652:. The story sees Inspector Jack Regan holed up in a pub over Saturday night and Sunday morning waiting for a gang of villains who have broken through from the pub basement to the safety-deposit vault of the bank next door. Meanwhile the police are listening in to radio traffic between the robbers in the vault and the gang's spotter on the pub roof. Money is not the primary objective of the robbers. Instead they are after—and the Crime Squad want to capture them with—a mysterious envelope tied with seals and red tape that the gang's leader secures with a flourish at the climax of act II. By the end of the show, the Crime Squad superintendent has recovered all of the spoils; but a press enquiry "Were they after one particular thing?" is met with a curt "no comment"
547:
look no further than the wikipedia pages for them. Whilst I don't feel it is necessary to obliterate the known term "robbery" I do feel it should be pointed out that this is actually a burglary in the eyes of the law as opposed to a robbery, and whilst I cannot prove it at the moment, I have little doubt that those convicted of this incident would have been convicted of burglary. I will continue to try and research the convictions as I feel that if I can cite that the offenders were convicted of burglary then it fully justifies the mention of this on the page.
1306:
we can't just leave a teaser in the Lead section -- the material that Ad
Orientem deleted is needed for readers to know what "rumors" we are talking about, and given the significance of the rumors to the notability of the robbery, it is essential to briefly specify them. And, as Tim riley implies, the large number of experienced reviewers who have reviewed this article leading up to and including FAC (I was not one of them) have believed the same. --
1050:
What is the event? After reading the entire section a few times I can 'infer' that there was a 'property identification' event arranged by Lloyds bank after the stolen goods were recovered in order for safety deposit box owners to identify their own personal property amongst that recovered, but this should be more clearly explained. Presumably this mis-handling of their recovered personal property was the basis for the lawsuits against Lloyds. --
31:
1156:
article, we list them briefly and state that there is no credence to them, just as we should. Part of the reason this single burglary still proves noteworthy is that the stories around it won’t go away (a couple of them are included in the film, for example). Yes, it does cover the same information as in the body, but that’s what the lead is supposed to do. -
987:, the records are noted to contain "approximately 800 pages" with access conditions "closed for 92 years" and record opening date of "1 January 2071". This information collectively supports the claim in the article that "approximately 800 pages of information remain closed; they will be available for viewing in January 2071".
1094:. IMO the material does not belong in the lead per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Further, it substantially restates everything that is covered farther down in the article. It is not customary to include extensive discussion of fringe theories in the lead of articles where they are not the principle topic of the article, e.g
840:(2013) by Wensley Clarkson. I see we already reference Clarkson's 2016 book on the Hatton Garden robbery; I don't know if the content is simply recycled between the two, but it's possible there may be some additional material in the other book, although perhaps more geared to the wilder runmours about the event.
1305:
article notes, " the reason has achieved notoriety is for the attempts reputedly made by the authorities to cover it up." As others noted above, most people's recollection of the incident involvs the
Princess Margaret rumor. If anything, the Rumors section could be beefed up a little. In any case,
1252:
to "cover the same information as in the body" but to provide an introduction to it. The prior text is almost the same length as the section dealing with the rumours when it should simply indicate that the rumours exist - which is not to "crisply dismiss" them. While it is probably true that all many
1049:
In the section titled "Lloyds", there is this statement: "One witness, a retired jeweller, recounted how he identified some of his property by walking around tables on which several items were placed". This statement has no context - what are these tables for, and why are people walking around them?
613:
We already mention that the police recovered £231,000 from the robbery, but I've now added that to the lead to give a little more emphasis to the point. There are no reliable sources that cover what the men did after they were released - they drifted back to anonymity, at least as far as the national
1336:
I want to start this post by stating that I am a new user, and have never posted before. However, as I was reading through the article I found myself often confused as to how much was stollen. If there was an approximation of between 150,000 gbp and 4,000,000 gbp (as stated in the
Burglary section),
396:
I have added reference to this since the Daily Mail seems to be a reputable source, and that Mr. Rowlands claim that he was both discourage from contacting the press, and that he was threatened with prosecution for listeing to an unliscenced radio station would seem to add credance to the claim that
1280:
It is wearyingly usual, after an article has been featured on the front page, to have one editor bustling in and telling us that the main editor and all the reviewers at PR and FAC have got things wrong. I can't remember seeing any such intervention that was (i) helpful or (ii) successful. This one
1185:
The lead reflects the article. There’s no undue weight. It’s a silly claim to try and infer this looks like a supermarket tabloid: it obviously doesn’t, given we mention and dismiss in a clean and economic manner. Again, there is nothing in our guidelines or policies that says we should not include
561:
The definitions in
Knowledge may be correct, but that's not the issue. The issue is what do the sources call this particular incident? The majority of them appear to refer to it is a "robbery" which isn't surprising as most laymen probably don't appreciate the distinction. Be that as it may, if the
309:
This article implies that a D Notice was never served and yet all 3 of the papers above (who reported at the time) say that a D Notice WAS served. Most of the other information leans towards the film being a complete lie. I'm sure it didn't let the truth get in the way of a good story at times, but
655:
On the episode commentary (2003), Troy
Kennedy Martin is asked whether this was based on any particular crime, and responds "No. Just dreamed up," though he "can't quite think" of the genesis of it. Earlier in the commentary, producer Ted Childs notes that he once had a visit from the Home Office
982:
At the
National Archives site, the following information is provided about the sealed records: "MEPO 26/418 1971 Jan 01 - 1978 Dec 31. Benjamin WOLFE, Thomas Gray STEPHEN, Reginald Samuel TUCKER and Anthony GAVIN: convicted of aggravated burglary arising from the theft of cash and jewellery worth
546:
I appreciate that many sources say robbery, it happens a lot with certain burglaries, especially when large amounts of money are taken from closed premises. I also appreciate that this incident has become widely known as a robbery (incorrectly). To source robbery/burglary definitions, you need to
935:
This seems to be the EXACT issue with the sentence. Everyone believes that files are hidden away, yet no reliable source is provided. In fact, an ambiguous
Primary Source is being used to make a very specific claim about the size and unsealing date when that file could just as easily be London
1155:
There is nothing in either DUE or FRINGE that says we don’t cover significant points of a subject, even if they are conspiracy theories. There are no policies or guidelines that say we are not allowed to mention conspiracy theories, and I can point to other articles that include them. For this
1132:
sensational and salacious details, which again, are entirely unsupported by credible evidence. And for those interested in the details, they can just glide down and find them all in the body of the article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a page from a supermarket tabloid. -
1131:
I can't find anything in our P&G that supports giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories in the lead of an article about which they are not the main topic of the article. I would also note that I did not remove all reference to them, but rather trimmed it down by removing the more
1206:
That aside, the lead just exists to summarize plainly the major points of the article, and since the article has a whole section called "Rumours" and rightly so, I think we would be remiss not to mention the rumors at all in the lead. It's not undue weight at that point.
928:
I added a "better source needed" note because the link is to an ambiguous page of the UK National
Archive with ZERO indication what the files are related to. The collection of files is labeled under a code that says Metropolitan files related to various cases 1971-1979
1203:
I just removed the embargo claim in the lead on that basis, since it was stated as plain fact without any support in the body, and the only sources I could find for it were tabloids and self-published blogs and the like. That sort of thing I think we should definitely
304:
Four days is the average lifespan of a story especially when the investigation is on-going. A d-notice was never issued and even if it was it is merely a request, not an legally-enforcable order. Once again the truth is crushed in the chase of a good story.
586:
This article should be expanded with information about how much, if any, of the property was recovered, and also should discuss briefly what the burglars did after they were released. Especially, did they live lifestyles not supported by their incomes?
1008:
Are you on desktop? On mobile, when clicking the C14499699 link, it doesn't show the fully linked hierarchy and only links back to the top level
Metropolitan Police descriptor. I don't see the link to Wolfe et al. Just a page describing a vague box of
983:£1,250,000 from Lloyds Bank, 185 Baker Street, Marylebone, London NW1, between 10 and 13 September 1971. The burglary was committed by constructing a tunnel from the basement of a nearby shop to the bank vault. Orderable at item level". On the
1082:
There is a paragraph length discussion of conspiracy theories in the lead that are directly acknowledged to be unsupported by any factual evidence and that have been dismissed by pretty much all credible sources. I trimmed that down in
391:. Which includes the Ham radio operator's claim that there was a silencing of the press, and "the police threatened to prosecute Mr Rowlands for listening to an unlicensed radio station, a blow softened by a £2,500 reward from Lloyds."
318:
The D-Notice. Two points: D-Notices were treated more seriously in the past than they are today, not as mere "requests"; secondly, since the aim is secrecy it may have been more convenient not to obtain a formal D-Notice. If the
1170:
I am not arguing that the conspiracy theories should not be mentioned. Only that they should not be given undue weight by promoting them in the lead. Especially given that they are entirely unsupported. See my response above.
1247:
There should be a mention in the lead of the existence of rumours and conspiracy theories, but the details of such belong in the body. The article is about the robbery, not the conspiracy theories. The purpose of the lead is
866:
Knowledge's standard for this is "Safe
Deposit Box". Not "Safety Deposit Box". If "Safety Deposit Box", why not "Safety TD Deposit Box". Why not repeat the syllable before "posit" ad infinitum if you're going to repeat it at
468:
In all honesty, everything I have read in this article does not match the Newspaper reports and records (save for the Daily Mirror which we believe much less than we would reputable papers like the Telegraph, Guardian and
1200:
I think it's not unreasonable to mention them in the lead, since so much of the popular coverage has (regrettably) focused on them, but I definitely think we should be very clear that they're not supported by evidence.
474:
Can I suggest that someone rewrites it entirely, stating which bits are truth and verifiable (as far as possible) and which are conjecture. Unfortunately, it is articles like this that give Wiki a bad name.
351:
Papers say that the fictional film 'The Bank Job' claims there was a D-notice, not that there was one. Though they're very good at blurring those lines beyond recognition. The film is entirely bollocks.
1353:
No-one knows how much was stolen and the sources all speculate wildly. We show what the sources say, which is why one of the footnotes has a list of the various amounts and the source that says that. -
1337:
how did the police recover 231,000 gbp after the arrests? Furthermore, if the estimated value stolen was 4 million gbp then why, during the court case, was only 666,000 gbp attempted to be regained? (
1051:
511:
Entering the bank as trespassers (i.e. when it is closed), and stealing from the bank meets the defenition of a burglary, and I am wondering if this would be a more appropriate title. Thoughts?
414:
388:
508:
This event does not meet the defenition of a robbery (use of violence, or fear of violence to commit theft). A robbery would be entering a bank with a gun and demanding cash.
883:
Because in British English the term is "Safety Deposit Box", not "Safe Deposit Box". The latter is not the "Knowledge Standard", but one of the spellings used on the site. -
1025:
wrong link. Looks like only renderable in desktop mode. Ahh well. Its accurate, I'll see if I can find a mobile friendly source. Thanks for the revert, it was informative.
452:
There are a lot of things from this article that might be added. I added the bit about the police belief that the mastermind was another car dealer who was not aprehended.--
1095:
1065:
Quite right - brevity in writing (by me) has removed the context. I've now added a small bit by way of explanation, which should clarify. Thanks for pointing it out. -
1055:
738:
Not if there isn't a reliable source to say the programme was based on the film. As the writers specifically say otherwise, I don't think that would be forthcoming. -
323:
continued reporting, perhaps it as the establishment paper was exempt. If there was no suppression of the news why wouldn't the other papers have kept reporting too?
182:
178:
164:
1301:
I disagree with Ad Orientem. The rumors are DUE and are not FRINGE. The notability of this robbery depends, at least in significant part, on the rumors. As
372:
Like many visitors I have just seen the film, and I am sure that a lot of us would be interested in more detail on the history. I have not found anything. --
132:
310:
from eyewitness accounts as well as Newspaper reports both recent and at the time, the film is certainly nearer the truth than this article ever will be!
656:
asking whether the show was paying criminals for information; but was able to reassure them that the show simply had young and imaginative writers.
142:
802:
did write at the time that "the plot appeared to have been inspired by the 'radio controlled' bank raid which was carried out a few years ago"
293:
This is a load of old tosh. D-notice? No reporting after four days? The Times were reporting details of people being charged with the crime a
491:
906:"The following year Commander Bert Wickstead, a senior officer at Scotland Yard, was appointed to head an inquiry into the allegations.".
1117:
and all they can recall of the robbery is the Princess Margaret photos, by crisply dismissing them the lead doesn't tease or obfuscate.
868:
1256:
Princess Margaret photos", and "that the stories around it won’t go away", the criteria is not volume but weight. There may be a large
805:, so it seems at least one broadsheet review at the time did make the connection. Here's a present-day journalist who thinks so too:
353:
81:
1018:
Moved to desktop when I couldn't figure out where you got the text and long search short, found what I think is a more universal page
602:
1231:
335:
Obviously there is a lot of speculation and fantasy about this robbery - but why if it was such a straightforward case?--
133:
https://web.archive.org/20090324044204/http://www.bankofengland.co.uk:80/education/inflation/calculator/flash/index.htm
1114:
38:
1122:
932:
This was immediately reverted by @Nikkimaria with the edit note "given the cataloguing they almost certainly do"
487:
143:
https://web.archive.org/20100930161920/http://goliath.ecnext.com:80/coms2/gi_0199-8802477/THE-BANK-JOB-FILES.html
47:
17:
562:
sources call it a robbery, we are stuck with what they say, at least with respect to the title of the article.--
181:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
136:
836:
Further the thread (apart from any TV link) it mentions that the robbery is covered in some detail in the book
773:
If it "plainly was", then there would be a good reliable source to make the connection. At the moment, we have
872:
357:
1342:
1271:
483:
433:
146:
85:
1176:
1137:
1103:
340:
220:
200:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
188:
1338:
1118:
992:
590:
479:
276:
243:
104:
77:
594:
74:
A woman's voice said, "We have done all the easy ones." This seems to refer to safe deposit boxes.
1289:
1035:
965:
944:
639:
598:
254:
1359:
1311:
1239:
1225:
1212:
1191:
1161:
1150:
1070:
914:
888:
806:
782:
743:
712:
686:
619:
258:
984:
185:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1220:
Ah, sorry, I didn't catch the National Archives reference at the bottom. Sorry for the trouble
201:
1267:
567:
537:
114:
1363:
1346:
1315:
1296:
1275:
1242:
1215:
1195:
1180:
1172:
1165:
1141:
1133:
1126:
1107:
1099:
1059:
1039:
996:
969:
948:
918:
892:
876:
849:
845:
817:
813:
786:
768:
764:
747:
732:
728:
623:
606:
571:
556:
541:
522:
495:
461:
457:
445:
441:
426:
422:
406:
402:
381:
377:
361:
344:
336:
280:
262:
247:
228:
216:
89:
208:
1003:
988:
955:
552:
518:
272:
239:
122:
326:
The convictions of robbers. If this is true - and I have verified the existence of the
1284:
1031:
977:
961:
940:
167:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
207:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1355:
1307:
1262:
1235:
1221:
1208:
1187:
1157:
1088:
1066:
910:
884:
793:
778:
754:
739:
615:
532:
be correct, but we have to go by what the sources say and they call it a "robbery".--
774:
704:
678:
563:
533:
841:
809:
760:
724:
699:
673:
648:
453:
437:
418:
398:
373:
174:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
939:
So, I leave this note for others who wander by and care to review the issue.
803:
548:
514:
173:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
137:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/inflation/calculator/flash/index.htm
1260:
of rumours but they are insubstantial and ethereal, they don't posses the
1281:
certainly is not the former, and I trust it will fail to be the latter.
119:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
147:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-8802477/THE-BANK-JOB-FILES.html
253:
The photos of course; I've reworded it to hopefully make that clear.--
634:
Some earlier versions of the article contained the information that:
582:
What happened to the stolen property? and to the burglars afterward?
924:
Source Issue with Last Sentence on sealed files at National Archive
330:
article but not read it - why is the robbery described as unsolved?
238:
Were the photos being held by Micheal X, or was Princess Margaret?
127:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
960:- Pinging in case you care to comment. No worries either way.
25:
152:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1266:
necessary for such detailed treatment in the lead. Cheers!
638:
There are also some similarities between the robbery and
1091:
1084:
108:
103:
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
436:, from the Mail on Sunday, is the most informative.--
397:
there was press suppression ("D-Notice"?! or not).--
177:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1096:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
163:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
909:Do we know if anything came of this inquiry?
315:There seem to be major discrepancies here:
588:
1253:people "can recall of the robbery is the
777:and something that says the opposite. -
417:claims that the robbery was unsolved. --
665:
1052:2601:648:8402:F8A0:D537:65E8:E161:E7EE
936:Metropolitan Police Cookie Recipes.
723:Should anything of this be included?
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
798:Well it seems Chris Dunkley of the
903:In the legacy section it states:
24:
107:. Please take a moment to review
1078:Conspiracy theories in the lead?
29:
985:specific page for these records
1364:05:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
1347:04:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
1316:16:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
1297:11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
1276:22:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1243:22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1216:21:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1196:21:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1181:21:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1166:21:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1142:21:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1127:21:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1108:21:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1060:21:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
1:
572:21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
557:21:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
542:15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
523:23:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
1087:. That edit was reverted by
1040:04:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
997:04:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
970:03:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
949:03:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
919:15:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
850:14:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
818:13:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
787:13:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
769:13:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
748:13:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
733:12:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
707:, 1975. Episode commentary,
681:, 1975. Episode commentary,
630:Sweeney episode: "Night Out"
624:07:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
607:06:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
271:Yeah, much better. Thanks.
229:16:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
90:15:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
1380:
893:19:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
877:18:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
462:13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
446:08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
427:05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
407:13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
382:05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
281:11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
263:10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
248:10:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
194:(last update: 5 June 2024)
125:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
100:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
759:Even if it plainly was?
711:, at 36:10. Released by
685:, at 42:55. Released by
496:13:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
415:article about Gale Benson
345:03:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
18:Talk:Baker Street robbery
646:for the first series of
879:Christopher L. Simpson
362:20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
96:External links modified
1332:Fiscal Lack of Clarity
658:
614:press is concerned. -
636:
42:of past discussions.
175:regular verification
160:to let others know.
111:. If necessary, add
105:Baker Street robbery
640:Troy Kennedy Martin
165:After February 2018
156:parameter below to
862:Safety Deposit Box
389:Daily Mail article
170:InternetArchiveBot
1186:such material. -
1154:
609:
593:comment added by
499:
482:comment added by
227:
195:
80:comment added by
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1371:
1294:
1292:
1287:
1148:
1007:
981:
959:
797:
758:
716:
696:
690:
670:
642:'s 1975 episode
528:Technically you
498:
476:
223:
222:Talk to my owner
218:
193:
192:
171:
126:
118:
92:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1334:
1290:
1285:
1283:
1119:No Swan So Fine
1080:
1047:
1045:Lack of clarity
1001:
975:
953:
926:
901:
864:
800:Financial Times
791:
752:
721:
720:
719:
697:
693:
671:
667:
632:
584:
506:
484:Newsgroupmonkey
477:
370:
291:
236:
226:
221:
186:
179:have permission
169:
120:
112:
98:
75:
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1377:
1375:
1367:
1366:
1333:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1245:
1198:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1046:
1043:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1019:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
925:
922:
900:
899:Legacy section
897:
896:
895:
863:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
718:
717:
691:
664:
663:
659:
631:
628:
627:
626:
583:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
505:
502:
501:
500:
471:
470:
465:
464:
449:
448:
430:
429:
410:
409:
393:
392:
369:
366:
365:
364:
348:
347:
333:
332:
331:
324:
312:
311:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
266:
265:
235:
232:
219:
213:
212:
205:
150:
149:
141:Added archive
139:
131:Added archive
97:
94:
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1376:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1331:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1304:
1303:The Telegraph
1300:
1299:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1288:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1199:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1152:
1151:edit conflict
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1044:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1005:
1000:
999:
998:
994:
990:
986:
979:
974:
973:
972:
971:
967:
963:
957:
951:
950:
946:
942:
937:
933:
930:
923:
921:
920:
916:
912:
907:
904:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
881:
880:
878:
874:
870:
869:204.155.230.3
861:
851:
847:
843:
839:
838:Armed Robbery
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
819:
815:
811:
807:
804:
801:
795:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
756:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
695:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
669:
666:
662:
657:
653:
651:
650:
645:
641:
635:
629:
625:
621:
617:
612:
611:
610:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
581:
573:
569:
565:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
512:
509:
503:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
473:
472:
467:
466:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
431:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
411:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
367:
363:
359:
355:
350:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
329:
325:
322:
317:
316:
314:
313:
308:
307:
306:
302:
300:
296:
288:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
233:
231:
230:
224:
217:
210:
206:
203:
199:
198:
197:
190:
184:
180:
176:
172:
166:
161:
159:
155:
148:
144:
140:
138:
134:
130:
129:
128:
124:
116:
110:
106:
101:
95:
93:
91:
87:
83:
79:
70:Female robber
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1335:
1302:
1282:
1268:Captainllama
1261:
1257:
1254:
1249:
1236:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1228:
1209:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1202:
1113:I disagree.
1081:
1048:
1030:
1021:
952:
938:
934:
931:
927:
908:
905:
902:
865:
837:
799:
722:
708:
705:Euston Films
698:
694:
682:
679:Euston Films
672:
668:
660:
654:
647:
643:
637:
633:
589:— Preceding
585:
529:
513:
510:
507:
434:This article
371:
354:92.15.56.160
327:
320:
303:
298:
294:
292:
237:
214:
189:source check
168:
162:
157:
153:
151:
102:
99:
82:92.27.11.202
76:— Preceding
73:
60:
43:
37:
1339:Maggieauger
1173:Ad Orientem
1134:Ad Orientem
1115:Ask anybody
1100:Ad Orientem
713:Network DVD
700:The Sweeney
687:Network DVD
674:The Sweeney
649:The Sweeney
478:—Preceding
368:More Please
337:Jack Upland
36:This is an
1004:Nikkimaria
989:Nikkimaria
956:Nikkimaria
661:References
387:Here is a
301:d-notice.
297:after the
273:Duggy 1138
240:Duggy 1138
1286:Tim riley
1240:𔑪talk〗⇤
1234:). 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1213:𔑪talk〗⇤
1085:this edit
1032:Slywriter
978:Slywriter
962:Slywriter
941:Slywriter
709:Night Out
683:Night Out
644:Night Out
595:Hannah955
413:And this
209:this tool
202:this tool
61:Archive 1
1356:SchroCat
1308:Ssilvers
1238:ම𛱘🥑《
1232:contribs
1222:SchroCat
1211:ම𛱘🥑《
1188:SchroCat
1158:SchroCat
1089:SchroCat
1067:SchroCat
911:Franmars
885:SchroCat
794:SchroCat
779:SchroCat
755:SchroCat
740:SchroCat
616:SchroCat
603:contribs
591:unsigned
504:Robbery?
492:contribs
480:unsigned
299:supposed
289:D-Notice
255:Kotniski
215:Cheers.—
115:cbignore
78:unsigned
715:, 2003.
689:, 2003.
564:ukexpat
534:ukexpat
225::Online
154:checked
109:my edit
39:archive
1263:weight
1258:volume
1207:🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1204:avoid.
1009:files.
842:Jheald
810:Jheald
761:Jheald
725:Jheald
469:Times)
454:Timtak
438:Timtak
419:Timtak
399:Timtak
374:Timtak
234:Photos
123:nobots
775:WP:OR
549:Mrspy
515:Mrspy
328:Times
321:Times
295:month
16:<
1360:talk
1343:talk
1312:talk
1291:talk
1272:talk
1226:talk
1192:talk
1177:talk
1162:talk
1138:talk
1123:talk
1104:talk
1092:here
1071:talk
1056:talk
1036:talk
993:talk
966:talk
945:talk
915:talk
889:talk
873:talk
867:all?
846:talk
814:talk
783:talk
765:talk
744:talk
729:talk
620:talk
599:talk
568:talk
553:talk
538:talk
519:talk
488:talk
458:talk
442:talk
423:talk
403:talk
378:talk
358:talk
341:talk
277:talk
259:talk
244:talk
158:true
86:talk
1250:not
1098:. -
530:may
183:RfC
145:to
135:to
1362:)
1349:)
1345:)
1314:)
1274:)
1194:)
1179:)
1164:)
1140:)
1125:)
1106:)
1058:)
1038:)
995:)
968:)
947:)
917:)
891:)
875:)
848:)
816:)
808:.
785:)
767:)
746:)
731:)
703:,
677:,
622:)
605:)
601:•
570:)
555:)
540:)
521:)
494:)
490:•
460:)
444:)
425:)
405:)
380:)
360:)
343:)
279:)
261:)
246:)
196:.
191:}}
187:{{
121:{{
117:}}
113:{{
88:)
1358:(
1341:(
1310:(
1270:(
1229:·
1224:(
1190:(
1175:(
1171:-
1160:(
1153:)
1149:(
1136:(
1121:(
1102:(
1073:)
1069:(
1054:(
1034:(
1023:]
1006::
1002:@
991:(
980::
976:@
964:(
958::
954:@
943:(
913:(
887:(
871:(
844:(
812:(
796::
792:@
781:(
763:(
757::
753:@
742:(
727:(
618:(
597:(
566:(
551:(
536:(
517:(
486:(
456:(
440:(
421:(
401:(
376:(
356:(
339:(
275:(
257:(
242:(
211:.
204:.
84:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.