Jump to content

Talk:Brink's-Mat robbery/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Spelling

I think it likely that the title is correctly spelt Brink's-Mat.—ZephyrAnycon (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the correct spelling is Brink's-MAT. I've found a primary source that attests to the spelling.
There is a press release from Brink's, Inc. announcing the acquisition of the remaining interest in Brink's-MAT Limited from partners MAT Group Ltd. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-8390406.html Unfortunately the article is subscription only (I'm not a subscriber) but the important information (including the company names) is included in the free preview.
What I'm trying to figure out is whether this MAT Group Ltd is related to VIA MAT. I find that interesting context, since although the Brink's-MAT joint venture no longer exists, both Brink's and VIA MAT are in the business of gold bullion storage and transportation. I've found one reference which indicates that MAT Transport B.V. was a subsidiary of MAT Group Ltd, and I know from the VIA MAT web site that MAT Transport AG is part of the VIA MAT Group, so I'm piecing together that there is a connection, but I don't find anything conclusive. Roy Badami (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
OTOH it appears that MAT Transport Ltd is not affiliated with MAT Transport AG, although there was a former business relationship. And there might be a connection between MAT Group Ltd and MAT Transport Ltd, so I'm beginning to think that the connection between Brink's-MAT Ltd and VIA MAT is a little bit more complicated. http://www.viamat.com/viamat/news/hauser.php Roy Badami (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the page and corrected the spelling here and in the referencing articles Roy Badami (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Just another reference, in case any doubt remains. There's a BBC article here which, although it incorrectly refers to Brinks Mat, also has an image of the Brink's-MAT logo. The name on the logo is written entirely in uppercase (i.e. BRINK'S-MAT) so it doesn't confirm the capitalisation, but it does at confirm the apostrophe and the hyphen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/714289.stm Roy Badami (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I know this conversation was five years ago, but all the references have "Mat" in lower case. I've boldly moved it and updated those uses outside of quotes and references. Si Trew (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
But the name of the company was Brink's-MAT. The fact that secondary references get this wrong is surely of no consequence? Surely primary sources are appropriate for the name of a company? The name of a company is a matter of fact, and other people mispelling it doesn't change it. Or do you disagree with my sources? Roybadami (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, unfortunately the source I cited here is no longer on line. But see this law report. Ok, the title gets it wrong, but it's spelt correctly in the body of the text. http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs2/19883AER188.html
Ok, I've found the primary source at Comapnies House and it says "BRINK'S - MAT LIMITED" (which doesn't help). (Unfortunately it doesn't allow direct linking.) Given this, I feel less stongly, until/unless I can find a better reference as to how the company actually capitalised their name when they were trading. Roybadami (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Another example of Brink's-MAT in legal proceedings http://www.simic.net.cn/upload/2008-05/20080506091904641.pdf
Although there's no shortage of documents referencing Brink's-Mat. It's clear there's no consistency here.
Part of my assumption that Brink's-MAT is the correct spelling is a presumed historiccal connection with the current company (and competitor to Brink's) VIA MAT. But I can't find any reference to a connection. Roybadami (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Also the fact that the company "BRINK'S - MAT LIMITED" was previously called "M.A.T. (SECURITY) LIMITED" (ref Companies House) makes it clear that MAT was, at least originially, an acronym. But I agree there's no consistency in use (and I guess company names are not legally case sensitive). I still think I'm right, but I don't feel that strongly now Roybadami (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The only thing I can say in reply is all the RS I checked had it as "Brinks-Mat". Punctuation is even more woolly; e.g. I believe Lloyds Bank lost its apostrophe some years ago (ironically, my branch is on the corner of Lloyd's Lane, opposite Lloyd's Register, and the road sign and branch signs are juxtaposed rather incongruously in a way nobody but me seems to have noticed.) Wikipedia has its own naming conventions, WP:NCCORP; and given that it does, I don't see why we have to refer to the company in its legal form (we don't say "Ltd" for example), but should go by what is in RS, like we do for everything else. Si Trew (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm warming to Brink's-Mat. (Sorry, I don't know what RS is though - I'm only an occasional Wikiepdian.) I do think we have a duty to aim to be factually correct, even if many sources are wrong, where the facts can clearly be established from primary sources. (Primary sources really do matter in cases like these.) But given that all legal documents from Companies House (at least of that era) tend to write company names in all-caps, it's seems that capitalisation has no legal status. (And I confess that it always looked wrong to me they way I wrote it, even though that decision was based on primary sources.) I'd be much more unhappy about dropping the apostrophe, though, as Brink's is a company that still exists, and is big in the bullion transport and storage business. It is always written with an apostrophe by the company and by everyone in the industry, AFAICT. The fact that many mainstream media journalists get it wrong shouldn't mean that we do.
The far more interesting thing I learnt from trawling the Companies House records is that the company "M.A.T. (SECURITY) LIMITED" that later changed its name to "BRINK'S - MAT LIMITED", subsequently changed its name to "BRINK'S LIMITED" and is still a company listed on the companies' register. Remember, Brink's is a big (and currently active) company in this industry, so if this is actually the same company that deserves to be mentioned. (Brink's is really an American company, though, which I always thought was Brink's, Inc, so I'm not going to make any edits based on this without more investigation about the relationship. But it's a connection that seems undoubtedly worthy of mention if we can find good sources on this.) Roybadami (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
MY mistake in using WikispealL: RS is WP:RS, a shortcut to WP:Reliable sources; that we have to have Reliable, secondary sources. Secondary means (roughly) newspapers, websites, books, things you would trust that another editor would have looked over first before publishing. That's a very rough personal definition: obviously the policies spell it out in full. So when I say in RS it says "Mat" not "MAT" it is not because necessarily "MAT" is wrong, but that all reliable sources, that is, all we can put as references at the bottom of an article saying why we say what we say, say "Mat" not "MAT". We can certainly also say that it was an amalgamation of M.A.T. or whatever, even without an RS, if we think so: you can tag it with {{citation needed}} if you think it is true (pretty sure it is true) but can't be totally sure right then: another editor might fill in a reference for you, to make it RS, or it might be removed, either way, it makes the encyclopaedia better, and even if removed it will be in the history and someone will find it later if they are doing more references and things like that, WP:WIKIGNOMEs like me. Hope that helps; sorry to labour the point but since you said you were "occasional" (I will make you a permanent, it's addictive!) I gave you more links than need be; WP:OVERLINK! Si Trew (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment Chitty on Contracts seems to prefer "Brinks-Mat" but other legal reports use Brinks-MAT. Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Owner of gold

Just as a matter of interest who did the stolen gold belong to?

All were freemasons?

I'm coming across an allegation that all involved in the robbery were freemasons. In the case of Kenneth Noye this is established fact, however, sources would be needed to corroborate this relation with respect to the rest of the gang. __meco (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Noye was the Freemason, there are no indication that the others were. --Devokewater (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Diamonds/cash recovery?

The article states that the gold was not recovered, but does not mention if the diamonds or cash were recovered. A quick web-search has not found any thing useful. Does anyone know if they were? CS Miller (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This entry could use some love

This entry doesn't scan very well. The central description is hard to follow, and jumps about. It's not clear who the actual participants were, how many were involved after the fact, and the actual fate of the gold and other stolen goods.

It could use some more sections and more detail. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to do a decent edit. maxcelcat (talk)

Robinson McAvoy?

Hi,

a bit confused by the narrative of arrests and convictions. It says that one robber, Brian Robinson, was arrested, and next it says that Mike McAvoy was sentenced. Is BR = MM? If not, what happened to BR, and when and how was MM arrested?

Agreeing with previous poster, I think it would be a good idea to start the post-robbery account by listing all the known participants i the break in, and only after that detailing their individual fates. Perhaps the same for various gold-smelters and other associates. 83.109.183.59 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brink's-Mat robbery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Value today

According to this website, the value of £26m today (4th April 2016) would be ~£62.1m, not £79m as currently stated in this article. Is there a source for the £79m figure?

I dunno, but we have {{inflation}} for that; unfortunately that only goes as far as 2015 (as I write), presumably because the English tax year starts on April 6 and does not coincide with the calendar year. (The reasons are historical because taxes were collected on Lady Day but when the calendar was moved from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calender on 2 and 13 September 1752, Britain and Her Colonies lost the days in between but the taxpayers didn't want to pay a whole year's tax for a short year, so it was set back to compensate; the American Colonies were not much affected since they hardly paid any tax anyway, and it usueally got back to the Mother Country rather late, despite their claiming that taxation without representation was tyranny.) Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The article says that the thieves intended to steal 3,000,000 Spanish Peseteas which at the time was trading at 227.4339 pesetas per £. So that would have made the cash horede worth £13,191 in 1983 British pounds or ~£41,000 in 2023 British pounds. Not anywhere near £1 million. Pacomartin (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brink's-Mat robbery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brink's-Mat robbery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brink%27s-Mat_robbery/Archive_1&oldid=1169300038"