Whitechapel... the land of wackos

[The English Gardener]

Hi, Septic.
You have a well earned and tested reputation for thoroughness and an encyclopedic knowledge of the whole area, and I take on board your comments. You are perfectly correct, I missed out North, South and West London and did indeed make what is, prima face, a huge generalization. I would, in mitigation, venture that although the rest of London - outside the City and its wealthy suburbs in all directions - was sharply contrasted as a concentration of relative poverty, nowhere was this more sharply thrown into relief as in the East End. It was for this reason that I chose Bishopsgate as my dividing line.
But you're right, of course. I should not have been as simplistic in either thought or deed!

[Fisherman]

Belinda writes:

"Murderers aren't neccessarily "wacko" for example Bundy intelligent,educated.
People can do these things and still be technically sane."

It all boils down to what one writes into the definition "whacko", of course. Myself, I am having severe difficulties NOT regarding Bundy as a whacko, I must say - intelligent or not.

The best,
Fisherman

[belinda]

Yes he was but and there's always a but he didn't walk around drooling and dragging one leg or anything


There are different definitions "wacko"is a bit broad spectrum

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Belinda! I simply settled for what pr1mate opted for in his initial post, when pinning what he meant by a whacko; people who killed women and/or were regarded as murder suspects in the Ripper case.

The best,
Fisherman

[belinda]

Indeed, Belinda! I simply settled for what pr1mate opted for in his initial post, when pinning what he meant by a whacko; people who killed women and/or were regarded as murder suspects in the Ripper case.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Anyone who would argue about the use of 'wacko' is completely whacked.

Cheers,

Mike

[babybird67]

thank you Pr1mate...

Thanks for the language arts lesson but, my selection of phrase was intentional and conveyed both my detest and lack of respect for a lot of these people I have been reading about.

I have noticed that most posts here are very eloquent. Well thought out and well written. I think this is perhaps the European influence of most of the writers.

I am a direct contrast in communication style. I try to keep it somewhat short and do not see the need for all the filling blah blah crap.

I could say ... At first glance there appears to be a great number of disturbed people in whitechapel. Perhaps this is due to the lack of wealth or poor living conditions. Or, perhaps this is just how it was during the period. Whichever the reason, I believe there to be a higher than normal number of murders, as well as, a higher than normal number of people being committed. My thought on this subject may be distorted since I am only reading about such people. This observation is somewhat bothersome to me and I am curious if my assumptions are correct? If so, what do you think is the cause of this.

OR

I could say.. These people in whitechapel seem like whack jobs killing and going nuts. What do you think?

I prefer to use the second. It has everything I wanted to say, the feelings I want to convey and the question I would like answered. It takes 2 seconds to type and 1 second to read.... Just my thought anyway.

...for teaching me that respect is something that perhaps cannot be taught.

[Ally]

Yes there were a lot of whackos in Whitechapel. Just like there are a lot of whackos today in london, Chicago, Paris, New York, any other place where there are a lot of people.

The whacko proportion is a fairly stable and large percentage and therefore in any large city you will find a large number of whackos. The thread is stupid because simple logic would dictate that the answer is obvious.

[Septic Blue]

... I missed out North, South and West London and did indeed make what is, prima face, a huge generalization.

Many Thanks!

Now, I must try to get Mr. Carter on board; for his personal proximity to Victorian/Edwardian poverty notwithstanding, …

... what the East End was REALLY like.

… he too is making generalizations.

I'm sure you will find the following …

"Poverty in the East End"

… to be of interest.

I am working on a more comprehensive 'follow-up', which makes use of the following imagery:


A Portion of Charles Booth's "'Map Shewing Degrees of Poverty in London': In Areas with About 30,000 Inhabitants in Each; Compiled from Information Collected in 1889-1890" (My Color-Shadings)

- '71' (Purple): An estimated 32.53% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '72' (Blue): An estimated 49.07% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '73' (Blue): An estimated 46.50% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '74' (Blue): An estimated 49.35% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '76' (Pink): An estimated 24.59% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'


An Interpretation of a Portion of Charles Booth's "'Map Shewing Degrees of Poverty in London': In Areas with About 30,000 Inhabitants in Each; Compiled from Information Collected in 1889-1890" (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

- '71c' (Pink): An estimated 24.13% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '72' (Blue): An estimated 49.07% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '73a' (Purple): An estimated 34.63% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '76a' (Pink): An estimated 26.21% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '71a' (Light Blue): An estimated 42.70% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '71b' (Purple): An estimated 35.72% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '73b' (Navy): An estimated 54.57% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '74c' (Blue): An estimated 47.91% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '74a' (Purple): An estimated 35.00% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'
- '74b' (Navy): An estimated 57.71% of inhabitants lived below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'

[The English Gardener]

All of which thoroughly justifies my decision not to tangle with Colin. Thanks for the link, a slow day is, I think, about to become just that bit busier.
Meanwhile, I think I'd very much like to assocoate myself with what Ally says above. This is a tricky subject, and not one to be oversimplified by a desire to be brief and "to the point" in the way one pharases questions. The point - in simplistic terms - defies succinctness. Which, I think, is what having some respect for the history when discussing it is all about.
Your views echoed, Babybird.

[Phil Carter]

Now, I must try to get Mr. Carter on board; for his personal proximity to Victorian/Edwardian poverty notwithstanding, …

Hello Septic,

Respectfully...
Nice map, nice stats, nice point.

But where there is poverty, as I showed, (and Whitechapel and Spitalfields WERE generally regarded as the poorest areas in London), low education, low sanitation, low employment, and utter degredation, yes, you will get the worst of the worst. But as I said, no, not everyone was as poor as the others by any means. (that, I believe was in my original text...not a generalization there is there?)

1) The book Gilda O'Neil- My East End. That very clearly shows the downfall of parts of the East End into what, after 1850, became utter squalour.

2) It was a fact that there WERE many thousands of prostitutes in that part of London. Because of poverty.

Re generalisation.

I talked of mostly Whitechapel and Spitalfields. So if you are going to quote me, it is misleading to say that I generalise on the basis of the LAST LINE. (Which was a throwaway line anyway... if you read it correctly.) I believed that on the whole I was pretty specific infact!

Later on in time, In the 1920/30's, Shoreditch, Hoxton, Haggerston moving into the South part of Bethnall Green, and along eastwards to the Hackney Road had an awful reputation for gang violence and criminality, Essex Street, Wilmer Gardens, in particular..... Hoxton had a reputation as a "thieves" area. Worse, in that sense, than Whitechapel. (These quotes come from a very elderly living relative). There were, in amongst the poor areas, a FEW areas of prosperity, as your map does show. But as he said, prosperity in Whitechapel was relative. The key to prosperity was if the man in the house had a regular job and lived decently.

Respectfully,

Phil

[Phil Carter]

...for teaching me that respect is something that perhaps cannot be taught.

here here babybird67

best wishes

Phil

[Septic Blue]

... There were, in amongst the poor areas, a FEW areas of prosperity, as your map does show.

I think you need to examine the imagery that I have provided, a little more closely.

I will provide it once again; using a more streamlined presentation of the applicable statistics.

*** And, please make use of the following link; as well as the flickr link, for enlargement of the aerial imagery.***

Again; …

"Poverty in the East End"

I am working on a more comprehensive 'follow-up', which makes use of the following imagery:


A Portion of Charles Booth's "'Map Shewing Degrees of Poverty in London': In Areas with About 30,000 Inhabitants in Each; Compiled from Information Collected in 1889-1890" (My Color-Shadings)

Estimated Percentage of Inhabitants that Lived Below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'; i.e. "In Poverty":

- '71' (Purple): 32.53%
- '72' (Blue): 49.07%
- '73' (Blue): 46.50%
- '74' (Blue): 49.35%
- '76' (Pink): 24.59%


An Interpretation of a Portion of Charles Booth's "'Map Shewing Degrees of Poverty in London': In Areas with About 30,000 Inhabitants in Each; Compiled from Information Collected in 1889-1890" (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

Estimated Percentage of Inhabitants that Lived Below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'; i.e. "In Poverty":

- '71c' (Pink): 24.13%
- '72' (Blue): 49.07%
- '73a' (Purple): 34.63%
- '76a' (Pink): 26.21%
- '71a' (Light Blue): 42.70%
- '71b' (Purple): 35.72%
- '73b' (Navy): 54.57%
- '74c' (Blue): 47.91%
- '74a' (Purple): 35.00%
- '74b' (Navy): 57.71%

... (and Whitechapel and Spitalfields WERE generally regarded as the poorest areas in London)

Not by Charles Booth!

The Seven Most Impoverished Registration Districts in the Metropolis, in Order of Estimated Percentages of Inhabitants that Lived Below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'; i.e. "In Poverty":

- Holborn: 48.90%
- St. George in the East: 48.90%
- Bethnal Green: 44.60%
- St. Saviour: 43.40%
- St. Olave: 42.20%
- Shoreditch: 40.20%
- Whitechapel: 39.20%


Whitechapel Registration District - 1888 (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

- The Liberty of Norton Folgate (Green)
- The Old Artillery Ground (Aqua)
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields (Blue)
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town (Orange)
- The Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories') (Yellow)
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; the County of London, 1889-1965) (Red)
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London (Orange)
--- [The Liberty of the Tower]
--- [The Precinct of Old Tower Without]
--- [The Tower]
- The Precinct of St. Katharine (Blue)
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; the County of London, 1889-1965) (Green)

Booth's delineations of socio-economic 'class' …

"In Poverty":
Class 'A': "Vicious" (i.e. vice-ridden); "Semi-Criminal"
Class 'B': "Very Poor"
Class 'C': "Poor" - Irregular Income
Class 'D': "Poor" - Regular but Inadequate Income

"In Comfort":
Class 'E': "Above the 'Line of Poverty'" - Regular "Standard" Income
Class 'F': "Highly Skilled Labour"
Class 'G': "Lower Middle-Class"
Class 'H': "Upper Middle-Class"

The aforementioned Registration Districts; in greater detail …

Holborn Registration District / Poor Law Union:
- The Combined Parish of St. Andrew Holborn ('Above the Bars') & St. George the Martyr
- Gray's Inn
- Furnival's Inn (portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; County of London, 1889-1965)
- Lincoln's Inn
- Staple Inn
- The Liberty of The Rolls
- The Liberty of Saffron Hill, Hatton Garden, Ely Rents and Ely Place
- The Combined Parish of St. James Clerkenwell & St. John Clerkenwell
- The Parish of St. Sepulchre ('without Newgate') (portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; County of London, 1889-1965)
- The Charter House
- The Liberty of Glasshouse Yard
- The Parish of St. Luke

- Total Population (1891 Census): 141,920
- Total Population (Charles Booth 1889 Estimate): 150,177

- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 1.60%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 15.70%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'C' & 'D': 31.60%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Below the 'Line of Poverty': 48.90%

- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'E' & 'F': 45.80%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'G' & 'H': 5.30%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Above the 'Line of Poverty': 51.10%

St. George in the East Registration District / Poor Law Parish:
- The Parish of St. George in the East

- Total Population (1891 Census): 45,795
- Total Population (Charles Booth 1889 Estimate): 47,578

- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 1.50%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 15.10%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'C' & 'D': 32.30%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Below the 'Line of Poverty': 48.90%

- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'E' & 'F': 48.70%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'G' & 'H': 2.40%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Above the 'Line of Poverty': 51.10%

Bethnal Green Registration District / Poor Law Parish:
- The Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green

- Total Population (1891 Census): 129,132
- Total Population (Charles Booth 1889 Estimate): 127,641

- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 1.20%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 15.90%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'C' & 'D': 27.50%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Below the 'Line of Poverty': 44.60%

- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'E' & 'F': 51.20%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'G' & 'H': 4.20%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Above the 'Line of Poverty': 55.40%

St. Saviour Registration District / Poor Law Union:
- The Parish of Christ Church, Borough of Southwark
- The Parish of St. Saviour, Borough of Southwark
- The Parish of St. George the Martyr, Borough of Southwark
- The Parish of St. Mary Newington

- Total Population (1891 Census): 202,693
- Total Population (Charles Booth 1889 Estimate): 196,880

- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 2.80%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 9.20%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'C' & 'D': 31.40%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Below the 'Line of Poverty': 43.40%

- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'E' & 'F': 50.20%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'G' & 'H': 6.40%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Above the 'Line of Poverty': 56.60%

St. Olave Registration District / Poor Law Union:
- The Parish of St. Olave, Borough of Southwark
- The Parish of St. Thomas, Borough of Southwark
- The Parish of St. John Horselydown, Borough of Southwark
- The Parish of St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey
- The Parish of St. Mary Rotherhithe

- Total Population (1891 Census): 136,660
- Total Population (Charles Booth 1889 Estimate): 138,199

- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 0.60%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 12.90%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'C' & 'D': 28.70%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Below the 'Line of Poverty': 42.20%

- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'E' & 'F': 53.70%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'G' & 'H': 4.10%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Above the 'Line of Poverty': 57.80%

Shoreditch Registration District / Poor Law Parish:
- The Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch

- Total Population (1891 Census): 124,009
- Total Population (Charles Booth 1889 Estimate): 121,161

- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 1.00%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 9.40%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'C' & 'D': 29.80%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Below the 'Line of Poverty': 40.20%

- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'E' & 'F': 56.50%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'G' & 'H': 3.30%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Above the 'Line of Poverty': 59.80%

Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union:
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Old Artillery Ground
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories')
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; the County of London, 1889-1965)
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London
--- [The Liberty of the Tower]
--- [The Precinct of Old Tower Without]
--- [The Tower]
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; the County of London, 1889-1965)

- Total Population (1891 Census): 74,462
- Total Population (Charles Booth 1889 Estimate): 73,518

- Estimated Percentage; Class 'A': 3.30%
- Estimated Percentage; Class 'B': 8.90%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'C' & 'D': 27.00%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Below the 'Line of Poverty': 39.20%

- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'E' & 'F': 54.60%
- Estimated Percentage; Classes 'G' & 'H': 6.20%
- Sub-Total Percentage; Above the 'Line of Poverty': 60.80%


A Portion of Charles Booth's "'Map Shewing Degrees of Poverty in London': In Areas with About 30,000 Inhabitants in Each; Compiled from Information Collected in 1889-1890" (My Color-Shadings)

Areas, in which the rate of poverty was greater than 50.00% …

Estimated Percentage of Inhabitants that Lived Below Booth's 'Line of Poverty'; i.e. "In Poverty":

- '86' "Southwark" (Grey): 67.90%
- '41' "Goswell Road" (Grey): 60.90%
- '56' "Bethnal Green (West)" (Navy): 58.70%
- '88' "Bermondsey" (Navy): 56.10%
- '89' "Horselydown" (Navy): 55.00%

… prosperity in Whitechapel was relative. The key to prosperity was if the man in the house had a regular job and lived decently.

Booth's findings suggest that the Whitechapel Registration District of 1888, was inhabited by as many as 3,200 members of Britain's 'lower middle-class'; and as many as 1,300 members of its 'upper middle-class'. Would these people have 'measured up' - so to speak - against their respective counterparts in Belgravia? Probably not!

But, in light of the fact that these two classes can actually overlap, when viewed purely from the perspective of economic standing - as opposed to social standing; and the fact that economic standing has no upper limit: It should be noted that the overall 'middle-class' spans a very wide range of socio-economic standing.

That said; … 'middle-class' is 'middle-class'!

And 1888's 'Whitechapel' - according to Charles Booth - included a certain 'middle-class' element that we should not choose to ignore!

[protohistorian]

I have been busy lately on other stuff, what a precise and valueable post!well Done, Respectfully Dave

[perrymason]

If you take into consideration that many different comments by people of the period and of the press coverage, this area at night was to my mind like a Cabinet of Curiosities for the voyeurs from the greater Metro and West London, and for the residents it was like being a carny.

Markets where people sold anything they could find or had on them, outdoor murals on brick of grisly murders, wax reproductions of murder victims, musical street buskers, raw meat hanging in windows, peep shows where the likes of Joseph Merrick was found in a year or 2 before, street whores, street brawls, gangs, homeless mothers feeding babies on the street...

It was a bit surreal and grand escapism for anyone fortunate enough to be looking in at it, I would think.

The Cabinet of Curiosities was a popular attraction at that time, Cabinets with unique objects and artifacts from around the world....and in many ways they match the carnival quality shows that were on the streets of Whitechapel at night.

No wonder Jack hasnt been found......in that area at that time, its a wonder we didnt have a dozen Rippers. Hes just a gnarled tree in a haunted forest.

All the best.