• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

What's In That Box? The Lloyds Bank Robbery: Baker Street, 13 Sept 1971

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,631
Untold story of Baker Street bank robbery
Film uses informer's revelations on unsolved 1971 crime
Vanessa Thorpe, arts and media correspondent
The Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007

Thirty-six years ago, one of the most remarkable and daring bank raids shocked Britain. The 'walkie-talkie bank job' saw £500,000 - worth £5m today - stolen from Lloyds in London's Baker Street and the crime was never solved.
Now the film industry is to attempt to explain why the robbery and its investigation have remained secret. The story, which will incriminate high-ranking police officers, the secret service, politicians and a prominent member of the royal family, is to be at the centre of The Bank Job, starring Saffron Burrows and Jason Statham as bank raiders. It was written by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais and results from co-operation with a 'deep throat' informer who was involved in the original investigation.

Reports of the raid were on the front pages of newspapers for a handful of days in September, 1971. Then, oddly, a government gagging order, or D Notice, was imposed to prevent further coverage. The raid had already attracted national attention because of apparent negligence by police who failed to act quickly following a fluke tip-off from a member of the public who overheard the robbers talking on two-way radio.

'This is an amazing, untold story of murder, sex and corruption. It's going to excite and entertain audiences everywhere, but it will also give them plenty to think about,' said the producer of the film, Charles Raven.

A radio ham, Robert Rowlands, heard the robbers as he randomly twisted the dial of his set before going to bed one night at his flat in Wimpole Street, central London. Two voices argued about whether some cutting work should stop or go on all night. The men were covertly working on a tunnel which, it turned out, led to the bank basement.

Excited and alarmed, Rowlands called the local police station in Marylebone and told an officer the police should search all the local banks. The officer simply told him to tape the conversation. The resulting tape, which was transcribed and broadcast on national radio at the time, gives a rare insight into the minds of a gang in the middle of a major crime. It also furnished Clement and La Frenais with authentic dialogue for a screenplay.

The writers, co-creators of The Likely Lads and Porridge, as well as authors of the recent animated Hollywood hit, Flushed Away, have been trying to bring their discoveries about the bank raid to the screen for at least seven years.

Their film, directed by Roger Donaldson and filmed in London and Australia over the past five months, will claim it was the contents of safety deposit boxes in the vault that caused the government to clamp down on reporting. Photographs and other evidence of illicit sexual encounters implicating influential public figures were held at the bank. As well as providing a dramatic plot, Clement and La Frenais were attracted by the picture the case outlines of class divisions and corruption in the Seventies. But it was the conversation recorded by Rowlands that sparked their interest.

'The gang had walkie-talkies and look-outs on the roof,' Clement explained this weekend. 'I read about the robbery at the time and the great remark that Ian and I remember was one of the lookouts saying: "I'm off home now, I'm cold and hungry." A gang member said: "You can't go now, we're almost there." And the reply was: "Money may be your god, but it's not mine and I'm fucking off".'

When the robbery was discovered, Clement now believes MI5 moved in and issued the D Notice. The newspapers went quiet, but not before the Daily Mail had accused the police of ineptitude.

The public believed a police investigation was going on. In fact, the film will argue, the case had been handed over to the intelligence services because of the sensitive issues involved.

Mysteries remain, however: the people involved in infidelities are still unnamed and the writers have not yet revealed the identity of their 'deep throat'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/11/film.ukcrime
 
replies

Sorry, I don't really have anything to say here, but I thought it deserved a reply and some recognition because it is quite a compelling story. I'd love to know more about this.
 
i was more surprised that this thread didn't crop out a few months ago when the film was released in the cinemas.

i meant to go see it then, but didn't and right now i mean to buy it at some point, thought now that the price will have undoubtably gone up after the first week or so, i may wait til christmas or january sales to do so.
 
Was there not a D-Notice issued in 1999 when three Labour MPs names became known to the press in connection with the Operation Ore paedophile investigation? Recall reading that someone quite well-known was alleged to be involved but the reporting of it was swiftly shackled by Blair.

I'm sure last week in one of the Hollie Greig things I was reading that that case had been slapped with a D-Notice, which would certainly make sense given the total lack of news on the case on Google.

Strikes me that while it is obviously a necessary system for defending issues of national security it could very easily be abused to put pressure on editors in order to suppress stories that a Government did not want to reach the public domain.

Was the implication in that film not that the vaults contained some incriminating pictures relating to a certain Royal and that the D-Notice was issued in order to quash speculation or reporting of what those images displayed? I never saw the film but remember reading about the 'legend' surrounding it at time of release.

I suspect they are only meant to be used in cases of national security but in reality pretty much anything the Government wanted to keep from us could be slapped with one of these and a stern 'National Security, mate' answer given to any probing hack.
 
McAvennie_ said:
Was the implication in that film not that the vaults contained some incriminating pictures relating to a certain Royal and that the D-Notice was issued in order to quash speculation or reporting of what those images displayed? I never saw the film but remember reading about the 'legend' surrounding it at time of release.
That's it. The film opens with a sex-orgy scene involving the Royal who was known for her racy lifestyle on a Caribbean island. Photos are taken.
There are also scenes depicting various high-ranking politicians being photographed whilst enjoying various S&M activities.

I suspect they are only meant to be used in cases of national security but in reality pretty much anything the Government wanted to keep from us could be slapped with one of these and a stern 'National Security, mate' answer given to any probing hack.
This could well be the case. And one can imagine that it might, in the early 1970s, have been deemed necessary to suppress embarrassing news or images, so as to preserve the public's respect for its 'betters' and for the 'Establishment'as a whole.

Not sure I'm convinced by the film's premiss that Michael X was at the centre of this though. It all seems a bit too simplistic - racy Royal living on Mustique, underworld connection (John Bindon) - Michael X, from Trinidad and connected to London underworld...hmm.

...great story though. And anyway - why is Michael X's file closed until 2054?!
 
Probably the same reason the David Kelly and Dunblane files are out of this generation's reach.

Somebody obviously thinks whatever dark secrets are locked away in there are just too devastating for us to digest.

Times and opinions change though, back at the time of the incident in question the notion that a senior Royal would quite enjoy getting her freak on would, I assume, have shocked and, in some cases, disgusted the nation. Nowadays, it is par for the course and would be old news within a week.

That said, if the rumour and suggestion at what is hidden in the Kelly and Dunblane contains even a quarter of the truth I cannot ever see a time when it would be met with anything but abhorrence and outrage.
 
McAvennie_ said:
Probably the same reason the David Kelly and Dunblane files are out of this generation's reach.

Weren't they both opened recently? Or am I thinking of something else?
 
gncxx said:
McAvennie_ said:
Probably the same reason the David Kelly and Dunblane files are out of this generation's reach.

Weren't they both opened recently? Or am I thinking of something else?

The Kelly one was in the news but I don't recall the full ins and outs. I remember the upshot of it was being told that it was definitely suicide though, nothing else to see here, move along...
 
It's a fairly interesting little 'first' in criminal history as the robbery was detected in progress by a ham radio enthusiast and reported to a sceptical police (who failed to act), but the conspiracy element arises when you learn that at least one file relating to the crime has been sealed and will not be accessible until 2054, a date far in excess of the norm.

Try this for an introduction:

It has often been reported that after four days of news coverage British authorities issued a D-Notice, requesting that such reporting be discontinued for reasons of national security and the story disappeared from newspapers. It has been claimed that some of the security boxes contained compromising sexual photographs of Princess Margaret, Queen Elizabeth II's sister, and that the purpose of the request was thus to protect the British Royal Family. However, an investigation some years later showed that a request had never been made to the D-Notice committee at that time. Furthermore, a D-Notice has no legal status, being a mere request and not a legally enforceable order. The Times newspaper was still reporting about the case over two months later.
Other recent reports suggest that the identities of the criminals and their sentences have never been revealed. However, The Times (amongst other newspapers) reported in January 1973 that four men had been convicted of the robbery at a trial at the Old Bailey. Three of these men were named as Anthony Gavin, 38, a photographer from Brownlow Road in Dalston; Thomas Gray Stephens, 35, a car dealer from Maygood Street in Islington; and Reginald Samuel Tucker, 37, a company director from Lee Street in Hackney, who all pleaded guilty and who each received twelve years imprisonment. The fourth man, Benjamin Wolfe, 66, a leather goods dealer from Dovercourt Road in East Dulwich, pleaded not guilty but was subsequently convicted and received eight years. Wolfe had signed the lease on the shop used by the robbers using his own name.
Two other men accused of handling banknotes from the robbery were acquitted. According to one press report, the police believed that the mastermind of the crime was another London car dealer who was never apprehended. Thomas Stephens and Reg Tucker had sentences reduced to eight years on appeal.
Source:
Later revelations that the 'mastermind' was also behind the 2015 Hatton Garden Jewellery Robbery
With apologies for the less-than-reliable source, this is of interest:
Speculation quickly arose that compromising sexual photographs of the Queen's sister, the late Princess Margaret, had been uncovered in the bank vault. It was rumoured they had been stashed away by well-known underworld figure Michael X. A drug dealer and Black Power leader, he was convicted of murder and hanged in Trinidad in 1975. A government file on him will remain closed until 2054.
The Mirror can for the first time reveal that Fleet Street editors of the day were approached directly by senior government officials and told to drop the story.
The four men caught, charged and convicted of the raid went to jail without ever having their names mentioned in the press, and to this day their identities and the circumstances of their capture remain secret. Even the lengths of their sentences are still shrouded in mystery.
Now, one of the men, in his 70s, has spoken to the Mirror from his home in Europe. The ex-gang member said he was terrified to discover one box belonged to the-then head of the judiciary.
He said: "It was owned by Quintin Hogg, the Lord Chancellor.
When we opened it we dropped it on the floor like it was a time bomb. We didn't want to take anything that might give us extra trouble so we left it. All we wanted was cash and jewels."
But the gang didn't have time to go through all of the stash and ended up taking some sensitive material.
The ex-raider, who refused to be identified, said last night: "When we got out we realised we had a lot more than we'd bargained for."
At the time of the robbery, in September 1971, Princess Margaret's marriage to the Earl of Snowdon was in its final stages.
In the 60s and 70s she was known to party hard on the Caribbean island of Mustique, where she was famously pictured with lover Roddy Llewellyn, a landscape gardener 17 years her junior.
She is said to have taken snaps of male friends frolicking naked but it is not known if any were ever taken of her. Asked whether he thought pictures might have existed, her cousin Lord Snowdon said recently: "I'd have thought it unlikely."
But when we asked the ex-raider he refused to deny the rumours. He said: "I can't talk about that. But we did find a lot of guns.
And what was most disturbing was the child pornography we found.
We were disgusted and left it in their open boxes so police could trace the owners."
Source:​
More speculation on the royal angle here, but some is clearly incorrect:
https://theunredacted.com/the-baker-street-robbery-vault-of-secrets/
Slightly annoyingly-over-dramatic full-length documentary here:

 
Last edited:
Steve Punt covered this gem of heist in his Punt, PI series, the programme is still available https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b049p9yp

Yes. I was going to mention this. If I remember right (I don't have the inclination to listen again just now) some woman proposes as evidence that this was a high level conspiracy the 'fact' that your average working class lag couldn't possibly have the nous to organise such a thing.

Absolute nonsense; the ingenuity of the old-school bank robbers could be genuinely quite impressive. (And by old-school I mean those who actually broke into banks and opened safes without charging around with sawn off shotguns and yelling at people. There was a series on Channel 4 some years ago - called something like How to Rob a Bank. Criminals, coppers and those charged with designing systems to look after our cash were all interviewed; the constant battle to catch up with each others advances and the ingenuity involved was genuinely fascinating. Some very clever minds on both sides of the conflict.)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top