What are they (still) hiding

[Chris]

Clutterbuck, may have been the reason the authorities picked up on the sensitivities of these records.
...
I don't know, but that is one possibility.

If you look at the other thread on these records, you'll see full details of what's led up to the present situation.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Trevor,

I read the article on you in the new Ripperologist. You're really on to something here, so keep fighting, and count on my support.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

The police during the hearing stated that they did not know of the existence of the registers and ledgers before Clutterbuck came upon them

In evidence they stated he had no authority to access them or to publish anything from them.

Despite that they chose not to take any action against him or to have his thesis removed or edited. The same applies to Felicity Lowdes indiscretion.

The truth is that due to the sheer volume of entries it appears no one from the police has to date assessed and evaluated them thoroughly. Clutterbuck got near to that but I have to question excatly how far he went as he was using them to research a specific topic.

[Phil H]

Clutterbuck, may have been the reason the authorities picked up on the sensitivities of these records.

That is, before hand they were seen as simply historic records, but when focused on, others within Government recognised that there were wider issues involved with release.

I don't know, but that is one possibility.

Phil

[jason_c]

Thanks for the link Phil.


Can the SB refusal to open up these documents be a personal grudge against Clutterbuck himself? I wouldnt think the Special Branch would be too happy at one of their own releasing this info to public. If Clutterbuck was succussful the authorities would be open to all sorts of ex SB officers demanding files be made public.

I realise its Trevor's case now. However much of the information was originally brought forward by Clutterbuck.

[Trevor Marriott]

The registers and the ledgers which are the subject of the current FOI case contain reference numbers and box file numbers relating to approx 30.000 Special Branch files which were all beleived to have been destroyed.

However I no that this is not the case and some files were retained.It is access to those surviving files which I am currently pursuing and may lead to a second tribunal hearing in the coming months.

[TomTomKent]

Ah well. My piece on how this reported in the press wasn't used. Never mind....

[Jeff Leahy]

Some of the files do exist and are still held in Special Branch Archives and I currently have another case pending with the met Police and The Information commissioners to gain access to them.

Hi Trevor

I wish you luck also..

What I'm getting at here is, what are these files your asking to access..?

My understanding is that they are references to other files...what was or was not said....some of that information in the public domain some lost..

But you refer to Special branch files? are these new? and different from the ones I understand you are trying to access?

Pirate

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

In my day it was Dave Lee Travis (DLT) that was the hairy monster!

Good answer though! hahaha! :-)

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Phil
I used to be a werewolf but I`m alright nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

I released a record titled "Fangs aint what they used to be"

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Thank you, you really do want infamy don't you!.. I wish you the best of luck with this enterprise as well!
Ever thought of becoming a police dog? ;-)


best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Some of the files do exist and are still held in Special Branch Archives and I currently have another case pending with the met Police and The Information commissioners to gain access to them.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

Err I wasn't and don't treat people like "numpties" whatever that means, I only said what I believe to be correct..36,000 entries relating to original Special Branch Files. Please stop accusing me of things I do not do, even if I do understand the apparent derogatory meaning.

As far as the original files are concerned, it is thought, believed.. whatever the Met have said/not said.. that they do not apparently exist any more.

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

As far as I know, 36,000 entries relating to original Special Branch files, 1888-1894.

best wishes

Yes, but do the files they refer to still exist?

And please don't treat me like a numpty

Pirate

PS Well I guess some do exist but most dont.....all you have is referances to these? is it not?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

As far as I know, 36,000 entries relating to original Special Branch files, 1888-1894.

best wishes