Hate

[Phil Carter]

Hi Steve,

I do not expect sources. If there are sources, there are sources. But there is no other source. This means that you have to trust this single source. Of course, there is always a problem when you have just one source. And in this case, Matthews said he answered Warren on 10th November. He could have answered the 8th or 9th. But he didn´t, since there are no sources showing us that he did. So, Warren wrote his resignation and the date put on it was the 8th. And since no one mentioned his resignation before the 13th, and noone has stated an answer before the 10th, that is what we have.

Now, if you have other sources indicating that there would have been a reason for dating the letter with the 8th November, you must take those sources into consideration as well. If you do not, you ignore the past, you ignore the sources and choose to believe one single source and to put that single source before several other sources.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Perhaps an explanation to the delay is simple.
It was the weekend..and The Lord Mayors show on the 9th.
Matthews would have been extremely busy on the 9th. The 10th being his first opportunity to formally accept it.
Oh..and a small matter of a murder to sort out too.
Just a simple suggestion.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Pierre,

Do you accept Matthews statement in the House of Commons that Warren had "offered his resignation on the 8th", which Matthews said that he accepted?

Surely that indicates a source that says without a doubt, the 8th was the date of his resignation?

Perhaps I am being obtuse?


Phil

[Mayerling]

It has been an unprecedented choice, Jeff, I agree. How did it come to this? If nothing else we owe Mr Trump gratitude for having ended, against all odds, the vile political dynasties of the Clintons and the Bushes. No mean feat, to beat the establishments of both main parties. Here's to four crazy years!

Again Henry, while I am shuddering at the next four (or even eight) years, I am glad about the end of two political dynasties that really were not fully worthy of sharing that pedestal with the Adams, Roosevelt, and Kennedy families (or even the Harrisons). I doubt if Chelsea is ever going to try for public office, given what she saw happened to both parents. Nor, after Jeb Bush's checkered career as a potential Presidential candidate (not only due to Trump's bullying tactics in the primaries, but also due to the 2000 election everlasting question about the Florida vote - which decisively elected then Governor Bush's brother "W") will any of the others try to emulate the two Presidents. This is the one slim ray of hope from the 2016 election.

Curious that in a thread discussing "hate" regarding the personality of Jack the Ripper, I am admitting (as do many people) how much we hated the choice of the two national parties (I might add, we weren't really crazy about that ill-informed jack-ass of a Libertarian "alternative" either).

Jeff

[Henry Flower]

Hi Harry,

I'll gladly accept your or Phil's substitution. Oddly enough deleting from an illegal private email server reminds me that I hating voting for H. as well as seeing Trump win.

This has been one sick week!

End of accidental political commentary.

Jeff

It has been an unprecedented choice, Jeff, I agree. How did it come to this? If nothing else we owe Mr Trump gratitude for having ended, against all odds, the vile political dynasties of the Clintons and the Bushes. No mean feat, to beat the establishments of both main parties. Here's to four crazy years!

[Henry Flower]

I know. And that is the way things must be if you want history instead of ripperology.

Pierre

Having followed the feelers your theory puts out in numerous threads I'm still undecided: either you never were a historian to begin with, or you simply failed ever to notice that what you were doing with sources was no longer history but had morphed into the most asinine ripperology imaginable.

[Mayerling]

Or we could say, "However..it is going to take some doing to delete from the illegal private email server of accepted historical fact the date of the actual resignation letter itself."

Better? You're welcome

Hi Harry,

I'll gladly accept your or Phil's substitution. Oddly enough deleting from an illegal private email server reminds me that I hating voting for H. as well as seeing Trump win.

This has been one sick week!

End of accidental political commentary.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Matthews accepted Warren's resignation by letter on November 10th.

On Monday 12th November, he was asked "whether it was true, as reported in the newspapers that afternoon, that Sir Charles Warren had tendered his resignation, and that it had been accepted?”

Matthews did not mention the reprimand he had delivered to Warren—

“. . . With regard to the final question of the honourable Member, I have to say that Sir Charles Warren did, on the 8th instant, tender his resignation to Her Majesty’s Government, and that it has been accepted.”

Thus it appeared that Warren’s resignation had been accepted prior to the Millers Court murder.

Better for Warren to resign on a matter of principle, thus allowing a resumption of his military career, rather than one of incompetent leadership.

Regards,

Simon

Again, no issue with that, Matthews uses the killing to get rid of someone he wants out, with one assume private charges of incompetence, while citing the issues of principle. it allows them both to save face.


Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Matthews accepted Warren's resignation by letter on November 10th.

On Monday 12th November, he was asked "whether it was true, as reported in the newspapers that afternoon, that Sir Charles Warren had tendered his resignation, and that it had been accepted?”

Matthews did not mention the reprimand he had delivered to Warren—

“. . . With regard to the final question of the honourable Member, I have to say that Sir Charles Warren did, on the 8th instant, tender his resignation to Her Majesty’s Government, and that it has been accepted.”

Thus it appeared that Warren’s resignation had been accepted prior to the Millers Court murder.

Better for Warren to resign on a matter of principle, thus allowing a resumption of his military career, rather than one of incompetent leadership.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Because, Pierre, thanks to your wonderful example, set over more than a year, we will accept nothing without sources.

I know. And that is the way things must be if you want history instead of ripperology.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

How come you don´t understand what Simon is writing here?

"Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given."

Pierre

Pierre


I do, but don't necessarily agree with that interpretation by Simon

Notice how I reply:

"That seems reasonable, offers on the 8th but not accepted until later."



reread the end of Simon's post tas well the facts are accurate:

"Sir Charles Warren was throwing down the gauntlet. Henry Matthews could either accept that Warren was unaware of a Home Office ruling with which he disagreed, or he could take a stand and demand his immediate resignation.

Henry Matthews made his decision, and during a debate on the evening of 8th November he told the House of Commons—

"The present Commissioner, however, informs me that he was not aware of the existence of this Rule. I have accordingly drawn his attention to it, and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

". . . and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

Sir Charles Warren may have offered his resignation on the day before the Millers Court murder, but there is not a hint of it having been accepted until the day after Millers Court."


Millers court may have been a factor in accepting the offer, but it was not the only reason.
I see it as Millers court gave Matthews an excuse, to get rid of him.


Steve

[Henry Flower]

Hi Steve,

How come you don´t understand what Simon is writing here?

"Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given."

Pierre

Because, Pierre, thanks to your wonderful example, set over more than a year, we will accept nothing without sources.

[Pierre]

Hi Simon

That seems reasonable, offers on the 8th but not accepted until later.
If that explanation seems plausible to Pierre, we may be in some sort of agreement.

Steve

Hi Steve,

How come you don´t understand what Simon is writing here?

"Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given."

Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

There's a first time for everything.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi All,

Pierre can usually be relied on to talk bollocks, but in this instance he happens to be correct.

Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given.

In late October, Murray's Magazine published an article written by Sir Charles Warren. Such articles were not permitted.

In a letter to the Home Secretary dated 8th November, Sir Charles Warren argued that he was not aware he was constrained by an 1879 Home Office rule which forbade police officers from publishing works relating to their duties.

“I desire to say that I entirely decline to accept these instructions with regard to the Commissioner of Police, and I have again to place my resignation in the hands of Her Majesty’s Government.”

Sir Charles Warren was throwing down the gauntlet. Henry Matthews could either accept that Warren was unaware of a Home Office ruling with which he disagreed, or he could take a stand and demand his immediate resignation.

Henry Matthews made his decision, and during a debate on the evening of 8th November he told the House of Commons—

"The present Commissioner, however, informs me that he was not aware of the existence of this Rule. I have accordingly drawn his attention to it, and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

". . . and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

Sir Charles Warren may have offered his resignation on the day before the Millers Court murder, but there is not a hint of it having been accepted until the day after Millers Court.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

That seems reasonable, offers on the 8th but not accepted until later.
If that explanation seems plausible to Pierre, we may be in some sort of agreement.


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Simon Wood;400188

Hi All,

Pierre can usually be relied on to talk bollocks, but in this instance he happens to be correct.

Sir Charles Warren resigned over the Millers Court murder, but that is not the reason which Parliament and the public were given.

In late October, Murray's Magazine published an article written by Sir Charles Warren. Such articles were not permitted.

In a letter to the Home Secretary dated 8th November, Sir Charles Warren argued that he was not aware he was constrained by an 1879 Home Office rule which forbade police officers from publishing works relating to their duties.

“I desire to say that I entirely decline to accept these instructions with regard to the Commissioner of Police, and I have again to place my resignation in the hands of Her Majesty’s Government.”

Sir Charles Warren was throwing down the gauntlet. Henry Matthews could either accept that Warren was unaware of a Home Office ruling with which he disagreed, or he could take a stand and demand his immediate resignation.

Henry Matthews made his decision, and during a debate on the evening of 8th November he told the House of Commons—

"The present Commissioner, however, informs me that he was not aware of the existence of this Rule. I have accordingly drawn his attention to it, and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

". . . and have requested him to comply with it in future.”

Sir Charles Warren may have offered his resignation on the day before the Millers Court murder, but there is not a hint of it having been accepted until the day after Millers Court.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I see.

Regards, Pierre