The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[lynn cates]

language

Hello Phil. Thanks. I try to avoid popular usage every chance I get. My life is a campaign for clarity and precision of language. Comes with my curious occupation.

Sadly, "conspiracy" seems to have only one function vis-a-vis the WCM--and that is to end discussion.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

...I try to avoid popular usage every chance I get. My life is a campaign for clarity and precision of language.

Oddly, I know, I always thought that communication was all about being understood. hence the "plain english" campaign.

Doesn't that also mean though that one has to understand how others use language in a contemporary way? How others will interpret what we say, and what they mean by their use of words?

That was what my post was trying to get at.

I'm all for elitism, but NOT if it gets in the way of clear communication.

Phil

[Chris]

Maybe someone can explain what harm could be done by publishing a name, if no one could tell that it was the name of an informant.

Because if there are known to be informants in the list of names there are those who won't, or are not capable of making that distinction.
...
They might well be seen as a list of traitors with the concomitant that vengeance should be taken on their descendants.

You're really suggesting that if this document were released with the names of those identifiable as informants redacted, then someone would start taking other names from it - names of people for which there was no indication that they were informants - tracing their descendants and murdering them?

I can't believe you're serious.

[Phil H]

Chris

I can't believe you're serious.

Well you should.

What we are talking about here (at least what I am talking about) is the assessment of risk.

You can take judgements without accountability or responsibility for their impact. Officials cannot - they are answerable.

demonstrably there are very strange people out there who will use information to harm others - animal rights activists, anti-fox-hunting activists, nationalists, all sorts.

Northern ireland is again seeing sectarian murders by extreme nationalist groups - how can anyone say how information might be used. Judgement has to be given to the release of information. As we don't know precisely what that information is, how it is laid out,or its context, we cannot make that judgement - but someone has to.

Hence the process being gone through.

I hate to think what would follow if your "I don't care" approach. was adopted.

Freedom of information is one thing, irresponsibility in its use and application is quite another - but that is, of course my opinion.

Phil

[Chris]

Phil

Kindly don't misrepresent what I've said, and don't put words I haven't said into my mouth.

What I am saying is that I think the risk is being outlandishly exaggerated by some people. That's entirely different from saying that the risk shouldn't be properly assessed, or that "I don't care" what the risk is.

Surely that distinction is not hard to grasp?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Phil. Thanks. I try to avoid popular usage every chance I get. My life is a campaign for clarity and precision of language. Comes with my curious occupation.

Sadly, "conspiracy" seems to have only one function vis-a-vis the WCM--and that is to end discussion.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, Phil, Chris et al.

The answer to the possibility that the Whitechapel murders involved some type of conspiracy is probably the fact that the police keep the case open for several years after the canonical murders had ceased, so that it appeared that the killer had left the area, died, or been incarcerated and when, indeed, many police officials and other observers (e.g., writer George R. Sims) began to think the man had died or committed suicide. The evident curiosity that continued to be shown by the police who had worked on the case in the opinions they shared either in their own books or in interviews would appear to show that they did not believe a conspiracy was involved.

All the best

Chris

[Phil H]

Surely that distinction is not hard to grasp?

It was to me from the way you phrased your previous post!

You're really suggesting that if this document were released with the names of those identifiable as informants redacted, then someone would start taking other names from it - names of people for which there was no indication that they were informants - tracing their descendants and murdering them?

That phrasing suggested to me that you disagree with the approach the authorities are taking. I gave you a straight answer.

[Chris]

That phrasing suggested to me that you disagree with the approach the authorities are taking.

Obviously. So what?

I don't think I can state it any more simply than I have done already, so all I can do is repeat what I said before:
What I am saying is that I think the risk is being outlandishly exaggerated by some people. That's entirely different from saying that the risk shouldn't be properly assessed, or that "I don't care" what the risk is.

[Chris]

The "J. E. Kennedy" whose police observation Dr. Tanner was complaining about in the Chief Constables's Register may have been a clerical error. In June 1888 Mr E. J. Kennedy, MP for Sligo South, announced his resignation and applied for and received stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.

Another possibility may be that the entry, "Dr Tanner referring to his case in the House of Commons," relates to questions asked by Tanner on 20 December 1888 about the prosecution of two police officers, Sergeant Kennedy and Constable Booth, by the (Nationalist) Mayor of Cork on charges of assault and obstruction. It had been reported in the Cork newspapers that the magistrate had said "That, taking into consideration the serious consequences of a criminal conviction to Sergeant Kennedy, &c., the Bench had determined to dismiss the case;"

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/dec/20/riots-c-ireland-the-mayor-of-cork

Unfortunately I can't find any mention of Sergeant Kennedy's initials to confirm this.

But if this is entry were to be dated c. 20 December 1888, that would suggest that the entry mentioning a Catherine Kelly, only seven lines earlier, would be later than the date of Eddowes's murder.

[lynn cates]

dude?

Hello Phil. Perhaps, but just try adapting to the contemporary, "Awesome dude!" It's enough to give one the vapours.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

it's not about time

Hello Chris.

"But if this is entry were to be dated c. 20 December 1888, that would suggest that the entry mentioning a Catherine Kelly, only seven lines earlier, would be later than the date of Eddowes's murder."

My understanding is that the ledgers are not in chronological order.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

My understanding is that the ledgers are not in chronological order.

I'd be very surprised if they weren't. The reason for arranging records like this by the first letter of the surname was that you could have the convenience of adding entries in chronological order, but could later find entries for a particular surname without having to search through the whole document.

[jason_c]

Its assumed these Special Branch Ledgers deal with Fenians. Whats the likelihood they deal with continental security instead? Russia, Poland or Germany perhaps?

Im viewing this from a Kosminski angle and have no idea if im way off the mark..

[Chris]

Another possibility may be that the entry, "Dr Tanner referring to his case in the House of Commons," relates to questions asked by Tanner on 20 December 1888 about the prosecution of two police officers, Sergeant Kennedy and Constable Booth, by the (Nationalist) Mayor of Cork on charges of assault and obstruction. It had been reported in the Cork newspapers that the magistrate had said "That, taking into consideration the serious consequences of a criminal conviction to Sergeant Kennedy, &c., the Bench had determined to dismiss the case;"

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1888/dec/20/riots-c-ireland-the-mayor-of-cork

Unfortunately I can't find any mention of Sergeant Kennedy's initials to confirm this.

And, on the other hand, online sources refer to a J. E. Kennedy who was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood from Cork, who was active in the 1880s. But I can't find any reference to Tanner having mentioned him in Parliament.

[mariab]

But if this is entry were to be dated c. 20 December 1888, that would suggest that the entry mentioning a Catherine Kelly, only seven lines earlier, would be later than the date of Eddowes's murder.

Very astute, IF there were NO subsequent additions in the ledgers (i.e., and the Kellys were a subsequent addition).

Quote Lynn Cates:
My understanding is that the ledgers are not in chronological order.

I'd be very surprised if they weren't. The reason for arranging records like this by the first letter of the surname was that you could have the convenience of adding entries in chronological order, but could later find entries for a particular surname without having to search through the whole document.

It makes sense that the ledgers are basically chronological, but that subesequently additions could have been made? (And when I say “additions“, I mean for commodity, NOT conspiracy.)