Work among the fallen as seen in the prison cell

[PaulB]

Not so fast. Apart from anecdotes, where is the official evidence the C5 were prostitutes?

Where's the evidence that the police labelled the C5 prostitutes because they found it convenient to do so?

[Simon Wood]

Because it ticked the right box in explaining why they were out at night.

Now, you answer my question.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Simon, Susan and Bert.

[Kattrup]

Because it ticked the right box in explaining why they were out at night.

What kind of "official evidence" can there be, when you believe the police were involved in a conspiracy and doctored the evidence? All "official evidence" is worthless, right, because the police lie.
Why worry only about "official" evidence?
Also, your questions assumes the strawman position that e.g. Rubenhold rails against: that all the women were only prostitutes - full-time sex workers.

[PaulB]

Because it ticked the right box in explaining why they were out at night.

Now, you answer my question.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Simon, Susan and Bert.

It depends on what you mean by “official evidence” and why you think it is necessary to have any before we can accept what the police tell us. Is there any reason to disbelieve them? There is supporting evidence, such as witness testimony, as well as good circumstantial evidence, to support what the police said, and nothing of a serious nature on which to dispute it.

In a London full of homeless and destitute people sleeping rough, it’s unlikely that the police needed a convenient explanation for the women being out at night. Nor is there any “official evidence” that the police sought one.

And have a terrific and safe Christmas, and give my very best to Susan and especially Bert. Try to let him leave you some of the food!

[Trevor Marriott]

What kind of "official evidence" can there be, when you believe the police were involved in a conspiracy and doctored the evidence? All "official evidence" is worthless, right, because the police lie.
Why worry only about "official" evidence?
Also, your questions assumes the strawman position that e.g. Rubenhold rails against: that all the women were only prostitutes - full-time sex workers.

someone asked for proof that Nicholls was a prostitute I belive this to be an official document that clearly shows she was

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

I believe the term'Unfortunate' to be a proper description of Helen Fisher,for the following reason.There is/was under the common law,the rule of'Common usage'.That is,where it could be proven a term was commonly used,such as 'Unfortunate',it didn't need to be specified.Now who is going to argue that 'Unfortunate' was not commonly used in 1888,or at other times.
Yes Paul,I can prove the existence of Henry McMahon.It should be clear to posters I do not post names unless I have a source.
Rubenhold makes the same mistake in suggesting or claiming all the victims were not prostitutes,as posters here who claim they were.They could be,but that is not the same as proving they were.

But wouldn't the onus still be on you to prove that the 'common usage' was in the context you describe, Harry? By providing the evidence that it was used in relation to the poorer classes of all ages or gender and not specifically to women. Posters on the other side of the argument have been able to show quite easily the word's 'common usage' as relating to women who engaged in prostitution of some description, surely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

someone asked for proof that Nicholls was a prostitute I belive this to be an official document that clearly shows she was

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you sure that you haven't forged that Trevor?

Or perhaps 'prostitute' has another meaning that none of us are aware of.

[Debra A]

Harry,
You have made a claim that runs counter to accepted fact. The onus is now on you to support your claim with evidence, and you have been asked to do so. You have been unable to do so. It has been suggested that you misunderstood "unfortunate" and "pauper" to mean the same thing, and it is pretty clear that this is what has happened. You have been asked to resolve this mix-up by showing where Ellen Fisher was described as “an unfortunate” in a context that did not mean prostitute, but you have not done do.

The rule of common usage simply means that if a word had a commonly accepted meaning, that meaning did not have to be specified. In other words, you need to demonstrate that “an unfortunate” was used sufficiently often in a context that did not mean “prostitute” for the alternative meaning to be reasonably interpreted, but you haven't come close to doing that.

Debs has spent some of her valuable time tracing Ellen Fisher in the available records and you should have the decency to reply to her points and suggestions, not ignore them like they don’t exist. Where did anyone ask you to prove the existence of Henry McMahon? You were asked to provide the source where he is described as an unfortunate, not that he existed. Hallie Rubenhold has not suggested that all the victims were not prostitutes, she has said that there is no evidence that they were. She is wrong, there is evidence that they were. She simply omitted it from her book and in doing so has misled her readers and apparently misrepresented the actions of the police. So, Harry, why don’t you just do what you have been asked to do? If you've confused "unfortunate" and "pauper", admit it and move on. Or produce the documentation that proves your case.

Apologies, Paul, I've just repeated what you said here about 'common usage' because I missed your post, but as the general course of the thread has been repeating the same things over and over, there's no harm done, especially as it seems repeating things over and over on this thread magically makes it become a fact.

Thankfully I really enjoy looking into the lives of working class women in history and trying to discover the truths of the real hardships they had to endure, Harry's great grandmother included. I was glad to be able to make a small point her great grandson hadn't actually given her credit for; that she was obviously a hard working and resilient woman, working hard at a vinegar bottling plant for years after her second marriage and contributing to the family income and hadn't just been a damsel in distress, saved from destitution by marriage to a 'good man'

[PaulB]

someone asked for proof that Nicholls was a prostitute I belive this to be an official document that clearly shows she was

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unfortunately, it is proof of what the police believed, but it is not proof of WHY they believed it, and it is the "why" that's at issue here.

[PaulB]

Apologies, Paul, I've just repeated what you said here about 'common usage' because I missed your post, but as the general course of the thread has been repeating the same things over and over, there's no harm done, especially as it seems repeating things over and over on this thread magically makes it become a fact.

Thankfully I really enjoy looking into the lives of working class women in history and trying to discover the truths of the real hardships they had to endure, Harry's great grandmother included. I was glad to be able to make a small point her great grandson hadn't actually given her credit for; that she was obviously a hard working and resilient woman, working hard at a vinegar bottling plant for years after her second marriage and contributing to the family income and hadn't just been a damsel in distress, saved from destitution by marriage to a 'good man'

I think Harry's great-grandmother was a survivor and can be congratulated on that. Her life was tough.

[Trevor Marriott]

Unfortunately, it is proof of what the police believed, but it is not proof of why they believed it, and it is the "why" that's at issue here.

The police belived it because they clearly had evidence to support that belief which the document I posted clearly shows, as does the death cert of Kelly and the wealth of other corroborative evidence to show these women were on the game.

Lets be sensible about this point I am sure the police did not just go out and label every unfortuate woman as a prostitute, why would they do that what would it achieve, there was a caution process they applied before any prostitute was even taken to court. I am aware that this whole issue was created by Rubehold who is using this to add weight to her making a case for these women to be so hard done by that they had no where to go and no one to care for them.

Truth be told thats a load of old tosh. Record shows that these women did obtain money by whatever means, and then spent it on drink instead of taking care of themsleves or taking permanant lodgings so in effect they were responsible for their own demise not society and society should not be blamed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

The police belived it because they clearly had evidence to support that belief which the document I posted clearly shows, as does the death cert of Kelly and the wealth of other corroborative evidence to show these women were on the game.

Lets be sensible about this point I am sure the police did not just go out and label every unfortuate woman as a prostitute, why would they do that what would it achieve, there was a caution process they applied before any prostitute was even taken to court. I am aware that this whole issue was created by Rubehold who is using this to add weight to her making a case for these women to be so hard done by that they had no where to go and no one to care for them.

Truth be told thats a load of old tosh. Record shows that these women did obtain money by whatever means, and then spent it on drink instead of taking care of themsleves or taking permanant lodgings so in effect they were responsible for their own demise not society and society should not be blamed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Their murderer was solely responsible for their demise.

[bolo]

Hi Trevor, all,

Truth be told thats a load of old tosh. Record shows that these women did obtain money by whatever means, and then spent it on drink instead of taking care of themsleves or taking permanant lodgings so in effect they were responsible for their own demise not society and society should not be blamed.

I think this generalisation of yours is quite off. If you have read your Mayhew, you will know that the sweatshops of industrialisation and the Victorian society and class consciousness as a whole literally forced large groups of women into poverty and prostitution, just take the horrors of the seamstresses working for clothing companies for example or the countless cases of violence against female servants that led to loads of "fallen women" but rarely any trouble for the master of the house, landlord or factory owner. When all was said and done, many women couldn't get back to a normal social life even if they wanted to because of the stigma that stuck with them.

Grüße,

Boris

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor, all,



I think this generalisation of yours is quite off. If you have read your Mayhew, you will know that the sweatshops of industrialisation and the Victorian society and class consciousness as a whole literally forced large groups of women into poverty and prostitution, just take the horrors of the seamstresses working for clothing companies for example or the countless cases of violence against female servants that led to loads of "fallen women" but rarely any trouble for the master of the house, landlord or factory owner. When all was said and done, many women couldn't get back to a normal social life even if they wanted to because of the stigma that stuck with them.

Grüße,

Boris

But is that any excuse for them to acquire money by whatever means and to then spend it on alchohol and neglect other essentials in life. Wouldnt a woman rather have a roof over her head or a bed for the night rather that a bottle of gin in her stomach, society cannot be blamed for their actions nobody forced then to spend money on drink, take what Emily Holland said at inquest "She refused, adding that she had earned her lodging money three times that day.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

The police belived it because they clearly had evidence to support that belief which the document I posted clearly shows, as does the death cert of Kelly and the wealth of other corroborative evidence to show these women were on the game.

Lets be sensible about this point I am sure the police did not just go out and label every unfortuate woman as a prostitute, why would they do that what would it achieve, there was a caution process they applied before any prostitute was even taken to court. I am aware that this whole issue was created by Rubehold who is using this to add weight to her making a case for these women to be so hard done by that they had no where to go and no one to care for them.

Truth be told thats a load of old tosh. Record shows that these women did obtain money by whatever means, and then spent it on drink instead of taking care of themsleves or taking permanant lodgings so in effect they were responsible for their own demise not society and society should not be blamed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
The document you posted does NOT show that the police had evidence to support their belief that the women were prostitutes. It only shows what the police believed, not the evidence on which that belief was based. In fact, Rubenhold argues that there is no evidence that they were prostitutes, and states that the police branded all homeless and destitute women prostitutes.

Rubenhold's case is more complex than you seem to think (have you actually read her book?), and I'm afraid that your final paragraph not only suggests that your knowledge of Victorian society is nil, it's exactly the sort of misogynist viewpoint that she justifiably criticises.

You and I, along with almost everyone else, know that there is evidence supporting the conclusions of the police, and that Rubenhold's claims to the contrary are "a load of old tosh", but I'm afraid that document is not part of that evidence. I wish it was.