conspiracys and police cover ups!

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that its simply a matter of historical fact that senior officials at the Home Office, CID, Scotland Yard and I believe a group called Section "D" conspired to keep dangerous and controversial information from the general public. As secret agencies do today...the conspiracy resulting from many individuals having general knowledge of something they all suppress.

At the time of the Ripper killings the secret agencies of Britain were handling allegations of senior parliamentary encouragement of murder on behalf of the Irish cause, a planned assassination of Lord Balfour, they were actively managing double agents and spies in London, Paris and New York, they were trying to penetrate the network that planned the Jubilee Bombing the year before, they were analyzing Socialist threats and other Economic threats domestic and abroad....and oh yeah, many of those same men were the senior men assigned to the Whitechapel Murders.

Anyone who sees a society lying dormant with the exclusion of a mad killer running loose just aint looking hard enough.

[Phil H]

As secret agencies do today...the conspiracy resulting from many individuals having general knowledge of something they all suppress.

Official secrecy is hardly a "conspiracy" per se.

It would surely only be a "conspiracy" if those involved are working OUTSIDE the normal guidelines of (say in the UK) the Official Secrets Act and (today) the Freedom of Information Act.

Officials are required to maintain confidentiality for personal, legal, security, defence, espionage, copyright and other reasons.

it would only become a "conspiracy" if a clique or group within an organisation kept information secret without authority from their seniors; OR if an entire organisation sought to hide information that it had a duty to pass on to (say) politicians, Parliament or the public - and lied to or misled others in doing so. Then the conspiracy becomes connected with a desire to avoid responsibility or accountability.

thus i would say that the holocaust in Germany before 1945 was kept secret from the general public and referred to in guarded/oblique ways. But because it was known about at the highest levels of Government, and was an exercise of agreed policy, could not IMHO be regarded as a "conspiracy".

Phil H

Phil H

[Stephen Thomas]

As secret agencies do today...the conspiracy resulting from many individuals having general knowledge of something they all suppress.

Official secrecy is hardly a "conspiracy" per se.

It would surely only be a "conspiracy" if those involved are working OUTSIDE the normal guidelines of (say in the UK) the Official Secrets Act and (today) the Freedom of Information Act.

Officials are required to maintain confidentiality for personal, legal, security, defence, espionage, copyright and other reasons.

it would only become a "conspiracy" if a clique or group within an organisation kept information secret without authority from their seniors; OR if an entire organisation sought to hide information that it had a duty to pass on to (say) politicians, Parliament or the public - and lied to or misled others in doing so. Then the conspiracy becomes connected with a desire to avoid responsibility or accountability.

Thus I would say that the holocaust in Germany before 1945 was kept secret from the general public and referred to in guarded/oblique ways. But because it was known about at the highest levels of Government, and was an exercise of agreed policy, could not IMHO be regarded as a "conspiracy".

A lovely post, Phil. Precise and apt.

[Michael W Richards]

[B].... OR if an entire organisation sought to hide information that it had a duty to pass on to (say) politicians, Parliament or the public - and lied to or misled others in doing so. Then the conspiracy becomes connected with a desire to avoid responsibility or accountability.

Phil H

I have to say Phil that the above capture of your post backs up the term I used.

One example would be whether or not HRH was informed of the specifics of, or received a general warning concerning the Jubilee Bomb Plot in 1887...? Or whether anyone felt that intelligence knowledge of imminent bombings, or of the whereabouts of wanted criminals at large in general, would be in the local law enforcement or public's interest to know about?

I stand by the term I used, despite Stephens hurrah.

And what is Andersons Times stunt but a conspiracy?

The term is used loosely, I grant you that, and as you said, there are groups within governments that by law can withhold information from the public or their own department if "required". My point was that within the groups we know about in 1888 that were involved with the International Security Issues existing in London and dealing with threats from abroad, we can see that information that was crucial to the safety of HM, and of Members of Parliament, and perhaps the general public was withheld at the discretion of the department or individual.

Cheers Phil

[Phil H]

The question must be - were they doing what they did with authority.

The Queen (Her Majesty, not Her Royal Highness btw) may not have needed to know the details of the Jubilee plot, if it were operational and confidential.

Whether Anderson went "rogue" as the phrase is, I don't know. But given his apparent personality and beliefs, I doubt it.

In the C19th many of the organisational practices, ethical codes and structures were only just coming into being or were fairly new. I have written recently about the divisions and conflicts within the policing authorities about control and responsibilities.

Was Munro a "conspirator" because he di d not tell Warren everything about his secret work? No. Why? because his terms of reference made him directly responsible to the Home Office in certain areas of his responsibilities. Munro had no need to inform warren in those areas and that annoyed the Chief Commissioner.

So I think we need to be precise in out thinking and respect a very different C19th culture when we address these issues.

Phil H

[Monty]

So I think we need to be precise in out thinking and respect a very different C19th culture when we address these issues.

After months of reading some hefty crap, a simple sentence that restores hope.

Good to have you back Phil.

Monty

[lynn cates]

conspiracy

Hello Phil.

"Whether Anderson went "rogue" as the phrase is, I don't know. But given his apparent personality and beliefs, I doubt it."

What Anderson DID do was to describe himself as a part of "The Anti-Fenian conspiracy."

His words, not mine.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

19th c

Hello Neil.

" . . . a simple sentence that restores hope."

Goes double for me. Our propensity for using 20th c norms--particularly in psychology and statistics--has been less than fruitful.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

What Anderson DID do was to describe himself as a part of "The Anti-Fenian conspiracy."

So show me how the word "conspiracy was used in C19th and whether it had, in all circumstances, a derogatory implication.

Phil H

[lynn cates]

breathing together

Hello Phil. Thanks. I tend to agree with your underlying thesis. "Conspiracy" is a mere word--neutral in fact, derogatory only in our subjective connotations.

But it's also a word both over used and over feared.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Watergate, and especially the subsequent White House cover-up, gave a new meaning to conspiracy.

It was compounded by theorising about the deaths of John (particularly) and Robert Kennedy.

Certainly I think that before around 1970 there was less willingness to believe in highly placed conspiracy.

The word, in my knowledge tended to be used about the murder of Caesar or the Cato Street Conspiracy of c 1820. Thus criminal PLOTS against leaders or governments.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

Watergate, and especially the subsequent White House cover-up, gave a new meaning to conspiracy.

It was compounded by theorising about the deaths of John (particularly) and Robert Kennedy.

Certainly I think that before around 1970 there was less willingness to believe in highly placed conspiracy.

The word, in my knowledge tended to be used about the murder of Caesar or the Cato Street Conspiracy of c 1820. Thus criminal PLOTS against leaders or governments.

Phil H

Hi Phil,

It seems to me that the words Conspiracy and Theorizing go hand in hand around here at times,..... but the word itself can be used in either malicious or benign contexts, it need not refer to something as earthshaking as a coup like you mention in your last sentence.

I think the Land Act around the time of the Ripper murders could be construed as a conspiracy, I think workers united in illegal strike action offers a form of conspiracy, certainly a group of conspirators,....and I believe the Warren Commission as a group conspired to leave some key questions unsatisfactorily unanswered.

Whether it was simply for the greater good, or whether it was improper and dysfunctional is up to the reader, ... there is little doubt though that often the secrecy in the LVP in London, ...(which, when it involves more than one person to keep it, then becomes a conspiracy of sorts),....impeded the due processes of the law.

Cheers

[Phil H]

I did not use or infer the word coup, Michael. You used that word to distort what i had said, which is clear from my example and summary.

You are. of course, entitled to hold whatever anachronistic views you wish. Feel free.

Phil H