In the name of honesty...

[Tom_Wescott]

Yeah, I'm with AP on this one. He hasn't divulged the 'secret', but Silver posted private messages from AP. That means Silver has lost his right to accuse AP of indiscretion. Although Silver will have to choke for a little while on this irony, I think he's a great, genuine guy and I very much look forward to reading his book, which will no doubt revive this forgotten old case.

What I find the most horrifying is that Good Michael is stuck in a place with no cheese. I simply can't fathom such a hell.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

And AP as I have already explained to you, several times, honesty and trustworthiness has nothing to do with whether or not you have divulged that single piece of information. Whether you have, or have not, is irrelevant.

By the very fact that you keep going around bleating "Silver has a secret, silver has a secret, I know what it is and he won't share it! " you are failing to be a trustworthy person to whom people can feel confident divulging information.

What Silver's information actually is, is irrelevant. Whether you have actually spilled it, is irrelevant. Silver's "secret" is now being openly discussed because you couldn't keep your fat yap shut.

[Monty]

Oh for foxs sake...

.....are we talking ears here?

Cos if we are it has been mentioned before and is out the the open.

If it aint I'll shut my fat stinking beak.

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Jen,

A bit off topic, but: Double Gloucester, Red Leicester, Wenslydale, Cheshire and Durham Gold. How's that for a sampler?

Don.

Definitely cheesy, Don. Missed you in London. Maybe next time. . .

Chris

[Cap'n Jack]

Ally, tease an old wolf why don't ya?
As I already carefully explained to you, and others, I have yet to divulge the single piece of information that Silver shared with me... and as I also explained to you twice already I had that information all along but had simply failed to react to it, so I gave Silver his fair dues for reacting to that information, but that was after I had alerted him to the possible connection to one of the Whitechapel Murders.
Everyone round here, including Silver, are acting as if I had divulged this information, so it is play acting on your behalf, because the reality is that I have not divulged his precious information, but merely alerted the reader to the fact that it is contained within news reports of 1889.
It aint no big deal anyway, as I said I have always seen a common factor in the murders of Catherine Eddowes and John Gill, and am more than willing to discuss that commonality with all, including Silver, and of course your good self. Now get some glue for that wig, girl, a strong wind is acoming.

[Ally]

While I understand it's tempting to prove someone so thoroughly wrong when you have the means to easily do so, I also agree it is wrong to post private correspondence in its entirety without the other parties approval. A better means of doing it would have been to state you had the messages from AP that clearly showed he had no prior knowledge of the information of which you spoke and ask to put them on the boards. If he had refused, that would have of course been telling, but posting them without his permission is considered very bad form.

What AP has already said publicly is enough to show he is lying somewhere. But at this point, we should probably take the OP's hint and return to topic. AP's perfidy can be hashed out elsewhere.

[caz]

Hi ho Silver,

I once quoted something from a poster's private message (many years ago now) and was rightly carpeted for it. It's wrong - regardless of the individuals involved and what was said about what.

But it's not only wrong - it's rather risky too, unless you know that there are no private messages lurking anywhere that you would not want to see splashed across the boards concerning your good self.

AP may be all kinds of daft git at times (he once said I was wrong about him being male, when he used to pretend to be a girlie) but two wrongs never make a right.

Only air another poster's dirty laundry if you'd be happy for us all to sift through yours in public.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Chris,

Nada.

Mike

[Chris]

Because I am in Korea where cheese is neither made nor imported to (aside from bulk quantities of useless brands), ...

Not even Japanese Sage Derby?

[Cap'n Jack]

Jesus, Silver, you'll be selling my old underpants next.

[The Good Michael]

A bit off topic, but: Double Gloucester, Red Leicester, Wenslydale, Cheshire and Durham Gold. How's that for a sampler?

Don,

Because I am in Korea where cheese is neither made nor imported to (aside from bulk quantities of useless brands), I would do a John Gill on someone just to smell the first two cheeses on your sampler.

Mike, bringing it back on thread

[Supe]

Jen,

A bit off topic, but: Double Gloucester, Red Leicester, Wenslydale, Cheshire and Durham Gold. How's that for a sampler?

Don.

[silverstealth]

Deleted

[Archaic]

Us National Archives: Public Appeal For Return Of Missing Documents

Hi, Phil, getting back to your thread topic ( ), here are some of the US National Archives web-links that I mentioned to you.

The problem of missing and stolen historical documents is clearly explained, including why the theft of such documents is in fact a theft directed against the national heritage of every American citizen- and by extension, a theft perpetuated against the shared History of all people.

The website explains how individual citizens can be of help in achieving their safe return. Live links are provided for anyone requesting assistance or more information.

There is also a list describing specific documents which are missing and believed stolen, in the hope that if there are attempts to sell these documents either publicly or privately someone will notice and alert the authorities. (One man was actually convicted of selling numerous pilfered Civil War documents on Ebay, I kid you not!)


>>U.S. National Archives, main site: http://www.archives.gov/

>>"Help Find Missing Documents" Public Appeal By U.S. National Archives: http://www.archives.gov/research/recover/


At the moment I'm not sure if the UK National Archives has similar appeals and instant-access links on their website.
I'm looking into this question, but perhaps another forum member already knows and can tell us more?

Best regards, Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Special Branch Files, unseen.

Hello all,

As you all have read, the question of the Special Branch Files, as yet, unseen, remain exactly that, in "perpetuity".

"In perpetuity" is a rule, it seems, that covers all Special Branch Files. Whatever the subject....Forever...and ever and ever and ever...

I previously have stated that I fail to understand, call me green, naive, whatever... where the protection of the names and reputations of the people involved 121 years ago, relates directly to today and their descendants, 4 or 5 generations down the line.

Yes, I repeat, all this comes along 121 years after the murders, as it is 4 or 5 generations down the line since then. And adding to this, I stated that even the national census, is available only 100 years after having been taken and documented, is reserved and protected for 100 years because of exactly the same reason I have been given re the Special Branch Files.

We live in a modern world, where the speed of information is lightening fast. Historians have never previously been so fortunate in having access to material, at the touch of a finger. Yet still, we have some clearly archaic sets of rules living and breathing in the best of health amongst us.

In the USA, douments are "blacked out" upon release, should they still be considered to be potentially harmful in any way. These documents are released under the "Freedom of Information Act", I believe.

The Home Office in Great Britain, is, unless I am entirely mistaken, responsible for the rules regarding release of Special Branch Documents. There can be little doubt that there is material within the Special Branch Files that relate directly to the Whitechapel murders.

Ladies and Gentleman, perhaps it is time for us all to lobby the Home Office, in clear yet polite tone, to relax the rule and put a time limit upon the documents release instead of never ever having access to them.

I again repeat, if they remained closed in perpetuity, we have the ridiculous situation of in 79 years, when JTR is 200 years old, of the generation 8 notches down the line being protected, or their ancestors being protected by this frankly silly rule.

Thats the same, ladies and gentlemen, of nobody able to find out the secret details of who said what to whom about things related to the Battle of Waterloo! Thank heavens the Special Branch wasn't around at that time too! As Mr. Homer Simpson says... "doh".

If anyone has any suggestions as to how to actually DO something about this, I welcome the comments.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, if we suceed in getting these files opened, it could open up research for us all for many years to come. And COULD be a ground breaking rule change.

It is noted, that ALL historians trying to research anything, get the thumbs down. It must be time to stop this nonsense.

Nobody, surely, really cares what Great Great Uncle Bulgaria got up to when he snitched about x or y to z 121 years ago... Great Great Uncle Bulgaria may well have been very happy his notes and comments etc were secretly saved for prosperity, but I suggest that he didn't quite mean forever!... err... why??? Just because its a principle? Nothing gets released, whatever???


That, in my view is plainly ridiculous.

I leave you all to ponder.

best wishes to you all,

Phil