How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Stewart P Evans]

No Way

OK the offer is this. We get three cameras and some lights we find a neutral venue/location and an independent presenter.
We film a round the table discussion on Sir Robert Anderson. Asking the question could he have lied?
I chop it together, put some titles and music on it (any supporting pix), much like the 2009 conference DVD and we put it out through the same network. It will have a limited niche audience perhaps a few hundred copies. But it will be great TV and hopefully give a new platform to such an interesting debate.
Pirate

Do you not understand English? There is no way that I wish to work with you on anything - finito.

[Jeff Leahy]

You can argue what ever you like I'm offering a platform to reach an interested audience.

All can speak their mind then.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Let's argue pro hominem.

To argue pro hominem is to argue for the person presenting the argument rather than to argue in favor of the argument itself. It is the logical inverse of the ad hominem argument.

"Anderson is an honest man, and Anderson says the Ripper was a Polish Jew, so therefore it must be true,"

The pro hominem argument is often used to confuse the topic at hand and to elicit an emotional appeal from an audience.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

OK the offer is this. We get three cameras and some lights we find a neutral venue/location and an independent presenter.

We film a round the table discussion on Sir Robert Anderson. Asking the question could he have lied?

I chop it together, put some titles and music on it (any supporting pix), much like the 2009 conference DVD and we put it out through the same network. It will have a limited niche audience perhaps a few hundred copies. But it will be great TV and hopefully give a new platform to such an interesting debate.

Pirate

[robhouse]

Hi Stewart,

Of course you are correct. Everyone can lie. Most people do lie at times. I certainly have. I have never once stated that Anderson wouldn't tell a lie, nor would I ever make such an argument because it is ridiculous. Nor do I think a person's religious beliefs mean he wouldnt tell a lie. I do not think Anderson was a saint.

You say that you want to present a fair and objective and balanced view of the man. I agree that this is something we should do. As assistant commissioner, Anderson was not without his faults, as I doubt anyone would be in such a position. Anderson certainly was involved in some sketchy activities as a spymaster. And I think it is fair of you to have presented facts that counter the way Anderson has been built up by previous "pro-Anderson" authors.

However, first of all, I am not accountable for things that were said by other authors. I should not have to defend things that other people said, and that I do not agree with. But this is not simply a debate between you and Paul and Martin. We are, all of us, searching for the truth.

Additionally, as I have said to you before, I think that you may have "over corrected" any perceived pro-Anderson bias, to the point where people on these message boards seem to think Anderson was akin to Mephistopheles incarnate. Several posters here on Casebook have made numerous completely over-the-top assertions as to Anderson's character. And you never seem to step in to correct people when they say things like this. I think this perhaps gives the impression that you are not as objective as you claim to be. There is a great deal of anti-Anderson stuff repeated on here over and over again that I do not think is in any way objective. And I think you might agree...

If people on one side present Anderson as saintly and incapable of doing wrong, does it really correct the problem by presenting the person of incapable of doing right? Is this how we arrive at objectivity? I do not think so.

All of this is still ad hominem logic. It basically goes like this:
Anderson lied in such-and-such an instance ---> therefore he cannot be trusted ---> therefore what he said about the Polish Jew was a lie.
This is simply faulty logic. But yes, the same ad hominem argument cuts both ways, to your point.

In summary, it is possible Anderson might have lied. But we certainly cannot conclude that he did lie, nor even that it is probable that he lied in this instance.

RH

[Stewart P Evans]

Steadying Hand

Have a care, Stewart. With Paul - and you - in very poor health, and the new A-Z due out in a few months (by Keith as well as Paul and Martin), your timing might backfire on you. You may blame Jeff, or use him as your excuse, but is this really what you want to be doing? What do you hope to achieve, and wouldn't it better for you to give it, and yourself, a rest?
You suggested that the 'Police Review' piece was deliberately pulled out of the later edition because it was so damning of Anderson (and offered a better reason why his resignation was requested than the simple fact that he was fast approaching 60 and they had Edward Henry in their sights for the job). But if that were the case, why do you suppose it was allowed in to start with? How could it have got past anyone as biased as you are suggesting?
Love,
Caz
X

Thank you for your concern Caz.

Keith is a steadying hand on the tiller and there's not much wrong with his objectivity. He is almost certainly the one who found the Police Review article on Anderson's retirement in the first place and you will see that similar articles on the retirement of other officers are used.

However, the article is so relevent, relating as it does to Anderson's capabilities as a senior police officer, that I can see no reason whatsoever for it being dropped. I don't know the reason why it was dropped, perhaps someone else can tell us why.

Regarding bias many agree with what I say, but I appear to be the only one foolish enough to speak my mind.

[Stewart P Evans]

Objectivity

Agreed, and this is what I meant when I said that all the attacks on Anderson are using the ad hominem argument essentially.
Rob H

But the point is, it was/is the pro-Anderson contingent that chose to build up his character and reputation to the degree of saying that he would not lie in this context and so his claimed solution must be the best possible scenario.

Have we not seen here, from the Police Review extract on Anderson at the time of his retirement, that he was considered unsuitable for his role as head of the CID thus supporting Simon's contention? These are not simple ad hominem arguments they are relevant facts about Anderson in the proper assessment of his character and obtaining a balanced view of the man.

Why was this important piece on him dropped from the last A-Z?

Obviously he didn't lie about everything and no one has suggested that he did. I have argued that we must allow for the possibility that he could have lied in this case, and have presented a credible case for that possibility. Recently on these boards I actually argued in support of what he said in a contemporary report. All we are seeking is objectivity.

[Phil Carter]

Agreed, and this is what I meant when I said that all the attacks on Anderson are using the ad hominem argument essentially.

Rob H

Hello Rob,

I have never said that everything Anderson said was a lie. However his lies, taking the law into his own hands etc, as mentioned earlier, is in direct contrast to his deep Christian ethics and morals, which he preaches with ardent fervour in all his religious books. Therefore, I maintain, this man's word is not trustworthy nor is it reliable.

best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

Hi Phil,

The problem is, not everything Anderson said was a lie. Not everything the biggest liar in the history of the world says would be a lie. So in the great scheme of things I'm not sure how helpful it is to say "Look at all these lies he told - this proves beyond reasonable doubt that he lied about his certainty that the ripper had been identified".

My biggest problem with Anderson would be the 'moral certainty' issue. I have always said he should not have come out with what he did in the absence of legal proof. But if he believed he was right, that would have made him no better or worse than every policeman since who has said "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this crime", to mean that they are certain they got the swine but for whatever reason he couldn't be convicted.

The thing is, even the ripper himself could have sued if he had been named on the basis of moral certainty, and he could have won if there was no proof. So while I don't personally find Kosminski a convincing suspect, based on what we know about him, I don't see how a war against Sir Robert "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" Anderson can ever provide us with the definitely ascertained fact that the ripper wasn't a low class Polish Jew, or that Anderson wasn't motivated by a genuine personal conviction that he was.

Love,

Caz
X

Agreed, and this is what I meant when I said that all the attacks on Anderson are using the ad hominem argument essentially.

Rob H

[caz]

Well now I am quite confused. Caz, how can pointing out factual errors be seen as something to be cautioned against and warned against because it might "backfire"?

If there are errors it should have been pointed out long ago. My question is not why would you do this Stewart but what hasn't it been done already?

I assumed it had been done already, Ally, or else how would 'more than one person' have become 'infuriated' about being misled?

Again, it's the timing that I find worrying. It's hardly a matter of life and death, is it? Well let's hope it's not, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz,

Yes, I would normally agree entirely ...But, he used an excuse.. "not in the interests of my old department." That Caz, is called a cop -out. That is why I dont believe a word of this man's statement about the Polish Jew. "Not in the interests" etc...indeed...

I respect the answer you gave Caz, and yes, it should be that simple..its obvious. But not with a cop-out line that accompanies the accusation. Anderson is playing games. Spymaster. Disinformation.
He is good at that.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

The problem is, not everything Anderson said was a lie. Not everything the biggest liar in the history of the world says would be a lie. So in the great scheme of things I'm not sure how helpful it is to say "Look at all these lies he told - this proves beyond reasonable doubt that he lied about his certainty that the ripper had been identified".

My biggest problem with Anderson would be the 'moral certainty' issue. I have always said he should not have come out with what he did in the absence of legal proof. But if he believed he was right, that would have made him no better or worse than every policeman since who has said "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this crime", to mean that they are certain they got the swine but for whatever reason he couldn't be convicted.

The thing is, even the ripper himself could have sued if he had been named on the basis of moral certainty, and he could have won if there was no proof. So while I don't personally find Kosminski a convincing suspect, based on what we know about him, I don't see how a war against Sir Robert "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" Anderson can ever provide us with the definitely ascertained fact that the ripper wasn't a low class Polish Jew, or that Anderson wasn't motivated by a genuine personal conviction that he was.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

The Digby memo suggests a dissatisfaction with Anderson's performance or perhaps a perceived future unsuitability for the fast-changing role of Assistant Commissioner ["men far overstaying their energies" as it was termed in the 1873 Third Report on Civil Service Expenditure], resulting in him being asked to "send in his resignation" in February 1901.

It has been suggested that Anderson's resignation was a matter of him having almost reached an automatic retirement age of 60 on 29th May 1901, but if that was the case the part of the memo we are party to would have been couched in different terms or the matter not mentioned at all. It is perhaps also important to note that the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica [1910-1911] tells us that in the British civil service the "age is fixed for compulsory retirement at sixty-five" and that "in exceptional cases a prolongation of five years is within the powers of the civil service commissioners." This compulsory retirement age was introduced into the British Civil Service in 1890.

In contrast Anderson suggests that his "retirement" was a personal decision, telling us in TLSOMOL that "I retired when I did for the excellent reason that after forty busy years I felt a strong desire for a more restful life. And, moreover, I had nothing to gain by remaining longer in office."

You must make what you will of this disparity, but I would venture to suggest it is an instance of Anderson putting a positive spin on events, taking care to portray himself in what he considered the best possible light. There are further examples of this trait in TLSOMOL [not including the obvious one], details of which I will post at a later date.

Regards,

Simon

RE : Retirement. I have a number of close personal freinds in the current MET and all plan to retire at 55 years. One friend at
50 Years of age (must be exhausting looking after the queen)

But don't policeman in the MET retire early?

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The Digby memo suggests a dissatisfaction with Anderson's performance or perhaps a perceived future unsuitability for the fast-changing role of Assistant Commissioner ["men far overstaying their energies" as it was termed in the 1873 Third Report on Civil Service Expenditure], resulting in him being asked to "send in his resignation" in February 1901.

It has been suggested that Anderson's resignation was a matter of him having almost reached an automatic retirement age of 60 on 29th May 1901, but if that was the case the part of the memo we are party to would have been couched in different terms or the matter not mentioned at all. It is perhaps also important to note that the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica [1910-1911] tells us that in the British civil service the "age is fixed for compulsory retirement at sixty-five" and that "in exceptional cases a prolongation of five years is within the powers of the civil service commissioners." This compulsory retirement age was introduced into the British Civil Service in 1890.

In contrast Anderson suggests that his "retirement" was a personal decision, telling us in TLSOMOL that "I retired when I did for the excellent reason that after forty busy years I felt a strong desire for a more restful life. And, moreover, I had nothing to gain by remaining longer in office."

You must make what you will of this disparity, but I would venture to suggest it is an instance of Anderson putting a positive spin on events, taking care to portray himself in what he considered the best possible light. There are further examples of this trait in TLSOMOL [not including the obvious one], details of which I will post at a later date.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

Well now I am quite confused. Caz, how can pointing out factual errors be seen as something to be cautioned against and warned against because it might "backfire"?

If there are errors it should have been pointed out long ago. My question is not why would you do this Stewart but what hasn't it been done already?

[caz]

You seem out to stir up trouble. Fine I am now preparing a long post regarding a bad error by your 'hero' that affected other commentators and even resulted in a historian being in error as he was using his work as a source.

I didn't really want go there and get into all this as I shall have 'personal attack' and 'sour grapes' screamed at me - but you have asked for it. If you want war you have got it, the gloves are off.

You are going to have a lot to answer for laughing boy. In the past I have chosen not to mention the many errors contained in Paul's books and especially the A-Z. But I am sick to the teeth of your nonsense and although I have the greatest sympathy for Paul and his poor health (I'm not in the best of health myself either) I am, probably against my better judgement, going to start with the history of a gross error that has a long story and has infuriated more than one person that it misled.

Have a care, Stewart. With Paul - and you - in very poor health, and the new A-Z due out in a few months (by Keith as well as Paul and Martin), your timing might backfire on you. You may blame Jeff, or use him as your excuse, but is this really what you want to be doing? What do you hope to achieve, and wouldn't it better for you to give it, and yourself, a rest?

You suggested that the 'Police Review' piece was deliberately pulled out of the later edition because it was so damning of Anderson (and offered a better reason why his resignation was requested than the simple fact that he was fast approaching 60 and they had Edward Henry in their sights for the job). But if that were the case, why do you suppose it was allowed in to start with? How could it have got past anyone as biased as you are suggesting?

Love,

Caz
X