1999 London Nail-bombings Investigation Documentary 8/1: one to watch

[Larry O'Hara]

Complicity? What fucking planet are you on?

No doubt CCTV was being watched for anyone walking around London with a bag at that time, and it is very possible that a 'suspicious person' was seen on one CCTV but then 'lost'.

No, it was a team of watchers

I can speculate endlessly about what ceratin vague comments might mean, but without any hard evidence - which you completely fail to reference or provide - this is just a load of speculation along the lines of "the police didn't catch him fast enough", "with hindsight the police should have done some things slughly differently" [

That is not what I am saying, no

 

[Larry O'Hara]

You're posting a thread on an internet bulletin board, refering to another medium is iffy at best, relying upon it as your sole proof does nothing but to damage your own case.

I'm yet to see why i should waste both my time and money aquiring an article that will probably put money into your pocket at the same time as repeating the same material as can be found on freely availible articles.

perhaps we should start a thread on how to use the public library system--in many cases, it is free to use inter-library loans. And what a wonderful closed mind--without having read something, you know in advance it repeats information "found in freely available articles". Except it doesn't, But don't worry--go back to sleep while your brain gets washed.

 

[TeeJay]

I don't call allowing him to proceed, and not adequately warning the venue he bombed a 'balls-up', I see it as far worse than that.

You 'see' lots of things apparently, thorugh your permanently paranoid secret-police worldview. Losing sight of a suspect is not 'allowing' anything and sending out warnings to all 'minority' businesses and venues within London might have made sense in a general way (ie "everyone on this vast list of people is potentially at risk of someone walking in with a nail-bomb hidden in a bag") but failure for the letter to arrive before the next bomb went off is hardly indicative of any kind of secret plot by the secret state to murder people - unless apparently you live in the "Larry O'Hara" alternative universe.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Whereas some people have all sorts of delusions and invent convoluted plots, crimes and schemes where in reality none exist.

sorry to hear about your problems--but they're not mine.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

perhaps we should start a thread on how to use the public library system--in many cases, it is free to use inter-library loans. And what a wonderful closed mind--without having read something, you know in advance it repeats information "found in freely available articles". Except it doesn't, But don't worry--go back to sleep while your brain gets washed.

So you're telling me three things then:

1) You won't profit from this in some manner?
2) That it won't cost me money?
3) That there is information in your article that is not availible elsewhere?

Or is that just another post without a point?

 

[TeeJay]

No, it was a team of watchers

So you claim.

However I don't have any confidence in what you are saying and you have provided nothing to back it up.

 

[TeeJay]

sorry to hear about your problems--but they're not mine.

What "delusions and invent convoluted plots, crimes and schemes" have I posted about? You on the other hand seem to be willing to elevate offhand comments and speculations into the status of 'facts' - probably because if you didn't your worldview would more or less collapse and you would have nothing to fill your magasines with either.

 

[TeeJay]

Fuck it - you seem to be making a good job of burying your own stories and discrediting yourself without my intervention. My interest in this bollocks has already been exhausted. If the documentary reveals any new evidence then I will be interested but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

You 'see' lots of things apparently, thorugh your permanently paranoid secret-police worldview. Losing sight of a suspect is not 'allowing' anything and sending out warnings to all 'minority' businesses and venues within London might have made sense in a general way (ie "everyone on this vast list of people is potentially at risk of someone walking in with a nail-bomb hidden in a bag") but failure for the letter to arrive before the next bomb went off is hardly indicative of any kind of secret plot by the secret state to murder people - unless apparently you live in the "Larry O'Hara" alternative universe.

like others on this thread, you are resolutely not going to examine any evidence, but then accuse me of not providing any. And invent fictitious phrases (its a wonder there are no quotation marks) which you attribute to me. I did not refer to a letter, but merely the fact that out of a (minimum) 178 gay venues in London, only four were visited by police prior to the bomb--and three of the 4 (75%) were in the same street as the Admiral Duncan. Broadly though, rather than respond to such content-free abuse as the above, can I merely remind those who can read that the relevant programme is on BBC 1 10.35 pm.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

So you claim.

However I don't have any confidence in what you are saying and you have provided nothing to back it up.

this claim came not from me, but Peter Tatchell. But in any event, arguing evidence with an ignorant tosser who doesn't know what it is & can't even read posts properly is like nailing jelly to a noticeboard: a waste of time. Normally, I might solicitously warn that holding your breath might lead to brain death--but in this case................

 

[Yossarian]

but merely the fact that out of a (minimum) 178 gay venues in London, only four were visited by police prior to the bomb--and three of the 4 (75%) were in the same street as the Admiral Duncan.

Isn’t that because (as far as I know) Old Compton Street is the only street full of gay bars in London and therefore a pretty obvious target for mad bombers targeting gay people?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

So you're telling me three things then:

1) You won't profit from this in some manner?
2) That it won't cost me money?
3) That there is information in your article that is not availible elsewhere?

Or is that just another post without a point?

1) is definitely the case on inter-library loan. And NFB isn't exactly a money-making machine either: we publish it because it needs to be done, and any income goes to produce the next.

2) I believe so: and if you wait a couple of months for the NFB 6 article to go on-line, defintely not.

3) I should say so--otherwise why bother writing it/them!.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Isn’t that because (as far as I know) Old Compton Street is the only street full of gay bars in London and therefore a pretty obvious target for mad bombers targeting gay people?

not only were there 143 other gay bars outside Soho not visited, there were 31 gay bars in Soho not visited (figures from contemporary Gay Times listings June 1999)

 

[Yossarian]

I don’t think the fact only a few high-profile gay bars got visited points to any complicity in anything by the police – it’s not as if everybody in the city wasn’t already aware there was a bomber out there.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

I don’t think the fact only a few high-profile gay bars got visited points to any complicity in anything by the police – it’s not as if everybody in the city wasn’t already aware there was a bomber out there.

This was only one of many things--but, wtf, why bother with evidence when you clearly know evewrything anyway.

 

[Yossarian]

You don’t like it when people disagree with you, do you?

 

[dylanredefined]

So the police fouled up and then covered it up.Why would the police allow a
bomb to go off in a gay pub?

 

[jæd]

All the above are explained/analysed in great detail in the articles I have written. And if people want to ignore the evidence because it isn't on the internet, then that is your problem, not mine..

Linky link, or trolly troll...?

 

[jæd]

not only were there 143 other gay bars outside Soho not visited, there were 31 gay bars in Soho not visited (figures from contemporary Gay Times listings June 1999)

How many of those 174 are high profile, center of London venues...?

And there were 31 gay bars in Soho in that year...?

 

[Roadkill]

Originally Posted by Larry O'Hara
1) Copeland does not seem capable of having worked on his own

2) He was probably tracked after the second bomb to his recce in Soho--hence the Admiral Duncan was one of the v. few gay venues visited in advance by police

3) various stories appearing before the last bomb indicated MI5 believed gay venues would be targeted--Duncan Lustig-Prean & David Northmore were sources

4) SB officers were reportedly tailing (& lost) Copeland while he was on the way to planting his last bomb.

5) DCS Bunn afmitted to a liaison meeting "we had him & we lost him"

6) There is in existence surveillance footage of Copeland backing this point--shown to the select few.

7) The trial/chronology of his bombings was consistently evasive and contradictory on when Copeland was fingered as a suspect: in my considered view to cover up the fact that he was at the very least allowed (by not being arrested) to carry out the third bombing. Hence the term complicity.

All the above are explained/analysed in great detail in the articles I have written. And if people want to ignore the evidence because it isn't on the internet, then that is your problem, not mine..

Even if the above points are believable (and 1 is certainly not: nail bombs aren't that hard to make), nothing in there provides any evidence of official complicity in the bombings. The worst inference you can reasonably draw is that special branch knew Copeland was a danger and didn't act in time to stop him. Cock up, rather than conspiracy, in other words.

Besides, for a conspiracy you need a motive, and there isn't one. Why would MI5 and/or special branch want to bomb a Soho gay pub? Who'd benefit from it?

 

[jæd]

All the above are explained/analysed in great detail in the articles I have written. And if people want to ignore the evidence because it isn't on the internet, then that is your problem, not mine..

Translation: I'm a conspiraloon nutcase, and can my ravings can be safely ignored,,,, Post reported, and Larry put on ignore...

 

[jæd]

The fact we are emphatically not 'conspiracy theorists'. We do not make things up, instead analyse in close empirical detail 'covert operations' by the secret state and ruling class/para-state bodies. Otherwise known as parapolitics.

9/11 & 7/7: WE ARE INTERESTED IN THE EVENTS & THOSE PROMOTING CONSPIRACY THEORIES REGARDING SUCH

I rest my case, m'lud...

 

[ViolentPanda]

You do refer to the magasine when asked for references or more detail. It's rather irritating and does not help discussion.

That depends on whether you've got a copy of the magazine in front of you, surely?

Although I admit that, statistically, the cross-over between Larry's subscriber base and the membership of urban is likely to be small.

 

[ViolentPanda]

KE has 'no probs', but I 'have probs'.

If somebody suggests that Mr Plod or Mr Spook was complicit in three horrendous crimes, in Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho (the last of which achieved murder), I think he should say what exactly he believes and provide whatever evidence he thinks he has.

Possibly something to do with Copeland's closeness to people known to be in the pockets of the security services (I'm not going by stuff Larry has printed, btw, but by stuff that's appeared in other credible sources).

 

[pk]

Incompetance, perhaps.

Complicity? No.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Incompetance, perhaps.

Complicity? No.

I'm not quite as willing to give the spooks a clean bill of health. They've been stupid enough to put ordnance the way of right-extremists before, same as they've been willing to plant stuff on the extreme left. What we should be asking isn't were they complicit, it's what would they gain by doing so?

Bear in mind just how complicit the state were in both Combat 18 and the fantasy also known as Column 88. Do you really think they'd scruple at letting a loonspud detonate some nail bombs if it served their purposes? We know from N.I. that the Branch and M.I.5. have been willing on occasion to let innocents die in their pursuit of a "greater cause".

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Mmm, but in that instance they were engaged in a long war with an armed force. In this instance it's hard to see the point.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So the police fouled up and then covered it up.Why would the police allow a
bomb to go off in a gay pub?

Why did the same groupings allow certain things to happen in Ulster?

I'd blame a nasty mixture of incompetence, partiality, and the pursuit of a greater cause.

What's the greater cause? If I were a cynic I'd say it would be the perpetuation and expansion of the budget and remit of certain agancies.

And I AM a cynic, by the way!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Besides, for a conspiracy you need a motive, and there isn't one. Why would MI5 and/or special branch want to bomb a Soho gay pub? Who'd benefit from it?

Logically, the people who'd be tasked with making sure it didn't happen again would accrue some benefit.

Cold and cynical, I know, but so (on past evidence) are the spooks.

 

[mashedmaryland]

i suppose you lot all believe the pile of crap searchlight peaddled over the bombs too

if you had read the articles that o'hara makes reference too you might understand the points he is making on this issue

IMHO the state allowed the nail bombs to happen for its own ends i dont think they realised the true consequence of what might have happened with the last bomb and the loss of life but the brixton and brick lanes were allowed to occur

And who were the two men who desterted there car in mansfield with bomb making equipment on the day copeland was arrested after there was a threat to trade union event in mansfield