The Road to Balcombe Street

by Steven P. Moysey

The Road to Balcombe The IRA Reign of Terror in London is the highly detailed account and analysis of law enforcement negotiation lessons learned from the infamous hostage standoff between the London Metropolitan Police (the Met) and four members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the winter of 1975. With eye-witness and first-hand testimony, this book examines the events leading up to the clash and their political context as well as how both sides handled the hostage situation and the strategies and tactics used by the police to safely diffuse the volatile situation.

Comprehensive and readable, The Road to Balcombe The IRA Reign of Terror in London looks at not only the six days making up the standoff but places the confrontation in unique historical context by giving a detailed summary of IRA activity in London in the years leading up to the siege. In addition, this vital study explores the aftershocks arising from the apprehension of the IRA team as well as the hostage negotiation lessons learned in the conflict. This useful resource also features a thorough bibliography and list of electronic resources. The Road to Balcombe The IRA Reign of Terror in London is a useful resource for practicing law enforcement negotiating teams and professionals; history, sociology, and social psychology students and educators; and general readers as well.

376 pages, Paperback

First published September 30, 2007

About the author

Dr. Steve Moysey is an organizational psychologist who specializes in the areas of conflict resolution and negotiation. Dr. Moysey's on-going research and writing pays particular attention to law enforcement hostage stand-off situation. His earlier work on the Balcombe Street siege and the Iranian Embassy siege in London has appeared internationally in the Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations (Haworth). Originally from England, Dr. Moysey now lives in Massachusetts, with his wife musician Monica Hatch and their two Welsh Springer Spaniels.

Reviews

[Natalie]

This was a painfully amateur book - it read like an unedited college paper and was rife with grammatical and spelling errors (including multiple spellings of the names of the main people involved, for ex: Dougherty often written as Doughty...). It was also clearly written by someone who sympathizes with the British - describing them as heroes being bullied by the IRA and dismissing the horrific events and miscarriages of justice perpetrated by the British, UVF, and RUC. While there is no doubt that the bombings and civilian deaths during the Troubles were tragic and terrible, the Irish were described as thugs, criminals, and murderers while the British were painted as shining, perfect white knights. The author must have skipped the part of the history books where the Catholics suffered the most civilian casualties...It was uncomfortable to read about the Met officers enjoying their tea while slapping each other on the back for their accomplishments and being slightly disappointed about not receiving higher-ranked medals and more accolades. This book is the prime example of the mindset of a colonizer. I would have personally been more interested in learning more about the ASU and a truly unbiased perspective on this period in history.

[Tom Casey]

This review is on the audiobook..

An Interesting true story, but to me it sounds a bit like keystone kops, luck has a lot to do with the capture of the Active Service Unit. I feel this story could have been shorted a lot, there was too much repetition of the story and well dragged out.

The narrator thought I thought is brilliant, very clear and a pleasure to listen too.
It is definitely worth reading or listening too.

[Simon Parsons]

Very thorough description of the London bombing campaign in the early 70's

[Mr Tim Griffith]

Good but!

This is a comprehensive review of the Balcombe Street siege. It will especially interest readers if they are old enough to have followed it as it happened. The writing style is a little naive and the author is over deferential to authority. It would have been much more impressive if it had been rigorously proof read. There are multiple examples of extra words being left in or the tense of part of a sentence being wrong. I’m glad I read it though