PC Edward Watkins (City Police)

[Abberline43519]

Has anyone found Watkins service papers from the London Metropolitan Archives. I emailed them and the City of London Police Museum and here are my responses.(in Red for LMA/Blue City Police)

LMA...

The surviving records include the warrant books of the City of London Police. These contain an entry for every police officer in service with that force beginning on the 9th April 1832 when the warrant number system was introduced and therefore include men who began their service with either the Day Police or Nightly Watch, both predecessors to the police force which were absorbed into it upon its formal creation in 1839.

We have checked the warrant books for Edward Watkins and are please to confirm that the following information was located:

Name: Edward Watkins
Warrant Number: 4420
Date Joined: 15th May 1871
Aged: 27years 11 months
Marital Status: Married
no. of children: 2
Appointed to: 11 division 6 as PC 944
Retired: Retired on claim 28th May 1896
Remarks: Pension: £56 14s 1d

We also hold the surviving personnel files. We have checked these and I am pleased to confirm that a file does survive in box (Ref: CLA/048/01/770). Personnel files often contain a standard format declaration of the applicant to join the Force, a brief record of service (usually just a record of pay increases and decreases) and a list of rewards and commendations. In addition the often contain correspondence relating to pension payments and subsequent death.



City Police Museum...

I have located the following information about PC Watkins:

Joined City of London Police on 25th May 1871 aged 27 years.

He was given Warrant Number 4420 and Collar Number 944.

He was posted to Division 6 and retired on a Claim on 28th May 1896. He received a pension of £56 14s 1d per annum.

Unfortunately, I do not have any of our historical career records. These are all held by the London Metropolitan Archives (contact details below). If you contact LMA and explain that you are looking for PC Watkins file, they should be able to locate it for you.



Hope these. When I get round to going to the LMA I will try to post pictures of the file here however if anyone has already out please do post pictures here!

[lynn cates]

access

Hello Abberline. Good work. Will you have access to his entire file?

Cheers.
LC

[Rob Clack]

Try 'Ripperologist' issue 105.

Rob

[Monty]

Yeah, it would save you hard work.

Monty

[Monty]

Just a taster.

I believe Ripperologist is now available for free. All you have to do is send them your Email, and a request for a back issue.....I suggest 105, as that has all the Watkins info.

Cheers
Monty

[Abberline43519]

Thanks All. I'll do that.

[Monty]

Here's the link.

http://www.ripperologist.biz/

As I say, its free.


Monty

[GUT]

Thanks Monty wasn't aware of that.

[Abberline43519]

Hello Abberline. Good work. Will you have access to his entire file?

Cheers.
LC

Yes, anyone can get full access to his file.

[Bridewell]

Is it just me, or did the City of London Police have a rather more relaxed approach to discipline than did the Met?

[Scott Nelson]

Scotland Yard presented a more disciplined demeanor because they interacted with the Home Office more frequently than the City Force.

[Abberline43519]

because they interacted with the Home Office more frequently than the City Force.

Obviously! If you have look at the Watch Committee minutes for a small Borough Police you can see dismissals for minor offences.

[Monty]

Both were covered by their relevant police acts, which were similar, so the foundation was there.

The impression I get is each disciplinary case was viewed individually. Take the Watkins incident I posted, his reprimand is pretty lax however it was his first offence, so a chance seems to be given.

DC New, H division CID man who, during the midst of 1888, was removed to uniform for assaulting a woman, that was a good reason for dismissal also.

Yet he remained.

You make a good point Colin.

Monty

[Bridewell]

DC New, H division CID man who, during the midst of 1888, was removed to uniform for assaulting a woman, that was a good reason for dismissal also.

Yet he remained.

Monty

This approach by C.I.D. always irked me. They selected from the uniform pool yet, when they made a bad choice, were able to return the reject to uniform. Personally I think they should always have been made to stick with their choices; it might make them select with greater care.

For anyone who doesn't know (not Neil!) the designation 'Detective' before an officer's rank does not (despite what is suggested by the Casebook rank structure!) indicate promotion. Aspiring detectives receive specialist training for the role and there is a perception (particularly among C.I.D. officers) of higher status. The ranks, however, are the same.

[Wickerman]

This approach by C.I.D. always irked me. They selected from the uniform pool yet, when they made a bad choice, were able to return the reject to uniform. Personally I think they should always have been made to stick with their choices; it might make them select with greater care.

For anyone who doesn't know (not Neil!) the designation 'Detective' before an officer's rank does not (despite what is suggested by the Casebook rank structure!) indicate promotion. Aspiring detectives receive specialist training for the role and there is a perception (particularly among C.I.D. officers) of higher status. The ranks, however, are the same.

I've always understood it to refer to their role (job, work?), not rank.
A detective department was a separate & secret entity back in the early 1800's. If I recall, it was due to an assassination?, or some such event, that it was decided to augment the police department with a unit who's sole purpose was to 'detect', in order to prevent crime, as opposed to 'policing' the city. Wasn't this the raw beginnings of the CID?
I'm going from memory here...