In the name of honesty...

[Cap'n Jack]

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

[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?

[The Good Michael]

Chris,

Nada.

Mike

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[Tom_Wescott]

No, but that's classic AP.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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/other_information/archive/2004/so12_introduction.pdf

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

Best regards, Archaic