View Single Post
Old 23-07-2014, 01:03 PM   #81331
bandini
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 203
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default For humanitarian reasons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by craftyhen View Post
P.S. Did you never think it strange that such an incriminating - and labelled!!! - hoard would be first siezed by 'those upon high' but later listed in the London Gazette?!?

Indeed I have bandini, a man allowed to go on his way appearing in a public notice 6 months later, the day before the Elm story broke. Hmm.
Unless you have an old copy of the Gazette lying around to see if it really appeared in print I guess we'll never know.
Late night, fellas?!? Ho ho ho!

Craftyhen, the point I was trying to make about the Gazette listing is this:

It is alleged that the material - after being discovered by the Customs officials - was seized by those shadowy types who make things disappear. A cover-up was instantly set in train.
Although these shadowy types were able to put a lid on it, they forgot to ensure that the event wouldn't be publicly announced in a detailed listing in the London Gazette. Mind you, they only had, er, more than six-months to tidy up this loose end!
Is it really likely that they just forgot to do this?
[Fact fans: the material was seized around the 18th January 1982 but was listed in the Gazette of 6th August of the same year.]

Now, about this "day before" brainwave... this limping beast of an idea has really reached the end of its useful life. Let's be kind & put it out of its misery, eh? (For purely comedic reasons I'm going to picture one of the three 'bullets' that Chris Fay clawed out of his wall entering the poor sod's head. I'll save the other two for later.) Here goes:

Although the 'coincidence' between the two dates has had much made of it, I suggest that the idea has a gamey leg.

Fact fans: the London Gazette listing of 6th August 1982 came "the day before" the first press reports of the Elm Guest House raid of the 7th August 1982. For completeness' sake, let's have another look at the wonderfully named Don Coolican's work:


[I'll just point out here that the press reports of the next few days highlighted many inaccuracies in Coolican's piece. Mind you, the same could probably be said about those too.]

Now, bear in mind that the early 80s was still the age of 'hot metal' journalism when the turnaround between a story being uncovered & actually appearing on the printed page was considerably greater than that that we have come to enjoy/endure these days.

Bear in mind, too, that the Coolican report was not "yesterday's news". The actual raid took place on the 19th of June! Far in advance of the Express article, and therefore also far in advance of the appearance in the London Gazette of the seizure notice relating to Tricker. [Again, those who 'covered-up' the Dover seizure but who somehow forgot to prevent it appearing in the Gazette were given a second-opportunity here, but failed to take it.]

I therefore can think of two possible conclusions relating to the link between the "day before" conundrum:

1) That it was a coincidence. A simple coincidence. And, yes, they really do occur.
2) That it was placed in the Gazette deliberately in order to be 'linked' to an upcoming press story - which would relate an event that had taken place approximately 50-days previously - and that the publishing of that story would somehow be 'triggered' by the Gazette-listing.

The second option, if it were true, would suggest an unprecedented level of fore-planning.

Look away, why don't you? My finger is on the trigger...
bandini is offline   Reply With Quote