How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Natalie Severn]

Anyway, Simon did give the source for this statement. It was written in a memo from the Permanent Under Secretary of State, Sir Kenelm Digby, to the Home Secretary, Charles Thomson Ritchie (Lord Ritchie) and dated 22 May 1901.

So there is the originator, the location (Home Office), and the recipient, added to which is the exact date. Now with all this information an able researcher should soon be able to locate the source document. It doesn't matter who told Simon about it, nor why Simon may want to keep his informer anonymous. What the hell is all the fuss about???

Moreover Stewart,its none of anyone else"s business who told Simon about it or why he wanted to keep whoever it was " anonymous'.....is it?

[Stewart P Evans]

Dear Old Boy

I know Simon's credentials and that they go further back than anybody who posts on this website. ...
Tom Wescott

There we were, Simon and I, way back in the 1950s, chatting about who might have written the 'Dear Boss' letter.

Well maybe that didn't happen, but it could have happened, we're both old enough I'm afraid. He's a dear old boy and don't you forget it.

[caz]

Anyway, Simon did give the source for this statement. It was written in a memo from the Permanent Under Secretary of State, Sir Kenelm Digby, to the Home Secretary, Charles Thomson Ritchie (Lord Ritchie) and dated 22 May 1901.

So there is the originator, the location (Home Office), and the recipient, added to which is the exact date. Now with all this information an able researcher should soon be able to locate the source document. It doesn't matter who told Simon about it, nor why Simon may want to keep his informer anonymous. What the hell is all the fuss about???

I should have thought that was obvious, Stewart.

Simon implied that the part-memo he posted somehow demonstrated how the mighty Anderson had fallen in 1901 (when all it really said in that context was that he was a week away from his 60th birthday and wasn't it about time he let this other chap have a crack at it).

Simon also implied that this was all he had been sent and didn't - as far as I recall - mention that he had located, or was trying to locate, the source document for himself, which would have allowed him to check whether his own thread title was perfectly fair, moderate and reasonable comment, or just the tiniest bit over the top and dramatic, and therefore potentially provocative to all those rabid pro-Anderson creatures we keep hearing about, who apparently need very little excuse to bare their fangs.

I couldn't care less what Simon chose to post, or why he didn't choose to wait until he had the whole thing in his hands. But it seems that he is now making a fuss about the fuss he claims he wasn't expecting as a result. Where has he been? Why wasn't he expecting the Spanish Inquisition? Everyone else does. Isn't he old and ugly enough to have known better?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
Now I happen to think quite the opposite.I think that the mighty Robert Anderson's has been so loudly trumpeted over the years mostly by himself but earnestly and determinedly , in these past twenty years ,by Paul Begg and Martin Fido , as being Robert Anderson ,the sole arbiter of Ripperological truth ,virtue and honour, that everything he ever said ,however daft, came to acquire the importance and sanctity of a definitely ascertainable fact!
Now I like both authors,I can think of many admirable qualities they have between them but when it comes to Robert Anderson all impartial observation , objectivity and good sense goes flying out of the window.
No wonder the iconoclasts among us have a bit of a laugh when we see Sir Robert falling off his perch from time to time,
Best
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

Point of View

I should have thought that was obvious, Stewart.
Simon implied that the part-memo he posted somehow demonstrated how the mighty Anderson had fallen in 1901 (when all it really said in that context was that he was a week away from his 60th birthday and wasn't it about time he let this other chap have a crack at it).
Simon also implied that this was all he had been sent and didn't - as far as I recall - mention that he had located, or was trying to locate, the source document for himself, which would have allowed him to check whether his own thread title was perfectly fair, moderate and reasonable comment, or just the tiniest bit over the top and dramatic, and therefore potentially provocative to all those rabid pro-Anderson creatures we keep hearing about, who apparently need very little excuse to bare their fangs.
I couldn't care less what Simon chose to post, or why he didn't choose to wait until he had the whole thing in his hands. But it seems that he is now making a fuss about the fuss he claims he wasn't expecting as a result. Where has he been? Why wasn't he expecting the Spanish Inquisition? Everyone else does. Isn't he old and ugly enough to have known better?
...Caz
X

From my own point of view I guess that I get a little peeved with critics who leap into debates with sneering comments about posters with a proven track record whilst they themselves have done very little.

We all know what Simon implied in the title, but that sort of thing is par for the course on these boards. However, I should have thought that a measured response, pointing out as you did that the memo does not really indicate anything too untoward against Anderson at this stage in his career, would be the best response. So what if it is a bit OTT and dramatic? Some people seem to like that.

In giving us the information Simon had supplied something that, as far as I am aware, others here were previously unaware of. Assuming it to be factual, and I see no reason not to, it gives anyone interested enough a good starting point for further research. Of course, Simon is not obliged to give any further information if he doesn't want to.

I am sure that you 'couldn't care less what Simon chose to post' and that said I am surprised that you joined in. Simon may not have expected the Spanish Inquisition and maybe he is old and ugly (like me) but rather than putting off people who contribute new information with vitriolic responses, perhaps a measured response, even measured criticism, would be better. And if you don't watch out I'll be getting the comfy chair out.

[Stewart P Evans]

Spanish Inquisition

...
Where has he been? Why wasn't he expecting the Spanish Inquisition? Everyone else does. Isn't he old and ugly enough to have known better?
...Caz
X

"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition..."

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..."

[Stewart P Evans]

1987

Begg and Fido have never claimed such a thing! you really are digging the dirt up your own....xvxcdhdi
Please apologize
Jeff

From The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper, by Martin Fido, 1987, on Anderson -

"Now one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster...He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to one's brothers; but he denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear truth they would only misuse...That is the nature of scrupulosity. But it is quite incompatible with publishing lies in books for a wide audience."

And -

"Since neither Anderson nor Macnaghten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority."

[Stewart P Evans]

1988

Begg and Fido have never claimed such a thing! you really are digging the dirt up your own....xvxcdhdi
Please apologize
Jeff

From Jack the Ripper The Uncensored Facts by Paul Begg, 1988 -

"Anderson's writings need to be fully examined to see if he was regularly in the habit of exaggeration and over-statement before one could assert with any authority that he is likely to have been anything less than strictly accurate when he said that the Ripper's identity was a 'definitely ascertained fact'. This is such a precise statement that I feel it has to be accepted until very good evidence can be produced - if ever it can be produced - to show that he was wrong or otherwise imprecise."

[Trevor Marriott]

Despite all that has been written about Anderson and his honesty and integrity coupled with what he says about himself.

It is a fact that he has lied in the past about major and important issues and this has been proved by credible witnesses.

Therefore his references to The Ripper must be treated with great caution and scrutinised thoroughly.

I belive that scrutinsiation is complete and what he has written about The Ripper should not be relied upon as factual.

You people on here can go on or ever and a day quoting extracts from various authors books and what those authors belive and argue about it all, but it is not going to change a thing.

[Jeff Leahy]

BEGG: “Anderson is a complex character and no doubt subject to all the failings and foibles that beset all human beings”

Begg has never stated that Anderson would NEVER lie. And to try and claim he has is beneath you all.

Having given the subject considerable thought there really is very little difference in the opinions of most authorities on the subject. Most agreeing that Andersons character is ‘complicated’.

What we have is a disagreement about balance and weight of argument in either direction. NO one has ever proved that Anderson LIED about his Polish Jew theory. Indeed it seems rather improbable that he did given what is known. We simply do not have access to all the information that leads Anderson to his ‘Definitively Ascertained Fact’ statement.

FIDO: “Not that he [Anderson] was as priggishly truthful as Washington with the legendary cherry tree. As an ex-Secret Serviceman, he had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to ones brothers, but he denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear truth they would only misuse"…BEGG "Hair-splitting? Of course. That is the nature of scrupulosity. But it is quite incompatible with publishing lies in books for a wide audience.”

BEGG “Martin’s position is simply that Anderson would lie if it achieved a greater good, such as bringing a murderer or terrorist to justice, but would not do so to enhance his own reputation or that of the CID. That assessment may be wrong, although it would appear soundly based in an understanding of the period.”

If anyone wishes to make the criticism that Martin Fido is incorrect then I think they should do us all the favour of demonstrating why this is so and where Martin Fido, an expert in Victorian literature, has gone wrong. That way we can all have a reasoned and considered conversation about the subject.

Until that time I feel some of you owe Paul an apology.

Pirate

[Ally]

If anyone wishes to make the criticism that Martin Fido is incorrect then I think they should do us all the favour of demonstrating why this is so and where Martin Fido, an expert in Victorian literature, has gone wrong. That way we can all have a reasoned and considered conversation about the subject.

Sure. Being an expert in Victorian Literature doesn't give one a special magical window into the soul of a man who lived during that time. It does not qualify one to make judgments on which situations a man would or would not tell lies. Martin's opinion that Anderson wouldn't tell lies to increase his own reputation is an opinion of no more weight than anyone else's. He has absolutely NO idea what situations Anderson would or would not have lied in, and he could have degrees in every single facet of Victorian life and it still would not make him more able to judge the character of a single, unique individual in that period than the average lay person. Anderson told lies. We know this. We cannot parse it out and say oh, he never would have lied in this situation...we don't know for the simple reason that none of us, Martin included, knew the man. And even if we had actually KNOWN the man, people have a way of surprising you with what they are willing to do to increase and protect their own precious reputations.

Until that time I feel some of you owe Paul an apology.

That's all right (alright) Paul owes quite a few of us apologies as well, so we'll just call us even.

[Jeff Leahy]

I agree entirely that **** stirring is good for viewing figures. But then we are all aware that you would love an excuse to get me banned again.

I shall therefore leave everyone to your usual idol rhetoric, hot air and wasted space.
Likely the Wicked Witch of the West holds no jurisdiction over the great wizard.

Pirate

[Ally]

So let me see if I get this straight. You say you won't reply over fear of my getting you banned again (don't you just love whiners who blame everyone else for what they themselves do) and so, because of this great fear you supposedly have of my awesome powers, rather than providing a rational, factual argument to refute a single thing I've said, you instead resort to childish insults and name calling.

So you are only capable of insulting me because you don't want to be banned, not because you have no rational response? A sound argument that.

[Jeff Leahy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eFubQuK0dg&feature=related

Pirate

[Ally]

Thanks for proving my point which is twofold:

1. You have no real fear of being banned for anything you post and instead, use that phrase as a whiny little rant to take shots at the administration of the website.

2. You are incapable of a rational argument unless Paul does your writing and left to your own devices, put up off topic stuff like that.

And you are apparently clueless as well. Elphaba is my hero. So I consider it a compliment. Read my signature, do some googling. Realize you are an idiot. (More the musical version than the book of course, Maguire had such a dark and homo-erotic view of it all.)