Talk:Baker Street robbery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Female robber

A woman's voice said, "We have done all the easy ones." This seems to refer to safe deposit boxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.202 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Baker Street robbery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324044204/http://www.bankofengland.co.uk:80/education/inflation/calculator/flash/index.htm to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/inflation/calculator/flash/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100930161920/http://goliath.ecnext.com:80/coms2/gi_0199-8802477/THE-BANK-JOB-FILES.html to http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-8802477/THE-BANK-JOB-FILES.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Photos

Were the photos being held by Micheal X, or was Princess Margaret? Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The photos of course; I've reworded it to hopefully make that clear.--Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, much better. Thanks. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

D-Notice

This is a load of old tosh. D-notice? No reporting after four days? The Times were reporting details of people being charged with the crime a month after the supposed d-notice.

Four days is the average lifespan of a story especially when the investigation is on-going. A d-notice was never issued and even if it was it is merely a request, not an legally-enforcable order. Once again the truth is crushed in the chase of a good story.

This article implies that a D Notice was never served and yet all 3 of the papers above (who reported at the time) say that a D Notice WAS served. Most of the other information leans towards the film being a complete lie. I'm sure it didn't let the truth get in the way of a good story at times, but from eyewitness accounts as well as Newspaper reports both recent and at the time, the film is certainly nearer the truth than this article ever will be!

There seem to be major discrepancies here:

• The D-Notice. Two points: D-Notices were treated more seriously in the past than they are today, not as mere "requests"; secondly, since the aim is secrecy it may have been more convenient not to obtain a formal D-Notice. If the Times continued reporting, perhaps it as the establishment paper was exempt. If there was no suppression of the news why wouldn't the other papers have kept reporting too?
• The convictions of robbers. If this is true - and I have verified the existence of the Times article but not read it - why is the robbery described as unsolved?

Obviously there is a lot of speculation and fantasy about this robbery - but why if it was such a straightforward case?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Papers say that the fictional film 'The Bank Job' claims there was a D-notice, not that there was one. Though they're very good at blurring those lines beyond recognition. The film is entirely bollocks. 92.15.56.160 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

More Please

Like many visitors I have just seen the film, and I am sure that a lot of us would be interested in more detail on the history. I have not found anything. --Timtak (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a Daily Mail article. Which includes the Ham radio operator's claim that there was a silencing of the press, and "the police threatened to prosecute Mr Rowlands for listening to an unlicensed radio station, a blow softened by a £2,500 reward from Lloyds."

I have added reference to this since the Daily Mail seems to be a reputable source, and that Mr. Rowlands claim that he was both discourage from contacting the press, and that he was threatened with prosecution for listeing to an unliscenced radio station would seem to add credance to the claim that there was press suppression ("D-Notice"?! or not).--Timtak (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And this article about Gale Benson claims that the robbery was unsolved. --Timtak (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This article, from the Mail on Sunday, is the most informative.--Timtak (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of things from this article that might be added. I added the bit about the police belief that the mastermind was another car dealer who was not aprehended.--Timtak (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, everything I have read in this article does not match the Newspaper reports and records (save for the Daily Mirror which we believe much less than we would reputable papers like the Telegraph, Guardian and Times)

Can I suggest that someone rewrites it entirely, stating which bits are truth and verifiable (as far as possible) and which are conjecture. Unfortunately, it is articles like this that give Wiki a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsgroupmonkey (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Robbery?

This event does not meet the defenition of a robbery (use of violence, or fear of violence to commit theft). A robbery would be entering a bank with a gun and demanding cash.

Entering the bank as trespassers (i.e. when it is closed), and stealing from the bank meets the defenition of a burglary, and I am wondering if this would be a more appropriate title. Thoughts?

Mrspy (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically you may be correct, but we have to go by what the sources say and they call it a "robbery".--ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that many sources say robbery, it happens a lot with certain burglaries, especially when large amounts of money are taken from closed premises. I also appreciate that this incident has become widely known as a robbery (incorrectly). To source robbery/burglary definitions, you need to look no further than the wikipedia pages for them. Whilst I don't feel it is necessary to obliterate the known term "robbery" I do feel it should be pointed out that this is actually a burglary in the eyes of the law as opposed to a robbery, and whilst I cannot prove it at the moment, I have little doubt that those convicted of this incident would have been convicted of burglary. I will continue to try and research the convictions as I feel that if I can cite that the offenders were convicted of burglary then it fully justifies the mention of this on the page.Mrspy (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The definitions in Wikipedia may be correct, but that's not the issue. The issue is what do the sources call this particular incident? The majority of them appear to refer to it is a "robbery" which isn't surprising as most laymen probably don't appreciate the distinction. Be that as it may, if the sources call it a robbery, we are stuck with what they say, at least with respect to the title of the article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the stolen property? and to the burglars afterward?

This article should be expanded with information about how much, if any, of the property was recovered, and also should discuss briefly what the burglars did after they were released. Especially, did they live lifestyles not supported by their incomes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah955 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

We already mention that the police recovered £231,000 from the robbery, but I've now added that to the lead to give a little more emphasis to the point. There are no reliable sources that cover what the men did after they were released - they drifted back to anonymity, at least as far as the national press is concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sweeney episode: "Night Out"

Some earlier versions of the article contained the information that:

There are also some similarities between the robbery and Troy Kennedy Martin's 1975 episode Night Out for the first series of The Sweeney. The story sees Inspector Jack Regan holed up in a pub over Saturday night and Sunday morning waiting for a gang of villains who have broken through from the pub basement to the safety-deposit vault of the bank next door. Meanwhile the police are listening in to radio traffic between the robbers in the vault and the gang's spotter on the pub roof. Money is not the primary objective of the robbers. Instead they are after—and the Crime Squad want to capture them with—a mysterious envelope tied with seals and red tape that the gang's leader secures with a flourish at the climax of act II. By the end of the show, the Crime Squad superintendent has recovered all of the spoils; but a press enquiry "Were they after one particular thing?" is met with a curt "no comment"

On the episode commentary (2003), Troy Kennedy Martin is asked whether this was based on any particular crime, and responds "No. Just dreamed up," though he "can't quite think" of the genesis of it. Earlier in the commentary, producer Ted Childs notes that he once had a visit from the Home Office asking whether the show was paying criminals for information; but was able to reassure them that the show simply had young and imaginative writers.

References

Should anything of this be included? Jheald (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not if there isn't a reliable source to say the programme was based on the film. As the writers specifically say otherwise, I don't think that would be forthcoming. - SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @SchroCat: Even if it plainly was? Jheald (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    • If it "plainly was", then there would be a good reliable source to make the connection. At the moment, we have WP:OR and something that says the opposite. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @SchroCat: Well it seems Chris Dunkley of the Financial Times did write at the time that "the plot appeared to have been inspired by the 'radio controlled' bank raid which was carried out a few years ago" [1], so it seems at least one broadsheet review at the time did make the connection. Here's a present-day journalist who thinks so too: [2]. Jheald (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Further the thread (apart from any TV link) it mentions that the robbery is covered in some detail in the book Armed Robbery (2013) by Wensley Clarkson. I see we already reference Clarkson's 2016 book on the Hatton Garden robbery; I don't know if the content is simply recycled between the two, but it's possible there may be some additional material in the other book, although perhaps more geared to the wilder runmours about the event. Jheald (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Safety Deposit Box

Wikipedia's standard for this is "Safe Deposit Box". Not "Safety Deposit Box". If "Safety Deposit Box", why not "Safety TD Deposit Box". Why not repeat the syllable before "posit" ad infinitum if you're going to repeat it at all?204.155.230.3 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Because in British English the term is "Safety Deposit Box", not "Safe Deposit Box". The latter is not the "Wikipedia Standard", but one of the spellings used on the site. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Legacy section

In the legacy section it states:

"The following year Commander Bert Wickstead, a senior officer at Scotland Yard, was appointed to head an inquiry into the allegations.[72]".

Do we know if anything came of this inquiry?Franmars (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Source Issue with Last Sentence on sealed files at National Archive

I added a "better source needed" note because the link is to an ambiguous page of the UK National Archive with ZERO indication what the files are related to. The collection of files is labeled under a code that says Metropolitan files related to various cases 1971-1979

This was immediately reverted by @Nikkimaria with the edit note "given the cataloguing they almost certainly do"

This seems to be the EXACT issue with the sentence. Everyone believes that files are hidden away, yet no reliable source is provided. In fact, an ambiguous Primary Source is being used to make a very specific claim about the size and unsealing date when that file could just as easily be London Metropolitan Police Cookie Recipes.

So, I leave this note for others who wander by and care to review the issue. Slywriter (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: - Pinging in case you care to comment. No worries either way. Slywriter (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: At the National Archives site, the following information is provided about the sealed records: "MEPO 26/418 1971 Jan 01 - 1978 Dec 31. Benjamin WOLFE, Thomas Gray STEPHEN, Reginald Samuel TUCKER and Anthony GAVIN: convicted of aggravated burglary arising from the theft of cash and jewellery worth £1,250,000 from Lloyds Bank, 185 Baker Street, Marylebone, London NW1, between 10 and 13 September 1971. The burglary was committed by constructing a tunnel from the basement of a nearby shop to the bank vault. Orderable at item level". On the specific page for these records, the records are noted to contain "approximately 800 pages" with access conditions "closed for 92 years" and record opening date of "1 January 2071". This information collectively supports the claim in the article that "approximately 800 pages of information remain closed; they will be available for viewing in January 2071". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Are you on desktop? On mobile, when clicking the C14499699 link, it doesn't show the fully linked hierarchy and only links back to the top level Metropolitan Police descriptor. I don't see the link to Wolfe et al. Just a page describing a vague box of files.

Moved to desktop when I couldn't figure out where you got the text and long search short, found what I think is a more universal page

[[3]] wrong link. Looks like only renderable in desktop mode. Ahh well. Its accurate, I'll see if I can find a mobile friendly source. Thanks for the revert, it was informative.

Slywriter (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

In the section titled "Lloyds", there is this statement: "One witness, a retired jeweller, recounted how he identified some of his property by walking around tables on which several items were placed". This statement has no context - what are these tables for, and why are people walking around them? What is the event? After reading the entire section a few times I can 'infer' that there was a 'property identification' event arranged by Lloyds bank after the stolen goods were recovered in order for safety deposit box owners to identify their own personal property amongst that recovered, but this should be more clearly explained. Presumably this mis-handling of their recovered personal property was the basis for the lawsuits against Lloyds. --2601:648:8402:F8A0:D537:65E8:E161:E7EE (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Quite right - brevity in writing (by me) has removed the context. I've now added a small bit by way of explanation, which should clarify. Thanks for pointing it out. - SchroCat (talk)

Conspiracy theories in the lead?

There is a paragraph length discussion of conspiracy theories in the lead that are directly acknowledged to be unsupported by any factual evidence and that have been dismissed by pretty much all credible sources. I trimmed that down in this edit. That edit was reverted by SchroCat here. IMO the material does not belong in the lead per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Further, it substantially restates everything that is covered farther down in the article. It is not customary to include extensive discussion of fringe theories in the lead of articles where they are not the principle topic of the article, e.g John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Ask anybody and all they can recall of the robbery is the Princess Margaret photos, by crisply dismissing them the lead doesn't tease or obfuscate. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything in our P&G that supports giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories in the lead of an article about which they are not the main topic of the article. I would also note that I did not remove all reference to them, but rather trimmed it down by removing the more sensational and salacious details, which again, are entirely unsupported by credible evidence. And for those interested in the details, they can just glide down and find them all in the body of the article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a page from a supermarket tabloid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is nothing in either DUE or FRINGE that says we don’t cover significant points of a subject, even if they are conspiracy theories. There are no policies or guidelines that say we are not allowed to mention conspiracy theories, and I can point to other articles that include them. For this article, we list them briefly and state that there is no credence to them, just as we should. Part of the reason this single burglary still proves noteworthy is that the stories around it won’t go away (a couple of them are included in the film, for example). Yes, it does cover the same information as in the body, but that’s what the lead is supposed to do. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the conspiracy theories should not be mentioned. Only that they should not be given undue weight by promoting them in the lead. Especially given that they are entirely unsupported. See my response above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead reflects the article. There’s no undue weight. It’s a silly claim to try and infer this looks like a supermarket tabloid: it obviously doesn’t, given we mention and dismiss in a clean and economic manner. Again, there is nothing in our guidelines or policies that says we should not include such material. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's not unreasonable to mention them in the lead, since so much of the popular coverage has (regrettably) focused on them, but I definitely think we should be very clear that they're not supported by evidence. I just removed the embargo claim in the lead on that basis, since it was stated as plain fact without any support in the body, and the only sources I could find for it were tabloids and self-published blogs and the like. That sort of thing I think we should definitely avoid. That aside, the lead just exists to summarize plainly the major points of the article, and since the article has a whole section called "Rumours" and rightly so, I think we would be remiss not to mention the rumors at all in the lead. It's not undue weight at that point. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 21:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't catch the National Archives reference at the bottom. Sorry for the trouble SchroCat (talk · contribs). 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There should be a mention in the lead of the existence of rumours and conspiracy theories, but the details of such belong in the body. The article is about the robbery, not the conspiracy theories. The purpose of the lead is not to "cover the same information as in the body" but to provide an introduction to it. The prior text is almost the same length as the section dealing with the rumours when it should simply indicate that the rumours exist - which is not to "crisply dismiss" them. While it is probably true that all many people "can recall of the robbery is the [supposed] Princess Margaret photos", and "that the stories around it won’t go away", the criteria is not volume but weight. There may be a large volume of rumours but they are insubstantial and ethereal, they don't posses the weight necessary for such detailed treatment in the lead. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It is wearyingly usual, after an article has been featured on the front page, to have one editor bustling in and telling us that the main editor and all the reviewers at PR and FAC have got things wrong. I can't remember seeing any such intervention that was (i) helpful or (ii) successful. This one certainly is not the former, and I trust it will fail to be the latter. Tim riley talk 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with Ad Orientem. The rumors are DUE and are not FRINGE. The notability of this robbery depends, at least in significant part, on the rumors. As The Telegraph article notes, " the reason [the robbery] has achieved notoriety is for the attempts reputedly made by the authorities to cover it up." As others noted above, most people's recollection of the incident involvs the Princess Margaret rumor. If anything, the Rumors section could be beefed up a little. In any case, we can't just leave a teaser in the Lead section -- the material that Ad Orientem deleted is needed for readers to know what "rumors" we are talking about, and given the significance of the rumors to the notability of the robbery, it is essential to briefly specify them. And, as Tim riley implies, the large number of experienced reviewers who have reviewed this article leading up to and including FAC (I was not one of them) have believed the same. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Fiscal Lack of Clarity

I want to start this post by stating that I am a new user, and have never posted before. However, as I was reading through the article I found myself often confused as to how much was stollen. If there was an approximation of between 150,000 gbp and 4,000,000 gbp (as stated in the Burglary section), how did the police recover 231,000 gbp after the arrests? Furthermore, if the estimated value stolen was 4 million gbp then why, during the court case, was only 666,000 gbp attempted to be regained? (Maggieauger (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC))

No-one knows how much was stolen and the sources all speculate wildly. We show what the sources say, which is why one of the footnotes has a list of the various amounts and the source that says that. - SchroCat (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)