Talk:Ian Gow

Doubtful circumstances

Vintagekits. Both bombings were "suspicious". In the case of Neave the explosion happened in the car park of the Houses of Parliament, which was very securely guarded. Gow's house at Hankham was a veritable fortress (press reports notwithstanding). In both cases the bombs must have had very sophisticated triggering devices and there is doubt over whether such devices were directly available to paramilitaries. Thus the suspicion that some third party was involved.Izzy 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Didnt the IRA claim responibility or was anyone prosecuted?--Vintagekits 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits. Paramilitaries did claim responsibility in both cases, but as far as I am aware nobody was ever prosecuted. It is believed that paramilitaries did sometimes act as proxies for third parties in getting rid of awkward people. I guess the truth of the matter will never be known. Izzy 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bomb technology

If I may chip in on this discussion. The Neave bomb (1979) was always a questionable case. The bomb went off as Neave's car was leaving the MP's car park at Parliament. It actually detonated as the car went onto the upward ramp so people have always assumed that the bomb was planted in the car anything up to 24 hours before it went off and was fitted with both time and tilt switches. Given that Neave was very security conscious and checked his car for bombs, the whole bombing operation was pretty sophisticated. The INLA were a rough and ready lot, and it is doubtful they would have been capable of this - without assistance.

The Gow bomb was also questionable. Gow's house at Hankham was built like a fortress with fences, gates and alarm systems. Again, the bomb was probably planted in the car anything up to 24 hours before it went off. It detonated as he put the car into reverse gear. This suggests that the bomb was fitted with both time and some other switch. Gow was very security conscious, so this must have been a very smart operation. PIRA were more capable than INLA, but even so .... . There have always been doubts about who was ultimately behind these bombings. Izzy 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The IRA has an extremely sophisticated bomb making operation (source:Toby Harndon amongst others). I don't think this incident is indicative of any outside help? If you have a source for any such allegations, it would be interesting. (Nice work on this article Izzy by the way) Kernel Saunters 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

IP Edits

I have reverted the IP edits because they removed relevant information from the article, not because they were done by an IP editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Why did you revert with the edit summary "rv IP edits" then? Why are you restoring the POV inherent in the claim that he "refused" to take security precautions? Why is the brand of car he was blown up in relevant? Why is the name of his house relevant to the sentence you seem determined to include it in? Why did you suddenly start caring about this article when I edited it? 190.46.108.141 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two other editors who agreed with me that you were removing relevant information from the article - User:Antandrus and User:Isabela84. rv IP edits was simply a short hand for going around cleaning up after you. If I were simply reverting you because you're editing from an IP I would have reverted all of your edits. I have only reverted your edits where they did not improve the article as here. You need to get over your inate sense of persecution and realise anyone can edit wikipedia and if you can't accept that not all your edits will be accepted and work collaboratively, then wikipedia is not the place for you. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" - nice euphemism for your destructive stalking. You need to get over whatever it was that made you start doing that. Your post-hoc justification of your anti-IP attitude is unconvincing. You have failed to answer the questions: Why are you restoring the POV inherent in the claim that he "refused" to take security precautions? Why is the brand of car he was blown up in relevant? Why is the name of his house relevant to the sentence you seem determined to include it in? Why did you suddenly start caring about this article when I edited it? Seems to me your only interest in this article is that you wanted to revert my edits to it. 190.46.108.141 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion here... I suggest Wee Curry Monster defend restoring the "refused to" wording, and see if there is consensus support for that defense, before restoring it. The IP's point is valid, as "refused to" implies a proactive effort on his part to not take more security precautions. Do the sources support this? --Born2cycle 21:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[1] An online source which supports it. But that isn't the point, this is not the only information he is removing, a whole host of other details are being removed. I note you choose not to comment on the blatant and continuing incivility - thanks for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that source supports saying he "refused to" take anything more than ordinary security measures. Gow says he thought his risk was relatively low and he wouldn't know what to look for underneath the car, so he wasn't going to bother to look under his car. That's hardly refusing anything. The "refusing" language suggests someone was insisting that he take certain specific measures, and he refused to take those measures. The source you cited does not support that. In fact, this language borders on blaming the victim.

As to the rest of the content you two are squabbling about, nobody seems to think it matters much whether the type of car is mentioned or not. I certainly don't. --Born2cycle 00:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "...felt it unnecessary to take any more than...", which is supported by the source. Black Kite (t) 00:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I got edit-conflicted earlier and then my browser crashed. I was going to point out that the Telegraph article contains a reported anecdote from a party, where someone asked him if he ever checked under his car for bombs or varied his route to work, and he said no. This does not support "refused". In addition, there is a claim on this page that his house was like a fortress. I don't know if there is any truth in that but it suggests this needs more research.

"a whole host of other details"... calm down there, little man. I removed two trivial pieces of information. Although I have asked several times, you have yet to think of any reason why the make of the car he got blown up in or the name of the house he got blown up outside are relevant to the act of his murder. 190.46.108.141 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW I meant to say thanks, Born2cycle, for the input. 190.46.108.141 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"calm down there, little man" Nice, another personal attack, no doubt another one that will pass without comment.

“ You were, and remain, a fucking idiot, You're a despicable liar. ”

[2]

User:Born2cycle, the above quote is just a small sample of the abuse I've had to put up with from this guy, for having the temerity to disagree with him. The edit summary "rv IP edits" he complains about endlessly was one of a number I made, when I followed an editing spree where he'd removed information from a series of articles. I went through every one and reverted only those where I did not see an improvement. I did not revert wholesale and I did not revert because he was an IP editor. In response all you get is abuse. Is this acceptable behaviour? Please User:Born2cycle I would like to hear an honest response from you as to how you're supposed to work with a guy who calls you a fucking idiot if you disagree with him? Do you think this is acceptable?

As regards the details you agree with removing. I do not. They're relevant information and whilst I would agree its a judgement call, I have already noted above other editors concur with my judgement.

As regards the comment about security instructions. You will note I commented it was a relevant online source for you to confirm for yourself. I could have named other sources off-line. A cursory search online turns up many other eg [3],[4],[5]. A couple of quotes:

“ Gow, a 53-year-old right-winger in Thatcher`s ruling Conservative Party, was one of the ``softest of the soft targets,`` Wilkinson said. Unlike many other MPs, Gow refused to follow the even the most basic security advice because he said that would be a concession to the terrorists. He was one of but a handful of MPs who allow their addresses to be published; his London flat and his home in the southern England village of Hankham, where he died, were not only listed in ``Who`s Who`` and various parliamentary guides, but also in the local telephone books. ”

[6]

“ Churchill-Coleman said police had consulted Gow about his security and advised him to take precautions, but Gow refused, insisting, for example, that his home telephone number remain listed so constituents could reach him easily.[7] ”

“ The police disclosed that Mr. Gow's name was among those of more than 100 prominent figures, including Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, on an I.R.A. death list that was found at a South London bomb factory in December 1988. The authorities said they had advised Mr. Gow, who was married with two adult sons, to take precautions about his security. ”

[8]

Now unless there is a pressing reason not to, I will presently be restoring the content removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussions and agreements are all too much for you, I guess. Easier for you just to ignore all of that and just insist on the version that you had no interest in at all until I edited it. You should have found these sources and posted them here weeks ago, instead of reverting with your pathetic "rv IP edits". Why didn't you?

Do you feel entirely sure that this "refused" business in the links you provided is not post-death spin to make him look like a more impressive figure of resistance? We have the claim above that "Gow's house at Hankham was built like a fortress with fences, gates and alarm systems". A pre-death article saying that he was refusing to take security measures might be useful. Otherwise you are still making unwarranted assumptions about his actual intentions, which you have no way of knowing.

You have still not offered any reason why the brand of car he got blown up in or the name of the house he got blown up outside are relevant to the act of his murder. 190.46.108.141 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you're being unreasonable (note I did not say you're being a fucking idiot). Yes, he should have provided these sources earlier, and, in their absence your revert was arguably justified. But here we are now: clearly the "refused" language is supported by RS. Might they be hyperbole? Sure, but unless you find a RS that raises that question, it's irrelevant to us encyclopedia article editors. --Born2cycle 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle he never once asked for sources, he just posted abuse and never once made any comment that this material was disputed. Check the revert history - its all there. [9], Don't revert for no good reason, you fucking idiot.), [10]Death: the make of car is not relevant. , [11], not relevant, [12]rm pov and irrelevant details. Get over your pathetic little grudge, "wee curry monster"). Had he asked or indicated what was a problem, I could easily have provided sources. If all you get is abuse, how are you supposed to respond. As far as I could see, it was all supported by reliable sources already in the article. All I got was abuse in response. So what would you have done differently? I would love to know. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I would ignore the "abuse", or maybe take it up elsewhere, but not on the article talk page ("sticks and stones..."). Second, it should go without saying that when uncited content is challenged via revert, you bolster it with citations before restoring. And this summary back on Oct 27 says, "refused" makes excessive assumptions about his intentions. Well, how do you show that "refused" is not an excessive assumption without backing it up with references? --Born2cycle 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That material was cited, the Time article [13], though you need a subscription to read it. Had he asked or taken it to talk I could have pointed this out - but its difficult to spot a point in a torrent of abuse. Also I did take it elsewhere, he was blocked for a week and came back and did exactly the same thing. I really don't understand why you would intervene to back up a disruptive and blatantly rude editor without comment about his incivility. You're doing him no favours by simply convincing him his was right. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster". I was supposed to ask you for references, was I? You seem to have forgotten that you were the one who was reverting without any explanation, except for "rv IP edits". The onus was on you to justify your edits - I explained mine. You never bothered to do so. You talk now as if you actually have some knowledge about Gow and his death. Funny, then, that you made no edits to the article at all at any point until after you decided to stalk my edits. Now, if you're all upset that I'm rude, well, just stop being a retard, and I'll stop treating you like one. How about that? 190.46.108.141 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The make of car offers insights into Gow's lifestyle. For example, had he been blown up in a Bentley Continental, or a Ferrari or a Mercedes then one would see images of high-living and expensive lifestyle. But no, he was blown up in a Ford Mondeo. Don't you see the imagery and significance of that?. Izzy (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no imagery or significance easily discernible in the act of being blown up in a particular brand of car. The fact that you got the brand wrong should tell you that. If you want to make a point that he lived modestly then make it explicitly and not with vague allusions that require a knowledge of the social implications of car ownership in late 1980s/early 1990s Britain. Don't you see how ridiculous such an approach is? 190.46.108.141 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any harm in mentioning it, and perhaps a slight benefit. If there is no explicit question in RS about that being the make of the car, I would include it. --Born2cycle 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Montego not a Ford Mondeo. I've corrected the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Izzy, have you got any RS about Gow's house being "like a fortress"? This would certainly refute the case that he was not taking any security precautions. (And yes, I know about the conspiracy theories regarding his death, but that sort of OR probably doesn't belong here). Black Kite (t) 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, you refer to a comment I made in 2007 on the discussion page above. I was living in the area at the time of Gow's death and have a vague memory of meeting the fellow shortly before his demise, although I would have been very young then. The article currently follows the press consensus which is that Gow took only 'routine' security precautions. That term is capable of some interpretation. Local opinion, based on knowledge of the site, was that a terrorist couldn't just have walked up to Gow's car in his driveway and planted a bomb. While one should always be cautious about conspiracy theories, I have always felt that there was a little more to the Gow killing than meets the eye. Izzy (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cunts

Way to discuss, eh? Protect the article and then fuck it up. Despicable. Well if you're the kind of people who think there is some special meaning to being blown up in a Montego, I haven't got the fucking time to argue. 190.46.108.141 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)