On 03/03/2018 21:07, newshound wrote:
On 03/03/2018 20:57, newshound wrote:
On 03/03/2018 20:03, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Mar-18 7:23 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2018 19:07:58 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
Given that one of those charged is the shopkeeper,

Of a Polish shop??

what makes you sure
there's not some other explanation, such as an insurance job?

Because the police (and Bob Eager) were *immediately* able to rule out
terrorism. ;-

The police did not immediately rule out terrorism. They simply said
at the beginning that they were not, at that time, treating it as a
terrorist attack, which is far from the same thing.


Indeed. But it always looked very much like a gas explosion. Which
could be a "genuine" accident, or an incompetent plumber, or some sort
of "inside job" for whatever reasons. Still doesn't smell to me much
like being jihadis, *or* right wing. Hence the initial police
statement (and, in the current climate, I'm all in favour of police
presenting their initial assessment as quickly as possible).

Oops just read some other posts. Is the current theory that it was a
still explosion? I've never looked at the chemistry, but there are
*lots* of stills around, and presumably plenty of illicit ones, but
explosions don't seem to be all that common. Obviously slightly more
likely if you are hiding one away in a basement.

And it certainly looked like there was a broken gas supply flaring away
for some time after the initial "bang".

The cause was petrol:
'Prosecuting solicitor Zoe Lee told the court: "It has been established
that the explosion was caused by petrol and the petrol was spread
throughout the shop."'

--
F