Talk:Balcombe Street siege

Am I naive?

Is it really true that:

1. the guys who actually killed so many people leading up to the seige are now free?
2. the guys who were wrongly convicted of some of those deaths remained in prison for another 12 years?

- simon

Yes it's true, and they were greeted as heroes at a Sinn Fein conference receiving a standing ovation [1]. (The real killers that is). Jooler

And we don't negotiate with terrorists!! simon

you do, you know. You've been doin it since the 1600s

Rv Cite

One died in jail, and the rest were eventually released after it emerged that police had beaten confessions out of them and suppressed information that would have proved their innocence.

This may be true (I was under teh impression it was true) but it belongs on the Guildford Four and you haven't added a cite. Could you explain why you reverted its removal? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 02:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You think it irrelevant? Jooler 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not irrelevant just that it doesn't seem to be about Balcombe Street Siege but about the Guildford Four. Also I couldn't find a part in the Guildford Four article about the confessions being beaten out of them and lastly you have not put a reference. I hope that explains why I removed it, sorry if it casued offence. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The continued inclusion of a reference to the Guildford Four impacts the impartiality of the article. It can be easily seen as a transparent attempt to humanize convicted criminals, particularly as it clearly does not add to this article main thread. Further question: why are the edits so very careful to tiptoe around never referring to this group as a terrorist cell? (which, by definition, they were) is there some unwritten rule on this matter wrt NI?

WP:WTA and WP:NPOV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

SAS

This is the sort of thing that's worrying:
"The men surrendered once the 22 SAS deployment was publicised."

This sentence was in an earlier version of the article and is supported by the BBC refs. However it's now changed to an uncited and different:
"The men surrendered after several days of negotiations with the Metropolitan Police during which time SAS teams had been deployed"

Rich Farmbrough, 00:32 8 December 2007 (GMT).

Crouch Hill

My recollection is that the police discovered the terrorists' base at Crouch Hill, north London and raided it. This was reported in the Sunday Times and other papers. Should this be added? I'll try to find a reference. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no "base" as such, however there was a number of safe-houses and bases. Plenty of the books on the time cover it better than the papers.GiollaUidir (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "volunteers"

The IRA members who were the protagonists in the Balcombe Street Siege are twice referred to as "volunteers". How does their description with a Republican term conform with a neutral point of view? Chuggsymalone (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Volunteer is an accurate, neutral term used by neutral reliable sources. O Fenian (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What neutral and reliable sources? I have heard the terms used frequently by known Republicans and Sinn Fein politicians, but they are not neutral. If the use of the term is more widespread, I'd be glad to hear of it. Chuggsymalone (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Taylor, Moloney, English, Bowyer Bell to name but four. O Fenian (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother arguing with this IRA supporter....O Fenian? Might as well be called Nazi-lover and be editing pages on the SS or Hitler. The are so-called "volunteers" are so named in these articles becausethe republican editors ho now "protect" articles do so to presents these killers as people fighting for a just cause against, and in Gerry's famous drawl, "thar eval bar-ritish guvamant!" This editor, and many like them, spends their entire life pushing the POV that the murdering IRA were somehow not terrorists (sic the Islamic killers we have today) but real "freedom fighters", unlike the dark-skinned who did the World Trade Center. All Wikipedia articles on The Troubles are protected by O Fenian and his tireless band of Republican sympathisers who do all that they can to put the most positive spin on every act of murder, maiming and kidnapping by the Provos. Tkae this article aside from the twee term "volunteers" (like selfless individuals doing a bit of charity work) this article all says the terrorists found themselves in a flat, (how nice to be invited in), they just came in for for a cup of tea!? No mentioned they entered by force, threatened the couple with their lives, used them as human shields for six days etc. Just makes me sick to think these alleged "editors" spend all their free turning articles like this into pieces of propaganda concerning convicted killers and murderers. As if a cause gives them justification (same as the jihadists then?)