Faecal matter on apron piece

[PaulB]

Hello Paul (if you prefer). Thanks. I must add both those to my library.

I wish someone would do Sir Ed's biography. Shed some light on room 56 and why he met with Michael Davitt not to expose his work. It may have to do with the two letters that Red Jim and O'Brien claimed they had which could bring down Sir Ed. At any rate, they were blackmailing him.

Cheers.
LC

Indeed, a very shadowy figure. And there were some even shadowier! I guess we'll never know the full ins and outs, although I suspect that there must be some documents somewhere, be they in Britain, Ireland or America.

[lynn cates]

books

Hello Paul (if you prefer). Thanks. I must add both those to my library.

I wish someone would do Sir Ed's biography. Shed some light on room 56 and why he met with Michael Davitt not to expose his work. It may have to do with the two letters that Red Jim and O'Brien claimed they had which could bring down Sir Ed. At any rate, they were blackmailing him.

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

The point, dear friends and aquaintances of Monty, is that whether you like it or not, the higher echelons of the Met Police were at that time a complete shambles. From 1870 until around 1898, the way the ordinary copper was treated was a disgrace. Monro tried to implement all sorts of things and politically, was met with a shambles there too. The Ass. Comm was nowhere near a policeman, the Commissioner in 1888 was an Army man who tried in the three years in his job to "regimentalise" the force, and the very very few men that actually knew what they were doing were in foresight, steamrollered.

Phil,
Have looked at the reasons why Warren was appointed and the general reaction of the media to his appointment? Have you looked at the way Matthews dealt with the Commissioner's office? Have you looked at the actions of Home Office mandarins like Lushington? Have you looked at Salisbury's correspondence with Queen Victoria about Monro and wondered why he is the only Met Commissioner not to have received a knighthood? Have you considered that senior appointments in the police and prison service etc were generally given to men with military backgrounds? Have you considered the fact that Commissioners and Ast Commissioners often had an Irish or Indian career background and wondered why? Did Warren really try to 'regimentalise' the force, or is this a myth based on his efforts to instill discipline? And have you looked at the role played by the likes of Frederick Williamson and John Shore in buffering the Commissioner and Asst Commissioner from the senior officers and the ranks? And have you considered the conclusions reached by Prof Porter about what Anderson meant by breaking the law? How do you interpret Jenkinson's thoughts about the Met, or the opinion of Arthur Harding, or the closing of ranks around Bogan?

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg. Thank you so much for that. I was not aware of Porter's "other" tome.

I am familiar with O' Broin but haven't read his book. Hope to change that soon. (I have heard of the bomb planting before. It may have involved "Red Jim.")

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
It's Paul. Unless you have a predilection of Mr Begg! The O'Broin is excellent, although old and difficult to follow without some understanding of what he's on about, or so I thought anyway. It's a pity somebody hasn't published the whole manuscript as it is of great historical interest. Plots and Paranoia is a good book too. And there were a fair few claims floating around about, about Anderson and Littlechild too, for the charges to be empty, IMHO, but it's not something on which I can claim to have even a gnat-sized authority.

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=Monty;230152]Phil,

This will be brief.

Firstly apology accepted. I'm sure I'm not innocent at times either.

Secondly, we are drastically off topic. So I will not prolong an exchange which will undoubtedly drag on and on and on.

Suffice to say, I do not agree with many points but they are yours as a person so will be respected.

Its far too hot to be bothering about such things just noe.

Monty


Hello Monty,

Agreed.. we are drastically off topic.. on a thread I started!.. Oops. Apologies all.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

This will be brief.

Firstly apology accepted. I'm sure I'm not innocent at times either.

Secondly, we are drastically off topic. So I will not prolong an exchange which will undoubtedly drag on and on and on.

Suffice to say, I do not agree with many points but they are yours as a person so will be respected.

Its far too hot to be bothering about such things just noe.

Monty


PS, Simon provided evidence of Policing (which has been with them since the concept of Constables and Watchmen.) Nothing re the 'myth' of Jack.

[martin wilson]

Well,you know there is the West Midland Serious Crime Squad, as well as something like 300 deaths in custody and no charges brought against anybody.
Personally I like the Byford report into the Yorkshire ripper investigation, after interviewing sutcliffe, detective Andrew Laptew had a coppers nose that something was not right about him, so much so he attached a note saying so to the interview form for review by senior officers, when the Byford enquiry team were going through the paperwork, this note had conveniently disappeared,although they could tell that something had been stapled to the interview form by the little holes in it.........
Amongst the hoi polloi,theres no doubt the filth will stitch you up like a kipper, and I have always wondered what would have happened in the Ian Tomlinson case if it had not been for that pesky banker with a camera.
Not saying anybody did anything in the JTR case, but surely its an investigators right to at least wonder about it.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

I believe you will find references to Anderson bending or breaking the law on these boards. But you want us to reproduce examples. Hmmm. And when the example is given (Simon)? Specific comment upon it? None.

To your reply.

If thats not anti Police I do not know what is. You have constantly bought question of the Police from Warren to Anderson to Swanson to the beat bobby. You have either suggested gross incompitence (ridiculing and mocking what you see as stupidity) or dirty shenanigans.

Anti police is a very sweeping statement. I will give you a hint of my feelings about the beat police, which I will not discuss in public. Ask the Guildford Ghost where he got that rather rare police whistle of his from. About 4 years ago I believe. And I do not wish it discussed further on this forum. Thank you.

OK, lets take Halse. You suggest that Halse removed the apron piece from Eddowes body and placed it in Goulston Street. For Godsake why? Why would he do that?

You then go on to suggest some sinister reason (which Im still trying to figure out) for doing such an act.

This is blatant sensationalism Phil, and is a trait.

This is completely false and you know it. For the umpteenth time, I WROTE, that had it not been for the fact that Halse was a policeman, he would have been in the ideal position to have been an accomplice.

I do not suggest anything. As for the why question.. I'll answer that too.
I don't know. Do you?
As far as sinister reason that you are still trying to figure out, you are way ahead of me if you are doing so! Because I am not! Duh!

By stating IF Phil, does that give you a get out clause?....you still stated it.

Pure argumentative semantics.

Such sarcasm is disappointing Phil, and below the standards you claim you have.

My apologies. Yes, it was below the belt. But after having seen time and again your defence of the police, I began to wonder. Please accept the apologies.

Actually I know several people who are descended from H Division staff, and City staff, who served during the times of the murders. All are aware of what is being discussed and how their ancestors and their colleagues have been percieved by yourself and others here. The majority do not care, however a few are indeed upset and frustrated that you (and others) condem and ridicule their relations. Some have even took pains to provide evidences of great acts of valour as if to say 'look, he wasnt that bad, or that stupid or whatever after all'. Rest assured I tell them that they have nothing to prove to me.

So yes, I will defend the Police - where it is only right to do so. Sure there are bad ones and good ones however I find it staggering that a man, over a 120 odd years later, can so easily state that these men were incompetent when he has never experienced the conditions they worked under, their stresses (not only of the job but their lives also) nor was sent out onto the streets in which a serial killer is operating.

Is that something you can relate to Phil?

Oh yes Monty. THIS I can relate to. Genuinely.
I hope your friends and aquaintances reading this for the umpteenth time see that my beef is not with any individual copper on the beat at thyat time. It is how they were ordered to take care of a matter nobody had any experience of. The point, dear friends and aquaintances of Monty, is that whether you like it or not, the higher echelons of the Met Police were at that time a complete shambles. From 1870 until around 1898, the way the ordinary copper was treated was a disgrace. Monro tried to implement all sorts of things and politically, was met with a shambles there too. The Ass. Comm was nowhere near a policeman, the Commissioner in 1888 was an Army man who tried in the three years in his job to "regimentalise" the force, and the very very few men that actually knew what they were doing were in foresight, steamrollered.

If any of your friends and aquaintances need a PERSONAL explanation as to my thoughts, I am more than willing to email them to answer anyu questions they may have. I repeat, it has b*gger all to do with PC Fred Blogs
on his beat, working all God's hours in poor pay etc etc etc. The incompetence comes from above Monty, above PC Fred Bloggs and his tireless workers. I hope you at last get the message and your friends do too.

That was in reference to the killer Phil, not you.

There was no indication in your writing that was the case.

Never said you did, I was speaking generally. It seems you and Lynn feel every comment is solely for your benefit

As above, If you are quoting a person, then answering them, what else are we to assume? Some clarity would seem to be in order.

Ignoring the obvious inferiority complex Phil, you may not have used the word conspiracy however in suggesting the Police covered up singular murders to save face is, in itself, a suggestion of conspiracy.

For the umpteenth time, please do look up the subtle differences in the English language. I don't use the word conspiracy with reason. If I had meant to do it, I would. As far as the inferiority complex is concerned... no problem here. Probably because I don't have one.

As Paul states, seeing as youve never seen how I work, nor I you for that matter, I fail to see how you can pass comment on that.

There is much evidence of your work and research. It is there for all to see, as you tell us often. I compare that with my own methods. They are different. I assure you. And no, I don't need to explain myself and what I do nor how I do it. Just take it from me.. we do things completely differently.

Im not commenting upon this.

No, didn't think you would somehow. It's real life examples of what goes on in the world.

The Catholic sexual assualt scandal had witnesses and evidencies Phil....again, where is yours to state the Police did a cover up?

Innocent till proven guilty. Its the basis of British law. However you have judged and are ready to hang based on your own personal belief.

You are avoiding the issue. I didnt use the word cover up either.. the issue is that people in authority have ALWAYS closed their eyes to things, "covered up" things, brushed things under the carpet etc. The Catholic Priest scandal is a 100% example of how it happened, and for all I know, is still happening.. I don't know.. I'm neither Catholic nor religious. What I do know is that HISTORICALLY, deceit and skull-duggery in higher places have been going on since time began. English History is full of it. A certain American under the War of Independence was caught doing it.. trying to favour the English by taking back handers. The examples are thousands.
Therefore the question is laid open in this case too.. and with Anderson breaking the law, etc, the questions are many as to his reasons for doing so, and his reasons for his over bloated ego that the Met Police were holier than thou.
Life isn't like that.

Thrice again, when Lynn, Simon and yourself proved the evidences to these damming theories of yours, and not humble suggestions and the constant use of the word IF, then I may look at things you way.

Simon gave the example you could well have found yourself here on the boards and even in the A-Z, and others, and you are well aware of them, I'd wager.

So.. kindly think about things from another perspective. It's fine by me if you reject it... I don't personally care either way...but as you saw, 4 people answered that my posting gave them food for thought.

It's fine that 10 reject it too!

Political and social occurrances and the background to these happenings are of the utmost importance, when dovetailed together. It casts a completely different light on the popular image of Whitechapel 1888.

One of the books I have on sale is East End 1888. (See books thread). It is a must for understanding the Jewish perspective in Whitechapel. And no, I'm not Jewish either.

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Mr. Begg. Thank you so much for that. I was not aware of Porter's "other" tome.

I am familiar with O' Broin but haven't read his book. Hope to change that soon. (I have heard of the bomb planting before. It may have involved "Red Jim.")

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Well you have certainly been to the Begg school of counter arguments which teaches how to argue against something but not provide any evidence to negate the issues you are arguing against.

Given that you have been consistently asked for and failed to provide support for your arguments, arguments with which nobody agrees, the above comment is a joke.

Thank you so much Lynn. Short and old (initially from 1987, I see.) Does it discuss lots of Special Branch stuff? Is it outdated compared to Cluckerwell?

Lynn/Maria, I'm sure you are aware of Bernard Porter's Plots and Paranoia as well as Origins of the Vigilant State. Both are very good books and well worth reading, though seriously out of date, as you say, Lynn. We refer to the Anderson quote cited by Simon in the A to Z, citing Bernard Porter's conclusion that Anderson probably meant fairly innocuous things like searching premises without a warrant (Plots and Paranoia), but, of course, the police activities could have been far more serious is we accept other accusations, notably those of William Henry Joyce to the effect that Anderson used agents provocateur to plant bombs on suspected Fenians to justify their arrest. (O’Broin, The Prime Informer). All the main sources are now very old and there is a real need for some new histories of the SB. I wish they'd give someone like Christopher Andrew access to their files, as MI6 did for The Defence of the Realm, for all the many and manifold deficiencies of that book.

[lynn cates]

discussion

Hello Maria. Thanks. Clutterbuck? Well, it does discuss BOTH the Irish situation and anarchists.

But much new material AFTER 1987.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Thank you so much Lynn. Short and old (initially from 1987, I see.) Does it discuss lots of Special Branch stuff? Is it outdated compared to Cluckerwell?

[lynn cates]

Porter, Hey! Porter

Hello Maria. Thanks. Hope you are better now.

"[W]hat Bernard Porter's book is about?"

It's about 195 pp. (heh-heh) Seriously, it describes the rise of the "political police" in Britain.

Try here.

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Vigilant-State-Metropolitan-Special/dp/085115283X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343084363&sr=8-1&keywords=vigilant+state+porter

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

To Monty:
Thank you so much for clarifying, just checked it in Sugden.

To Lynn:
Can I inquire what Bernard Porter's book is about? Victorian police? (It's not listed on amazon.)
Thank you so much for your emails Lynn, I'll respond real soon, when I get some stuff together that might interest you. (Plus have been sick for the last 2 days.)

[Monty]

*Sigh

I've better things to than pass comments on your humourless comments old man.

Haven't you got an article to complete?

Monty