Thanks for your courteous reply Gareth,
After reading your posts on the above-mentioned other thread, I think you are correct that Natalie's arguments do sometimes stray.
Nonetheless, in my opinion Natalie's active and present-day researches are producing many useful book-references. Many of which I have never seen mention of before.
Finally, as to your argument that "real" 'toffs' (toffee-nosed snobs? as in "stuck-up"?) would not get down and dirty with any of the Canonical Five, I think I would say JTR only pretended he wanted to have sex with them, his mind was on different "jollies".But I still think young sporting types often strayed into unintended streets- especially after getting a "skin-ful" at local pubs and music halls.Perhaps very very few on a regular basis, but the police often had to quietly steer "well-dressed" young fellows in raucous groups away from the more violent "stews".
(I apologise this post is partly off-topic but still relevant). JOHN RUFFELS.
After reading your posts on the above-mentioned other thread, I think you are correct that Natalie's arguments do sometimes stray.
Nonetheless, in my opinion Natalie's active and present-day researches are producing many useful book-references. Many of which I have never seen mention of before.
Finally, as to your argument that "real" 'toffs' (toffee-nosed snobs? as in "stuck-up"?) would not get down and dirty with any of the Canonical Five, I think I would say JTR only pretended he wanted to have sex with them, his mind was on different "jollies".But I still think young sporting types often strayed into unintended streets- especially after getting a "skin-ful" at local pubs and music halls.Perhaps very very few on a regular basis, but the police often had to quietly steer "well-dressed" young fellows in raucous groups away from the more violent "stews".
(I apologise this post is partly off-topic but still relevant). JOHN RUFFELS.
Comment