The Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy

[David Orsam]

I guess the only way to go from a trilogy is to a quadrilogy: I have written four new articles which augment those in the Suckered! Trilogy.

For anyone interested they can all be found on my website at the below link:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/suckeredplusquadrilogy.htm

[RivkahChaya]

I think the word for a set of four books that make a series is usually "quartet," as in "The Raj Quartet," just as an example. Albeit, it does appear that the word "quadrilogy" was used as early as 1865, the use was in medicine to describe a set of four symptoms, and the preferred term for that is "tetralogy." "Quadrilogy" is a Latin+Greek hybrid, while "tetralogy" is Greek+Greek, and that's why it is preferred. I think I have seen "tetralogy" used to market a set of four films, though-- the "Alien tetralogy" comes to mind.

[Pcdunn]

I think the word for a set of four books that make a series is usually "quartet," as in "The Raj Quartet," just as an example. Albeit, it does appear that the word "quadrilogy" was used as early as 1865, the use was in medicine to describe a set of four symptoms, and the preferred term for that is "tetralogy." "Quadrilogy" is a Latin+Greek hybrid, while "tetralogy" is Greek+Greek, and that's why it is preferred. I think I have seen "tetralogy" used to market a set of four films, though-- the "Alien tetralogy" comes to mind.

It's called the "Alien Quadrilogy" in the U.S-- at least, the set I catalogued for the college library.

[Phil Carter]

I was waiting for this. I wonder why?...

However..I now FULLY expect you David to "disembowell" the efforts of Donald Thomas - The Victorian Underworld, Alex Buttertworth - The World That Never Was, Bernard Porter - The Origins of the Vigilant State, the PhD thesis by Lindsay Clutterbuck, (who surmised that Special Branch anno 1888 had "more than a passing interest in Jack the Ripper but none to corroborate the particular suspect they had in mind"), and not forgetting the comments of E. Thomas Wood from 2002 and the memoirs of William Melville himself, ex head of Special Branch.

That lot should keep you going a while..and will help you to expand your knowledge of the Special Branch and enable you to quote from more than the one book you frequently quote from in your "work"..that of the book by Paul Begg and Keith Skinner..upon which you have so diligently relied upon. (Perhaps you need to take THEIR book(s) apart too..that way you can't be accused of wearing a "I love Paul Begg" or "I love Keith Skinner" badge either. Not that you could possibly be seen to show any unadmitted bias toward their work of course....)

After all, your purpose is to present history correctly is it not? I'm sure that historically speaking, the list above is, from your point of view, in DIRE NEED of an historical redressing.

And we wouldn't want to think that you are only reserving your disembowelling for a certain, small, hand-picked group of authors, would we? Heaven forbid.

In this humble observers opinion, not that it matters one jot of course, my original comment as to your actual intention with this "work" stands. .and it has Sweet Fanny Adams to do with your stated intentions. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

Just my humble, observers opinion, of course.

No doubt that will be disagreed with, criticised, attacked, defended and even twisted to show that I, like many others before me, have misunderstood, misinterpreted and misused my brain cells in responding negatively towards your written opinions. My presented hopes covering the above works mentioned will no doubt be classed as irellevant to your cause, .....no doubt.

I personally equate reading your "..ilogy" series to 1st year "Janet and John" books. Totally see through and obvious.

The Janet and John books were however, I recall, far more pleasant on the eye and mind when I was 3 or 4 years old.

If this seems like a scathing review of your efforts, don't worry. I am sure somebody with far more clout than I will praise you to the skies, and even guarantee you more space in the forums and periodicals of the genre. Then no doubt you will have been given fine reward for duties executed...All in the name of historical accuracy, of course.

Nothing personal intended, hinted at, meant nor thought of in any way, shape or form.
I just find your repeated works on the subject not to my taste.
I purposely differentiate between the person and the presentation..so you don't wrap that accusation at me. There's a good fellow. ☺ And it wouldn't be the done thing to assume this is written in any form of ironic humour, pathos or otherwise. One should never assume to interpret criticism of any work from any individual, should one?



Phil

[PaulB]

That lot should keep you going a while..and will help you to expand your knowledge of the Special Branch and enable you to quote from more than the one book you frequently quote from in your "work"..that of the book by Paul Begg and Keith Skinner..upon which you have so diligently relied upon. (Perhaps you need to take THEIR book(s) apart too..that way you can't be accused of wearing a "I love Paul Begg" or "I love Keith Skinner" badge either. Not that you could possibly be seen to show any unadmitted bias toward their work of course....)
Phil

As far as a quick scan of the 4th part in David's series reveals, he mentions the book Keith and I wrote back in the mists of time only three times, or maybe only twice, and is critical of what we wrote. Perhaps you would therefore do me the kindness of showing where David has 'frequently' quoted from our book and where he has 'diligently relied upon' it, and demonstrate to me the grounds on which you think somebody might suggest that he shows an 'unadmitted bias toward their work' or 'be accused' of the improbable act of wearing a badge declaring his love for Keith and myself. I hope you can do this. I would like to think that David has seen sufficient merit in the book to rely on it, as misguided as that might prove to be, but if you can't then I suppose people will simply have to draw the obvious conclusion.

[Admin]

I purposely differentiate between the person and the presentation..so you don't wrap that accusation at me. There's a good fellow. ☺ And it wouldn't be the done thing to assume this is written in any form of ironic humour, pathos or otherwise. One should never assume to interpret criticism of any work from any individual, should one?



Phil

If one had kept ones personal criticism to the published writings as allowed by the rules, one would have been completely in the right. However, one crossed the line with the deliberate taunt that "so you don't wrap that accusation at me. There's a good fellow." As stated in the rules as well, convoluted means of attacking someone will still be considered personal attacks as will the unending annoyance of having the trite "cabal" nonsense continuously referenced. We are tired of this nonsense and this pettiness. Take it elsewhere where it's more appreciated. Even respected and valued posters can lose their cool when faced with this kind of ridiculous and smarmy means of dragging other people down.

[Monty]

If one had kept ones personal criticism to the published writings as allowed by the rules, one would have been completely in the right. However, one crossed the line with the deliberate taunt that "so you don't wrap that accusation at me. There's a good fellow." As stated in the rules as well, convoluted means of attacking someone will still be considered personal attacks as will the unending annoyance of having the trite "cabal" nonsense continuously referenced. We are tired of this nonsense and this pettiness. Take it elsewhere where it's more appreciated. Even respected and valued posters can lose their cool when faced with this kind of ridiculous and smarmy means of dragging other people down.

Hear Hear

The Cabal
;-)

[David Orsam]

I was waiting for this. I wonder why?...

However..I now FULLY expect you David to "disembowell" the efforts of Donald Thomas - The Victorian Underworld, Alex Buttertworth - The World That Never Was, Bernard Porter - The Origins of the Vigilant State, the PhD thesis by Lindsay Clutterbuck, (who surmised that Special Branch anno 1888 had "more than a passing interest in Jack the Ripper but none to corroborate the particular suspect they had in mind"), and not forgetting the comments of E. Thomas Wood from 2002 and the memoirs of William Melville himself, ex head of Special Branch.

That lot should keep you going a while..and will help you to expand your knowledge of the Special Branch and enable you to quote from more than the one book you frequently quote from in your "work"..that of the book by Paul Begg and Keith Skinner..upon which you have so diligently relied upon. (Perhaps you need to take THEIR book(s) apart too..that way you can't be accused of wearing a "I love Paul Begg" or "I love Keith Skinner" badge either. Not that you could possibly be seen to show any unadmitted bias toward their work of course....)

After all, your purpose is to present history correctly is it not? I'm sure that historically speaking, the list above is, from your point of view, in DIRE NEED of an historical redressing.

Phil,

As Paul Begg has correctly stated, I have not frequently quoted from Begg & Skinner’s book at all; in fact I do not refer to that book in any of the first three articles in the quadrilogy, and I only mention it in the fourth article in order to challenge the authors’ assertion that the resignation of James Monro as Commissioner in 1890 can be described as a mystery. The only mystery is why you seem to think I have relied on Begg & Skinner in any way.

As for the other works you mention, I do not know why you think that from my point of view they are in dire need of historical redressing. I have only read one of them; Bernard Porter’s, 'The Origins of the Vigilant State', and I note that Porter states (p.94):

"One attempt by the Radical MP and journalist Henry Labouchere to prove that a Metropolitan Police Inspector called Jarvis had been sent clandestinely to America to bribe P.J. Sheridan to give evidence for The Times collapsed ignominiously in October, when Jarvis sued for libel and Labouchere, who had clearly been gulled, had to settle out of court."

That is precisely what I was saying in my Suckered! Trilogy: Labouchere was gulled, or, to use my word, suckered. Porter does not say that any other Scotland Yard detectives were sent to America by Robert Anderson for any purpose relating to Fenians so I really do not know why you think I want to "disembowel" his efforts. Had any of the other authors said anything which contradicted my Suckered! trilogy I would have expected Wolf Vanderlinden to refer to this in his "context" post – but he didn’t - so I really don’t see any need to do what you suggest but perhaps you will let me know if you identify anything specific which you feel needs redressing.

[David Orsam]

I After all, your purpose is to present history correctly is it not? I'm sure that historically speaking, the list above is, from your point of view, in DIRE NEED of an historical redressing.

And we wouldn't want to think that you are only reserving your disembowelling for a certain, small, hand-picked group of authors, would we? Heaven forbid.

In this humble observers opinion, not that it matters one jot of course, my original comment as to your actual intention with this "work" stands. .and it has Sweet Fanny Adams to do with your stated intentions. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

Just my humble, observers opinion, of course.

Phil,

I would expect a fair minded person, having had his error about the Begg & Skinner book pointed out to him, to amend the above quoted opinion. However, my "intentions", about which you are so concerned, are frankly irrelevant. I can post or write articles about historical matters for whatever reason I choose. I have explained many times the reason for my trilogy, while the reason for the quadrilogy is, one could say, as plain as the nose on your face, should you care to read the four articles. If you would like me to explain it to you I would be happy to do so. But that is not important. The only thing that is important is whether the facts I have set out are correct and whether my interpretations of those facts, and my conclusions, are reasonable and compelling. As you haven't commented on any of the points I have made in any of the articles it is hard to know how to respond to you in any kind of sensible way.

[PaulB]

Phil,

I would expect a fair minded person, having had his error about the Begg & Skinner book pointed out to him, to amend the above quoted opinion. However, my "intentions", about which you are so concerned, are frankly irrelevant. I can post or write articles about historical matters for whatever reason I choose. I have explained many times the reason for my trilogy, while the reason for the quadrilogy is, one could say, as plain as the nose on your face, should you care to read the four articles. If you would like me to explain it to you I would be happy to do so. But that is not important. The only thing that is important is whether the facts I have set out are correct and whether my interpretations of those facts, and my conclusions, are reasonable and compelling. As you haven't commented on any of the points I have made in any of the articles it is hard to know how to respond to you in any kind of sensible way.

Hi David
As best I can recall, when we wrote the book back in the early 1990s our feeling was that Monro's resignation was a case of a fall before he was pushed. We were aware of the remark made by Lord Salisbury to Queen Victoria about Monro being the cause of many of the troubles, and, of course, Monro was and remains the only Commissioner not to have received a knighthood, which, given the highly sensitive work Monro must have overseen, perhaps suggests that he was very much out of favour.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

As Paul Begg has correctly stated, I have not frequently quoted from Begg & Skinner’s book at all; in fact I do not refer to that book in any of the first three articles in the quadrilogy, and I only mention it in the fourth article in order to challenge the authors’ assertion that the resignation of James Monro as Commissioner in 1890 can be described as a mystery. The only mystery is why you seem to think I have relied on Begg & Skinner in any way.

I was only referring to your 4th effort only. As far as I can see, book wise, it was the only book referred to. References to other things such as letters, newspaper articles etc, I have no problem with.I have made no mention of your previous efforts on this thread. I am sticking to this thread reference.

As for the other works you mention, I do not know why you think that from my point of view they are in dire need of historical redressing. I have only read one of them; Bernard Porter’s, 'The Origins of the Vigilant State', and I note that Porter states (p.94):

having read all of the above works, often, I can assure you that balance of argument on the subject of the goings on at the time within and connected to Special Branch, cause one to rethink ones opinion on what we have been led to believe is true. If you are going to attack one piece of work by one author that contradicts your viewpoints, then I humbly suggest you do read the other works mentioned. Any fair minded person..to quote you, would need to do this to get a balanced view before stating what their opinion is on this subject. .For they are important reference works. I have read many books relating to this topic than many, but less than some. However, each of the above works..and there are others besides, are important pieces of literature. That is then, in my humble opinion, something you need to also thoroughly take into condidrrstion with these pieces of work, and take them apart as well. For much of what is written in them contradicts your thesis. I refer to your 4th effort only.

"One attempt by the Radical MP and journalist Henry Labouchere to prove that a Metropolitan Police Inspector called Jarvis had been sent clandestinely to America to bribe P.J. Sheridan to give evidence for The Times collapsed ignominiously in October, when Jarvis sued for libel and Labouchere, who had clearly been gulled, had to settle out of court."

quoting one passage from Porters excellent, but dated offering that happens to tie in with something you wrote about previously has no bearing on your 4th effort..which is what, again, I referred to. Your other efforts have been discussed enough. This is a new thread on a new topic.

That is precisely what I was saying in my Suckered! Trilogy: Labouchere was gulled, or, to use my word, suckered. Porter does not say that any other Scotland Yard detectives were sent to America by Robert Anderson for any purpose relating to Fenians so I really do not know why you think I want to "disembowel" his efforts. Had any of the other authors said anything which contradicted my Suckered! trilogy I would have expected Wolf Vanderlinden to refer to this in his "context" post – but he didn’t - so I really don’t see any need to do what you suggest but perhaps you will let me know if you identify anything specific which you feel needs redressing.

as above


apart from which I have nothing further to say on the matter..except one thing. I reply to things in my own time. Whether or not, or when or not as the case may be, I wish to reply I do so..In my own time. I do not sit at any body's beck and call sir. I don't press nor expect everyone reply from you to this. You choose as you see fit. So do I.

I repeat. I am happy with the points I have made, and shall reply no further. I hope that will be respected. As regards replying to anyone else, that is for me to decide on the merits of the post. As you can see, I only reply as and when I wish to. Whoever it may be.

Thank you for your attention to my reply. And now. I have other, important historical matters to peruse.

My apologies for the tardy manner of intermixing in part my reply with yours. It is late and tiredness has crept in.
Phil

[PaulB]

as above


apart from which I have nothing further to say on the matter..except one thing. I reply to things in my own time. Whether or not, or when or not as the case may be, I wish to reply I do so..In my own time. I do not sit at any body's beck and call sir. I don't press nor expect everyone reply from you to this. You choose as you see fit. So do I.

I repeat. I am happy with the points I have made, and shall reply no further. I hope that will be respected. As regards replying to anyone else, that is for me to decide on the merits of the post. As you can see, I only reply as and when I wish to. Whoever it may be.

Thank you for your attention to my reply. And now. I have other, important historical matters to peruse.

My apologies for the tardy manner of intermixing in part my reply with yours. It is late and tiredness has crept in.
Phil

That's an interesting approach to take to the message boards. Write what you like, get called on it, then neither retract nor substantiate your accusations and insinuations, but instead state that you will decide when and if you'll reply at all. The trouble is, whilst you might like to think that you are refusing to be manoeuvered or bullied into replying, I suspect that most people will see this as a miserable attempt to dodge the issue.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
As best I can recall, when we wrote the book back in the early 1990s our feeling was that Monro's resignation was a case of a fall before he was pushed. We were aware of the remark made by Lord Salisbury to Queen Victoria about Monro being the cause of many of the troubles, and, of course, Monro was and remains the only Commissioner not to have received a knighthood, which, given the highly sensitive work Monro must have overseen, perhaps suggests that he was very much out of favour.

Hi Paul,

I don’t think that Monro was flavour of the month with the government when he resigned and then went on to lead the opposition to the Pensions Bill, stirring up the pot at a time when police officers were talking about going on strike and engaging on various forms of disobedience. I never really got the impression that he was about to be sacked - there was no public or parliamentary agitation for this - but I have no doubt that he was seriously annoying the Home Secretary by almost turning into Charles Warren, in believing that he was running an organisation that was independent of the Home Office. Relations certainly weren’t good and perhaps the proposed appointment of Ruggles-Brise was designed to provoke him to quit but, for all the reasons I have given in the article, I have no doubt that the pensions issue was so important to Monro that the government’s failure to give him what he wanted in the Pensions Bill was a sufficient reason for him to resign on its own.

Have your own views changed at all since the 1990s?

[David Orsam]

I was only referring to your 4th effort only. As far as I can see, book wise, it was the only book referred to. References to other things such as letters, newspaper articles etc, I have no problem with.I have made no mention of your previous efforts on this thread. I am sticking to this thread reference.

having read all of the above works, often, I can assure you that balance of argument on the subject of the goings on at the time within and connected to Special Branch, cause one to rethink ones opinion on what we have been led to believe is true. If you are going to attack one piece of work by one author that contradicts your viewpoints, then I humbly suggest you do read the other works mentioned. Any fair minded person..to quote you, would need to do this to get a balanced view before stating what their opinion is on this subject. .For they are important reference works. I have read many books relating to this topic than many, but less than some. However, each of the above works..and there are others besides, are important pieces of literature. That is then, in my humble opinion, something you need to also thoroughly take into condidrrstion with these pieces of work, and take them apart as well. For much of what is written in them contradicts your thesis. I refer to your 4th effort only.

quoting one passage from Porters excellent, but dated offering that happens to tie in with something you wrote about previously has no bearing on your 4th effort..which is what, again, I referred to. Your other efforts have been discussed enough. This is a new thread on a new topic.

Phil,

I have extracted your words from mine above.

I see that, not having mentioned part 4 of my quadrilogy in your previous post, you now want to focus on part 4 of the quadrilogy only and state "This is a new thread on a new topic". Yet, in your first post in this thread you said:

"I personally equate reading your "..ilogy" series to 1st year "Janet and John" books."

AND

"I just find your repeated works on the subject not to my taste."

Both comments refer to my previous articles. You also said: "my original comment as to your actual intention with this "work" stands" which was a clear reference back to what you posted in the other thread.

But if we do focus on part 4 of my quadrilogy, you will find that you did not read it properly because, I repeat, at no time in that article have I relied on Begg & Skinner’s 'Scotland Yard Files' as you claimed. I was, in fact, doing the exact opposite and challenging it.

The other thing you will find if you read my fourth article carefully is that I rely entirely on primary sources. I don’t rely on any secondary sources at all. For that reason, I don’t feel any need to read any of the works you have cited. I very much doubt that they contradict the thesis in part 4 of my quadrilogy but what I feel I can say with certainty is that nothing in Bernard Porter’s 'Origins of the Vigilant State' contradicts anything I have said about the resignations of Sir Charles Warren or James Monro.

Should you feel that there is any evidence which contradicts what I have stated in part 4 of my quadrilogy I am sure that you – or someone else – will post that evidence but until that evidence is posted I will just have to happily assume that everything I have said is correct.

[David Orsam]

[I]apart from which I have nothing further to say on the matter..except one thing. I reply to things in my own time. Whether or not, or when or not as the case may be, I wish to reply I do so..In my own time. I do not sit at any body's beck and call sir. I don't press nor expect everyone reply from you to this. You choose as you see fit. So do I.

I repeat. I am happy with the points I have made, and shall reply no further. I hope that will be respected. As regards replying to anyone else, that is for me to decide on the merits of the post. As you can see, I only reply as and when I wish to. Whoever it may be.

Phil,

You will have to forgive me for not understanding. At no time have I pressed you to respond to me, nor do I care if you do or don’t. I didn’t invite you to post in this thread and I assume you did so of your own free will. I also assume that, if you post something plainly inaccurate, you would want to know about it, although I admit to some uncertainty about this. In my last posts I simply responded to your posting and it is entirely up to you if you want to reply further and in whatever timescale you choose.

What does surprise me is that you say that you are happy with the points you have made. I fail to understand how you can be happy in saying that I "diligently relied upon" the book by Paul Begg and Keith Skinner when that is the complete opposite of the truth. Furthermore, from this misreading of my article you went on to suggest that I have shown "unadmitted bias toward their work". Why you seem to think that I am biased towards anyone remains an absolute mystery to me – although I’m aware you have some incomprehensible theories - but certainly in this case when I was disagreeing what they said, the notion does not strike me as logical.