I work in a brand new buliding on bishopsgate next to Liverpool street station on the site of where the first city bomb went off 9 years ago ... we are currently locked in the building and have been for the past 3 hours in a very serisous security alert as the whole area has been cleared .. all local transport and tubes closed down .. and our building is one of them all glass jobs , to be honest everyone is cacking it .. the building is like a meccano site , and conidering yeterdays Hammersmith bridge bomb weve got every right .... shiiiiitt !

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Answers

I hear there's a device on a bus on Threadneeedle Street??

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

I cover these sort of stories for an online news service - has anything else happened to make you think its a bomb as opposed to a hoax

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

A mate who works at the London Stock Exchange claims there is definite news of a bomb on a bus....don't know anything else.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

"I hear there's a device on a bus on Threadneeedle Street??"

It's called a steering wheel...bloody women! ;-))

Just joking! Hey, put that knife down! ;-)

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

The all clear is being given by the police. You're alright Sting. BST 15:35

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Good bye Sting....nice knowing ya mate...

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

just given the all clear thank god .. heard it was in the church ??? nae idea to be honest , doesnt lookd good though if these buggers are at it again . No surrender .

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

I've got (or have access to) a City of London Police pager. There was a threat this morning mentioning the Bishopsgate area. Supposedly all clear now. No more info I'm afraid.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Recognize them as an Army, declare war on the b*ggers and then shoot them like vermin for 'fighting' out of uniform as sanctioned by the Geneva Convention. Lowest of the low. Enough of the kidd gloves, time for an iron fist. Sick and tired of these miserable scumbags: they represent NOBODY, they threaten EVERYBODY and they are utterly without a shred of integrity.

I have always been a moderate when it comes to terrorism.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Are you a spook Windy?

Does anyone know anything else? Is it definitely over?

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Every building in the City is zoned, and has access to these pagers from the Police that notify, normally the Head of Security, when there's any sort of problem.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

I was taljking to a guy from Special Branch the other day. he said that it's a well known fact within the force that the IRA are rearming. They may be showing certain people where their arm dumps are but they are also setting up new ones with better weapons.

B@st@ds.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Softie

Aye mate, that's bound to bring lasting peace. Hasn't a similar policy has been pursued for the last 350 years or so with great success?

Neither of the parties involved can win militarily, just stalemate each other for another 30 years, during which time some twat will commit other outrages and the cycle begins again.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

If anyone is interested, ths is what we have just published on our service:

Bomb Scares and Rumours Plague Businesses In the aftermath of yesterday's bomb attack on the Hammersmith Bridge in central London, a wave of bomb scares have played havoc for many businesses. The rumour mill has gone into over-drive, with some claiming that a bomb was discovered aboard a bus in Threadneedle Street, near to the Bank of England. It should, however, be stressed that this is unconfirmed at present. Telephone warnings have led to the evacuation of offices and underground stations in the City around the Bishopsgate area. Security precautions ensure that office security guards are alerted to all threats, however minor. Yesterday's bomb is thought to be the work of the dissident 'Real IRA' terror group, and it follows a wave of attacks in Northern Ireland. The group is not thought to pose as great a threat as the IRA proper did in the past, with many fewer members and weaker logistics. Nevertheless, further attacks should not be ruled out and businesses must remain vigilant.

And this is what we wrote this morning:

Does Mainland Britain Face a New Bombing Campaign?

It now seems certain that renegade Republican terrorists were responsible for the bombing of a bridge in central London yesterday. Break-away groups such as the 4Real IRA4 are known to have been planning bombings on the mainland in order to destabilise the revived Northern Ireland peace process. A series of attacks has been mounted in Northern Ireland in recent months, but a successful attack in the UK capital, London, raises the political stakes much higher. Businesses and the population of London are now watching anxiously for signs of a wave of bombings around the country, as seen in the past. This article assesses the likely culprits, the possibility that they will strike again, the targets most at risk, and the implications that bombings could have for the fragile peace process. At present, however, we do not foresee major risks for businesses operating in the UK from the relatively small renegade Republican groups, and will maintain our Security Risk Rating at 2.0.

Yesterday4s Attack

A small explosive device, attached to one of the girders of Hammersmith Bridge in central London, exploded shortly before 03:30 GMT yesterday morning. The explosion itself was minor, causing some structural damage to the bridge and breaking windows in near-by houses. Nobody was injured. However, the bridge will now have to be closed for several weeks while the damage is assessed, causing significant traffic disruption. No warning was given ahead of the explosion, and no claim has been made since. Nevertheless, there are three main reasons why consensus has emerged that break-away Republican terrorists were responsible.

The device contained 1kg-2kgs of the highly effective plastic explosive Semtex, of the type long favoured by Republican terrorists. Semtex is not thought to be available to any other militant groups in the UK. It is therefore extremely likely that former IRA explosives experts were recruited to construct the device. The choice of Hammersmith Bridge as a target is symbolic for Republican terrorists. It was here, in 1939, that the IRA made one of its first ever bomb attacks on the British mainland. It was targeted again in 1996 with the largest Semtex bombs seen on the mainland, but they fortunately failed to explode. The timing of the attack also points directly at the Republicans. The Northern Ireland peace process is passing through a critical phase, and it was yesterday that the power-sharing executive met again for the first time since its suspension (see UK: 30 May 2000 Power Returns to Northern Ireland After Knife-Edge Unionist Vote). Leaders on all sides are fighting to retain the support of their rank-and- file, something that is hindered by renewed terrorism. Northern Ireland has witnessed a series of attacks over recent weeks, and it was therefore quite likely that the terrorists probably intended to mount a much higher-profile attack on mainland Britain (see UK: 7 February 2000: Bomb Puts New Pressure on Peace). Recent Terrorist Attacks 6 February 2000: Continuity IRA bomb exploded at a hotel in County Fermanagh. 25 February 2000: Partial explosion of a bomb outside sleeping quarters at an army base in County Londonderry. 29 February 2000: Discovery of a primed rocket launcher near a security base in County Tyrone. 15 March 2000: Security forces intercepted 500lbs of home-made explosives in County Down. 6 April 2000: Bomb exploded near the perimeter fence of an army base in County Londonderry. 13 April 2000: Mortar-bomb attack attempted at a security base in County Fermanagh. Linked to the Continuity IRA. 24 May 2000: Mortar attack on army watch-tower in south Armagh. The Likely Republican Culprits

Several Republican terror groups sprung up in the wake of the main (or 4Provisional4) IRA4s ceasefire decision. The IRA4s political wing, Sinn Fiin, is now in government, and any new terror activity by the IRA itself is highly unlikely. However, the break-away groups are led by former IRA members, and their membership is thought to be fluid, with some people members of several groups. The most prominent groups are the following:

The 4Real IRA4: This organisation - formed in late 1997 - is believed to comprise some 100 members, with two small cells based in the UK. The group is led by senior former IRA members, a number of whom were arrested recently. The group officially declared a ceasefire after its 1998 bombing of Omagh, but it is believed to lie behind most of the recent attacks. The horrific Omagh bombing lost the organisation support amongst most Republicans, although the temptation has now grown once again for IRA members to sign up. Yet despite the fact that membership is growing, the majority of IRA members are thought to have resisted recruitment drives. It is not known how large the Real IRA4s arsenal is, although it will have access to some former IRA arms dumps. Nevertheless, the group4s logistical strength is still nowhere near as strong as the IRA4s has been, and it does not enjoy the same level of international backing. The 4Continuity IRA4: This is the only renegade Republican group not to have declared a truce. The bombing yesterday may well be claimed by this group, although it is believed that it has now become more or less synonymous with the Real IRA. The Real IRA is believed to have previously used the Continuity IRA4s name as a front for its own violence. What Risk of a Sustained Campaign?

If the bomb was, indeed, the work of the Real IRA, there is every reason to expect that the group will seek to follow up yesterday4s action. This brings back memories of previous vicious mainland campaigns by the main IRA. Two years prior to the attempted attack on Hammersmith Bridge in 1996, the IRA detonated a huge bomb in Canary Wharf - a major financial centre in London. This followed waves of attacks across the whole UK, including a huge bomb in the north- western city of Manchester, devastating much of the city centre. Many of these bombs claimed lives, although in recent decades the IRA did usually aim to cause major disruption and damage to the physical environment, rather than causing heavy loss of life.

This time around it is very unlikely that the mainland will suffer a bombing campaign of such intensity. As already discussed, the logistical strength of the Real IRA is limited, and the security forces have successfully managed to keep it at bay in the past. With the leaders arrested, the hope is that the organisation has been weakened. Any attacks are likely to be more symbolic and psychologically targeted rather than actually causing major damage. The small terrorist cells operating in the UK will find it difficult to evade the tightened security now in place.

Implications for the Peace Process

Yesterday4s attack did come at a critical point for the peace process, as Northern Ireland4s leaders met for the first time in the revived executive. Renegade Republican attacks could serve to harden Protestant Unionist resolve against power-sharing with Republicans, and also highlights the weakening grip of the Sinn Fiin leadership over IRA members. Despite these worries, however, the political fall- out should be relatively insignificant. The wave of attacks in recent months in Northern Ireland has made very little difference to the tortuous negotiations. The main stumbling-blocks for the peace process have instead been issues such as the IRA4s moves towards arms decommissioning, and the reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Real IRA rightly knows that mainland attacks have much greater political influence, but they are more likely to harden commitment to the peace process rather than undermine it.

Implications for Domestic Businesses and Foreign Investors

Any threat of organised terrorism is inevitably a concern for businesses and individuals in London. As police sirens sound around the city, some of the climate of fear seen in the past has returned. Major business districts have been targeted before by the IRA, and this cannot be ruled out once more. The main IRA thrived on disrupting business confidence and causing as much discomfort to the government as it could. Its other principal targets were town-centre shopping districts, transport and utility networks, the armed forces and politicians. Nevertheless, the risks posed by the renegade Republicans are much lighter than those posed by the full IRA. The organisations4 membership is much smaller, and the security forces have managed to keep a close eye on their activities. Security has now been stepped up across the UK - an operation now very familiar to the police forces and intelligence services. The City of London, where many of the UK4s leading companies are based, has had long experience of ensuring tight security. Following previous IRA mainland campaigns, a 4ring of steel4 was erected around the district, which tightly monitors all traffic movement in and out of the City of London. Despite these reassurances, however, the risk that one cell will penetrate defences remain. Fears over this possibility are likely to cause greater disruption than any future successful attacks. Confidence should return quickly, however, if no significant follow-up attack transpires.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

I beg to differ Bobby. For the last 30 years there has been a completely useless policy of treating and trying these people as civilians. Being shot like a sack of sh*t instead of living the life of Reilly with you equally psychotic mates in an H Block and being let out like some kind of hero would certainly swing the risks back the other way. When the list of martyrs gets to a certain level the enthusiasm for the cause generally dries up. When the republican movement was run and operated like a real army in 1916 and the 20's, it may have had a certain honour about it all, but as soon as they took to sneaking about and targeting indiscriminately they should have been rooted out. These days some maniac like Martin McGuinness can murder people in cold blood, serve some pathetic sentence and then get let out because he's a 'political' prisoner and now sits at a "Peace Conference" as intransigent and uncommitted to reasoned debate as he ever was when he decided that killing was more worthwhile. Try telling that to the poor b*ggers he killed. Treat him as a cowardly, murdering, backstabber without a uniform and he'd have ended up stretching a rope. There is no point in using peaceful methods if your opponent doesn't follow suit. They let off bombs; we kill them. Much rather be a target if I know someone will get shot if they're caught doing it. I don't want 'reformed' terrorists around the table, I want people who actually want to make things work. The rest of them ARE the problem, they sure as Hell aren't part of the solution.

Anyway, don't know what we're doing debating any of this on here, we can't even agree on the best back 4 for NUFC (what do you mean 'It should be 3 at the back anyway'?).

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

SOFTY!

I think that expecting organisations like the IRA, UDA etc to stand up and fight like a 'real' army is a bit unreasonable. They cannot call upon the political and material support of a sovereign state so consequently the British army would knack them. And your arguement about Martin McGuiness is the same that was used to keep Nelson Mandela locked up for so long. I'm not comparing the two men politically but remember that the oppressor's 'terrorist' is the oppressed's 'freedom fighter'.

Having said that, I think that the Provisional IRA must know who the Real IRA are and if they are serious about peace, then surely they could 'persuade' them to cease acting like pricks.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Softie

everything you say can be turned exactly on its head by nutter Republicans. Where ever you put 'terrorist' they put 'Imperial British repressors'.

You needed to have watched the thing on BBC2 about covert operations in Northern Ireland. It really was good. Both sides came to the conclusion that neither side can win a war. They can each have successes but in the long run nobody gets anywhere.

I really believe that things have moved on on the Republican side. There is more prosperity in Northern Ireland compared to 1969, and catholics are now allowed to own council houses and vote and outrageous things like that. There has been less movement on the Unionist side of things. If 45% of the Ulster Unionists wanted to turn down the IRA offer, and these are the more moderate of the Unionists, not the Ian Paisley supporters, then you have to worry about their motives.

We mustn't give Republicans the potential for martyrs.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Agree completely Dread, but as Softie is implying it's a bit of a minefield of a topic.

Plus Softies selection of back four players has been way of the mark for a while now!!

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

I agree with MacB. Making martyrs won't help. The only people that can really do something about it, are the people that the IRA and it's offshoots are supposedly fighting for. Once they become an isolated, unsupported cause, they can't be martyrs to anyone. Easy peasy. Now let me think about how to cure all known cancers whilst I'm at it....;-)

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

The other thing to regard is the funding for the terrorists. No doubt they can still get their hands on exisitng arms dumps, but over time, if the IRA do start handing over these, then more money will be needed to fund their arms acquisitions. Now, I don't know any figures, but I believe a huge amount of their funding comes from "well meaning" Yanks with family ties back to Ireland. The governments of Britain and US have to address this - perhaps CIara can give us an insight of any opinions/activities over her side of the pond. New England is a large source of this funding.

That said, even a relatively small attack on a strategic (as well as symbolic) target like Hammersmith Bridge can have a huge disruptive effect. I remember the bombs on trains back in the 70s. I went thru Clapham Junction last night and can only imagine the chaos that would be caused if a decent chunk of that area was taken out. Money to do that would not be huge. Organisation is what would be required. Let's hope the top organisers are going to follow a political line and not resort back to the cowardly bombing of inocent targets. Living near Warrington, it's all to easy to rememer the inocent victims.

Where it should be a back four or a back three, I'd put John MacNamee's name in there every time.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

It's such a complex topic that, as an American, I feel I can never fully understand, much less be able to 'take sides'. When I was first discovering my Irish ancestry in the early 80's in NYC, there were all kinds of organisations begging for money for some hazy 'cause' in Northern Ireland. English influences had been a part of my life long before the Irish, so I figured things weren't as black and white as English=bad guys, Irish=good guys. No amount of tugging at the blood lines was going to convince me to give money to something I didn't fully understand. Unfortunately a large number of Irish-Americans never thought that far. They bought into the shamrocks and shillelaghs image and blindly handed over money. Many still do. They are the type that might only get to ireland once in their lives(if at all)...as part of a coach tour with other Americans..and feel themselves to be more Irish than the Irish, yet are absolutely clueless to the complexities of history and culture over there. It's easier for them to let themselves be manipulated rather than inform themselves. I knew virtually nothing when I first moved to NYC from the cultural desert of Los Angeles, but as I tried to read up on the issue, found it getting more and more complex. The answer to the problem can't be simple either, unfortunately. :-(

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

Well stated Ciara. It`s a problem that I wouldn`t know where to begin to solve. Sadly, I can`t see any progress being made either.(:o

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

As a long-term frustrated bystander, I feel there has been some limited progress, and as Macbeth has said the improvement in the lot of many Catholics has reduced if not eliminated the influence of the IRA. This seems however to have created more Loyalist dissidents, and perhaps therein lies the present danger.
Let's not undervalue the recent achievements. There has been a significant reduction in violence, both sides have been talking peace and cooperation, however grudgingly, and have been prepared to take unprecedented political risks in the cause of peace. Some historic obstacles have been removed, and we have at least established a power-sharing Executive - despite the obvious difficulties it still faces.
In such a complex and difficult situation, it is inevitable that there will be setbacks, that dissidents on both sides will seek to wreck the process. However, this situation calls for calm nerves and strong leadership, not verbose military-style rethoric.
The very last we need in this delicate situation are more martyrs - the cemetaries are already full of them.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

A very broad-reaching discussion here, most interesting. Obviously I recognize that I'm overstating the case. However, I know it's unreasonable to expect a terrorist organization to successfully stand up to a sovereign power with its full political and economic strength, mainly because terrorist organizations generally have no political power since that power can only come from the agreement of a majority of the population. This is clearly not the case in Northern Ireland since every referendum and poll ever conducted reckons that the majority of the population is sick to the stomach of violence and wants a return to self-determination. Since that is precisely what everyone is trying to achieve and what is currently on offer, any credibility goes out of the window with anyone still carrying out atrocities.

I loathe being considered a legitimate target for something I have nothing to do with. I am not, despite any rumours to the contrary, Oliver Cromwell. I am not some C17 British Landlord dispossessing small farmers. I didn't even have a voice when any of the current procedures were voted on. I didn't persue a policy of preventing Catholics from having a job.

This process of pretending that the past and present are indistinguishable sickens me. The call for Britain to piss off and return things to the way they were is farcical. How far back are we going? The Romans kept out of things, but those naughty vikings messed things up with some pretty serious invasions. The Normans certainly started the main influx of problems from the British mainland. Prince John was later to show a serious lack of respect if the chroniclers are to be believed when he met the Irish princes and swung on their beards thinking them a quite hilarious affectation. I would certainly be most unwilling to return Northern Ireland to the Republic, since the disappearance of the High King might prove a terrible culture shock for anyone thinking it will all be just the same as it was 'yesterday'.

It's all a bollocks. If you start your argument from an absurd position and then disappear up your own backside you're never likely to convince many people of the justice of your claim. I feel sickened by people who won't even concede that remaining armed to the teeth fails to show a seriousness about turning your back on violence. When instead of finding common ground and trying to improve on it, inveterate *rseholes instead waste days and the chance to form meaningful dialogue by instead getting bogged down by pointless bickering over f***ing flags!

We've got the wonderful marching season to look forward to now as well. Mindlessness personified. If I was to approach the Northumbria Police about a march to the old Roker Park to celebrate our 2-1 victory over the mackems in the last Tyne & Wear derby held there I'd be told to forget it as likely to lead to a breach of the peace. No matter that I could get 30,000 or so people who would be delighted to march down there in a black and white shirt and stick two fingers up and even though it's our own country. A long history of doing something divisive and unpleasant doesn't make it worth defending in its own right.

I hold no truck with counter arguments about British oppression. I don't have any difficulty seeing how attitudes change over time. Wrongs can be righted. People learn from their mistakes. That's how slavery was abolished. That's how the attitude towards physical colonialism was altered from seeing it as some kind of benign paternalism to that of a repressive and evil form of dictatorship. That's why the attitude to multi-national firms' economic colonialism is coming under the same spotlight where big companies investing in the developing world used to be seen as a positive thing. The huge difference I see in attitude is that we seem capable of recognising the part we played in causing the troubles and are trying to put things right. The irony of having done this once before and then having to intercede as a peacemaker when all Hell broke loose when we tried to usher in self-government isn't lost on me.

It's the whole having your cake and eating it aspect of it all that sickens me most. When terrorists are shot there is this outcry about a 'shoot to kill' policy, which is so at odds with the bombers' "set our indiscriminate explosives to stun" policy. I was delighted to see that planning to kill people had started to become a dangerous occupation. I've never seen the need to get bogged down over it all: killing people is wrong; killing someone to stop them killing others is justifiable.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

As you suggest Softie - you can't defend the indefensible!
Those who use history to justify the present, but don't appear to have either the common sense or the desire to focus on the present, and seek to positively shape the future, are terribly depressing people.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Northern Ireland seems to have far more than it's fair share of them.

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

"you can't defend the indefensible"

Howay clarky, I've always had a pretty good go at that meself! ;-)

-- Anonymous, June 02, 2000

"you cannot defend the indefencible........"

Is this the bit about the back four????

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000

nah gus, it's the bit about P#@&z.

Hey! That's my coat, give it back! ;-))

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000

Boom Boom ooooeeeerrrrrr

Sorry, as he quickly grabs for his hat and scarf.........

-- Anonymous, June 03, 2000