Toffs in Spitalfields

[DVV]

I think Hutchinson did see a toff that night

Hi Jez,
can we call Hutch's suspect a "toff"? Why so?
He looks like a f... Marseille pimp to me.
"5 doigts, 6 bagues", as we say.

Amitiés,
David

[Jez]

Norma, you weren't being bullied. You were being disagreed with. This is a message board after all. Two or three people who disagree with you does not constitute a "gang". I am possibly in the minority in that I think Hutchinson did see a toff that night, but no amount of people against this opinion will make me think I am being ganged up on. The evidence does also point to the fact that very few "toffs" lived in that area in 1888. Sad but true.

[John Bennett]

If there is any selectivity going on, it is perhaps on the part of those who imagine Spitalfields to be the resort of raffish, heterosexual sex-tourists that it evidently doesn't seem to have been.

Isn't that what Spitalfields is like now?

[John Bennett]

I don't know if this has been posted, but the Booth notebooks mention the area around Great Pearl Street as:

"a thoroughly vicious quarter. The presence of the Cambridge Music Hall in Commercial St. makes it a focussing point for prostitutes".

Doesn't sound particularly nice to me.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, John

I've read Fishman, I've read White, Frayling, Koven and a number of other authors and sources - in fact, I've started reading another that arrived only today, Slum Travellers: Ladies and London Poverty, by Ellen Ross. However, in none of these have I seen so much as a mention of well-heeled (nor even, as I've pointed out, upper-working class) men frequenting the area for the purpose of hiring a Spitalfields prostitute. Furthermore, I've not seen these authors quote any contemporary sources that might support the notion in even the most tenuous sense.

If there is any selectivity going on, it is perhaps on the part of those who imagine Spitalfields to be the resort of raffish, heterosexual sex-tourists that it evidently doesn't seem to have been.

[Ben]

My observations precisely, John!

[John Bennett]

A remarkable exchange.

There seems to be a trend developing of disbelieving (or at least doubting) previously respected primary sources of contemporary information, eg. Booth notebooks, censuses and even Police reports (on another thread).

The notion that we should believe 'modern' commentators such as Bill Fishman, Jerry White et al is fair enough, but where do you think they got their information from? And in fact if we can't believe these primary sources, what are we supposed to believe? Newspaper reports that couldn't even get people's names right?

I think it's a case of believing something and if the findings of people who were there at the time don't fit then they're not fit to quote.

JB

[Sam Flynn]

You will have the satisfaction of having last word though as you wont see me posting here again.

OK, my last words to you on the subject are:

"There is remarkably little evidence that Spitalfields was a favourite destination of well-heeled, or even rather modestly well-off, men in search of female prostitutes. Unless such evidence emerges, one must conclude that the notion appears to be a myth."

...that's the only bit I was interested in, as I explained to Roy.

[Ben]

I'd have to agree with Gareth there.

Come on, Norma, debates can get heated at times, but it's not as though you weren't the one dismissing another poster's well-intentioned observations with an "I couldn't give a baboon's bare arse what you think", or referring to your combabtents as the "grusome twosome". Not a huge problem for me, but it's places you in a weaker position when accusing others of "bullying".

[Sam Flynn]

From information I have received -that is untrue Bully boy!

The information you received is either urban myth or just plain wrong, Nats. Or maybe your interpretation of it is incorrect, as is your perception of my "bullying" you.

[Natalie Severn]

From information I have received -that is untrue of at least a section of it----which is my point Bully boy!
You will have the satisfaction of having last word though as you wont see me posting here again.

[Sam Flynn]

Dear Nats,

I don't know about Ben, but frankly I've felt under your cosh at times, especially when you must have read that census return with your own eyes, and still denied the lower working-class makeup of Fournier Street! In fact, one could read the census returns for all of Booth's "blackest streets" and see the same pattern of lower working-class/poverty class residents over and over again.

Let's face it - many parts of Christchurch, Spitalfields were out and out dumps. Few "toffs" would have been seen dead in them, least of all after dark.

[Natalie Severn]

Ben and Sam


Find someone else to bully----I am off.


Norma


I am going to post in future on JtR Forums.How keeps an eye on bullies---

[Ben]

And that is my dog in this hunt, simply that not all males who ever set foot in the EE looked, dressed and behaved with exact uniformity.

True, Roy. You had tinkers, sailors, soldiers, sailors, Jewish barbers, clergymen, and all would have dressed very differently. The line ought to be drawn, though, with men who could even afford a mildly convincing "toff" costume, let alone a real one.

Cheers,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

And that is my dog in this hunt, simply that not all males who ever set foot in the EE looked, dressed and behaved with exact uniformity.

Good phrase, Roy - I'll borrow it

My dog in this hunt is to establish whether the idea that "Whitechapel" was a red light district popular with the well-heeled (or even moderately well-heeled) has any basis in truth. To date, everything points to its being a hoary old myth.