How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Pirate. Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

And thats why I love you all and would welcome you all, yes even Ally, with open arms.

Seriously? You'd hug a chick?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Seriously? You'd hug a chick?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Only if her hubby wasn't about?

are we off topic?

Pirate

PS do you think she'd wear he pointy hat and green make up?

[Tom_Wescott]

are we off topic?

Yes, and I hope Ally doesn't ban me for it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Is Kent far from Oklahoma?

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, and I hope Ally doesn't ban me for it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott P.S. Is Kent far from Oklahoma?

I dont know. However the Landlord does a great pint called 'Landlord'

And when you ask him questions about Sir Robert Anderson, somehow he always seems to be correct? You should all try coming to kent?

It does the constitution FAB

Perhaps the next conference?

Pirate

PS I was down there the other night and a canadian film crew turned up with all sorts of odd characters claiming to know about JtR. I'll stick to the 'LANDLORD"!

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.