Grassed-Up?

[Chava]

I assume many of you have seen this. If not please enjoy. 4 new suspects and new evidence...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387354/Jack-Ripper-Scotland-Yards-legal-battle-files-secret-120-years-killings.html

[sdreid]

Yes, it does seem stupid to protect the names of those who are beyond any need of protection.

At any rate, just give us the names of the 4 "new" suspects.

[niko]

Rub the Grasses names off.

Hi everyone,four new suspect to add to the others.If Scotland yard want to protect the Grasses go ahead and protect them,rub there names off the files and let the public view the rest of the files. This is really begining to smell as if there is a "cover-up", at least thats what I think, I have my own hypothsis about the Whitechapel murders. My suspicions that Jack the ripper was or were "of the highest in the land". If they did re-open the JTR case and really could find out who was or where JTR, it would be impossible to punish him or them, I don,t understand what all the fuss about the files is for, all the best,AGUR.

[mariab]

At any rate, just give us the names of the 4 "new" suspects.

Hi everyone, four new suspects to add to the others.

One of the 4 so-called “suspects“ mentioned in the SB ledgers refers to “William McGrath in connection with the Ripper investigation“. The other “3 new suspects“ obviously refers to “new“ in regard of what had been perused so far in the SB ledgers.

[belinda]

It seems very odd wanting to protect confidentiality after 120+ years.Surely that is long enough. Unless there really is more to it. My mother has always said she thought there was some sort of cover up.

This makes a joke of freedom of information.

[TomTomKent]

Shockingly for a link to the daily mail it didn't mention the crimes stopping because of elf 'n safety killjoys, or the impact on house prices. The idea informants still need protection is alittle odd, but in no way suggests theirevidence is the "truth", just it may be embarrassing if assumed to be true.

[belinda]

No Mr Ripper I'm afraid we can't let you have that knife

[Cuervo]

"However, Scotland Yard reportedly believes disclosing the names could hinder recruiting and gathering information from modern informants, affecting terrorism investigations - and even lead to the Victorians' relatives being attacked."

Honestly. Are they pulling our legs?

[curious]

"However, Scotland Yard reportedly believes disclosing the names could hinder recruiting and gathering information from modern informants, affecting terrorism investigations - and even lead to the Victorians' relatives being attacked."

Honestly. Are they pulling our legs?

Yep. Only argument they can come up with. And "terrorism" is the buzz word these days.

[jason_c]

"However, Scotland Yard reportedly believes disclosing the names could hinder recruiting and gathering information from modern informants, affecting terrorism investigations - and even lead to the Victorians' relatives being attacked."

Honestly. Are they pulling our legs?

I think the modern informants arguement is valid enough, even though I disagree with it, I think.


We can view the Ripper murders as more important than they actually are. If I were in charge of national security archives I wouldnt be overly impressed with any individual demanding they be opened.

That said, a censored release would be welcomed.

[curious]

I think the modern informants arguement is valid enough, even though I disagree with it, I think.


We can view the Ripper murders as more important than they actually are. If I were in charge of national security archives I wouldnt be overly impressed with any individual demanding they be opened.

That said, a censored release would be welcomed.

This question arose perhaps because of the Ripper murders, but a bigger law -- a principle -- is in question here and the rights of everyone are being squashed with contrived reasoning. There is a timeline for information being made public, that is the law.

If a government agency is allowed to disregard the law (this or any other), it is not in the best interest of the people.

Terrorism has become the new buzz word by which government agencies justify horrific abuse of people's rights. Are some justified in light of the world we live in today? probably -- there are some really bad guys out there.

But this 124 years after the fact seems the most outrageous attempt of justification without any real basis I've personally run across. From reading the news stories, newspaper people seem to agree.

[Phil H]

I have discussed the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act on another thread.

No one could be more interested than I, in seeing the contents of the registers, but Governments will always need to hold some information in confidence in order to do their job. The only alternatives are complete openness (which would not be workable) or complete secrecy (which is out of kilter with current thinking in most western democracies). The trick is how we balance the two extremes.

I work with the FOI Act in a government department (not Home Office etc) on a daily basis. While the emphasis in the UK is now on openness, there is equally a responsibility enshrined in the Data Protection Act to keep confidential the data relating to individuals.

Under the FOI Act, requesters have the ability to challenge Government, through first internal mechanisms, then through the Information Commissioner (in the UK). He makes the final decision. That can still be challenged and Ministers can ultimately issue a certificate to withhold information (but that would be rare).

For anyone to disregard the risks of releasing personal data - however old - on this site, carries no responsibility. However, officials if they got it wrong and people were killed or threatened as a result of release (in revenge for what their forebears had done) WOULD have to anwer for it. Hence the caution.

I would also disagree about the difficulty of tracing families and descendents - in Ireland in small communities, memories may run long and geographic mobility may be limited. If someone mentioned in the registers had a child in 1888, that child could easily have lived til the 1960s and have children living. Thus only two or at most three generations separate the names in the register from living relations. Thus there may well be direct descendents of informers who might be at risk if those families affected by their forebears learned of what they might consider treason.

This does not have to be reasoned or sensible - UK posters might recall the mix-up on an estate near Portsmouth some years ago between paedophiles and paediatricians!! One of the latter was severely harrassed. Perhaps more pertinent, psycopathic killers are again targetting people in Northern Ireland and killing policemen.

Further, a few years ago, MPs discussed whether the 100 year rule on the release of raw census data could/should be relaxed. The House pretty well unanimously rejected the idea on two grounds:

a) that a specific guarantee of no release had been given at the time and to break that would mean that no Giovernment could ever again be trusted should it give such guarantees;

b) breaking such a commitment could mean that people will be less willing to provide information to Government in confidence in future.

It is also not only the personal data/names that migh give away sensitive information - it could also be about procedures and methods.

I hope that the eventual decision will be in favour of release - I and my colleagues work hard to withhold as little as possible in our field - but I do see the need for caution and a rigorous consideration of ALL the angles and issues.

Conspiracy theories and ideas of a cover-up are premature, (maybe immature in that they do not appreciate the workings of government) and certainly misplaced.

Phil

[Phil H]

curious - I actually wonder whether you can read. I covered all your snipings and silly mathering in the other post where this is being discussed.

This question arose perhaps because of the Ripper murders, but a bigger law -- a principle -- is in question here and the rights of everyone are being squashed with contrived reasoning.

UK law recognises that principle in the FOI Act 2000. But there is a balancing act, in regard to Data Protection/personal information that argues against release except to the individual involved.

There is a timeline for information being made public, that is the law.

There are various timetables, including the 30 year rule about Cabinet papers, but almost all are over-ridden by the FOI Act, whereby anyone can request the release of information at any time and that will be considered. There are exemptions, but on the whole there is openness.

If a government agency is allowed to disregard the law (this or any other), it is not in the best interest of the people.

As far as I know, no one is disregarding the law, the registers are being dealt with under established FOI procedures and an appeal process. But it would equally not be in the best interest (how defined?) of the people (how defined?) if release of information causes distress, disorder or death in communities.

Terrorism has become the new buzz word by which government agencies justify horrific abuse of people's rights. Are some justified in light of the world we live in today? probably -- there are some really bad guys out there.

As in Northern Ireland where rogue killers are again targetting people they don't like (i.e. the police). who is to say that they would not turn on the families of informers?

But this 124 years after the fact seems the most outrageous attempt of justification without any real basis I've personally run across.

As I noted in a previous post in this thread, that gap could mean that grandchildren of those mentioned in the registers could be alive - maybe living in the same communities. So there is a "real basis" for concern - but that will have to be demonstrated by the authorities by means of (what is known as) a Public Interest Test, this is a detailed analysis of the reasons why it would be wise to withhold information - it has to be signed off at a senior civil service level and is open to audit by the Information Commissioner.

From reading the news stories, newspaper people seem to agree.

But the public is often ill-informed, liable to being led and prone to have little knowledge or insight into the complexities of issues.

It would be very difficult to put the geni back in the bottle after it was released - better to agonise now and get it right.

I repeat, I would like to see this information released, but I am aware of the sometimes subtle and wholly realistic reasons why it might not be.

Phil

[lynn cates]

redactions and censorship

Hello All. Perhaps a redacted/censored version would work. Here is an example of such. The very last line states my view of this affair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj7zi9Tp5s4

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Lynn - I cannot see the attachment - my work PC has blocked You-tube! I'll check later.

As I have said in an earlier post, I would hope that - assuming the registers are not released - once the furore has died down, a reputable and established academic (someone like Sugden) might be given access and allowed to publish some information (perhaps subject to official clearance) that might indicate at least whether the information contained seemed to be relevant.

Is there not a precedent for this, with this very information? A thesis (I forget the name - Clutterbuck?) and Butterfield.

The fact that the information has been made available previously, and seemigly without limitation - MIGHT be a factor in the Information Commissioner's final judgement. It has been before now?

Phil