How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

The below from the A-Z clearly states that there 'seems to be no hard reason for thinking that Anderson was a liar...' but, there has now been plenty of evidence adduced to show this is not the case at all.

[ATTACH]8821[/ATTACH]

I dont know if I'm missing something here but at no time does BEGG state Anderson was 'incapable of Lying'? Go back and read what Begg claims in post ref: 130

This disagreement as you well know is about 'balance'

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Can you answer Stewart"s question about the mysterious "omissions"?

To Pirate Jeff,
I twist the truth! My Oh My what a cheek from the truth twister himself!
Anyway, yes-no problem -can supply all that without a problem but ,I think you owe Stewart an answer before I do that, viz Why was important information about Anderson"s " fall from grace" omitted from the final edition of the A-Z?

[Natalie Severn]

Quite right Tom.

[Jeff Leahy]

.Moreover, It was clearly contradicted by Robert Anderson himself on April 10th 1910 ,and the pages of the House of Commons minutes, April 11th -20th 1910, where there begins to appear an abundance of evidence to show that Robert Anderson was a very dodgy character indeed.
Paul and Martin"s words are actually an apology for Robert Anderson whose lies and excuses incuded some very dishonourable behaviour such as dropping Monro in the dirt over the Times Articles of 1887 Anderson had penned 1910 as well as he himself admitting he had lied.What we have as a conclusion from both Paul and Martin Fido is a whitewash of everything he said or did by the peculiar assertion from them that as he was such a complex character, yes , he may have lied in one set of circumstances but not in another such as telling the world he had known, as a definitely ascertainable fact,who Jack the Ripper was.Humbug I say!

Perhaps then Norma you could supply the following information?

Where Anderson called a press conference? What exactly he told the worlds press? And why Monroe was so upset by this?

Is it not true that Monroe acknowledged that he had probably approved in principle that such a series of articles would have been beneficial? Can you show any evidence that Monroe did anything about the published articles or Anderson for that matter?

As always you twist the truth to suit your argument and supply no supporting evidence. Lets see what you have?

Pirate

PS Tom, You can come and play on my boat anytime big boy

[Natalie Severn]

And so we come full circle and return to Simon's initial post. And it seems that Simon's initial header of 'How Are The Mighty Fallen' is not so wide of the mark after all.
Moreover, why, we must ask, was this revealing, enlightening and important assessment of Anderson abruptly removed from the A-Z and omitted from the 1996 (last) edition? And removed at a time when there was increasing criticism of Anderson.

[ATTACH]8822[/ATTACH]

Good question, Stewart. Why indeed was such a revealing statement about Anderson removed from The later edition of the A-Z ?
I look forward to the answer.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't know, I've heard about the endowment of Englishmen. Begg might need Openshaw's microscope!

Jeff's name backwards is 'He Lay Jeff'. How gay is that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

So can Paul Begg...he's neighbors with Jeff Leahy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well spotted Tom! And Paul wont need his spectacles to do so!

[Stewart P Evans]

Ahhh...

There's only so much space available, and they had to keep room for write-ups on Donald Bell, John Pope de Locksley, and that like.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Ahhh...I thought that might be the reason.

[Tom_Wescott]

Moreover, why, we must ask, was this revealing, enlightening and important assessment of Anderson abruptly removed from the A-Z and omitted from the 1996 (last) edition?

There's only so much space available, and they had to keep room for write-ups on Donald Bell, John Pope de Locksley, and the like.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Libel?

So can Paul Begg...he's neighbors with Jeff Leahy.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Isn't that libel Tom? No, on second thoughts...

[Tom_Wescott]

Sir Robert could spot a "self abuser", especially a low class Jewish "self abuser" ,from his bathroom window !

So can Paul Begg...he's neighbors with Jeff Leahy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

And So

Hi All,
Part of a memo from Sir Kenelm Edward Digby [Permanent Under Secretary of State, Home Office] to Charles Thomson Ritchie [Home Secretary], 22nd May 1901—
"About three months ago you requested Mr. Anderson to send in his resignation as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. You were led to take this step in consequence of the necessity which in your view had arisen for alteration in the staff and organization of the Metropolitan Police, which made it desirable for a new appointment to be made to the post held by Mr. Anderson. You were particularly conscious that a fresh appointment should be made to the leadership of the Criminal Investigation Department, of a person who should serve for a considerable time under Sir Edward Bradford . . ."
Regards,
Simon

And so we come full circle and return to Simon's initial post. And it seems that Simon's initial header of 'How Are The Mighty Fallen' is not so wide of the mark after all.

For the Police Review states, on Anderson's retirement, that his tenure of office was considered to be characterised by 'comfortable placidity'; his temperament was more suited to his social and religious leanings and not the CID; that he was 'hardly the man to take an active part in fighting the criminal classes of London.' And to be the head of the detectives he lacked 'the requisite kind of knowledge of the world and of men.' In fact he was 'hardly a looked-for choice' on the part of the Home Secretary to be head of the CID.

To my mind this vindicates Simon's heading that has been so severely criticised here. Moreover, why, we must ask, was this revealing, enlightening and important assessment of Anderson abruptly removed from the A-Z and omitted from the 1996 (last) edition? And removed at a time when there was increasing criticism of Anderson.

[Natalie Severn]

Nats, I have absolutely no idea how any of your post (snipped in the middle) relates to my little joke about spanking, baby lotion and comfy chairs. Is there something else about Sir Robert (or Paul Begg) that we should know?

And "parity of information" didn't come from my post so why quote it back at me as if it did??

Love,

Caz
X

Yes , since you ask but mark you this is strictly private Caz:

confidential

Five more things you should know about Sir Robert Anderson:

Sir Robert could spot a sexual maniac specially of a virulent type , from a mile off!

Sir Robert could spot a "low class Polish Jew" specially those who wanted to dodge out of Gentile Justice , without his spectacles on!

Sir Robert could spot a "self abuser", especially a low class Jewish "self abuser" ,from his bathroom window !

Sir Robert could spot a "loathsome creature"-specially one recently arrived from abroad, whenever he set foot in Whitechapel!

And do you know,when Sir Rob and Swanny , went to the loony bin to play "spot the ripper" they spotted him at once engaged in the same unmentionable acts the instant they were confronted with him !

[Stewart P Evans]

Not The Case

...
I’m stating as FACT that BEGG has Never claimed Anderson was incapable of LYING.
How do I know this? Well because I asked him directly and got a direct reply.
If you choose not to agree with their assessment that’s up to you.
If you can supply proof that Anderson Lied about his ‘Definitively Ascertained Fact’ then I’m sure we’d all like to see it.
In the mean time the various commentators will continue to look at what Anderson said and draw differing conclusions as to his reliability.
At the moment what you indeed have are DOUBTS AND OBJECTIONS and NO substance.
Perhaps you would like to apologize to Mr Begg now?
PIRATE
PS BEGG: "Monro certainly denied that he had given Anderson permission to write the articles, although he admitted that he may have informally agreed that such a series of articles would be productive, and Anderson himself acknowledged that many matters such as the articles were discussed informally over dinner. So permission probably was given, or Anderson thought it had been, but informally and unofficially."

The below from the A-Z clearly states that there 'seems to be no hard reason for thinking that Anderson was a liar...' but, there has now been plenty of evidence adduced to show this is not the case at all.

[Jeff Leahy]

Arr! a' lick of the cat