Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Sam Flynn, really! As if my view would ever be tainted by hearsay! Logic for me-not faith. The signatures don't match-simple..

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Toppy was certainly "ageing" between 1898 and 1911"

Yep, Ben - every second of that period he grew of older age, like we all do. And with that process comes changes in our signatures. And it is not as if the 1898 and 1911 signatures are exact copies of each other - to mention only one difference, there is the crossbar of the t sitting like a roof on the t and h 1898, a crossbar that later on moves downwards.
And, as I suggested: the fact that the consistency was there to a high degree in 1898 to 1911 may well be an indicator that it was not so ten years before - since signatures do change with time. Generally spoken.

" I'd imagine that such labour was likely to strengthen rather than enfeeble the hands and wrists in the long term".

I DOES strengthen you muscle-wise, Ben, and a plumber will have quite a firm handshake. But it does not strengthen the joints of the limbs - they are subjected to the kind of wear and tear that in the end leaves you with aching wrists and trembles and such things.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Have also to try my new fishing-rod this evening."

Well, well, David - you entertain SOUND interests too!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

The signatures don't match-simple..

They do.

[Ben]

Very succinctly put, Cyrtal. Agreed all round!

And it is not as if the 1898 and 1911 signatures are exact copies of each other - to mention only one difference, there is the crossbar of the t sitting like a roof on the t and h 1898, a crossbar that later on moves downwards

They're not exact copies of eachother, Fisherman, of course. That would be impossible, however they do resemble eachother very strongly and generally reveal a remarkable consistency with eachother. The differences with the statement three are still in place 13 years later. That consistency cannot possibly be construed as an "indicator" that he wrote differently in 1888. We can't rule it out as a "possibility", but that's the best we can say. The more parsimonious assumption from the extent evidence is that he was just as consistent back then.

I'm not convinced that Toppy's work was likely to have an enfeebling effect on his hand, personally, especially as he grew older and was presumably in a better position to delegate while he did the ordering and measuring.

They do

Nah, mate.

Hi Mike,

Laborer becoming plumber is, as I've said, not even close to a stretch.

Yes, but a groom who spends at least three wilderness years in the East End before becoming a an unemployed labourer before becoming a plumber doesn't particularly ring true when he could have followed his rather into the biz from the outset.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

The census was every ten years. You have no idea what was going on fron 1888 to 1891. Perfect time for a 22 year-old who isn't making it aside from a little police cash, to try something else. In 1891 he was apparently struggling, same as 1888. Refute all you want. It doesn't work here. It was a heck of a lot less change than I went through from 22 to 25 years, and if you want to argue that he was 28 (fallacious though it may be), it was a lot less change than I went through from 28 - 31.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

In 1891 he was apparently struggling, same as 1888

Where does this come from, Mike?

We don't know that he was "struggling" in 1891 at all. He was listed as a plumber living in Warren Street - no evidence of struggle at all. If we're to trust Reg's word all of a sudden, it is noteworthy that he referred to his father as being "rarely, if ever, out of work", not a a struggling labourer who spent a few wilderness years in the skankiest area in the whole of London, spurning the potential opportunities provided by his father, before finding his feet.

I'm not arguing that he was 28, but it certainly wouldn't be "fallacious".

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

All Together Now-
'Oh No They Don't!'
'Oh Yes They Do!'
...Just a minute-I'm sure I've been here before..
Oh Well-
OH NO THEY DON'T!

[The Good Michael]

We know that he live at a common lodging house in 1891. That is hardly striking it rich. Reg didn't know what his father was doing between 1888 and 1891. How could he? Neither has anyone said that Reg knew the whole truth. It is kind of pointless arguing about this. Your agenda only allows for refutation and blinkered logic. You argue rationally, but you champion the least likely. It gets tiresome, and your agenda won't let you back off.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

We don't know that he was "struggling" in 1891 at all. He was listed as a plumber living in Warren Street

It wasn't as if it was "Hutchinson Piping Solutions - Cable London 128 for all your plumbing needs", though, was it? In the 1970s, the composer Philip Glass was, when he wasn't writing interminably long loops of music, a New York taxi-driver and an occasional plumber, amongst other things - so whatever Hutchinson was doing in 1891, during those halcyon days of casual employment, is hardly of great significance.

Besides, as I've pointed out previously, Warren Street was hardly Shangri La in those days.

[Sam Flynn]

All Together Now-
'Oh No They Don't!'
'Oh Yes They Do!'
...Just a minute-I'm sure I've been here before..
Oh Well-
OH NO THEY DON'T!

Oh, yes, they bloody well do.

I'm pig-sick of this.

People talk of the "field" of Ripperology - it's more like an energy-sapping bog.

[Crystal]

I don't have an agenda Mike- I'm not an historian you know..
Do you have an agenda, Ben?

[Sam Flynn]

I don't have an agenda Mike

You DO have an agenda, though - defending the "science" of document examination.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

I agree. I'm done with this thread. Logic can't possibly win out here and Hutchinson will ever be the villain, fair or not. Ben and Fisherman can have this thread. Hutchinson did it, and I'm done with it.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Reg didn't know what his father was doing between 1888 and 1891. How could he?

He could easily have asked, couldn't he?

His comments were not specific to the time Reg and Toppy became acquainted, i.e. from the former's birth. The fact that he was living in a lodging house in 1891 (albeit in the heart of the West End) is by no means indicative of a struggle, and it's still a far cry from the epicentre of slumsville. It's about what one would expect from a 25-year-old plumber of those days.

As for the rest, I do wish you'd accept that I simply disagree with you, and that there's no "agenda" or anything sinister behind that disagreement. You think I champion the least likely cause. Fair enough, I believe the same to be true of you, but I'm not accusing you of having any sinister agenda.

Best regards,
Ben