"British police arrested two men at a train station in central England 
as they travelled from the northern English city of Newcastle towards 
London.

"'We can confirm that Lincolnshire police officers arrested two men at 
Grantham rail station at about 2200 GMT last night (Tuesday),' a police 
statement said on Wednesday.

"The Metropolitan Police in London declined to comment on whether the 
two arrests were connected with the arrests of four men in Birmingham 
early on Wednesday which they confirmed were linked to the botched 
London bomb attacks on July 21."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27632355.htm

The BBC reporter says that, he thinks, it might not be of any 
significance.  Two off-study Metropolitan Police officers on the train 
tipped off Lincolnshire Police.

In message , at 08:05:36 on Wed, 27 Jul 
2005, Mark Morton  remarked:

>"The Metropolitan Police in London declined to comment on whether the 
>two arrests were connected with the arrests of four men in Birmingham 
>early on Wednesday which they confirmed were linked to the botched 
>London bomb attacks on July 21."


"Two men travelling by train to London were arrested on Tuesday night 
under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Lincolnshire police arrested the pair, who had been travelling on the 
GNER Newcastle to London King's Cross service, at Grantham railway 
station.

The train was stopped following information given by two off-duty 
Metropolitan Police officers, who were travelling on the service.

The men were held on Wednesday at a Lincolnshire police station.

They were arrested at about 2300 BST. The train and passengers continued 
on the journey and arrived in London at about 0315 BST, Lincolnshire 
Police said.

One passenger, Joe Shipley, told BBC Breakfast he saw armed police 
officers arrest "what looked like several people".

"We'd been delayed for about two hours, we'd been told there were 
problems on the line and then all of a sudden the whole place was just 
filled with armed police and dogs.

"The police then proceeded to sweep down the train, checking all the 
bags to, obviously, to see if there were bombs or something like that."

He said the officers carried sub-machine guns and side arms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4720173.stm
-- 
Roland Perry

> "The police then proceeded to sweep down the train, checking all the
> bags to, obviously, to see if there were bombs or something like that."


I'd be bricking it if I didn't have a ticket. As the "penalty" in
penalty fare is now the Death Penalty, I think it's pretty important to
make sure you've bought a ticket ASAP.

Paul Weaver wrote:

>> "The police then proceeded to sweep down the train, checking all the
>> bags to, obviously, to see if there were bombs or something like
>> that."
>
> I'd be bricking it if I didn't have a ticket. As the "penalty" in
> penalty fare is now the Death Penalty, I think it's pretty important
> to make sure you've bought a ticket ASAP.


Hopefully all public transport operators will now see a massive increase in
revenue.

On 27 Jul 2005 02:39:54 -0700, "Paul Weaver" 
wrote:


>> "The police then proceeded to sweep down the train, checking all the
>> bags to, obviously, to see if there were bombs or something like that."
>
>I'd be bricking it if I didn't have a ticket. As the "penalty" in
>penalty fare is now the Death Penalty, I think it's pretty important to
>make sure you've bought a ticket ASAP.


I think the lesson to be learned is "do not leg it if the police tell
you to stop" :-(

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:06 GMT someone who may be
paulSPAM@paulsherwin.co.uk (Paul Sherwin) wrote this:-


>I think the lesson to be learned is "do not leg it if the police tell
>you to stop" :-(


Assuming they are recognisable as police officers, which seems most
unlikely and they tell you to stop, which seems debatable.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:scqee19ngo9dvp20v4tglkoq7j6h1l0r0n@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:06 GMT someone who may be
> paulSPAM@paulsherwin.co.uk (Paul Sherwin) wrote this:-
>
>>I think the lesson to be learned is "do not leg it if the police tell
>>you to stop" :-(
>
> Assuming they are recognisable as police officers, which seems most
> unlikely and they tell you to stop, which seems debatable.
>
>
> -- 
> David Hansen,


Look at it this way if you are running and somebody points a gun at you 
[They could be Police Officer in plain clothes, A mugger, Landlord after the 
rent money] anybody in fact it does not matter. If they shout stop or I will 
shoot, or words to that effect, you would stop would you not?

Keith.

Keith Till wrote:


> Look at it this way if you are running and somebody points a gun at you 
> [They could be Police Officer in plain clothes, A mugger, Landlord after the 
> rent money] anybody in fact it does not matter. If they shout stop or I will 
> shoot, or words to that effect, you would stop would you not?


If you were a suicide bomber, you'd presumably set off your bomb.

Charlie

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:32:13 +0100, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>Keith Till wrote:
>
>> Look at it this way if you are running and somebody points a gun at you 
>> [They could be Police Officer in plain clothes, A mugger, Landlord after the 
>> rent money] anybody in fact it does not matter. If they shout stop or I will 
>> shoot, or words to that effect, you would stop would you not?
>
>If you were a suicide bomber, you'd presumably set off your bomb.



Nonono, the sensible thing to do is leap over barriers into a tube
station and down onto platform level and board a train. That's bound
to lose the shooter.

Oh...

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:32:58 +0100 someone who may be Richard Sobey
 wrote this:-


>Nonono, the sensible thing to do is leap over barriers into a tube
>station


It remains to be confirmed whether the so-called suspected bomber
did this.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wednesday 27 July 2005 12:45 Keith Till wrote:

8><------

> 
> Look at it this way if you are running and somebody points a gun at you
> [They could be Police Officer in plain clothes, A mugger, Landlord after
> [the
> rent money] anybody in fact it does not matter. If they shout stop or I
> will shoot, or words to that effect, you would stop would you not?
> 
> Keith.


It does matter who they are.

If they clearly identify themselves as police and that it is me they want to
stop then of course I'd stop.

But otherwise, if I were young and agile, I think my instinct would be to
run towards a crowd. To stop invites a mugging or worse.

Edgar

yyOn Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:45:59 +0100, "Keith Till"
 wrote:


>
<snip>
>Look at it this way if you are running and somebody points a gun at you 
>[They could be Police Officer in plain clothes, A mugger, Landlord after the 
>rent money] anybody in fact it does not matter. If they shout stop or I will 
>shoot, or words to that effect, you would stop would you not?
>

Are you recommending that allowing the danger to come to you is better
than running away from it ?
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:45:59 +0100, "Keith Till"
 wrote:


>Look at it this way if you are running and somebody points a gun at you 
>[They could be Police Officer in plain clothes, A mugger, Landlord after the 
>rent money] anybody in fact it does not matter. If they shout stop or I will 
>shoot, or words to that effect, you would stop would you not?


I don't know how I'd react.  Animal instinct tends to take over in
such cases.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Never mind all that, what was the loco?

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:04:33 GMT someone who may be
wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-


>I don't know how I'd react.  Animal instinct tends to take over in
>such cases.


It is perhaps recalling that it is police officers *in uniform* that
are allowed to stop vehicle operators. This is entirely sensible and
it is a pity that the police appear not to have the brains to apply
the same reasoning in this case.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:04:33 GMT someone who may be
> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-
>
> >I don't know how I'd react.  Animal instinct tends to take over in
> >such cases.
>
> It is perhaps recalling that it is police officers *in uniform* that
> are allowed to stop vehicle operators. This is entirely sensible and
> it is a pity that the police appear not to have the brains to apply
> the same reasoning in this case.


Seen the full report into this case have we, or jumping to conclusions?

Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown on
the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.

On 27 Jul 2005 14:13:20 -0700, "0.7ohm Drop Shunt"
 wrote:


>
>
>David Hansen wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:04:33 GMT someone who may be
>> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-
>>
>> >I don't know how I'd react.  Animal instinct tends to take over in
>> >such cases.
>>
>> It is perhaps recalling that it is police officers *in uniform* that
>> are allowed to stop vehicle operators. This is entirely sensible and
>> it is a pity that the police appear not to have the brains to apply
>> the same reasoning in this case.
>
>Seen the full report into this case have we, or jumping to conclusions?
>
>Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
>on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown on
>the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.


A ned cap is hardly a proper substitute for a police uniform.
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2005 14:13:20 -0700, "0.7ohm Drop Shunt"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >David Hansen wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:04:33 GMT someone who may be
> >> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-
> >>
> >> >I don't know how I'd react.  Animal instinct tends to take over in
> >> >such cases.
> >>
> >> It is perhaps recalling that it is police officers *in uniform* that
> >> are allowed to stop vehicle operators. This is entirely sensible and
> >> it is a pity that the police appear not to have the brains to apply
> >> the same reasoning in this case.
> >
> >Seen the full report into this case have we, or jumping to conclusions?
> >
> >Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
> >on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown on
> >the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.
>
> A ned cap is hardly a proper substitute for a police uniform.
>


And removing the element of surprise is a great idea for surveillance,
isn't it?

Got to appreciate the number of hindsight engineers in uk.r <rollseyes>

On 27 Jul 2005 14:13:20 -0700, "0.7ohm Drop Shunt"
 wrote:


>Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
>on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown on
>the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.


I would not consider baseball caps sufficient in such a situation.
Full uniform (perhaps minus the helmet for reasons of practicality) is
appropriate.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2005 14:13:20 -0700, "0.7ohm Drop Shunt"
>  wrote:
>
>> Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
>> on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown
>> on the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.
>
> I would not consider baseball caps sufficient in such a situation.
> Full uniform (perhaps minus the helmet for reasons of practicality) is
> appropriate.
>


So you want undercover cops to wear full uniform? Wouldn't that make that a
tad disctintive?

yyOn 27 Jul 2005 15:18:44 -0700, "0.7ohm Drop Shunt"
 wrote:


>
>
>Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On 27 Jul 2005 14:13:20 -0700, "0.7ohm Drop Shunt"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >David Hansen wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:04:33 GMT someone who may be
>> >> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-
>> >>
>> >> >I don't know how I'd react.  Animal instinct tends to take over in
>> >> >such cases.
>> >>
>> >> It is perhaps recalling that it is police officers *in uniform* that
>> >> are allowed to stop vehicle operators. This is entirely sensible and
>> >> it is a pity that the police appear not to have the brains to apply
>> >> the same reasoning in this case.
>> >
>> >Seen the full report into this case have we, or jumping to conclusions?
>> >
>> >Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
>> >on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown on
>> >the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.
>>
>> A ned cap is hardly a proper substitute for a police uniform.
>>
>
>And removing the element of surprise is a great idea for surveillance,
>isn't it?
>

The "surprise" was lost the moment that the deceased found himself
being chased by an armed mob whose status as police seems likely to
have been without clear visual evidence; or are you saying that
shouting "police" and pointing a gun is a sufficient and valid form of
identification to different police from armed thugs ?


>Got to appreciate the number of hindsight engineers in uk.r <rollseyes>


Hindsight engineers often point out what should have been "the
bleedin' obvious" [TM] to the (lack of-?) "foresight engineers".
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On 27 Jul 2005 14:13:20 -0700 someone who may be "0.7ohm Drop Shunt"
 wrote this:-


>> it is a pity that the police appear not to have the brains to apply
>> the same reasoning in this case.
>
>Seen the full report into this case have we, or jumping to conclusions?


Neither, simply asking questions. Note the word "appear" above.


>Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
>on


I wonder how much they cost to buy in the pub, along with the gun?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message , at 01:18:30 on 
Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Charles Ellson  remarked:

>are you saying that shouting "police" and pointing a gun is a 
>sufficient and valid form of identification to different police from 
>armed thugs ?


Armed thugs are somewhat unlikely to be doing that just outside a tube 
station that already has a considerable uniformed police presence.
-- 
Roland Perry

Neil Williams wrote:

>
> I would not consider baseball caps sufficient in such a situation.
> Full uniform (perhaps minus the helmet for reasons of practicality) is
> appropriate.


I'm not sure that I know what "full uniform" is for police any more.
Greater Manchester Police seem to dress in high visibility yellow now -
and I don't mean a hi-vis vest, I mean a full length jacket. This makes
them completely indistinguishable from all the other people wearing hi
viz yellow. In fact you have to look at the back of the jacket to work
out whether the person is claiming to be Police, a Community Support
Officer, a railway revenue goon, a construction site worker, a lollipop
man or a road sweeper.

And on certain estates in the Twin Cities of Manchester and Salford,
it's very reasonable to assume that anyone waving a gun at you is /not/
on the side of law and order. Sadly.
-- 
Pat Ricroft, City of Salford, UK
================================

On 27 Jul 2005 14:13:20 -0700, 0.7ohm Drop Shunt wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:

[...]

> Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
> on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown on
> the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.


Ah, baseball caps. 

Do you mean the baseball caps which are available from police supply
shops, albeit without the badges, but then you can buy the cloth
badges on eBay...?

The _only_ police style baseball caps I *haven't* seen available for
purchase are the hi-vis style as used by West Midlands Police. 

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:48:19 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
 wrote:


>So you want undercover cops to wear full uniform? Wouldn't that make that a
>tad disctintive?


Don't be ridiculous.  I want uniformed police on hand to take over
such a chase - as indeed happened, except that they weren't uniformed,
IYSWIM.

I get the impression we are going round in circles here, anyhow.   It
probably goes down to my fundamental belief that "collateral
damage"[1] is not acceptable in civilian policing. 

If we want a state of war, let's declare martial law and bring the
Army in throughout the country to start this kind of thing.  If that
happens, assuming it's still possible, I'll then emigrate to a more
civilised country.

[1] An unpleasant term in itself which I'm disappointed to hear more
and more frequently these days, mainly by people suggesting it is in
some way acceptable.  "Erroneous killing of non-combatants" is
probably a fairer and more accurate description of the situation.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

yyOn Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:11:05 +0100, Roland Perry
 wrote:


>In message , at 01:18:30 on 
>Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Charles Ellson  remarked:
>>are you saying that shouting "police" and pointing a gun is a 
>>sufficient and valid form of identification to different police from 
>>armed thugs ?
>
>Armed thugs are somewhat unlikely to be doing that just outside a tube 
>station that already has a considerable uniformed police presence.


You obviously aren't aware how brazen is the behaviour of some modern
criminals.
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Ross wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2005 14:13:20 -0700, 0.7ohm Drop Shunt wrote in
> , seen in
> uk.railway:
>
> [...]
> > Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
> > on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown on
> > the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.
>
> Ah, baseball caps.
>
> Do you mean the baseball caps which are available from police supply
> shops, albeit without the badges, but then you can buy the cloth
> badges on eBay...?
>


Ahh, Police Uniforms.

Do you mean police uniforms which are available from Ebay,
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=50780&item=7703640587&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=159&item=6196025788&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Or Fancy Dress shops, with subtle modification, or even TV/Stage prop
suppliers.

OK, a lot more involved, but for the determined imposter, not beyond
feasibility.

On 28 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0700, "0.7ohm Drop Shunt"
 wrote:


>OK, a lot more involved, but for the determined imposter, not beyond
>feasibility.


True.  However, police baseball caps are much more likely to become
some kind of street fashion than full police uniform, IMO, in which a
typical mugger probably wouldn't be seen dead (or more accurately
probably would be seen (shot) dead).

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

>It remains to be confirmed whether the so-called suspected bomber
>did this.


It's been confirmed he didn't.And he wasn'twearing a bulky coat. And he
obviously wasn't a large enough risk to allow onto a crowded bus. And
he was chased by men in plain clothes.

As more and more facts come out it's clear that he was executed for PR

On Thursday 28 July 2005 09:11 Roland Perry wrote:


> In message , at 01:18:30 on
> Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Charles Ellson  remarked:
>>are you saying that shouting "police" and pointing a gun is a
>>sufficient and valid form of identification to different police from
>>armed thugs ?
> 
> Armed thugs are somewhat unlikely to be doing that just outside a tube
> station that already has a considerable uniformed police presence.


But without sufficient presence to shut the gates or otherwise stop the
suspect.
Edgar

In message <dccuql$r5n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, at 11:01:56 on Fri, 29 
Jul 2005, Edgar Iredale <Please@no.spam.invalid> remarked:

>> Armed thugs are somewhat unlikely to be doing that just outside a tube
>> station that already has a considerable uniformed police presence.
>
>But without sufficient presence to shut the gates or otherwise stop the
>suspect.


It seems rather unlikely to me that anyone could shut the gates that 
quickly (you'd have a couple of seconds, perhaps), even if they were 
inclined to try and stop someone who was dangerous enough for their 
armed colleagues to be pursuing.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 28 Jul 2005 13:57:24 -0700, 0.7ohm Drop Shunt wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > Plain-clothes police often have baseball style caps that they can put
> > > on to identify themselves at the required time. Its just been shown on
> > > the BBC Ten o'clock news of officers in a similar incident.
> >
> > Ah, baseball caps.
> > Do you mean the baseball caps which are available from police supply
> > shops, albeit without the badges, but then you can buy the cloth
> > badges on eBay...?
> 
> Ahh, Police Uniforms.
> 
> Do you mean police uniforms which are available from Ebay,
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=50780&item=7703640587&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=159&item=6196025788&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW


Yup, you've found some of the stuff. New stuff (as in _current_) comes
on the market sometimes, too, and unfortunately some of the police
supply shops aren't fussy about who they supply unbadged items to, and
militaria shops can be even worse.

Come to that, I suspect that although eBay bans sale of helmets with
badges, the seller would probably offer the badge either separately or
"under the counter".

 
[...] 

> OK, a lot more involved, but for the determined imposter, not beyond
> feasibility.


Precisely. 

I don't think they even have to be all *that* determined. If I've
managed to find that you can get the badges on eBay and the other
stuff from supply stores, you can bet your bottom dollar that any
clued-up criminal has discovered the same too. 

And, as Neil says, a baseball cap is easier if you can create an ID to
wave as you can hide them both in your pocket, which is far less risky
than wearing full uniform; the latter might attract the attention of
real cops, and you wouldn't want that.

OK, the warrant cards, I should think they're impossible to get, but
them how many people know what a warrant card looks like? 

I bet you could knock up something that looks plausible on a PC,
laminate and stick it in a leather wallet (available on eBay) with a
cap badge (also available on eBay) glued on the other side, and how
many people would know it wasn't real?

I think I'll stop now, I'm beginning to worry myself about how easy it
is to impersonate someone.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:56:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>>But without sufficient presence to shut the gates or otherwise stop the
>>suspect.
>
>It seems rather unlikely to me that anyone could shut the gates that 
>quickly (you'd have a couple of seconds, perhaps),


Underground station gates are closed with some regularity as a crowd
control measure every week, though more often in central London.

It seems that the "suspected bomber" and therefore the police had
discovered that the gates at Brixton station were shut and then
continued in the direction of Stockwell. That gives rather more than
a few seconds to shut the gates there.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In message , at 13:06:37 on 
Fri, 29 Jul 2005, David Hansen  
remarked:

>On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:56:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
> wrote this:-
>
>>>But without sufficient presence to shut the gates or otherwise stop the
>>>suspect.
>>
>>It seems rather unlikely to me that anyone could shut the gates that
>>quickly (you'd have a couple of seconds, perhaps),
>
>Underground station gates are closed with some regularity as a crowd
>control measure every week, though more often in central London.


There was a shot of the gates at Stockwell on the news today, with a 
couple of policemen stood next to them. It confirms my view that closing 
them as rapidly as you suggest wouldn't be practical.


>It seems that the "suspected bomber" and therefore the police had
>discovered that the gates at Brixton station were shut and then
>continued in the direction of Stockwell.


Where have you read that? Did the chase on foot take place all the way 
from Brixton to Stockwell after he'd taken the bus all the way to 
Brixton (rather than Stockwell)?


>That gives rather more than a few seconds to shut the gates there.


If what you are suggesting above did happen, that would depend on how 
much visibility of the situation the police at Stockwell station had.
-- 
Roland Perry