Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident

12:33pm Monday 14th January 2013 in News

A MAN has been arrested in connection with an explosion at a house in Harwood.

The incident happened at 1.20pm on Sunday when a man apparently severely injured his own hand with a homemade bomb at a house in Lea Gate, Harwood.

About 40 houses were evacuated "as a precaution" while the house was searched by army bomb disposal experts.

Police also searched two other houses in Tonge Moor.

They said no explosive items were found at any of the addresses.

The injured man was taken to Wythenshawe hospital, but his injuries are not said to be life-threatening.

The 26-year-old, who is still in hospital and said to be in a stable condition, has now been arrested on suspicion of causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property.

Det Ch Insp Sarah Jackson, said: “I appreciate that given the nature of this incident and the impact it had on those living on Lea Gate there will be some concern among residents, but I want to reiterate that this was an isolated incident and there was not and is not any threat to the wider community.

“We are continuing to investigate the circumstances leading up to this incident and if anyone has any information that can assist I would urge them to get in touch.”

Comments (21)

1:44pm Mon 14 Jan 13

MMHolmes says...

"Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident!" screams the headline.

But there's absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article which follows...

May I respectfully suggest that the BN re-issues this piece with "bomb incident" changed to "explosion" in its title, as there's no evidence whatsoever that there was a bomb involved anywhere in this incident

But then again, why let a complete lack of irrefutable facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism......
..
"Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident!" screams the headline. But there's absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article which follows... May I respectfully suggest that the BN re-issues this piece with "bomb incident" changed to "explosion" in its title, as there's no evidence whatsoever that there was a bomb involved anywhere in this incident But then again, why let a complete lack of irrefutable facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism...... .. MMHolmes

1:50pm Mon 14 Jan 13

MarkAllRead says...

MMHolmes wrote:
"Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident!" screams the headline.

But there's absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article which follows...

May I respectfully suggest that the BN re-issues this piece with "bomb incident" changed to "explosion" in its title, as there's no evidence whatsoever that there was a bomb involved anywhere in this incident

But then again, why let a complete lack of irrefutable facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism......

..
What about the bit where it says "severely injured his own hand with a homemade bomb"? Or the fact that "army bomb disposal experts" were called?

I think you need a lie down.
[quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: "Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident!" screams the headline. But there's absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article which follows... May I respectfully suggest that the BN re-issues this piece with "bomb incident" changed to "explosion" in its title, as there's no evidence whatsoever that there was a bomb involved anywhere in this incident But then again, why let a complete lack of irrefutable facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism...... ..[/p][/quote]What about the bit where it says "severely injured his own hand with a homemade bomb"? Or the fact that "army bomb disposal experts" were called? I think you need a lie down. MarkAllRead

2:03pm Mon 14 Jan 13

MMHolmes says...

It says "apparently" and there's no mention of a bomb by the Plod. Ergo, no concrete proof that it was a bomb.

And the reference to the Bomb Disposal experts states that they didn't find any explosives at any of the addresses searched.

Where's the evidence that it was a bomb?
It says "apparently" and there's no mention of a bomb by the Plod. Ergo, no concrete proof that it was a bomb. And the reference to the Bomb Disposal experts states that they didn't find any explosives at any of the addresses searched. Where's the evidence that it was a bomb? MMHolmes

4:38pm Mon 14 Jan 13

MarkAllRead says...

Ah, now you're back-pedalling. You initially claimed that there was "absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article", even though there was. Now, once this has been pointed out to you, you now seem to have changed your tune to question whether the explosion was or wasn't caused by a bomb which at this stage, it rather sounds like it was - a home-made one anyway.
Ah, now you're back-pedalling. You initially claimed that there was "absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article", even though there was. Now, once this has been pointed out to you, you now seem to have changed your tune to question whether the explosion was or wasn't caused by a bomb which at this stage, it rather sounds like it was - a home-made one anyway. MarkAllRead

5:02pm Mon 14 Jan 13

davoovad says...

MMHolmes wrote:
It says "apparently" and there's no mention of a bomb by the Plod. Ergo, no concrete proof that it was a bomb.

And the reference to the Bomb Disposal experts states that they didn't find any explosives at any of the addresses searched.

Where's the evidence that it was a bomb?
It blew his hand off .
[quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: It says "apparently" and there's no mention of a bomb by the Plod. Ergo, no concrete proof that it was a bomb. And the reference to the Bomb Disposal experts states that they didn't find any explosives at any of the addresses searched. Where's the evidence that it was a bomb?[/p][/quote]It blew his hand off . davoovad

5:02pm Mon 14 Jan 13

davoovad says...

davoovad wrote:
MMHolmes wrote:
It says "apparently" and there's no mention of a bomb by the Plod. Ergo, no concrete proof that it was a bomb.

And the reference to the Bomb Disposal experts states that they didn't find any explosives at any of the addresses searched.

Where's the evidence that it was a bomb?
It blew his hand off .
Ergo.
[quote][p][bold]davoovad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: It says "apparently" and there's no mention of a bomb by the Plod. Ergo, no concrete proof that it was a bomb. And the reference to the Bomb Disposal experts states that they didn't find any explosives at any of the addresses searched. Where's the evidence that it was a bomb?[/p][/quote]It blew his hand off .[/p][/quote]Ergo. davoovad

5:58pm Mon 14 Jan 13

MMHolmes says...

So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........
So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........ MMHolmes

6:17pm Mon 14 Jan 13

davoovad says...

MMHolmes wrote:
So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........
Not localised to his hand no.......
[quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........[/p][/quote]Not localised to his hand no....... davoovad

6:40pm Mon 14 Jan 13

wild one says...

I think its all pie in the sky the amount of emergency services they sent to the area....waste of time and money....and inconvenience to the locals..
I think its all pie in the sky the amount of emergency services they sent to the area....waste of time and money....and inconvenience to the locals.. wild one

6:40pm Mon 14 Jan 13

wild one says...

I think its all pie in the sky the amount of emergency services they sent to the area....waste of time and money....and inconvenience to the locals..
I think its all pie in the sky the amount of emergency services they sent to the area....waste of time and money....and inconvenience to the locals.. wild one

7:19pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Beyond News Forum says...

Could have been a rocket... but if North Korea was involved it would be a nuke!
Could have been a rocket... but if North Korea was involved it would be a nuke! Beyond News Forum

7:26pm Mon 14 Jan 13

MMHolmes says...

davoovad wrote:
MMHolmes wrote:
So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........
Not localised to his hand no.......
Ah, I see......

But presumably, following your logic, a bomb blast would just injure his hand then, would it......?
[quote][p][bold]davoovad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........[/p][/quote]Not localised to his hand no.......[/p][/quote]Ah, I see...... But presumably, following your logic, a bomb blast would just injure his hand then, would it......? MMHolmes

9:18pm Mon 14 Jan 13

MarkAllRead says...

MMHolmes wrote:
davoovad wrote:
MMHolmes wrote:
So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........
Not localised to his hand no.......
Ah, I see......

But presumably, following your logic, a bomb blast would just injure his hand then, would it......?
If he was attempting to build a small bomb and it went off as he was holding it, yeah - exactly that.
[quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davoovad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........[/p][/quote]Not localised to his hand no.......[/p][/quote]Ah, I see...... But presumably, following your logic, a bomb blast would just injure his hand then, would it......?[/p][/quote]If he was attempting to build a small bomb and it went off as he was holding it, yeah - exactly that. MarkAllRead

9:19pm Mon 14 Jan 13

MarkAllRead says...

wild one wrote:
I think its all pie in the sky the amount of emergency services they sent to the area....waste of time and money....and inconvenience to the locals..
Being blown up would certainly have been an inconvenience, so I think evacuating the area makes a lot of sense.
[quote][p][bold]wild one[/bold] wrote: I think its all pie in the sky the amount of emergency services they sent to the area....waste of time and money....and inconvenience to the locals..[/p][/quote]Being blown up would certainly have been an inconvenience, so I think evacuating the area makes a lot of sense. MarkAllRead

11:37pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Mixalis says...

MMHolmes wrote:
"Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident!" screams the headline.

But there's absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article which follows...

May I respectfully suggest that the BN re-issues this piece with "bomb incident" changed to "explosion" in its title, as there's no evidence whatsoever that there was a bomb involved anywhere in this incident

But then again, why let a complete lack of irrefutable facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism......

..
"..a man apparently severely injured his own hand with a homemade bomb.."

It's in the second sentence.

(Read article before commenting.)
[quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: "Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident!" screams the headline. But there's absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article which follows... May I respectfully suggest that the BN re-issues this piece with "bomb incident" changed to "explosion" in its title, as there's no evidence whatsoever that there was a bomb involved anywhere in this incident But then again, why let a complete lack of irrefutable facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism...... ..[/p][/quote]"..a man apparently severely injured his own hand with a homemade bomb.." It's in the second sentence. (Read article before commenting.) Mixalis

9:53pm Tue 15 Jan 13

dea4epc says...

apparently
Definition
1.used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true
2.used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was
3.used to say that something seems to be true, although it is not certain
apparently Definition 1.used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true 2.used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was 3.used to say that something seems to be true, although it is not certain dea4epc

11:37am Wed 16 Jan 13

boltonWatch says...

Now you cant say muslims are terrorist when a white man is making bombs. Thats shows he is up to no good
Now you cant say muslims are terrorist when a white man is making bombs. Thats shows he is up to no good boltonWatch

11:42am Wed 16 Jan 13

boltonWatch says...

MMHolmes wrote:
"Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident!" screams the headline.

But there's absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article which follows...

May I respectfully suggest that the BN re-issues this piece with "bomb incident" changed to "explosion" in its title, as there's no evidence whatsoever that there was a bomb involved anywhere in this incident

But then again, why let a complete lack of irrefutable facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism......

..
It does say he had a bomb. homemade bomb at a house. There you go. Read before comenting
[quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: "Man arrested over Harwood bomb incident!" screams the headline. But there's absolutely no mention of any bomb in the article which follows... May I respectfully suggest that the BN re-issues this piece with "bomb incident" changed to "explosion" in its title, as there's no evidence whatsoever that there was a bomb involved anywhere in this incident But then again, why let a complete lack of irrefutable facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism...... ..[/p][/quote]It does say he had a bomb. homemade bomb at a house. There you go. Read before comenting boltonWatch

9:09pm Wed 16 Jan 13

BeeeGee says...

MMHolmes wrote:
So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........
I'm with you, no evidence to suggest a bomb, the type of sensationalist and irresponsible headline that only leads to mistrust, division and unrest. Not making a judgement on what has happened, just waiting for the cold, hard facts! Right now appears to be a cynical way to sell papers. I guess the truth will out eventually.
[quote][p][bold]MMHolmes[/bold] wrote: So fiddling about trying to reverse the flow-meter on a gas pipe whilst smoking a roll-up wouldn't cause an explosion, would it........[/p][/quote]I'm with you, no evidence to suggest a bomb, the type of sensationalist and irresponsible headline that only leads to mistrust, division and unrest. Not making a judgement on what has happened, just waiting for the cold, hard facts! Right now appears to be a cynical way to sell papers. I guess the truth will out eventually. BeeeGee

9:15pm Wed 16 Jan 13

BeeeGee says...

dea4epc wrote:
apparently Definition 1.used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true 2.used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was 3.used to say that something seems to be true, although it is not certain
Nice :-)
[quote][p][bold]dea4epc[/bold] wrote: apparently Definition 1.used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true 2.used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was 3.used to say that something seems to be true, although it is not certain[/p][/quote]Nice :-) BeeeGee

9:17pm Wed 16 Jan 13

BeeeGee says...

MarkAllRead wrote:
wild one wrote: I think its all pie in the sky the amount of emergency services they sent to the area....waste of time and money....and inconvenience to the locals..
Being blown up would certainly have been an inconvenience, so I think evacuating the area makes a lot of sense.
Agree, at the time they didn't know what the threat was...hindsight is a lovely thing
[quote][p][bold]MarkAllRead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wild one[/bold] wrote: I think its all pie in the sky the amount of emergency services they sent to the area....waste of time and money....and inconvenience to the locals..[/p][/quote]Being blown up would certainly have been an inconvenience, so I think evacuating the area makes a lot of sense.[/p][/quote]Agree, at the time they didn't know what the threat was...hindsight is a lovely thing BeeeGee

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree