Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

You've been taking drama queen lessons haven't you?

Yeah, because I've learnt from the best.

[Ally]

First of all, I think you wildly misunderstand what the word "backstabbing" implies. I am not bound by what Phil has done to help you or the "community".

In order for the "community" to engage in backstabbing, then Phil would have had to have helped every single member of it and they would all have had to have turned on him en masse.

Everyone on this board has been wildly supportive of Phil except for two people: Me and AP.

And I am only saying it is logical to remain neutral until you see the photo. That's the freaking backstabbing you are accusing me of doing: that people should wait until they view the evidence for themselves before making up their mind.

SO you have cursed out and told to go to hell several dozen people, none of whom have actually come close to backstabbing Phillip.

I recognize he's your friend and you are indignant on his behalf but get a grip.

[Monty]

Glenn,

Whoa there boy,

I think Allys stance on this has been a wise one.

Her comments on the photo itself have been, on the whole (and correct me if Im wrong Ally), that she will make her own judgement based on viewing the picture and its evidence. After all, thats all she can do.

Unlike AP, she has not been negative about the photo directly, only warned others. As for attacking Philips character, I cant recall a time she has. Whereas Cap'n has outrightly stated his belief its a fake and questioned Philips motives from his first post. He hasnt been objective nor open minded. Just purely negative, a mindset for which he is more to be pitied than scorned. That I have learnt.

Like you, Im wholeheartedly behind Philip however until all have seen the photo we cant really shoot those who question it fairly and objectively. That would be unfair.

Monty

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Philip's problem is that the publishing of this photo or the booklet takes way too long. The best thing he could have done was to hold it back further until the booklet project was arranged, but I guess he wanted to include it in his talk at the US Conference. And who can blame him? I guess he didn't expect to get shot in the back for it.

But the longer it takes, I am afraid there will be more and more people doubting its authenticy, not to mention questioning Philip's honesty.
I certainly hope that booklet comes as soon as possible, for Philip's own sake.

But as I said, I definitely now understand why people like Stewart P Evans and others are watching their backs and are being careful about their discoveries. It's a hard lesson to learn. And let's face it; there's been more people than just two who's been talking rubbish on this thread.

All the best

[Ally]

I have NEVER made a judgment on Phil's character. I don't know Phil well enough to make a qualified judgment on his character. People I know and like say it's excellent and they've got no reason to lie, but again, I don't know enough to make my own judgment. The ONLY thing I have said is about the behavior.

And the behavior is this: He came on and said he had something that is a good find. It is nowhere close to being ready to be published. This leads to loong delays before people are able to judge it for themselves. This is naturally going to lead to questions about its veracity and leaves him open.

I think it was a bad decision, precisely because it leaves him open to those kinds of questions, but that has NOTHING to do with Philip's character.

I have never implied that I think it was a hoax, because I don't.

P.S..editing to add, thanks Monty, I am glad someone understands what I am trying to say.

[Sam Flynn]

My perception too, Monty. Well put.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

" If this were ANY new poster, would we just swallow that the album was in existence? Why are you doing it because it's Phil?"

"Who died and made Philip immune from the burden of proof?"

"Have you seen a photo of the album Philip claims to possess? Or the album itself?"

Now, if this isn't doubting Philip's honesty and intentions I don't know what is.
You have absolutely right that we have newcomers coming here claiming they've found this and that. But Philip is no newcomer. For heaven's sake, we should all have been here long enough in order to know that Philip wouldn't put his integrity under scrutiny. I don't give a sh*t about the newcomers watching this website - we who know Philip and who've been here for a long time should know better.
So when you question the authenticy of the picture you are also questioning Philips' character.
Don't try to jerk your way around this.

Secondly - EVERYONE had the chance the see the photo. EVERYONE. It was advertised well beforehand that it would be showed in a low resolution version on ther web. So when you say in an earlier post that only a chosen few had the lucky break to see it, you're not only incorrect but actually lying through your teeth. M'kay?

Well, I bet he regrets that he ever produced the photo in the first place.

And this is my final stance on the matter. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Ally]

Those are statements exactly in line with what I have said: It is the behavior that is what is important. When you see it, then believe it. Until then, reserve judgment. And I was speaking to the claim that it was defamatory to question it, which it is not. No one should be immune to questions because you like them Glenn. And your history with Phil is NOT shared by everyone on the boards. Not everyone who reads these boards even knows who Phil is. Are they to be prohibited from questioning the veracity because you like him and have a history with him? Your history with him is irrelevant to anyone but you and him. And his standing in your eyes, doesn't make him immune to questioning. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. That's just how it is.

People are going to question the behavior. Period. Phil, in my opinion did a really stupid thing. And I have made no bones about that. Why should anyone believe it, if they haven't seen it? If asked to come down right now, I'd say it's a genuine photo of Dutfields. But I don't demand or even expect that anyone else will believe it just on my say-so. So if people want to question the existence of the album, they have the perfect right to do that. Because it is the logical course of action.

And as I also said, I don't care if it is Stephen Ryder or Stewart Evans, in my opinion, EVERYONE should be held to the same equal standard and to the same burden of proof, which is what those statements were about. That everyone deserves to be treated by their actions, not their name.

If you don't have the goods to show, don't make claims you can't support, because you are then fair game for attacks.

And no, NOT everyone had the chance to see. There was 24 hours notice and it was up for 24 hours. The idea that everyone in teh world checks the message boards religiously and was able and available to see it in that narrow window is patently ridiculous. There are posts on this very threads of people who didn't check the boards for a couple of days and missed it. So the statement that everyone had a chance to see it is false.

NOt to mention, the photo has completely crappy resolution, words written all over it and LINES drawn through it, to the point that nothing could really be made out except for general impressions of people standing in an alley.

[Cap'n Jack]

I did see the photo in question, Ally, and reached the conclusion that it was a 'sport' immediately.
This was not a conscious decision, it was a gut reaction, and quite honestly I am ashamed of the manner in which this image has been sanctified by the converted, and then held out to us as the Holy Grail.
If George got a dinner out of it, then he is lucky.
I don't think it's worth a bag of crisps.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I did see the photo in question, Ally, and reached the conclusion that it was a 'sport' immediately.
This was not a conscious decision, it was a gut reaction, and quite honestly I am ashamed of the manner in which this image has been sanctified by the converted, and then held out to us as the Holy Grail.
If George got a dinner out of it, then he is lucky.
I don't think it's worth a bag of crisps.

So in spite of the fact that every detail in the photo perfectly fits the contemporary newspaper illustrations and situation plans (the door on the right wall, the stable buildings in the background that are indentical with the drawings, the lack of windows on the accurate places on the house walls) and the photo from 1909 (the metal gate that has replaced the wooden double doors), you somehow came to the conclusion that the picture is a fake or depicting something else?
Not to mention that every researcher of the case that seen it has unanimously verified it as being Dutfield Yard?

And you are still claiming that your dismissal of the photo is grounded on actual factual analysis and not just to stir things up just for the sake of it?

The problem is, I think very few actually take anything you say seriously anymore because you seem to spit out things these days that are only meant for mischevious spite and to create chaos rather than actually contributing with something of factual value.
When you have anything definite to point at in order to assume it isn't Dutfield's Yard, by all means feel free to put forward such arguments. But only referring to it as a 'sport' just won't do.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

I have said before and I will repeat,I have no doubt about Phil"s integrity,honesty whatever.
"East End Past" is from the Historical Publication Series and its from their "Past Series".It can be purchased at the Guildhall.
The book discusses a lady named Olive Christian Malvery [1877 or 1822-1914].Ms Malvery was Anglo Indian by birth and had arrived in London as a music student.In 1904.capitalising on the interest aroused by Jack London"s book she set out to expose the lives of London"s "poorer daughters".
Now before I continue this person who was a photographer of The East End,actually appears to have done very good things in her time.She allowed part of her Royalties to finance homeless women for example.However on the way to her fame and fortune she took some very iffy photos and said they were of places in Whitechapel which they were not.For example,when her attempts to photograph applicants at the Poor Jews Temporary Shelter resulted in threats from the crowd ,she resorted to shots of Jews outside the Socialist Club in Princelet Street and placed an insinuating caption underneath hinting at the arrival of unkown numbers of potentially criminal,exploitative and unassailable newcomers.She also photographed poverty stricken locations in Southern Italy and said it was where Ghetto Jews were fleeing---when it should have been of Russian controlled parts of Eastern Europe---which she couldnt get into.
So there were women from outside the East End photographing places in the East End which were bogus and its just as well to be fully aware of that and be a bit open minded about what some are arguing.
Its not about Philip its about the photographer"s CV.

[Cap'n Jack]

Go back, read the thread, you'll find my serious concerns about this image.
Play catch up or go back to sleep.

[Monty]

Youre wasting your time Glenn

AP has condemed on gut feeling, not on factual evidence. This simply cos he has none. Its all fancy wacky phrases and no substance. Leave the man to preach his negativity, which is surprising considering he is the self proclaimed massiah of progressive thinking in the field.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Natallie (or is it Norma these days???),

Finally some arguments and information of real interest, and by all means very valid ones.
However, that doesn't diminish the fact the photo resembels everything we know about Dutfield's Yard to a tee and in every detail (as far as I can see). Unless our photographing lady managed to find an alley or yard that was an exact replica, which I don't believe for one second. We all know that Miller's Court was surrounded by several similar courts around Dorset Street but Dutfield's Yard undoubtadly contain features and buildings (as well as other details, like the wooden gate having been replaced by a metal gate after 1888) that should be considered quite unique.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

AP has condemed on gut feeling, not on factual evidence. This simply cos he has none. Its all fancy wacky phrases and no substance. Leave the man to preach his negativity, which is surprising considering he is the self proclaimed massiah of progressive thinking in the field.

I have to agree with you Monty, and I shall take your sound advice.
I'm bound to apologise to certain innocent people here for my choice of wording tonight and my conduct here, but going over this thread again after some time of absence filled me with complete rage and to be honest it still does.
I just feel that sometimes it's not about sound cricism but just about plain negativity and spitefulness for the sake of it.

I don't know how Philip feels about all this (well, I know from previous posts he made that he might wish he never found the bloody photo), but if I was in his shoes, I probably would have felt quite disappointed over how things have turned out, not only because of a claim of dishonesty from a very limited few but also for the distrust in his capablity and expertise in local history when it comes to actually evaluate the authenticy of the picture. Personally, I think he's worth a better trust of judgement than this and I feel sad that some people don't acknowledge it.

All the best