
 

We're leaving in a few days... just was wondering if there are specific neighborhoods or places to be especially watchful and careful about pickpocketing or other nefarious activities in London? We're pretty savvy travellers but will have a toddler with us this time (i.e. potentially exhausted and easily distractable). So a heads up about particular areas where extra caution would be warranted will be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Kat

Areas you would expect really - anywhere there is a crush of people, such as train stations and on the Tube. The only time I have had belongings stolen are in bars, when I've put a back on the floor by my feet - easy pickings.

Pickpockets are no more prevalent in London than they are in any major city that attracts a lot of tourists, and as long as you use comon sense, I doubt you will come across any bother. London does not have the "gangs of gypsies" problems that places such as Rome have suffered from - you won't be surrounded by gangs of demanding children, for instance. Pickpocketing is opportunist, so a backpack on a crowded train with a handy zip is a prime target. Bag "snatchers" are very rare - in that I mean you will be highly unlikely to have someone try and wrestle a bag from your shoulder or rip a necklace from your body. Just keep pockets on bags zipped and tucked under your arm.

But most of all don't panic! Street crime is still rare, and truly suspect areas of town are not any areas you will find yourself in.

Kate
London

Convicted pickpockets should get a mandatory 5 year prison sentence at hard labor. Second offense 10 years. Third offense 20 years. Teach them to keep thier filthy hands to themselves.

On a recent trip, there were warnings on the loudspeaker about pickpockets on the Underground, but we didn't experience this, or hear of it happening to anyone while we were there. I would be careful about areas that get very crowded such as Camden Market which the guide books will mention is attractive to pickpockets. You'll want to avoid crowds with your toddler anyway...we found that getting up early often results in an hour or so of leisurely touring of the various sites before the rest of the world gets there. And with a toddler, you'll all appreciate an afternoon nap.

I recall signs posted along Oxford St. and at Piccadilly Circus warning people that "pickpockets operate in these areas".We never had a problem and never felt unsafe.It's a good reminder to keep an eye out.

It's VERY rare. I lived there for 4 years and took the tube every day to and from home, as well as most weekends and never had a problem. Go back often, and nothing has changed other than the notices to beware. Remember, most areas in central London have cameras all over the place. As you're walking down the street, just look up on the side of the building. I'm sure you'll see one.

Shucks, degas, why be so wimpy.

Cut off their right hand the first time, their left the second.

No, simply execute them? After all, the only real deterrent to crime is to eliminate the criminal.

No, busting rocks 10 hours a day will suffice. One must not over-react, even its pond scum we are dealing with here.

Don't discount all these warnings.

Mrs F recently was on jury service. One young gentleman came up, charged with pickpocketing on the tube.

The police messed the evidence up, and the jury had no option but to acquit. At which stage, the defendant's previous convictions came to light.

Over 10 previous convictions of more or less pickpocketing, more or less on the tube. He was less than 20.

It helps to have very little in your pocket to pick. The police advise you to keep your passport in your hotel safe, and I would add your airline ticket and all but one of your credit or debit cards. If you take money from ATMs you have a better rate, and (unlike travellers cheques) you need no passport.

[email protected]

Flanner, Interested to know how someone's previous convictions come to light after they have been acquitted.

It is normal for previous convictions to be only brought up in a British Court on conviction, and for the purpose of sentencing.

It's also interesting how many people are "acquitted" because the Police muck up the evidence, more often than not, it's because sufficient evidence isn't there in the first place.

The Crown Prosecution Service will often take a case to court with only a 51% chance of winning, but in reality the burden on the prosecution in criminal matters is not the balance of probabililities but beyond reasonable doubt which is a much higher bar to leap.

This is getting far off the topic of the original post, but my belief was that if the accused chooses to testify in his own defence, then the Crown can bring up previous convictions. Is that so?

I wonder how many crimes are committed on average before a thief is actually convicted?

25? 50? 100?

Walter:

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. But this wasn't a case of unconvincing evidence. It really was utterly messed-up police evidence - internally inconsistent on all sorts of trivial details. More than that I cannt divulge without publicising Mrs F's breach of jury privacy

The previous convictions came up because there was a separate charge on which the defendant was clearly guilty.

When I was in London w/my Mom we were riding on the tube during rush hour. It was very crowded and there was a woman standing next to Mom who hadn't bathed since Mrs. Thatcher was in office. Mom kept moving away from her because she smelled so bad, but the woman would move closer again. Finally Mom looked down and the woman's hand was reaching into Mom's Harrod's bag. Mom snatched the bag away and gave her a dirty look, so the woman backed away. Little did that pig know that all we bought at Harrod's was candy. It made us mad at the time, but now it seems kind of funny.

Not usually unless he attempts to make character an issue i.e. He states "I have never been in trouble before", when his previous convictions show otherwise.

There are a few exceptions to this rule though (i.e. necessary to prove the offence -e.g. driving whilst disqualified - you have to demonstrate that someone has been disqualified to prove the offence; or where the crime has been committed in such a distinctive way -"calling card" crime - that it could only be the accused)et cetera.

Hence, the large number of times British Juries are reported in the press as "horrified" that they find the monster they convicted "had done it before" - because it rarely comes up, for good reason, in the trial.

Meant to say, that, London, as with any city, can be dangerous. But, if you keep your wits about you, don't flaunt your wealth in places where it is inappropriate to do so (i.e the tube) then you should have absolutely no problem. The most publicised crimes against tourists tend to be the "Rolex" and "Guicci" snatches.

Thanks Flanner, thought that might be the case. I totally dispare with incompetent prosecution! Guilty people are found not guilty. Innocent people daily face the worry of a trial on frankly c**p evidence.

Thanks to those of you who answered the question (and no hard feelings to those of you who are discussing UK legal process... :) )

Never have nor will own a Rolex or Gucci anything, and hardly have much to flaunt except maybe my darling little daughter. (Proud mama here.)

But the experience of being targeted for pickpockets is always unsettling... had it happen once in Florence and once on the Paris metro (just saw them, never was pickpocketed)... so I just wondered what it's like in London. Then again, I don't want to live in fear, and I want to be able to enjoy the city and let my toddler enjoy watching the buskers and play in the park, etc... while also being vigilant and watchful.

I can't wait to get there.

~kat

Many of these pickpockets are young Eastern Europeans from Bosnia etc who visit London as tourists but who, when there, dedicate themselves to pickpocketing.