How Are The Mighty Fallen

[caz]

What, in God's name, are you talking about?

Likewise, Colin.

You carry on reading into my posts whatever takes your fancy, because you evidently think you know something I don't.

Since Stewart has not been claiming to know the 'truth' about the ripper, or even to think he knows, and has always accepted Anderson's suspect as a legitimate one worthy of further investigation and discussion, I fail to see how you thought my comments (which so wound you up) could possibly have applied to him. They don't apply to Stewart. They didn't apply to you either. You are not the only two posters reading or contributing to this thread.

Got it now? You leapt to two false conclusions by failing to read carefully enough and misinterpreting my intentions. For your sake I hope you don't make a habit of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

Hi Colin,

These were my words in a post addressed to you. I wasn't accusing anyone, directly or indirectly, of trying to get rid of unwanted ripper suspects 'this way' or any other way. This parting comment was a general one, relating directly back to what I was saying in my post to Phil.

My sentence above in bold can be expanded thus:

If nobody currently criticising the work of Anderson, Swanson, Fido or Begg is doing so in the hope or expectation of eliminating the associated suspects, then that's fine, because it wouldn't work.

You thought I was putting words in your mouth and actually accusing you of having that purpose in mind.

When I explained that I was doing no such thing, you immediately switched to imagining it must be Stewart I was accusing.

Can you now see that I was accusing neither of you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Septic Blue]

You carry on reading into my posts whatever takes your fancy, because you evidently think you know something I don't.

Since Stewart has not been claiming to know the 'truth' about the ripper, or even to think he knows, and has always accepted Anderson's suspect as a legitimate one worthy of further investigation and discussion, I fail to see how you thought my comments (which so wound you up) could possibly have applied to him. They don't apply to Stewart. They didn't apply to you either. You are not the only two posters reading or contributing to this thread.

Got it now? You leapt to two false conclusions by failing to read carefully enough and misinterpreting my intentions. For your sake I hope you don't make a habit of it.

"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.

Stewart Evans cited a subset of the countless trivial errors, which are to be found in Paul Begg's "The Facts", purely in response to the antagonistic and provocative insistence, of an obsequious idiot, that Mr. Begg is infallible.

You came along, and made a mockery of Stewart's chosen tactic, which you attempted to candy-coat, with one of those nauseating blue 'winks'; and then went on to assert that "unwanted ripper suspects" could not be eliminated by way of "ripping into the work of any ripper authority".

Guilty, as charged!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If everybody's quite done with throwing their toys out of the pram, here's a contemporary professional opinion of Anderson.

Carl Heath: Modern Penology and the Punishment of Death

Westminster Review No. 170, September 1908, pp. 325-9—

"Sir Robert Anderson, in his book, 'Crime and Criminals', is at some pains to point out that he is dealing with crimes against property, and not with those against the person. His whole conception of crime, its cause and treatment, is vitiated by a peculiar jumble of narrow theology and social prejudice, and an absolute lack of any intelligent understanding of the social and humanitarian movement of today, which movement, I venture to assert, is, in this question of criminality, half a century ahead of Sir Robert Anderson."

Regards,

Simon

[jason_c]

Hi All,

If everybody's quite done with throwing their toys out of the pram, here's a contemporary professional opinion of Anderson.

Carl Heath: Modern Penology and the Punishment of Death

Westminster Review No. 170, September 1908, pp. 325-9—

"Sir Robert Anderson, in his book, 'Crime and Criminals', is at some pains to point out that he is dealing with crimes against property, and not with those against the person. His whole conception of crime, its cause and treatment, is vitiated by a peculiar jumble of narrow theology and social prejudice, and an absolute lack of any intelligent understanding of the social and humanitarian movement of today, which movement, I venture to assert, is, in this question of criminality, half a century ahead of Sir Robert Anderson."

Regards,

Simon

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

Simon,

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

Cheers,

Mike

[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.

[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

[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

[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