What are they (still) hiding

[Doug Irvine]

What do you make of this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...es-secret.html

Do you think it would make much difference if it was released with the informants names redacted?

[TomTomKent]

To me or you or the vast majority of people? No.

To some poor sad people out there who still cling to religious and political grudges that have lasted generations? Yes, it may.

[Jason]

TBF, the arguments against the release of the files are absolutely awful....something is being held back it seems !! not one for conspiracy theories however this hardly stops them...........though i dont believe that anything would be in those files which would incriminate anyone of standing.....

[TomTomKent]

i think more realistic concerns may be if some of thewitnesses were membersof the police force (or some other breach of practice was involved). Or I could understand real concerns if the Jewish or eastern European communities were implicated. We are aware of some of the political groups who have tried to hammer the works of Mr Fido and others to fit a particular view, and unfortunately I have met far too many people who arejust as ready to riot now as the Police feared in the autumn of terror. If it was proven that a Jewish witness identified the Ripper then refused to testify some petty types would use that as justification for their prejudices.

[Phil H]

The question of risk

As I have said in other threads on this issue, it is easy for those of us fascinated by JtR to want these documents released. But the authorities will take a wider and deeper view - they have to.

Writing as someone who deals with similar issues on FOI on a daily basis as part of my work on a different UK government department, we have to look closely at RISK. We actually champion release,and I can tell you that it is comparatively rare to withhold other than personal data of living people and commercial or legal information.

But if registers of police informers, with names were to be released there will be a risk (perhaps small but perhaps real)that that information might be misused and cause harm. These relate to irish affairs and as HM The Queen's recent visit showed there is a small minority in the Republic that has not forgotten or forgiven past events.

Grandchildren or great-granchildren could still be living and discoverable - ask yourself, would I take the risk of release if I could later be held personally accountable for the consequences?

Other issues that may be of concern, are- anything that might throw light on current methods or procedures; the precedent that might be set for more recent similar records; and the question of confidentiality.

On that last point, if people believed that information about them would be kept in confidence indefinitely, and is then released by Government, what might that do for the willingness of people (including possible informers and whistle-blowers) now and in the future to entrust information to Government knowing it might be released. While some might say this is questionable, I can only say that MPs took a very strong line, a few years back, on the early release of raw census data, and declined to breach the earlier commitment to 100 years for EXACTLY that reason.

Phil

[Phil H]

Who are "they"

On a separate issue to my previous post, I am always amused when I see conspiracy theories discussed and the mysterious "they" emerge.

"They" must be responsible - "they":-mysterious grey men who manipulate events over decades if not centuries and yet remain unseen. Sometimes synonyms creep in - Government, "the authorities", the establishment etc etc.

As someone who has worked as a UK civil servant for around 37 years, I can say that I have NEVER encountered "them". I have dealt with some sensitive matters in my time, but I can say clearly have never encountered conspiracy, or any attempt to create one.

Indeed, given the length of time involved in any notion of a protracted "conspiracy" (that is, having a deliberate policy) to withhold information for over 100 years would not be practical. It is difficult enough to trace material put in archive relating to cases 10 years old, let alone 120!! The movement, posting to other duties and retirement of civil servants, internal restructuring of departments (including doing away with old-style registries), routine disposal of files etc, would mean that there would have to be some sort of standing instruction in place. I cannot see how that could be done.

Sensitive, personal and security matters are, of course, protected as one would expect, but the old "need to know" rules have been overtaken by "right to know" (a slogan on a mug on my desk at work) created by the FOI Act 2000. Release of information is now on an authorised basis, but the expectation is that it will be released unless a specific Public Interest Test to withhold shows that it would not be in the general interest to release it. That TEST is auditable including by the independent Information Commissioner.

There may well be documents related to police, Special Branch and security (MI5/MI6 and Special Forces) which are not released, but those will be because there is both an absolute exemption for that material (allowed by Parliament) and because it may well relate to continuing case work. I am completely certain that a JtR angle would not warrant anyone withholding information, but if the case coincided in some way with delicate security matters then that would be different - but the concerns would be specific and relate to TODAY, not related to "covering-up" a 120 year old case!

Evidence to support my views - well, material on Roger Casement from c 1914-16 has been released, and there are allegations that his diaries were forged by the secret services. That would probably be regarded as far more sensitive than anything in the JtR case.

So, I do not think that anything JtR-related is being "hidden" (to quite the OP) though documents which we might like to see to check their relevance may be withheld for specific and valid reasons under legal procedures such as FOI.

I just thought I'd put that on record,

Phil

[TomTomKent]

I have pitched a piece on this to a certain podcast. Probably wont be featured, but if it is, I will give you all the heads up so you can listen and tell me how wrong and utterly useless I am.

[TomTomKent]

Yep, my commentary on the subject has been submitted to the pod delusion (and a rather awkward version recorded). May not be used, but if it is I have tried to counterbalance the more eccentric views out there on the net in conspiracy land, with more balanced and rational views expressed by the "good folks at casebook", so consider yourselves in reciept of a shout out.

[belinda]

Whatever this is it's not about protecting informants unto infinity.

[Phil H]

belinda

Whatever this is it's not about protecting informants unto infinity.

Not sure I fully understand your point.

But if you have communities where memories run deep, there is little movement of population and (possibly) informers run in families, I could imagine that you might well ahve to preserve some form of confidentiality for several generations.

125 years or so, is not that long, a child born to an informer in (say) 1888, might easily have lived until the 1960s and the children of that generation would still be alive. That's a pretty close relationship.

As a comparison, there certainly used to be a prolonged period between the last burial in an English cemetery and the ability to disinter the bodies and re-use the land. It was something like (I think!) 75 years - maybe more - after the last burial, to prevent close descendents/relatives of the deceased being upset. This might indicate the "official" view of a period of time for something that is simply sensitive and does not entail risk.

Phil

[Phil H]

Additional information

I found a reference to my example, in relation to Southwark (London) cemeteries.

It is possible by law to re-use private graves that are older than 75 years old (good practice is to wait until they are 100 years old)

Phil

[belinda]

Yes that is always possible. What I mean is I think there is something else in the report possibly nothing to do with the Ripper murders that is a potential cause of trouble.

[Phil H]

Something else

Well, belinda, with intelligence, security and similar sensitive work there is always the question of methods and procedures. If they are still in use now, then the authorities wiould not wish to reveal them.

There may also be questions about people with the right knowledge putting "2 & 2" together. I was told at the time of the "Spycatcher" furore years back, when Peter Wright, an ex-MI5 man, publishjed a book that the UK authorities tried to ban, that the concern was not over specific passages. It was that there were "facts" in the book that put together, gave away information that was considered damaging.

The fact that the UK authorities had broken the German "Enigma" code was not revealed until the 1980s, almost 40 years after the end of the war. It was a secret so well kept that I don't think anyone had even hinted at it. It was crucial to an understanding of the war, yet was kept secret.

There are many factors that COULD be behind the concern, and even if laymen such as we are could see the unedited documents, we might not see what the concern was. Such things can be VERY subtle.

Phil

[Errata]

If it was proven that a Jewish witness identified the Ripper then refused to testify some petty types would use that as justification for their prejudices.

In a way I would applaud an effort to protect the Jewish (or any other ethnicity) community from the backlash of this kind of information.

But in the end, I gotta say "don't let me stop you..."

People who are prejudiced against Jews, or Catholics, or Saudis or whoever already have justifications for their feelings. a 100+ year old crime may give them a moment's thrill of vindication, but it will not affect any decision to become disorderly or violent. They already are those things, or they aren't. All any revelation about this case can do is affect the timing of such a thing.

Let them come. We've dealt with it before. And keeping the information a secret can only fuel suspicions anyway. We are attached to enough conspiracy theories thank you. If they are keeping the secret to protect us, they need to not do that. The time of imminent danger is long past. Any relics of it today can be taken care of. And quite frankly it is a little infantilizing, not to mention the fact that it can be seen to imply that we ARE in fact responsible for the actions of one of our members, and we are being protected from having to answer for the deeds of another a very long time ago.

So thanks, but no thanks really.

[Phil H]

So thanks, but no thanks really.

An interesting perspective, Errata, and one that might be persuasive in some areas of Government.

But I don't think the concerns of those who have to make the judgements/decisions on release will be swayed by your arguments.

Phil