Work among the fallen as seen in the prison cell

[Mark J D]

... 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.

<*boggle*...>

I see we are, 'in effect', back where we were in 1977 -- with the police referring to the murdered Jayne MacDonald as the first "innocent" victim.

Or, to put it another way, 'The police are the men that will not be shamed for nothing.'

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Others have commented on this but Trevor….really?

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt that you might have meant ‘their circumstances’ when you wrote of ‘their own demise,’ because you surely can’t have meant that they were responsible for their own deaths but even then…

How critical can we be of decisions made by women living in circumstances that we can only try to imagine. It was tough enough for men at that strata of society but it was far harder for women because the work opportunities just weren’t there to anything like the same extent. It’s hardly a wonder that they turned to drink to blot out, even for a few hours, their lives and the prospect of a night in a filthy, stinking, infested doss house after selling themselves to some drunken, smelly bloke who might even have given them a slap or two for good measure.. Yes they obtained money when and how they could but they couldn’t rely on it from day to day. Annie Chapman sold certain small items when she could but she’d have needed money to buy them in the first place. Where did that come from?

I don’t think that these women should take any measure of blame for their circumstances Trevor and I’m guessing that you’re the only person that would even suggest it. Yes they ‘might’ have made poor decisions but does someone deserve that kind of life as a punishment? Everyone makes poor decisions at some point in their lives but it doesn’t always condemn them to a hellish life in a slum. Society created poverty. Society created a system where women were considered as being subservient to men. These women were just as much victims of society as they were of the ripper and your comment just feeds into the false impression that Rubenhold’s supporters already have of Ripperologists. And let’s face it…not for the first time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why is he a muppet, Trevor? I imagine a lot of people thought the same, myself included, as they reached for a bucket when they read what you said.

Well perhaps you and some of those other might remove the rose tinted spectacles and take your heads out of the buckets and accept the reality of what I posted.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we removed the Rose-tinted spectacles then we would all see that life was just fine and dandy in the Victorian East End slums for those pampered women. They had more than ample opportunities to earn a decent living whilst judiciously putting a few pennies in the bank for a rainy day. A little bit of good, honest toil would have seen them sleeping in a comfortable, warm, spotlessly clean bed in one of Whitechapel’s inviting and numerous hostelries. And if no work was forthcoming then fortunately for them the famously soft-hearted Marquess Of Salisbury and his party of wish-washy do-gooders had instituted a system whereby money, food and warm clothing were distributed amongst the poor, as well as providing temporary housing in a modest but decent hotel.

And after all that those women still decided on a life of drunken debauchery. Night clubs and gin cocktails simply proved too much of a temptation for women of such poor moral fibre and obvious lack of modesty, restraint or willpower. What else did they expect but poverty and death at the hands of a maniac serial killer?

Trevor, you must be the only man on the planet that manages to make me look look PC. Quite an achievement.

[PaulB]

Well perhaps you and some of those other might remove the rose tinted spectacles and take your heads out of the buckets and accept the reality of what I posted.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is there any chance that one day you will do that? Your remarks were those of a dinosaur, completely unaware that we're almost a quarter of the way into the 21st century. They're precisely why they wanted you on Rubenhold's podcast, using you to say precisely what you said so they could publicise it. I'm sorry, Trevor, we've rarely seen eye to eye, but this really is one time you need to take stock of yourself and try to understand why your views are antiquated and offensive. These women weren't responsible for their death, they didn't ask to be murdered.

Have you read Rubenhold's book?

[Varqm]

"in effect they were responsible for their own demise not society and society should not be blamed." Trevor

I partly agree.The C5 were drinking within hours when they were killed,except maybe Stride although she was seen in bars.
They had an alcohol vice.Most had money to pay for a bed, maybe not with Chapman but she bought beer at 12 am and Eddowes, maybe given free, was drunk at 8:30 PM.It could have affected their decision-making ,as after Chapman there was already big news that a murderer was going about the area, they had to partly re-adjust.

But trickling down from "above to below",as there were no women MP's or in gov't positions for ex.,and women did not even have parliamentary vote, men dominated society much more than today.It would also have affected how some men sees women ,as "below the rung" or not to be taken "seriously",subjugated, maybe the ripper thought this way. Odds were stacked against women.
So surely society was partly to blame.

But there is\was also the bigger picture, just because some women or anybody were poor, had some alocohol vice,and doing some prostitution,did not mean they deserved to die in any way ,shape or form, especially that brutal. The newspapers, formation of the vigilance comittees,amateur detectives,more police into the area tells us they.most, thought so.

This is more complex.

[bolo]

Trevor, you must be the only man on the planet that manages to make me look look PC. Quite an achievement.

My thoughts as well.

And alcohol? Oh man... if a semi-nomadic life that has nothing but crap for you in store like having to sell your body to smelly layabouts for a few pennies and sleeping with the fleas while getting kicked about by just about everyone that feels like it is no reason to drink to forget and feel good for a few moments I don't know what is. It's easy to sit on a high horse if you've never been down and out.

[Mark J D]

... vice ...

Yuk.

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

Is there any chance that one day you will do that? Your remarks were those of a dinosaur, completely unaware that we're almost a quarter of the way into the 21st century. They're precisely why they wanted you on Rubenhold's podcast, using you to say precisely what you said so they could publicise it. I'm sorry, Trevor, we've rarely seen eye to eye, but this really is one time you need to take stock of yourself and try to understand why your views are antiquated and offensive. These women weren't responsible for their death, they didn't ask to be murdered.

Have you read Rubenhold's book?

I wasnt suggesting they deserved to be murdered, I was referring to the circumstances they found themselves in and how they existed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

My thoughts as well.

And alcohol? Oh man... if a semi-nomadic life that has nothing but crap for you in store like having to sell your body to smelly layabouts for a few pennies and sleeping with the fleas while getting kicked about by just about everyone that feels like it is no reason to drink to forget and feel good for a few moments I don't know what is. It's easy to sit on a high horse if you've never been down and out.

I think you need to look at how they lived prior to their murders, most had some stabiltiy in their lives before turning to drink which became their downfall ultimately forcing them into prostitution.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Post 86,Herlock wrote,'The term unfortunate meant prostitute and nothing else'. NOTHING ELSE,that is what he claims.Not pauper,not destitute,not homeless, etc.Just Prostitute.I say he is wrong.Now he may claim he didn't use the words pauper,destitute,homeless etc,and they do'nt count.BS.
Sure,some unfortunates turned to prostitution and drink,I have stated that,but not all,by any means.
Unfortunate was a term used to describe several types of persons,and it included men and children.All were according to Herlock prostitutes,because he writes unfortunate meant prostitute and nothing else.
That is what I am argueing against.
Henry McMahon was a resident of Jamaica.What I wrote about him can be found in the Jamaican newspaper archives the'Gleaner'.I'll leave you Herlock to research Henry Mcmahon.I've given you the lead.When it's found you can publish the information.He was an unfortunate.He was'nt a prostitute.

[harry]

Does your dictionaries,Paul,state that 'Unfortunate' means prostitute and nothing else?
I do not see my question to you Debra as not making sense.Do you believe what Herlock wrote,that 'Unfortunate' meant prostitute and nothing else.

[PaulB]

I wasnt suggesting they deserved to be murdered, I was referring to the circumstances they found themselves in and how they existed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You wrote, "in effect they were responsible for their own demise not society and society should not be blamed."

"They were responsible for their own demise" means that they were responsible for their deaths. It does not mean that they were responsible for how they were living.

It's that remark that you were criticised for by the listeners to Rubenhold's podcast and was used by the makers in their publicity.

Either you do mean they were responsible for their own death or it is your head that's stuck in a bucket, otherwise I'd have thought you would be very careful about your choice of words.

[PaulB]

Post 86,Herlock wrote,'The term unfortunate meant prostitute and nothing else'. NOTHING ELSE,that is what he claims.Not pauper,not destitute,not homeless, etc.Just Prostitute.I say he is wrong.Now he may claim he didn't use the words pauper,destitute,homeless etc,and they do'nt count.BS.
Sure,some unfortunates turned to prostitution and drink,I have stated that,but not all,by any means.
Unfortunate was a term used to describe several types of persons,and it included men and children.All were according to Herlock prostitutes,because he writes unfortunate meant prostitute and nothing else.
That is what I am argueing against.
Henry McMahon was a resident of Jamaica.What I wrote about him can be found in the Jamaican newspaper archives the'Gleaner'.I'll leave you Herlock to research Henry Mcmahon.I've given you the lead.When it's found you can publish the information.He was an unfortunate.He was'nt a prostitute.

When someone was described as "an unfortunate" it meant that they were a prostitute. It did not mean anything else. It did not mean pauper, destitute, homeless, or workhouse inmate.

You have been shown dictionary definitions, a newspaper story under the headline "Harbouring Unfortunates" about a pub landlord who was fined for allowing prostitutes to use his premises, people describing themselves as "an unfortunate" when asked their occupation... Despite insisting that there were thousands of people called unfortunates who were not prostitutes, you have not shown a single example. Despite claiming that men and children were called unfortunates, you haven't shown a single example.

Herlock told you that "unfortunate" is a word with multiple meanings and he's made it clear that as a noun "an unfortunate" always meant a prostitute. Nobody seems to disagree with him. The weight of evidence available to him supports his contention, not yours. You can argue against that forevermore, but you need to support your argument with evidence. You need to show someone clearly described as "an unfortunate" in a clear context that did not mean prostitute, and answer people properly when they ask you to state the sources when you make claims like the figures you quoted earlier. You are challenging the accepted meaning and the onus is on you to support that challenge.

Unfortunately, whilst I thank you for citing the Daily Gleaner as the source for Henry McMahon, you really can't expect others to search for the reference. At least provide them with the day, month, and year of publication.

[PaulB]

Does your dictionaries,Paul,state that 'Unfortunate' means prostitute and nothing else?
I do not see my question to you Debra as not making sense.Do you believe what Herlock wrote,that 'Unfortunate' meant prostitute and nothing else.

I'm not getting into games with you, Harry. We know the word "unfortunate" has multiple meanings, and every dictionary gives those meanings, so obviously the dictionary does not define "unfortunate" exclusively as a prostitute. But, as a noun, "an unfortunate" meant a prostitute. And may I remind you that you wrote, "nowhere on the internet can I find unfortunate to be an euphemism of prostitute”. A dictionary definition was so quickly and easily found on the internet that it's incredible that you searched and failed to find one. Not only that, the Oxford English Dictionary, "the definitive record of the English language", shows that meaning in use from the 1790s. Now, if you disagree, get some evidence to support your case.