The station – which is the fourth busiest in the UK – was initially expected to be exit-only when
it reopened at 5am.
This led to warnings of disruption for passengers heading to Kent and Surrey on Southeastern, Southern and Thameslink services.
But a spokeswoman for Network Rail, which manages the mainline station, said police cordons were lifted “earlier than expected”, meaning it was able to “open as usual”.
All entrances and exits to London Bridge underground station reopened with the exception of Borough High Street, Transport for London said.
London Bridge itself and other nearby roads also reopened on Monday morning.
British Transport police said travellers may notice an increased police presence following the attack.
In a statement, the force said: “Members of the public should expect to see extra police officers patrolling stations in London and the south-east following the attacks. You may also see some of our armed police officers at stations.”
Islamic State (Isis) has claimed responsibility for Saturday night’s attack via Amaq, its main communications channel, but evidence linking the group to the atrocity is sketchy.
A mistake on the date meant the claim had to be retracted and re-issued, and details were thin. The group simply said that a “detachment of fighters” from the group were responsible for the violence in London.
For a long time, Isis claims were seen as reliable by experts. The group tended to claim a link to an attack only where one existed. Some of these were tenuous, or, as in two cases in the US, only established when an attacker swore allegiance to Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi immediately before or even during an attack.
But the connections existed all the same, even if sometimes they only underlined the inspirational power of its ideology rather than its ability to execute complex operations.
The group also often provided detail in the claims. This included personal information about attackers or operational elements which often indicated a deep knowledge of the plot or the individuals concerned.
In the past Isis also sometimes provided pre-recorded videos or statements from attackers. In some cases, interviews with attackers were published in Isis magazines, or online, billed as an “exclusive”. These came weeks after an attack but could be considered conclusive evidence underpinning the group’s involvement.
Those days have passed. More recently, Isis has started claiming as its own attacks where there is no evidence of a connection. And it has stopped providing evidence to back up the claims and has made mistakes in its statements.
Isis claimed Khalid Massood, who attacked parliament and pedestrians on Westminster bridge in March, as one of their fighters. However, no evidence has yet emerged of a link. The group also claimed Salman Abedi, who attacked in Manchester last month, too. Investigators are probing Abedi’s connections in Libya where he may have been in contact with Isis militants, but have no solid proof yet of Isis direction or training.
Just days ago Isis claimed the bloody attack on a casino in Manila, the capital of the Philippines. The lone gunman there turned out to be an unstable gambling addict with a grudge.
Why is this? Isis is under huge military pressure. Its leaders are moving all the time, with little time to organise a coherent communications strategy. Many key people involved with the group’s twisted public relations effort are now dead.
Simultaneously, the group’s losses of territory, personnel and resources mean that it is even more important than ever to project an image of a powerful organisation with global reach, even if the reality is that its refounded caliphate is crumbling fast.
Post a Comment