Talk:Balcombe Street Gang

Chronology of bombings

In the list of bombings it is not clear whether all the bombings were organised by the Balcombe Street Gang, or whether by the IRA generally.

I'll edit to make it clear now. User: Offey123 Date: 20 April 2018 Time: 16:56 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offey123 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Significant BLP issues with this article

How should this article deal with a the list of incidents in the infobox and at Balcombe Street Gang#1974 and Balcombe Street Gang#1974 when the people involved are living and it is unclear which incidents they were convicted of involvement in? FDW777 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe there are significant WP:BLPCRIME issues with this article. Firstly I will give some background for those unfamiliar with the subject.

• The Balcombe Street Gang is generally taken to refer to the four IRA volunteers involved in the Balcombe Street Siege - Joseph O'Connell, Harry Duggan, Eddie Butler and Hugh Doherty. They were arrested at the end of the siege.
• Despite this, those four people were not responsible for all the attacks listed in this article. Some of them occurred prior to Duggan and Butler becoming involved, and even more occurred prior to Doherty becoming involved in 1975. Some of the early incidents were committed by O'Connell, Brendan Dowd (who was convicted of involvement in other, unrelated IRA activity in England), and two unknown females.
• Even when the group consisted of the four men known as the Balcombe Street Gang, not every attack involved each man.
• There is no comprehensive list of what each man was charged with, at least not in the references available to me at present.
• There is no comprehensive list of what each man was convicted of, at least not in the references available to me at present. This is what references say on the subject.

• New Statesman - Volume 103 - Page 7 (1982) In fact, they were out for eight hours and upon their return proceeded to find the defendants not guilty on no less than 26 counts out of the 100 with which they had been charged
• The Road To Balcombe Street: The IRA Reign of Terror in London page 433 The jury found the four men not guilty of the bombs at Putney High Street, the Charco Grill and the Caterham Arms. They were also found not guilty of the bomb at the Trattoria Fiore and the September 1975 explosion at the Portman Hotel. Page 434 Butler, O'Connell, and Duggan each convicted on 20 counts, were given 12 life sentences, 21 years for manslaughter, six 20-year sentences and one sentence of 18 years. Dougherty [sic] was convicted on 18 counts and received 11 life sentences, 21 years for manslaughter, five sentences of 20 years and one of 18 years.
• Special Category: The IRA in English Prisons Vol.1: 1968-78 page 459 The jurors unexpectedly declined to find the men guilty of all charges and rejected many of great seriousness, including the attempted Caterham Arms bombing . . . O'Connell, Duggan and Butler ultimately each received twelves sentences of life, one of twenty-one years, six of twenty years and one of eighteen years. Doherty received eleven sentences of life and seven more ranging from eighteen to twenty-one years imprisonment

• Relating to the second point, the likely reason for O'Connell, Duggan and Butler receiving the same sentences despite O'Connell's activity with Dowd before Duggan and Butler joined, this is one of the potential stumbling blocks. O'Connell admitted in police interviews and during the court proceedings that he was responsible for the Guildford pub bombings and the bombing of the Kings Arms, Woolwich. He did not admit to any other charges, and admitted to this solely to attempt to exonerate the completely innocent Guildford Four, who had been convicted in relation to both. Despite his admissions the police and/or prosecutors declined to prosecute him or anyone else, and let the miscarriage of justice stand for many years.

So bearing all that in mind, where do we stand with relation to BLPCRIME? I will start first of all by saying it would be a rather strange application of the policy to remove all mentions of O'Connell's confessions to Guildford/Woolwich. But what of the many other attacks listed? Which were they convicted of? Obviously we have a list of incidents they were acquitted of, but is that the full list? Could we assume that they were guilty of any incident not mentioned in the "acquitted" list, despite not having a list of what they were charged with? Is it acceptable to attribute any incident to the Balcombe Street Gang without a reference that specifically says they were convicted of involvement in that incident? Obviously that would not apply to involvement in the siege, that would be another rather strange application of policy to say they weren't involved in that. Or perhaps we should say since they were convicted of 70+ incidents that it doesn't really matter that they were acquitted of others? Would it be simpler to redirect this article to Balcombe Street Siege and simply include the convictions details from the books without a big, unreferenced, list of incidents?

Any suggestions welcome. FDW777 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It would be ideal if this article were primarily about information on the Balcombe Street Gang in general, consisting of what the article currently says is six members, although perhaps four were most active. I think that the sourced material you provide of who specifically was involved in which incident, and who was convicted versus who confessed would be useful. As a whole, this article sounds like it is talking about things that people did on behalf of this group, whoever was acting on the part of this Active Service Unit, as they call themselves. So it does not seem like a WP:BLPCRIME issue to me because the act of a group is being described, and individuals responsible are described when there is information. You should mention when these members joined the group if you have the chronology.

Now, I will say that I do have some issue with the list format of this article and the reliance on what appears to actually be one source but listed as though it is multiple. And the format of that one source appears to explain the format of this article. I am wary of that source influencing too much of this article. I would not be against removing all of that and referring the reader to the source site. Perhaps it could be replaced with a shorter and more focused section on what members were specifically involved in what.Ender and Peter 22:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Enderandpeter: thank you for your reply. My intention is to improve the article in various ways, however the major stumbling block currently in the way is WP:BLPCRIME and people being innocent until proven guilty in the absence of convictions (although as previously stated, I think that can be set aside in relation to Guildford/Woolwich).

The CAIN reference you mention is useful, as are their more detailed chronologies for 1974 and 1975. However, as I have said in a discussion elsewhere while CAIN is a useful resource for researching basic information about specific incidents, in this case it is virtually useless as a reference. Taking just their last three 1975 incidents in London before the Balcombe Street Siege their information is.

• Ross McWhirter (50), who had publicly criticised Irish Republican Army (IRA) violence, was shot dead by the IRA at his home in Village Road, Enfield, London
• Two civilians were killed and 23 were injured when members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) threw a bomb into Walton's Restaurant in Walton Street, Chelsea, London
• One person was killed when the IRA threw a bomb into Scott's Oyster Bar (Restaurant) in Mount Street, Mayfair, London

As you will (hopefully) see, CAIN attribute the attacks to the IRA without attributing blame to the Balcombe Street Gang, so it's effectively useless for this article. It's synthesis to lay the blame for every IRA incident in and around London from 1974-1976 at the door of the Balcombe Street Gang without a reference that does so. The one comprehensive book on the subject I have already mentioned, The Road To Balcombe Street: The IRA Reign of Terror in London by Steven Moysey. While I have no problem with the word "comprehensive", I am not entirely convinced this reference is wholly reliable as even during a quick skim to assemble some more detail I spotted several glaring factual errors. They fail largely outside the subject of this discussion, so I will not detail them at present. Research using this book is complicated by the lack of an index, but I have done my best this morning.

• Page 85-86 The following evening, Saturday 5th October, O'Connell and Dowd, accompanied by two of their female Irish couriers and one unidentified man as cover, set off with the two bombs to the town of Guildford in Surrey . . O'Connell, his female escort and the unknown man were dropped off at the Seven Stars pub, with Dowd and his companion traveling a couple of hundred yards further to the Horse and Groom
• Page 90-91 Harry Duggan, resurrected from the dead in the new identity of Michael Wilson, traveled to London from his hiding place in the Irish Republic with fellow ASU member Eddie Butler
• Page 92 With Butler and Duggan in place the ASU was almost at full operational strength. The final member to arrive in London in October of 1974 was 25-year-old Hugh Dougherty

These three quotes establish the sequence of events with regard to the Guildford pub bombings. Duggan, Butler and Doherty arrived in London after they took place (note: yesterday I said Doherty arrived the following year. This was after I had watched a documentary on the events that said that, I was not aware Moysey contradicted that at the time of writing)

• Page 161 At the beginning of February [1975], the IRA rotated Brendan Dowd out of London, sending back to Dublin for reassignment to head up a new ASU, intended to be based in the North of England . . . He was replaced by a young American from San Francisco by the name of William Joseph Quinn

Liam Quinn would only be part of the unit for a short time, due to him shooting Stephen Tibble on 25 February (pages 165-168). At this point he completely disappears from Moysey's narrative, and does not resurface when he is arrested in Dublin after the end of the siege. As he joined during a cessation in activity and disappears from the story until after the siege, presumably he wasn't involved in any subsequent events. This is complicated slightly by him eventually needing to be extradited from the United States. Due to extradition laws he could only charged with the murder of Stephen Tibble, although Moysey doesn't say what else they wanted to charge him with.

• Page 180 Two members of the ASU paid a visit to the Caterham Arms on the evening of the 27th and concealed a five-pound timed gelignite bomb in a small bag under a bench sear in the disco room

This quote is critical in any evaluation of Moysey. Despite the fact they were acquitted of involvement in this incident (and Moysey is aware of their acquittal, since he says it clearly) he attributes blame to the ASU, therefore it cannot be assumed that they were convicted of any other incident he attributes to them.

• Pages 257-258 referring to the night the siege began, The equipment was loaded into the stolen car and all the members of the ASU, for the first time since becoming fully operational in 1974, got into the car to head off for the selected target for that night: Scott's Restaurant on Mount Street in Mayfair (my emphasis)

I did assemble various other quotations from Moysey detailing two or three of the men being involved in various different incidents, but they became redundant once I found that one. At no other time, at least according to Moysey, did all four of them take part in a bombing or shooting together prior to December 6.

• Page 425 the four men were formally charged with six offenses relating to the night of December 6th and the six days of the siege, including possession of firearms with intent to endanger life, using firearms to resist arrest and the unlawful imprisonment of Mr. and Mrs. Matthews
• Page 429 The ASU came to trial at the Old Bailey on January 24th, 1977, facing a total of 100 indictments, with each defendant charged with 25 counts of murder and bombing from December 1974 to December 1975 (my emphasis)
• Page 430 Each of the four men refused to answer a guilty or not guilty plea, with O'Connell stating, "I refuse to plead as the indictment does not include the two charges concerning the Guilford [sic] and Woolwich pub bombings - I took part in both - for which innocent people have been convicted." Similar statements were made by both Duggan and Butler
• Page 431 The court was informed by the Defense Council [sic], Richard Harvey, that no witnesses will be called by the defence but that instead Mr. O'Connell would read a statement on the behalf of the four defendants
• Page 433 O'Connell's address to the courts had obviously made an impact on the jury, as during their deliberations they had asked for a transcript of the speech, but this request was denied by the judge as O'Connell's address to the court was not regarded as evidence
• Pages 471-2 Judge Roskill, in a reference to a possible IRA conspiracy stated that O'Connell, having been found guilty and convicted of six murders, "had nothing to lose by accepting responsibility for a further seven"

As can be see, the 25 charges each defendant faced didn't necessarily mean 25 separate incidents, given they were charged with 6 offences solely relating to the Balcombe Street Siege. And despite offering no defence, other than a speech from the dock by one defendant that the judge refused to allow as evidence, they were acquitted on 26 out of the 100 charges.

As already stated, it's unclear exactly which offences they were charged with, never mind which ones they were convicted of. Balcombe Street Gang#1974 and Balcombe Street Gang#1975 detail incidents on 40 different dates (and I have deliberately excluded entries that don't refer to bombings or shootings, and the shooting of Stephen Tibble which Liam Quinn was solely responsible for), with some dates including multiple incidents. Moysey says they were charged with incidents from December 1974 to December 1975, so where does that leave Balcombe Street Gang#October and Balcombe Street Gang#November 1974?

As I see it there are several possible options.

1. Only include incidents where it is known a conviction took place, as well as Guildford/Woolwich. As already said on several occasions, it would be very strange to exclude them given the defendants' voluntary confessions in court. This can be done either at this article, or potentially by redirected this article to Balcombe Street Siege and including relevant information there.
2. Include all the incidents that Moysey says they were responsible for, excluding incidents they were acquitted of (although obviously an acquittal itself can be mentioned)
3. Include all the incidents in the London area from 1974-1975 that are detailed on CAIN. This is what's happening at present, despite the fact that there's incidents they were acquitted of or there's no references to say they were charged, never mind convicted, of many of the incidents listed.

It is my belief option #1 is the only one that's compatible with WP:BLPCRIME, and other policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V since there's often no reference attributing an incident to the Balcombe Street Gang. I'm quite happy to rewrite the article to include that they were convicted of multiple crimes relating to the 1974/5 bombings and shootings and detail their known convictions, but I really don't see how the long list of incidents is in any way policy compliant. FDW777 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate how committed you are to very specific and detailed information pertaining to your points, but I admit I am getting a bit lost in all of these details. However, I agree that this article should narrow the list of events it covers to those for which we have sourced information that identifies specific individuals of the Balcombe Street Gang.

Thinking of it more now, I am not sure how much the article should attribute events to the gang as a whole. It would be more objective to be specific about those involved and to otherwise make clear that the individuals were in this gang. Whether or not an act of violence was done on behalf of a gang or members of the gang acting separately is something that I am undecided as to whether is worth debating.

But I do strongly recommend that the events that simply refer to the IRA should probably just be removed because this article really feels like it is just echoing the CAIN reference. The References section is very misleadingly padded. Only listing events in which there were convictions very well may be a good idea, but if there are good sources, including Moysey, who have solid information about other incidents for which there was no conviction, of course this article should mention those. Ender and Peter 03:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was afraid it might have been a case of TL;DR but I thought the more information people have to work with then hopefully they can see the nature of the problem. I suppose a short version is

• There is a big long list of incidents, and in virtually every case it is unknown if any of the Balcombe Street Gang members were convicted of involvement in that incident.
• The one reference that does cover the case in detail attributes responsibility to the Balcombe Street Gang even for an incident for which they were acquitted, so attribution in any other case can't be taken to mean a conviction has been obtained.
• They were convicted of 76 out of the 100 charges they faced, although there is a partial list of acquittals and convictions, for the vast majority of incidents listed it is unclear whether they faced charges and if they were found guilty or not.

WP:BLPCRIME says a living person is innocent of a crime they haven't been convicted of. Ignoring the Guildford/Woolwich cases they willingly confessed to in court as it would be odd to apply innocent until proven guilty to those cases, for virtually every incident there is no reference that says they were indeed convicted of it. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Mini-update

I've removed claims they were responsible for incidents that Moysey says they were acquitted for. That still leaves many incidents there's no reference explicitly saying they were convicted of, so the discussion above is still relevant. FDW777 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 4,800 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies @Redrose64:. I'm not sure whether to remove the previous RFC and repost with a short statement, so feel free to cross the Ts and dot the Is in the most appropriate way. Brief question...

• How should this article deal with a the list of incidents in the infobox and at Balcombe Street Gang#1974 and Balcombe Street Gang#1974 when the people involved are living and it is unclear which incidents they were convicted of involvement in?

Is that ok? FDW777 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The statement must be the first thing after the {{rfc}} tag - Legobot stops looking for it after the first timestamp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: thanks for your help. FDW777 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have acquired another, quite old, book that deals with the case in detail, and it appears to be one that Moysey used as a reference; Time Bomb: Irish Bombers , English Justice and the Guildford Four by Grant McKee and Ros Franey. It does go into slightly more detail regarding some things, such as

• Page 84 Joseph O'Connell and unidentified members of his team shot Allan Quartermaine, a wealthy London insurance broker . . . The killing appeared on the original indictment against O'Connell's team but the charges were ultimately dropped
• Also page 84 On November 25 O'Connell and members of his team posted without warning one-pound pocket watch time bombs in three London GPO pillar-boxes . . . Despite O'Connell's subsequent admissions, no charges were laid, a strange pattern was developing
• Page 371 The most significant omission lay in the fact that while the original list had included offences dating back to August 1974, the refined list referred to no offence before December 1974 (my emphasis)
• Page 377 DCS Hucklesby confirmed the existence of a police list of some 60 offences attributed to members of the Balcombe Street ASU . . . and included a number of bombings in autumn 1974 that had never appeared on any charge sheet

I will be removing all incidents covered by this. FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Continuing discussion from my talk page. I don't see this as a WP:BLP issue. This discussion starts off with the straw man that the IRA ASU that "everyone" knows was just 4 individuals. I don't pretend to be an expert but I am aware it was more than just 4 individuals and that various others rotated through a cell active for many months and responsible for a campaign of terrorist incidents. As noted by Enderandpeter the article is concerned with describing the activities of the group as a whole not activities of individuals and I would agree with his assessment that WP:BLPCRIME isn't an issue. Further I don't see returning a year later and just removing content citing a discussion from a year ago to be justifiable reason for such an action. I haven't reverted as it's clear the citations used need clearing up but I do oppose wholesale removal of content; especially when it appears BLPCRIME is being cited on the basis of a straw man argument. WCM_email 14:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A living person, specifically any member of the Balcombe Street Gang, accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. That's non-negotiable policy. FDW777 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

But it's about the collective not any living person and the material you removed is not ascribed to any individual. WP:BLPCRIME is a red herring IMHO. WCM_email 14:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLPGROUP. FDW777 (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Which simply says that sources must be high quality not that it is a reason to remove content wholesale. Another red herring. WCM_email 14:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your deliberately selective reading. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group FDW777 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lets look at the whole section and not selectively quote anything.

“ This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. ”

Given the activities of the IRA ASU are covered in multiple reliable publications, it has long been in the public domain. Removing material citing WP:BLP policies is a red herring. You seem to be moving the goal posts rather a lot. First, you start with the straw man that the ASU was only 4 people, it wasn't, next you cite WP:BLPCRIME and when that is debunked you cite WP:BLPGROUP next. On the face of it, cited content is being removed for reasons not covered by wikipedia policies. WCM_email 15:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's very straightforward. There are five types of incidents the Balcombe Street Gang (who are all living people) are accused of.

1. Incidents they were never charged with
2. Incidents they were never charged with, but which Joe O'Connell admitted responsibility for in court (Guildford/Woolwich)
3. Incidents they were charged with, but the charges were dropped before trial
4. Incidents they were charged with, but were acquitted of at trial
5. Incidents they were charged with, and convicted of at trial

Other than #2 and #5, WP:BLPCRIME applies. FDW777 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah so back to the circular argument technique. No its not straightforward as you claim, we're not talking about individuals, the article is concerned with describing the activities of the group as a whole and I would agree with the assessment above that WP:BLPCRIME isn't an issue. Perhaps an RFC would be appropriate. WCM_email 15:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes we are. The Balcombe Street Gang are four named individuals who are innocent of any crime they have not been convicted of. FDW777 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

For example the BBC say four men who became known as the "Balcombe Street Gang" - Martin O'Connell, Edward Butler, Harry Duggan and Hugh Doherty. You cannot claim the Balcombe Street Gang are not living people, since they are four named individuals. FDW777 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A strawman, there were more than 4 members and the composition changed over time. We're talking about the activities of an ASU of the IRA not those individuals. WCM_email 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)