How Are The Mighty Fallen

[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.

[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]

Quite right Tom.

[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?

[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

[Jeff Leahy]

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?

Put up you shut up. Supply evidence to support your claims. Either Anderson called a press conference as you claim or he did not?

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Is your boat the one with Eddowes in it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Is your boat the one with Eddowes in it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It is moored very near Hunton.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Jeff, but I'm afraid I'll have to Begg off.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Shame I was looking for a new cabin boy.

[Tom_Wescott]

We'll have to start calling you Butt Pirate Jack.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Monro"s reply

After Robert Anderson"s bombshell about how he had written anti-Parnell articles for The Times in 1887 -- calling a press conference outside his house in Notting Hill* to do so ,on April 10th 1910 ,Robert Anderson was asked the following question by journalists:

"How does it come Sir Robert ,that you as a civil servant ,were allowed to write for the press?"

"Who gave permission to write the articles? The journalists asked.

Sir Robert :" I acted quite correctly in going to Mr Monro."Will this embarrass you " I asked." He said, "I think its very important "

"Mr Monro"s judgment was that it would be a very important step in the anti-Fenian conspiracy---that is why the articles were written."

Monro"s reply:

The alleged statement of Anderson to an interviewer that it was arranged "between him and me" that he should write the letters and that they should be offered to The Times as the best medium for their publication IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT "........Monro continued---
"Anderson"s statement as to his being Political adviser to the Home Office at any time when I was in Scotland Yard is,so far as I am aware UNFOUNDED.
My principle throughout has ever been that in the police matters, politics have no place -and this principle I have followed during the whole time I was at Scotland Yard , under four different Secretaries of State ......whether the government was Liberal or Conservative.....

* 39 Linden Gardens, Notting Hill.

Could you stop being so damned offensive Pirate.I do not have to put up with your abusive remarks you know.

[Jeff Leahy]

OK just to keep this debate sizzling I have a question you can each ask yourself.

What is Lying? Is it always good or bad?

I ask this question because it was point out to me that by telling my daughter that Father Christmas would come down the chimney and bring presents at Xmas that I was indeed a liar.

And I should imagine that that is why Paul has been very careful how he words conversation about the truth and lying.

It’s all very well discussing whether or not Anderson may have lied. But what does that mean exactly?

What we are really discussing is would Anderson have told a great big fat whopper?

And it is that that Norma and her cronies have been unable to prove or identify.

And it was on that question that Martin Fido obviously went in search in Anderson’s theological books.

Because the fact remains that most human beings will lye for one reason or another.

The question here is not about that. The real question is would Anderson have told the world he new the identity of Jack the Ripper when he did NOT.

And it is the answer to that simple question that is the core here. Even if others appear to being running a sub agenda.

Pirate

PS I will get back to you Norma I have to go for a pint. But it was you that turned this personal.

[DVV]

Anderson said what he said.
Nobody was fool enough to support his claims.
That's all I have to say.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

off for a pint......how very convenient Jeff......!

You have to go for a pint? You betcha ! wriggle and squirm all you like about Father Christmas----anything but address what I have just written in answer to your request to have a specific response-----which I have given you.