Talk:Baker Street robbery/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Baker Street robbery. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)