The Untold History of the Special Branch

[David Orsam]

For anyone interested in the formation of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police, I have written an article on the subject which I hope is of value and which can be found here:

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

The article links to a sub-article entitled "The Non-Clerical Clerical Branch" with which it should be read and which can found here:

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

[Abby Normal]

For anyone interested in the formation of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police, I have written an article on the subject which I hope is of value and which can be found here:

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

The article links to a sub-article entitled "The Non-Clerical Clerical Branch" with which it should be read and which can found here:

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

Thanks David.
Looking forward to reading it when I get the chance.

[Debra A]

Thanks, David. Very interesting.

[GUT]

Thanks mate look forward to reading it.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

For anyone interested in the formation of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police, I have written an article on the subject which I hope is of value and which can be found here:

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

The article links to a sub-article entitled "The Non-Clerical Clerical Branch" with which it should be read and which can found here:

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

Very interesting. I read a lot about Jenkinson for a fiction project.
The distrust with Monro was mutual.

The best stuff I found was in a book called "the origin of the vigilante state" by Bernard Porter.

[David Orsam]

Very interesting. I read a lot about Jenkinson for a fiction project.
The distrust with Monro was mutual.

The best stuff I found was in a book called "the origin of the vigilante state" by Bernard Porter.

Thanks Sir John.

I do refer to Porter's book in the article. I happen to think he has gone wrong on one crucial point regarding what was known as "Section D" for the reasons I explain in the article.

[Monty]

Excellent article David,

Thank you.

Monty
🙂

[David Orsam]

Thank you Monty.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Thanks Sir John.

I do refer to Porter's book in the article. I happen to think he has gone wrong on one crucial point regarding what was known as "Section D" for the reasons I explain in the article.

Another great book is "The world that never was (...)" about anarchism and socialist and utopist history. Writer's last name is Butterworth.

[Robert St Devil]

Impressive work and a fascinating read, David. I liked the bold assertion of skepticism at the beginning. And, how the work frames the political turmoil that the development of this special force caused going into 1888. You answered many of the questions that I had while reading.

The end result of the Special Branch in 1911 seemed like a foregone conclusion as early as the initial conception of the various sections in the 1880s. This thought was best exemplified when the staff members of B and D were overlayed on each other. It created an instant administrative hierarchical structure without any rivalries amongst the rank. Absorbing C section would seem to be an obvious inclusion since they were reporting back to London surely.

I,d wonder if Insp Burke acted as an intermediary between the two sections; thereby, adding a clerical identity to the constabulary duties of B section.

[Michael W Richards]

I readily admit Im not fond of the overall influence you have had on these forums David, but the article is as Monty said, excellent. Very informative, well researched and presented.