Toffs in Spitalfields

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,

Actually there were just such people in the East End, as documented in The Fox and the Flies. 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.

Roy

Yes,a fair point .
Norma

[Ben]

Now there is nothing whatsoever wrong with his statement in my view and I think some of the questions were phrased to give a chosen answer.

Well, yours is a conspicuous minority view for bloody good reason. Really, you can't champion Abberline as some police deductive genius, disparaging all his superiors in the process because it suits your argument, and then claim that he was so astonishingly incompetent that he phrased his questions in such a fashion as to garner the desired answer, for the same reason. What sort of question could he possibly have been asked in order to lead Hutchinson to horshoe tie pins, white buttons over button boots and dark eyelashes? And if he was asking leading questions, isn't it a bit weird that the press must have asked precisely the same "leading questions" in the same order?

please dont come back with the newspaper report quoting Hutchinson.This is what he gave to the Police.

I didn't, but then it is rather siginificant if his police and newspaper accounts differ in key particulars.

The gaiters were a common fashion feature

For morning wear, yes. At 2.00am in the evening...nah.

A horse shoe pin was also a VERY COMMON brooch style

Whether that was true of not, it was still utterly beyond the realms of even vague possibility to notice the shape of a tie pin in darkness and miserable weather conditions in Victorian London, within the space of a fleeting second, in addition to noticing lots and lots of other equally minute details of his appearance elsewhere on his person, let alone memorize all of it.

white buttons would have shown up-even in lamplight as they would go all the way down each side of the leg like a white stripe.

No, they wouldn't have done.

Up his leg?? What type of boots do you think he was wearing? Biker boots? They would have needed to stand out considerably to be noticed in those conditions, and if you're focussing on that aspect of his attire within the apace of a fleeting moment, your eyes and brain have not the capability to also notice other aspects of his appearance.

nothing unusual that could not be part of the usual pattern of fashionable male dress

Well, again, no, there's no evidnence that Mr. Astrakhan embodied the usual dress for upper class men at all, and there's certainly no evidence that such attire was popular in Liverpool Street. Certainly no evidence that such men would swan into what was well-advertised as the worst slum in London when there was a serial killer on the loose.

Dont get me wrong,Booth did some brilliant research but he could clearly be biased and was not above accepting such statemnts as the one I gave above without presenting actual evidence or doing scientific fair testing.

Irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion, I'm afraid, since it has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a lingering doubt that census information has proven Booth's findings to be absolutely correct in his observations about Fournier Street, which was exclusively working class.

[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.

[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

[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---

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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

[Ben]

My observations precisely, John!

[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.

[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.

[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?