How Are The Mighty Fallen

[robhouse]

Hello Stewart,

That would be fine, but we rarely if ever see anyone post any "pro-Anderson" stuff posted on here. On these boards anyway, there is a heavy bias toward the anti-Anderson direction... the vast majority of the sources and quotes that are ever posted about him are negative. The end result is, in my opinion, that we do not arrive at a very balanced view of the man. Unless you think posts like Phil's are fair and balanced... or accurate, which I do not. But that sort of thinking is pretty much par for the course around here. I cannot help but thinking that the so-called anti-Anderson camp is motivated by the desire to undermine what he said about the Ripper... which means it is biased. But that is just my opinion.

Rob H

[Phil Carter]

That's fine - as long as the pro-Anderson faction don't respond to any new piece of information that is presented on Anderson, but may not reflect favourably on him, with cries of 'character assassination', 'foul play', 'personal attack', 'ad hominem argument', or similar war cry.

Hello Stewart, Mike,

I totally agree with the above. Like I said, I welcome all new pieces of information that give us more of an insight into Anderson. Sadly, I feel the positive things are few and far between, unless the source is a co-fanatic religionist.


best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

That's fine - as long as the pro-Anderson faction don't respond to any new piece of information that is presented on Anderson, but may not reflect favourably on him, with cries of 'character assassination', 'foul play', 'personal attack', 'ad hominem argument', or similar war cry.

Stewart,

I'm not so sure anyone is pro-Anderson. I think we're anti-anti maybe.

Thanks for keeping it real.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

That's Fine

Phil,
It seems as if everyone agrees that Anderson was human and therefore complex. Why don't we leave it at that? Unless there's an agenda to spring out of character denigration, what's the point? We all understand the balance thing.
Mike

That's fine - as long as the pro-Anderson faction don't respond to any new piece of information that is presented on Anderson, but may not reflect favourably on him, with cries of 'character assassination', 'foul play', 'personal attack', 'ad hominem argument', or similar war cry.

[The Good Michael]

Phil,

It seems as if everyone agrees that Anderson was human and therefore complex. Why don't we leave it at that? Unless there's an agenda to spring out of character denigration, what's the point? We all understand the balance thing.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Sorry to disappoint you, but to the best of my knowledge there's no deep, dark agenda complete with new suspect lurking offstage.

Drat! I was waiting and waiting too! Thanks Simon.


Mike

[Phil Carter]

Career politician eh?

Churchill was a career politician, so his words can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Hello Jason,

Respectfully. A pinch of salt? They (Churchill's words) were taken with a "pinch of salt" by the government of the day in the mid to late 1930's when he clearly warned Parliament about the rise of Adolf Hitler. They put his words down to politics, and that Adolf Hitler was of no realistic danger to Great Britain or elsewhere in Europe.

Do please excuse me if I beg to differ.... I would much rather take notice of the words of Sir Winston Churchill, than the words of Sir Robert Anderson. The two men are light years from each other in terms of how to do a job, and gain the TRUST and the support of the masses.

I am still waiting to read statements from a politician or historical commentator giving Anderson a glowing report. I welcome them infact. Unless it came from a co-fanatic religionist, I doubt whether you will find many.

Because we need balance, don't we?

Without those glowing words, it looks more and more llike the points made before. He was NOT adept enough at his job, leant heavily on religious and moral views that were outdated, and lied in his own interests...
Oh, and he admittedly broke the law to suit the situation too, when applicable.

What a policeman!.

Trustworthy? Reliable? Honest? I don't think so.
And that lot raises HUGE questions over his judgement and statements around the Whitechapel murders.

It simply cannot be ignored.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi GM,

Unlike Pip, your expectations are not great. Sorry to disappoint you, but to the best of my knowledge there's no deep, dark agenda complete with new suspect lurking offstage.

Try to think of Anderson criticisms as more of a spring cleaning exercise.

Regards,

Simon

[jason_c]

Hello Jason,

Respectfully, surely all views of Anderson, which may or may not be negative, must be taken into account when assessing the man? Fair assessment cannot be just saying "yeah yeah, another that didn't agree with his way of doing things...so what"
That is just ignoring the fact. He is criticised, by many. Churchill included. Are we to ignore the words of this famous statesman as well?



How wonderful he is! The most striking examples of the opposite of the above come from Anderson himself!

As many have noticed, the man's ego is self inflated. If we are talking about balance, then everyone has to take the rough with the smooth. No matter how many examples of how bad, or good, Anderson was seen to be.

Social predjudice, is a part of Simon's quote. That, I maintain, is important. This bears direct relation to his job. And to the Whitechapel murders.
These things simply cannot be ignored.

best wishes

Phil

Churchill was a career politician, so his words can be taken with a pinch of salt. Churchill's views on Naziism are profound, Churchill's views on India are not.

It is perhaps too easy to dismiss criticisms of Anderson as politically motivated, I agree. But many of these criticisms were motivated by political and religious differences. It is difficult to know which criticisms of Anderson to take seriously and which to dismiss.

The original quote is from an individual whose main purpose is dealing with penal reform. A reactionary such as Andersons would have been public enemy no.1 to such a reform minded individual.

On Anderson's inflated ego I agree with you.

[The Good Michael]

Simon,

Those are only my expectations. I suspect you can answer those questions.

Cheers,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi GM,

What denigration of Anderson? What different candidate theory? What mudslinging for purposes that must come soon? What diabolical fiend, able to slaughter innocents [and others] at his whim?

Regards,

Simon

[The Good Michael]

Hey Caz,

Just to get back to your statement that seems to have caused the conflagration: I agree with you 100%. If the denigration of Anderson by some people is only for the purpose of elevating a different candidate or theory, which I believe was the initial impetus for the discussion, it begins a rocky foundation for that theory or suspect. Everyone seems to agree that Anderson, by virtue of being human, was imperfect. It is the mudslinging for purposes that must come soon, that is distasteful and will cause me to ignore any theory that has Anderson as some diabolical fiend, able to slaughter innocents (or others) at his whim.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

"Got it now?"

What I've "got", is that you are attempting to bullshit your way out of a corner, into which you have been forced.

I don't appreciate being called a liar, Colin, or being 'forced' anywhere - especially by a fellow Chelsea fan.

You interpreted my words one way; I explained precisely how you had misinterpreted them and come up with something I didn't actually write and couldn't possibly have meant, by referring you back to the relevant posts. I can do no more than that.

Stewart is not exactly the shy retiring kind and I'd have got the rough edge of his tongue long before now, had he made the same daft leaps that you have made about my words and intentions. Happily he is big and ugly enough to work out for himself, without your help, when something applies to him and when it doesn't, and more importantly when something can't apply to him and wasn't applied to him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

And? So?

Anderson criticized once again for his social and religious views by a contemporary with differing views on the subject.

Hello Jason,

Respectfully, surely all views of Anderson, which may or may not be negative, must be taken into account when assessing the man? Fair assessment cannot be just saying "yeah yeah, another that didn't agree with his way of doing things...so what"
That is just ignoring the fact. He is criticised, by many. Churchill included. Are we to ignore the words of this famous statesman as well?

His whole conception of crime, its cause and treatment, is vitiated by a peculiar jumble of narrow theology and social prejudice

How wonderful he is! The most striking examples of the opposite of the above come from Anderson himself!

As many have noticed, the man's ego is self inflated. If we are talking about balance, then everyone has to take the rough with the smooth. No matter how many examples of how bad, or good, Anderson was seen to be.

Social predjudice, is a part of Simon's quote. That, I maintain, is important.

His whole conception of crime

This bears direct relation to his job. And to the Whitechapel murders.
These things simply cannot be ignored.

best wishes

Phil

[JSchmidt]

I might be painting a big bullseye on myself but: Do we know for sure that the Pirate is indeed acting in cahoots with Mr. Begg? For all we know he may well be repeating the same stuff over and over without addressing the responses in a constructive way all for his own.
The saddest outcome of this would be if two eminent authors came into conflict through the meddling of a third party that appropriated the authority of one of them.