E Petitions and Ripper Files and papers

[curious4]

Transparency

I fail to see why anyone would be labelled a crank for supporting an appeal for freedom of information.

Transparency is ALWAYS important - if only to prove conspiracy theories wrong.

I also fail to see why information regarding a crime committed over a century ago can be a threat to national security.

So get out there and sign it. Not that my hopes are high - some people love to sit on information in order to boost their importance.

C4

[PaulB]

fair point Paul..... no offence intended ...

None taken.

[PaulB]

Paul

You made your request for access pre January 2005. It was then that the Freedom Of Information Act came into force why did you not make a new application under this act. You would then have been in front of Butterworth and all these years have passed and you nor Stewart have ever bothered since. Very complacent in my opinion.

You talk about your sensible reasoning and logic well I will refer to the Kosminski thread which was heavily debated. In that you champion Kosminksi as the prime suspect whether that be Aaron Kosminski or another Kosminski.

I went to great lengths to explain the difference between a likley suspect and a prime suspect and on that basis with what we currently know suggested that Kosmiski Aaron or otherwise is not a prime suspect.

Part of your case in support of this was to question as to how this name had become mentioned. Again I went to great lengths to explain how names can be recorded in police records in connection with crime.

Both of the aformetioned plausible explantions are valid yet because they go against your beleif you choose to ignore them. What I have put forward in relation to both points are not my own theories they are matters of fact.

As far as the editing of the petition is concerned it is not my place to take any action against the government for the editing. I am sure the two persons concerned are aware and have matters in hand.

If the matter of the petition does come up for debate I am sure someone will ask what records and documents are belived to have not been released. After all the wording does state "unpublished" files etc.

The fact is you are not happy unless you are trying to destroy something someone has written or said which goes against your views.

I am not prepared to argues any further I have better things to do with my time.

"The Phoenix Will Rise From The Ashes"

Trevor,
You claimed that you started this thread to bring attention to the petition and that Stewart and I had attempted to destroy it, but in fact you brought Stewart and myself into it by lying that we had elsewhere gone to “great lengths” to show how wonderful we are. After you've flung dung and cried a little over some of it being flung back, this is spelt out to you and your immediate response is to fling a little more crap and then utterly change the subject to denigrate the efforts Stewart and I made to gain access to the ledgers. I doubt that anybody here is suckered by this goal-post changing approach of yours.

Secondly, despite your efforts to suggest otherwise, and this is the crucial point, neither Stewart nor I have expressed opposition to the petition per se. We have stated only that the factual inaccuracy, lack of precision, and somewhat childish accusatory tone, will not achieve the hoped for objective. Personally, I had hoped that the wording could have been changed to something focused and grown-up and that the opportunity presented by the petition wouldn't be lost, but you seem unable to see beyond your own prejudices and from the outset sought to make this personal.

Further, I do not share your belief that somebody will inquire about unreleased documents, nor do I believe anybody will admit to any existing, nor do I find it easy to reconcile your seemingly naive belief in the opposite with your insinuations that the nefarious hand of the government can already be seen changing the wording of the petition, itself a serious and highly improbable thing.

And, it is very, very far from a “fact” that I try to destroy things that go against my views; if anything, that seems to be your intent, but is the product of what is evidently a somewhat limited imagination which cannot otherwise explain why people don't agree with you. It's just easy to accuse them of being biased, of protecting egos and theories, and of belonging to cartels, and all the other conspiracist argument that spills so trippingly from your tongue.

So, okay, you think the petition will achieve something. Great. Let's hope it does. You see, if the petition crashes and dies, we all lose. You, me, everyone. Nobody gets to see the material. If it succeeds, we all win. You, everyone, and me... So don't throw your twaddle about me wanting to destroy things.

[Jason]

fair point Paul..... no offence intended ...

[PaulB]

Good morning everyone,

Not been on here since yesterday....so whats happened since ? anybody called somebody another bad name ? any "mum" jokes thrown in yet ?

Looking forward to todays entertainment !!

Ding ding, round 9.................

Jason,
No offence, but you have made your point.

[Jason]

Good morning everyone,

Not been on here since yesterday....so whats happened since ? anybody called somebody another bad name ? any "mum" jokes thrown in yet ?

Looking forward to todays entertainment !!

Ding ding, round 9.................

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

If that's the case, one can only wonder whether the following titles have also been edited by sinister government mandarins (all copied verbatim):

- Canel out Next years rail fare increase's
- motorways
- Make Forces Pension Past & Present Tax Free
- shop lifters banned from shopping for three years if caught
- RAF LOW FLYING INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
- reduce towns and cities of the uk

They must have a team of people up there, some with an aversion to upper-case, some with an aversion to lower-case, and some with a weird penchant for writing in start case; some who omit the possessive apostrophe, but who use an apostrophe in a simple plural instead; some who don't show an interest in whether the UK ought to be capitalised, or not, as a proper noun; and some who take potentially interesting proposals about motorways, no doubt expressed in suitable detail by the individual who initiated the petition, and edit the title down to read "motorways".

There is a simpler explanation for these unexpected variations and inconsistencies, though; namely that the titles of these e-petitions are not edited by the government at all, and that, as is obviously the case in all the above examples, the deficiencies of the WM disclosure petition were built in by the person or persons who initiated it. That's not government interference, Trevor. Surely you can see that?

Out of interest, what was the original wording of the petition, before the government, as you suggest above, edited it?

Regards,

Mark

I do not have that information to hand dont shoot me I am only the messenger.
I will try to get it for you

[Trevor Marriott]

Paul

You made your request for access pre January 2005. It was then that the Freedom Of Information Act came into force why did you not make a new application under this act. You would then have been in front of Butterworth and all these years have passed and you nor Stewart have ever bothered since. Very complacent in my opinion.

You talk about your sensible reasoning and logic well I will refer to the Kosminski thread which was heavily debated. In that you champion Kosminksi as the prime suspect whether that be Aaron Kosminski or another Kosminski.

I went to great lengths to explain the difference between a likley suspect and a prime suspect and on that basis with what we currently know suggested that Kosmiski Aaron or otherwise is not a prime suspect.

Part of your case in support of this was to question as to how this name had become mentioned. Again I went to great lengths to explain how names can be recorded in police records in connection with crime.

Both of the aformetioned plausible explantions are valid yet because they go against your beleif you choose to ignore them. What I have put forward in relation to both points are not my own theories they are matters of fact.

As far as the editing of the petition is concerned it is not my place to take any action against the government for the editing. I am sure the two persons concerned are aware and have matters in hand.

If the matter of the petition does come up for debate I am sure someone will ask what records and documents are belived to have not been released. After all the wording does state "unpublished" files etc.

The fact is you are not happy unless you are trying to destroy something someone has written or said which goes against your views.

I am not prepared to argues any further I have better things to do with my time.

"The Phoenix Will Rise From The Ashes"

[m_w_r]

I can tell you that I am now aware that as far as the Uk Governemt site is concerned what was originally submitted to The Government site has been edited by the government dept responsible for these petitions and therfore does not appear as it was intended to appear.

Hi Trevor,

If that's the case, one can only wonder whether the following titles have also been edited by sinister government mandarins (all copied verbatim):

- Canel out Next years rail fare increase's
- motorways
- Make Forces Pension Past & Present Tax Free
- shop lifters banned from shopping for three years if caught
- RAF LOW FLYING INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
- reduce towns and cities of the uk

They must have a team of people up there, some with an aversion to upper-case, some with an aversion to lower-case, and some with a weird penchant for writing in start case; some who omit the possessive apostrophe, but who use an apostrophe in a simple plural instead; some who don't show an interest in whether the UK ought to be capitalised, or not, as a proper noun; and some who take potentially interesting proposals about motorways, no doubt expressed in suitable detail by the individual who initiated the petition, and edit the title down to read "motorways".

There is a simpler explanation for these unexpected variations and inconsistencies, though; namely that the titles of these e-petitions are not edited by the government at all, and that, as is obviously the case in all the above examples, the deficiencies of the WM disclosure petition were built in by the person or persons who initiated it. That's not government interference, Trevor. Surely you can see that?

Out of interest, what was the original wording of the petition, before the government, as you suggest above, edited it?

Regards,

Mark

[Varqm]

Hi...I've just been reading the thread and I think Trevor is right in that where is the site which have the petition asking for the right things and with the right wordings but on the other hand it is too sensationalistic....Varqm

[PaulB]

I live in the real world where people can understand sensible and logical reasoning unlike your world where logical and sensible reasoning are unheard of...

Let's take a short look at your "real world" and the "sensible and logical reasoning" you employ. You claimed that you started this thread to draw attention to two petitions and that Stewart and I had attempted to destroy it...:

No it shouldnt the thread was started by me to bring to the attention of members two e petitions which had been started by two other parties it was you and Stewart who have attempted to destroy it in your inimitable way...

But in the second paragraph of the very first post you wrote:

I was dissapointed to see comments on JTR forums from two respected researchers who in my opinion should have known better. Both poured water on this project, both went to great lengths to elablorate on how wonderful they were and that they had tried to get access etc, and highlighted how they had failed.

So, you drew attention on Casebook to comments Stewart and I had made on Forums, you misrepresented what we'd written and, not to put to fine a point on it, you lied. Neither Stewart nor I "went to great lengths" to show how wonderful we are. So in your first post you dragged Stewart and myself into this, and you did so in a way that would provoke a responce.

There was every reason for me to draw attention if you are going to talk about me in a derogatory way then I will respond and will continue to respond...

You are the rude one, Trevor. All that is coming back at you is the stuff you've flung freely and frequantly at the likes of Keith and Martin and others. However, there is barely a mention of you on the Forums thread. I mentioned you twice, once when I point out that you had argued that the ledgers had been seen by Clutterbuck and Lowde and had been offered to Butterworth, and again when I illustrated the need for precision and focus in the wording of the petition by indicating the mild rebuke you had received for presently 42-pages of "pure argument, rather than factual evidence".

...so I would suggest you take note of an earlier post where I asked that personal conflicts be taken out of this thread.

Great, so why, as demonstrated above, did you introduce them? But this isn't about personal conflicts, it's about a petition so imprecisely worded that it almost certainly won't do any good.

So kindly do as requested but I doubt you can becasue you are so locked in the belief that everyhting you say or write is correct.

It is very easy to write crap like that, Trevor, but not so easy to support it, especially when I know that everything I write isn't correct, and I pointed out an error of mine quite recently in an effort to help you.

Besides as i said before the petitions wre drawn up in good faith and the way you and a minority have pulled them to pieces is totalyl out of order.

Trevor, try to get this into your head: nobody has said that the petition wasn't drawn up in good faith. I'm sure it was. Unfortunately, in my opinion the wording is too nebulous and imprecise to achieve anything because it leaves wide open the response that all files on the case have been made available, that there are no classified files, and, should reference be made to the ledgers, that there is a proceedure in place for sensitive material to be reviewed, that it has been, and that it is closed.[/QUOTE]

Both you and Paul Begg and any other could have gone down the same route I went down and gone the full distance but for whatever reason you chose not to do so. Yet you now you openly critisice others that have taken it that extra mile spending 3 years and at a great personal expense. Your actions in doing that are incomprehensible.

There was no point in going down your route as access to the files was under review following Felicity Lowde's actions. The dust clearly settled and the established route of confidential disclosure being given on signing a non-disclosure agreement was opened again, and offered to Alex Butterworth, but as a consequence of Butterworth's subsequent actions the NDA was shown to be illegal and the MPS was formally rebuked (as Butterworth claims on his blog). Thus that route was closed off.

...what was originally submitted to The Government site has been edited by the government dept responsible for these petitions and therfore does not appear as it was intended to appear.

Somehow, I doubt the truth of this statement, at least insofar as the government department was responsible for the misstatements of fact and nebulousness of the wording, but if you can actually demonstrate that this was the case why aren't you creating an almighty stink about it, especially given your cryptic insinuation of nefarious practices,

So even at this early stage the government hands are still at work...

If that petition was originally worded in a precise and focused way, and has been redically changed by the government department then you could bring very serious charges against that government department for modifying the wording of the original petition. If, however, the original wording has not been significantly altered, you have no point.

[Stewart P Evans]

Cryptic Remarks

...
I can tell you that I am now aware that as far as the Uk Governemt site is concerned what was originally submitted to The Government site has been edited by the government dept responsible for these petitions and therfore does not appear as it was intended to appear.
...
So even at this early stage the government hands are still at work.

Cryptic remarks such as the above really should be fully explained or not made at all.

[Stewart P Evans]

Problems

How many times do I have to keep saying this, the petitions were not drawn up by me. I can tell you that I am now aware that as far as the Uk Governemt site is concerned what was originally submitted to The Government site has been edited by the government dept responsible for these petitions and therfore does not appear as it was intended to appear.
Besides as i said before the petitions wre drawn up in good faith and the way you and a minority have pulled them to pieces is totalyl out of order.
Both you and Paul Begg and any other could have gone down the same route I went down and gone the full distance but for whatever reason you chose not to do so. Yet you now you openly critisice others that have taken it that extra mile spending 3 years and at a great personal expense. Your actions in doing that are incomprehensible.
There is nothing more that can be said now. We are where we are now end of story.
So even at this early stage the government hands are still at work.

I know the petitions were not drawn up by you, I haven't said that they were.

Paul and I merely pointed out the problems with the petition that people were being asked to sign. I have explained the reasons for not signing this petition. They are valid and correct reasons. It has nothing to do with 'pulling them to pieces'.

In this thread we have responded to incorrect accusations made against us by you.

As for 'going down the same route you went down', it's not as simple as that. As you have pointed out, that route involves considerable time and expense. Anyone pursuing it would obviously have to have a good reason for doing so, such as a book in the pipeline. At the time that Don and I were writing our book the damage had already been done by someone else who had totally upset the applecart and the sh*t was already flying over the legers. It was no time to pursue such a course (as we were warned) and the time that would be involved anyway was prohibitive with a book deadline already agreed.

What Paul and I have criticised, and it's valid criticism as anyone with any common sense can see, is the wording of the petition (which is self-defeating) and your attitude which, as usual, is offensive.

[Tom_Wescott]

There’s a lot of trolls on this thread.

8. Do not engage in trolling behavior. For the purposes of these forums, trolling is defined as any behavior designed to disrupt a thread. If you believe a thread is too silly, stupid or offensive to be discussed seriously, ignore it. Remember, just because you don't find a topic worthy of serious discussion, doesn't mean there aren't others who do. Disrupting someone's thread because you personally don't agree with it is trolling. Abide by the OP's stated intentions in starting the thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Paul and I have done no such thing. We merely pointed out the inherent problems with the petition.

And to include the phrase 'unwarranted secrecy surrounding this historically-important series of unsolved murders has prevailed for over 120 years' is factually incorrect and certainly guaranteed to earn the trust and co-operation of no one. It merely indicates that they are from the Trevor Marriott school of charm and enlightenment and will get them nowhere.

How many times do I have to keep saying this, the petitions were not drawn up by me. I can tell you that I am now aware that as far as the Uk Governemt site is concerned what was originally submitted to The Government site has been edited by the government dept responsible for these petitions and therfore does not appear as it was intended to appear.

Besides as i said before the petitions wre drawn up in good faith and the way you and a minority have pulled them to pieces is totalyl out of order.

Both you and Paul Begg and any other could have gone down the same route I went down and gone the full distance but for whatever reason you chose not to do so. Yet you now you openly critisice others that have taken it that extra mile spending 3 years and at a great personal expense. Your actions in doing that are incomprehensible.

There is nothing more that can be said now. We are where we are now end of story.



So even at this early stage the government hands are still at work.