In the name of honesty...

[Tom_Wescott]

Now we know what happens when Chris tries to have a sense of humor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

404

Sorry - it was an attempt at humour. 404 just means "Page not found".

Chris.. not found...in perpetuity??? lol

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Thanks, Chris. But what does "404" mean?

"Top Secret"? "Stop or we'll shoot"?

Sorry - it was an attempt at humour. 404 just means "Page not found".

[Archaic]

Thanks, Chris. But what does "404" mean?

"Top Secret"? "Stop or we'll shoot"?

Yikes!

Cheers, Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Chris,

Brilliant...both POSITIVE and negative!

The files status is stated as OPEN to the public, and are from 1888 onwards!
However, read this..

"Metropolitan Police Special Branch records are subjected to a review process, during which those of no historical importance or continued administrative use are routinely destroyed. The earliest surviving records of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch date from 1888. Many of the records which have survived, as well as more recent records, contain information which remains sensitive long after the files have passed out of active use and, as a result, are the subject of retention within the department."

So...who's got a day off and wants to go to Kew?

Thanks so much... this was positive, and a brilliant example of what CAN be done by cooperation. Helping each other to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"'s

There must be a trick in this... something will stop it..lol

It can't be this simple...can it?

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

I went on the Metropolitan Police website & found a link regarding Special Branch, including a summary of its history, purpose, and responsibilities.
I thought it might be of interest to others, so the link is below. Many other links are available via the Metropolitan Police Website, so a link to their main website is below too.

There is also this page on the National Archives website, with a link to catalogue pages for the Special Branch records held there:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/securityhistory/branch.htm

But don't try to follow the link to the "Special Branch website" - it has a classification of 404.

[Phil Carter]

Hi, Phil, I just sent you a pm. Being so archaic I am probably the worst person to consult re: computer issues, but I think you just need a PDF Reader, which is a free download.

Archaic

Hi Archaic, many thanks... will do asap.. blinking pdf's!!!!

best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

Hi, Phil, I just sent you a pm. Being so archaic I am probably the worst person to consult re: computer issues, but I think you just need a PDF Reader, which is a free download.

Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Hi Archaic,

many thanks!.. Unfortunately, for some reason, the first web page site you wrote of wont download!! Help!...lol

best regards

Phil

[Cap'n Jack]

All I can suggest, Ally, is that you read the present Gill thread, and the many others that are in the archives.

[Archaic]

Special Branch

Hi, Phil. Back at the beginning of this thread, you and Stewart both referred to Special Branch and what sort of information they might hold.
As I am not particularly knowledgeable about their activities I decided to look it up.

I went on the Metropolitan Police website & found a link regarding Special Branch, including a summary of its history, purpose, and responsibilities.
I thought it might be of interest to others, so the link is below. Many other links are available via the Metropolitan Police Website, so a link to their main website is below too.

Note: This web document on Special Branch was created in 2006 as part of the Freedom of Information Act.

Special Branch- History, Responsibilities & Purpose:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/ot...troduction.pdf

Metropolitan Police Website:http://www.met.police.uk/index.shtml

Best regards, Archaic

[Ally]

BS AP. No one asked you on this thread why you weren't diligently researching the Gill case, you came out, of your own free will saying you were hamstringed and Silver had secret info and would he just get on and post it. No one asked you, you volunteered information about Silver without him even being on this thread! So don't play like you are a victim of circumstances. You created the circumstances entirely.

And then you are seeking to muddle everything up, apparently telling Debs the information has already been published, which is apparently not true either!

Geez, keep a story straight just once will you.

[Tom_Wescott]

No, but that's classic AP.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Ally, you still don't get it do you?
I have been researching and posting material about the Gill case since 2003, sometimes in conjunction with other respected members of this site. Simply because somebody sends me some priviliged information doesn't imply that I must halt my work on the Gill case until that person has published their privy information. Not a bit of it, it means I go full steam ahead with all the material at my disposal, barring the priviliged information of course... and that is what I have done, but then comes a point where other members have asked me why I have not pursued a particular point, and my answer has been that I am unable to because I made a promise to someone not to break their privilege. I have not claimed to know a secret. I have merely backed away from a sensitive point of fair play in the correctest way I could, whilst still moving the Gill case forward.
I intend to continue on this tack, and as I said to the devil with the wind.

[Ally]

I disagree. One person's dishonesty doesn't cancel out another person's. They have both acted in the wrong.

But to be specific...So if you tell someone a secret and then that person goes and tells EVERYONE you know that you have a secret and then everyone you know starts badgering you for the secret, are you saying that the person actually kept the spirit of confidentiality because they didn't divulge the actual secret? Just set you up to be harassed and hounded and speculated about by everyone who knew you?