The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Chris]

This latest crusade to stonewall the citadel of officialdom to gain exclusive entry to the holy grail of Victorian Scotland Yard practices, has only served to entrench reticence on the part of custodians of these historic primary sources and police index ledgers. Which I might add, have already been assessed by academics previously.

To be fair, access to these records by (other) historians was already being blocked before Trevor Marriott's Freedom of Information requests. Alex Butterworth had previously tried unsuccessfully to get access to them by the same route:

http://www.alexbutterworth.co.uk/2011/05/15/the-special-branch-ledgers-the-information-commission-and-jack-the-ripper

Also, as I understand it, whatever access has been or will be obtained by Trevor Marriott through FOI requests will also be available to others, so it's not really a question of trying to get exclusive entry to the citadel.

[auspirograph]

Where would a book on Jack the Ripper conspiracies be without mention and an adequate assessment of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch Index Ledgers?

For those who do have a personal interest in these developments on the case, details on their existence and relevance was first published in the foundational reference work on the Whitechapel murders in 2006, Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates pp. 241-242. Evans and Rumbelow.

In 2002, Dr. Lindsey Clutterbuck was granted access to the ledgers, though their existence was known before, to research a thesis on pre-WW1 foundations of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch in reference to Irish Republican extreme active campaigns. The title of the thesis, An Accident of History?, was in reference to a House of Commons debate where it was assumed that the early formation of British secret service had developed accidentally and in rapid response to mainland threats. Clutterbuck essentially argued, based on his sighting of the ledgers, that that position was historically and for reasons relevant to the Victorian period not complete. Indeed, the early and permanent Special Branch, sanctioned in 1887 and established in 1888, was an organized response founded by Monro, Williamson and Littlechild.

For reasons relevant to the period, the Whitechapel murders were brought to the attention of and investigated by Special Branch detectives in co-ordination with Scotland Yard's CID.

This latest crusade to stonewall the citadel of officialdom to gain exclusive entry to the holy grail of Victorian Scotland Yard practices, has only served to entrench reticence on the part of custodians of these historic primary sources and police index ledgers. Which I might add, have already been assessed by academics previously.

My new book, Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders, I believe is the first to fully examine the context and relevance of these sources on the Whitechapel murders as far as is reasonably possible and appropriate to an understanding of their sensitive nature in regards other matters political to the late Victorian and subsequent periods.

[Chris]

I think the following entry from the Home Office register of incoming correspondence for 1888 (HO 46/93) probably refers to the entry in the Chief Constable's Register that appears to read "[?]Kelleyey Thomas petition from Wormwood Scrubs".

Sorry - I should have mentioned for the record that the entry was on p. 584 of the register, in the "Petitions - Criminal" section.

[Chris]

It looks like Killeley to me Chris

Yes - that's how I read it. But I think it's probably the same person referred to in the Special Branch register.

[Nemo]

It looks like Killeley to me Chris

[Chris]

I think the following entry from the Home Office register of incoming correspondence for 1888 (HO 46/93) probably refers to the entry in the Chief Constable's Register that appears to read "[?]Kelleyey Thomas petition from Wormwood Scrubs". That would be consistent with indications that neighbouring entries relate to late 1888 or early 1889 (and also with the supposition that the arrangement of the entries is essentially chronological).

[Phil H]

Nuff said, Chris. I will voluntarily avoid responding to you ever again. My apologies for crossing your path and causing you the inconvenience of having to put me in my place.

As the great Duke once wrote: "I remain, sir, your humble and obedient servant (which you know d***ed well I am not)".

[Chris]

Chris, have you forgotten how to READ?

It's a shame that you are - apparently - incapable of participating in a discussion without resorting to personal insults.

If you yourself had bothered to read the article I'd linked to, you'd have seen exactly what the Information Commissioner thought of the peculiar notion that the request could have been "thoroughly reviewed" without anyone even looking at the document, and you'd have seen that the person responsible was subsequently "moved to other duties."

Rudeness and bluster are really no substitute for a basic acquaintance with the facts of the matter under discussion.

[Phil H]

Chris, have you forgotten how to READ?

[BWell, exactly. The "issues around release" were that they didn't want to release it, regardless of what it contained. [/B]

As I made CLEAR in my previous post: The issues around release may not relate to the specific contents at all.

Discussion may have centred on the nature of the files and whether a report on a "class" of documents - reports on individuals can/should be released.

If I have to spell it out, you might know the arguments in advance about release of an individual's NHS or criminal records - that they would only be available to the individual him or herself. So you might well rehearse those arguments while assuming that the record in question remains in the filing system. You would not NEED to look at it. Only at a later stage might you want to consider whether the contents of the file needed consideration. But they would NOT have been the main consideration in the initial discussion.

It just involved coming up with a list of reasons why it couldn't be released.

Not "coming up with" I venture. Those would be well established. I assume the Ponting file by definition relates to th prosecution back in the 80s, so it would almost certainly, in principle, be one you would think about carefully. Not only in regard to that particular file, but because of the implications for all similar ones, mostly I would think related to much less well known people.

That will sound very familiar to anyone who has read the documentation relating to the FOI requests for access to these Special Branch records.

You give the impression that you WANT a conspiracy by Government, that your starting point is duplicity.

In fact, most (if not all) civil servants work hard to act in the public interest. In the case of FOI etc, teams like mine are there to challenge, encourage and counter any colleagues who have not yet entered into the culture change - usually because such things are not their main role. But we also have to listen to valid arguments for confidentiality and sometimes those have to be acceded to - because of the arguments.

There are other explanations than cover-up or deliberate withholding of information.

But you probably don't want to hear that.

Phil

[Chris]

The issues around release may not relate to the specific contents at all.

Well, exactly. The "issues around release" were that they didn't want to release it, regardless of what it contained.

The "thorough review" didn't involve any consideration at all of what information was actually in the document. It just involved coming up with a list of reasons why it couldn't be released.

That will sound very familiar to anyone who has read the documentation relating to the FOI requests for access to these Special Branch records.

[Phil H]

I didn't miss the point at all, Chris.

The issues around release may not relate to the specific contents at all. Discussion may have centred on the nature of the files and whether a report on a "class" of documents - reports on individuals can/should be released. the thorough discussion may, in its initial stages, have focused on principles - does the Data Protection Act rather than FOI apply for instance. Only then may they have turned to the documenht and found it gone!

True, I cannot speak for this case nor know the exact circumstances. I cited and example from my personal experience which appears similar, to show that mistakes can happen for genuine reasons.

I may, of course, be wrong.

But a mix-up, or confusion, sounds likely to me.

Phil

[Chris]

Phil

You miss the point, which is that they claimed to have carried out a "thorough review" of whether the file could be released. Without even looking at it, evidently!

[Phil H]

These things happen - really.

I remember a case where, in good faith, we advised that a copy of a report (some decade or so old) was available and would be provided to an MP. We sincerely believed that it did. But after checking with everyone likely to have a copy - including departmental libraries - we had to conclude that with the passage of time every copy had either been destroyed or was buried so deeply in archive as to be irretrievable without excess and unjustifiable costs.

Staff had changed, all those involved in the report or in post at the time it was written and relevant had moved on or retired, so there was no continuity and the report was not relevant to current adminsitration or policy, so there was no need for current staff to be aware of it.

The ****-up theory in Government is always more likely than conspiracy (however interpreted).

Phil

[Chris]

If the ledgers were simply to disappear how would anyone be able to prove they had been destroyed?

Funnily enough, the Met has just discovered that a report on the Clive Ponting case requested by the BBC doesn't exist. Strangely, this happened only when the Information Commissioner asked for a copy of it, after the Met had carried out a "thorough review" of whether it could be released!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13430012

[mariab]

The best of lucks for your endeavour, Mr. Marriott!