Work among the fallen as seen in the prison cell

[PaulB]

Harry, By the way, in post 86 Herlock did not say "The term unfortunate meant prostitute and nothing else", as you claim. He said that the term "an unfortunate" meant a prostitute. It has been explained to you that when a woman was called "an unfortunate", it did not mean she was a pauper, it meant she was a prostitute. Context is important.

[harry]

I have provided proof that 'Unfortunate' was used to describe person's other than prostitutes.The reason you will not accept it Paul,is that you need the word to read prostitute,because you have commited yourself,in writing,books etc,that the 'Five' were prostitutes.
I expect anyone that has a counter arguement to search the source I provided.The day,month,and year excuse,and it is only that,an excuse,is not valid.
When I used the archives of the Gleaner,I did not have the day,month,or year of publication given to me.It can be found without that kind of information.
The figures I quoted are accessable on the internet.It does not need a deal of intelligence to find.
I think posters will make their own decision on whether I am asking too much.Pleased to see that at least one other poster is of the mind that no official information is available to show the five committed the criminal activity of prostitution.

[harry]

Something I forgot..The dictionaries you quote.Did they,as Herlock writes,state,'And nothing else'.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I have provided proof that 'Unfortunate' was used to describe person's other than prostitutes.The reason you will not accept it Paul,is that you need the word to read prostitute,because you have commited yourself,in writing,books etc,that the 'Five' were prostitutes.
I expect anyone that has a counter arguement to search the source I provided.The day,month,and year excuse,and it is only that,an excuse,is not valid.
When I used the archives of the Gleaner,I did not have the day,month,or year of publication given to me.It can be found without that kind of information.
The figures I quoted are accessable on the internet.It does not need a deal of intelligence to find.
I think posters will make their own decision on whether I am asking too much.Pleased to see that at least one other poster is of the mind that no official information is available to show the five committed the criminal activity of prostitution.

Hi Harry,

You could just post a link to the specific article, or put up a screen shot, or hell, I'd even go for a rough outline of the article just to get at least a bit of context, because I've neither the time nor inclination to go through the 900 plus results for "Henry McMahon" on the Jamaica Gleaner archive, most of which appear to be cricket results.

Also, the Gleaner archive has got an abundance of transcription errors, which makes looking for Harry's unfortunate needle a royal pain in the 'arris.

Also, since you yourself got given the details, can't you just pass them on?

[PaulB]

I have provided proof that 'Unfortunate' was used to describe person's other than prostitutes.The reason you will not accept it Paul,is that you need the word to read prostitute,because you have commited yourself,in writing,books etc,that the 'Five' were prostitutes.
I expect anyone that has a counter arguement to search the source I provided.The day,month,and year excuse,and it is only that,an excuse,is not valid.
When I used the archives of the Gleaner,I did not have the day,month,or year of publication given to me.It can be found without that kind of information.
The figures I quoted are accessable on the internet.It does not need a deal of intelligence to find.
I think posters will make their own decision on whether I am asking too much.Pleased to see that at least one other poster is of the mind that no official information is available to show the five committed the criminal activity of prostitution.

Sorry, Harry, but you have not provided proof at all. And it is farcical that you expect anyone to do the searching to find what you claim is your supporting evidence.

[PaulB]

Something I forgot..The dictionaries you quote.Did they,as Herlock writes,state,'And nothing else'.

What they say is stated clearly. If you don't understand them, perhaps somebody will explain it to you. I've wasted enough time. And while they're at it, ask them to point out where you said you'd searched the internet and failed to find an example of "unfortunate" meaning "prostitute". Try admitting that you were absolutely wrong.

[Debra A]

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.

Harry, I know that you know that the word 'unfortunate,' was used to describe someone down on their luck etc. and indeed it was, as Herlock and Paul and many others have explained. You are correct there.
Yes, I do personally believe that the noun 'unfortunate' was a euphemism for prostitute and I haven't read that on the back of a cornflakes packet.
My research in the poor law and court and criminal records has satisfied me personally that the noun an "unfortunate" when applied to a woman, was understood in that period to mean someone who exchanged sexual favours for a reward, in whatever form, for example, a homeless woman finding a man who would pay for them both to share a bed in a lodging house for the night.

I do not believe that everyone in the pauper class was "an unfortunate" nor do I believe everyone classed as "an unfortunate" was of the pauper class. That's the only way I can answer your question.

[PaulB]

Hi Harry,

You could just post a link to the specific article, or put up a screen shot, or hell, I'd even go for a rough outline of the article just to get at least a bit of context, because I've neither the time nor inclination to go through the 900 plus results for "Henry McMahon" on the Jamaica Gleaner archive, most of which appear to be cricket results.

Also, the Gleaner archive has got an abundance of transcription errors, which makes looking for Harry's unfortunate needle a royal pain in the 'arris.

Also, since you yourself got given the details, can't you just pass them on?

It seems to be easier for Harry to play games. I really hate to say this, but we know he's wrong, he's not provided a jot of evidence for any of his claims, and he expects us to search for the confirmation of what he says. It's like being arrested for a crime, being shown the mountain of evidence against you, and protesting you didn't do the crime and shouldn't be convicted until the police go out and look for the evidence of your innocence.

Maybe the unfortunate Mr McMahon was fast bowled?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Harry, I struggle to understand what you’re talking about here but I can’t take what you say seriously because when you talk about the term unfortunate you have shown that you don’t appear to understand what a noun is and there’s only so any times that I and others can be expected to keep explaining this to you.

Sure,some unfortunates turned to prostitution and drink,I have stated that,but not all,by any means.

Wrong. If a women turned to prostitution she became ‘an Unfortunate.’ There is a Mount Everest of evidence confirming this very obvious point and you haven’t produced a single, solitary, scintilla of evidence to show otherwise.

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.

And I’m right and you are wrong. As every single poster on here can see. Why don’t you, for once Harry, switch off the arrogance and realise that you are the only person arguing that an Unfortunate wasn’t specifically a prostitute. Doesn’t that tell you something Harry? Forget me you have researchers/writers of the experience of Paul, Debra and Trevor who are all telling you that you are wrong after years of trawling the archives and seeing that every single time someone is referred to as ‘an Unfortunate’ it’s always a the case that she’s a prostitute.

That is what I am argueing against.

You’re arguing against evidence whilst appearing to believe that you only need to say something for it to be believed. You’ve produced on thing. A dictionary quote which didn’t include ‘Unfortunate’ as a noun.

Paul has produced the OED quote. That ends the need for more argument. You have been proved wrong unless you are now claiming that The Oxford English Dictionary is wrong which wouldn’t actually surprise me.

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.

He wasn’t ‘an Unfortunate’ Harry. You’re making things up.

More than ample evidence has been presented by myself, Debra and Paul.

You, on the other hand, have produced…..

a dictionary definition for the word unfortunate which didn’t include the archaic noun term ‘Unfortunate’ - fortunately Paul has provided one

a reference to your great-grandmother but with no written evidence to back up what you’ve claimed

a reference to Henry McMahon with no written evidence to back up your claim and you’ve also very suspiciously refused even to provide a pointer or a link to the specific part (as if Debra or Paul are expected to go through the entire newspaper catalogue.)

Provide evidence or give up Harry.

[Debra A]

And I’m right and you are wrong. As every single poster on here can see. Why don’t you, for once Harry, switch off the arrogance and realise that you are the only person arguing that an Unfortunate wasn’t specifically a prostitute. Doesn’t that tell you something Harry? Forget me you have researchers/writers of the experience of Paul, Debra and Trevor who are all telling you that you are wrong after years of trawling the archives and seeing that every single time someone is referred to as ‘an Unfortunate’ it’s always a the case that she’s a prostitute.

Actually, Herlock, I don't think you can include Trevor in the group of people who understand the term "an unfortunate" to be a euphemism for 'prostitute, I think there are several examples in the thread of Trevor not understanding the specifics of the argument about being described as "an unfortunate" For example post #101

Trevor is actually saying that the women were prostitutes because the police labelled them as such and his proof is a police related document, whereas Hallie Rubenhold is claiming the police were misogynistic in their approach by automatically labelling destitute women as prostitutes. If Hallie Rubenhold is correct in her conclusions then producing evidence from a police document doesn't prove anything, as Paul has alluded to.

For me personally, the usage of the term "an unfortunate" and its meaning is interesting because we see women of the area referring to themselves as 'unfortunates' or of the class 'unfortunates,'
As is usual with message board discussions, not everyone is on the same page despite thinking they are on the same side. I certainly do not agree with the things Trevor has said on this thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, Herlock, I don't think you can include Trevor in the group of people who understand the term "an unfortunate" to be a euphemism for 'prostitute, I think there are several examples in the thread of Trevor not understanding the specifics of the argument about being described as "an unfortunate" For example post #101

Trevor is actually saying that the women were prostitutes because the police labelled them as such and his proof is a police related document, whereas Hallie Rubenhold is claiming the police were misogynistic in their approach by automatically labelling destitute women as prostitutes. If Hallie Rubenhold is correct in her conclusions then producing evidence from a police document doesn't prove anything, as Paul has alluded to.

For me personally, the usage of the term "an unfortunate" and its meaning is interesting because we see women of the area referring to themselves as 'unfortunates' or of the class 'unfortunates,'
As is usual with message board discussions, not everyone is on the same page despite thinking they are on the same side. I certainly do not agree with the things Trevor has said on this thread.

I’d did respond to Trevor’s post #101 Debra. I certainly don’t agree with his comments but I did thought that he at least understood that the term ‘Unfortunate’ did mean prostitute.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Something I forgot..The dictionaries you quote.Did they,as Herlock writes,state,'And nothing else'.

No they didn’t Harry. And when you look under the definition of Bricklayer it doesn’t say “someone who lays bricks and nothing else.”

Come on Harry this is desperate stuff.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor is actually saying that the women were prostitutes because the police labelled them as such and his proof is a police related document, whereas Hallie Rubenhold is claiming the police were misogynistic in their approach by automatically labelling destitute women as prostitutes. If Hallie Rubenhold is correct in her conclusions then producing evidence from a police document doesn't prove anything, as Paul has alluded to. .

I am not saying that at all, what I have highlited in previous posts is the police procedures which were in operation in 1888 for dealing with prostitutes and the reasons why some of the victims had so many different aliases and could be an explantion for the police referring to each one as a prostitute.

I doubt the police would simply label anyone as a prostitue without some evidence to support that suggestion, if they had no idea as to what a victims occupation was they would have recorded it as "unknown" or "not known" to label someone as a prostitute would leave them open to a family memebr coming along, and taking exception to that entry and would be entitled to ask for proof.

Just to remind one an all extract from Sir Howard Vincents police codes in dealing with prostitutes

"Prostitutes cannot legally be taken into custody simply because they are prostitutes ; to justify their apprehension they must commit some distinct act which is an offence against the law"

1. There is frequently considerable difficulty in dealing with prostitutes in the absence of any private complaint or express statutory provision regarding them. The latter is not unfrequently found in some local enactment. The exercise of great tact and patience in the matter is in any case necessary. Prostitutes cannot legally be taken into custody simply because they are prostitutes ; to justify their apprehension they must commit some distinct act which is an offence against the law.

2. Under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, s. 3, every common prostitute wandering in the public streets or public highways, or in any place of public resort, and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner, is deemed an idle and disorderly person, and liable to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.
3. Police should observe if prostitutes, especially foreign women, are attended or watched by a souteneur or bully with a view to proceedings under the Vagrancy Act, 1898. (See ROGUES AND VAGABONDS.)

4. Under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, every common prostitute, or night-walker, loitering, or being in any thoroughfare, or public place, for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation, to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, is liable to a penalty of 40s.

5. Under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, every common prostitute or night-walker loitering and importuning passengers, for the purpose of prostitution, is subject to a similar fine, or fourteen days' imprisonment in default.

( After a woman is cautioned for prostitution she is then known as a common prostitute)

6. A constable may arrest, without warrant, any person whom he sees committing one of these offences. It is, however, necessary to prove that the woman is a common prostitute, and therefore the usual practice is that she should be cautioned the first time she is seen committing the offence, a note being made of the fact of the caution having been given.

(This would have been on an official record which I have no doubt the police referred to when describing the victims as prostitutes)

7. The greatest care is necessary in dealing with prostitutes. Women arrested under the most compromising circumstances often stoutly protest their innocence, and any appearance of arbitrary action is rightly resented by the public. It is therefore essential for police to be quite sure of their facts—habitual frequentation night after night, passing and repassing, overt solicitation (especially of youths or elderly men), noisy or indecent behaviour—before arresting. Even although a gentleman accosted and complaining to the police may naturally refuse to charge the offender, he may possibly consent to give his name and address to the constable for the private information of the magistrate.

8. Police should carefully avoid being drawn into conversation with any prostitute, for unfounded charges and suspicions may easily arise therefrom. At the same time they should avoid bullying or unduly harassing these unfortunate persons if their conduct is orderly, and be acquainted with the address and way to any houses or shelters of refuge for them.

9. County and Borough Councils may make byelaws imposing a penalty upon every person who in any street or place to which the public have access commits or attempts to commit any act of indecency with any other person.

10. The police have no power to interfere with men and women talking together in the streets, so long as they behave themselves properly, and are not assembled together in such numbers as actually to cause obstruction in the thoroughfares; but if it is absolutely necessary to interfere, then it must be done civilly and firmly, without any offensive language or manners.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

I’d did respond to Trevor’s post #101 Debra. I certainly don’t agree with his comments but I did thought that he at least understood that the term ‘Unfortunate’ did mean prostitute.

I know you rightly responded to the offensive bit of Trevor's #101 post in #106, Herlock. It was this statement from Trevor in the same posts and something similar in #106 that made me suspect he didn't realise the specifics of the 'unfortunate' discussion.

Lets be sensible about this point I am sure the police did not just go out and label every unfortuate woman as a prostitute

What does the dictionary term unfortunate mean "having or marked by bad fortune; unlucky" does that apply to these women? Yes they had fallen on hard times but was that through their own making?

It's along similar lines to Harry saying that not all unfortunate people were prostitutes, as I read it.

[Debra A]

I am not saying that at all, what I have highlited in previous posts is the police procedures which were in operation in 1888 for dealing with prostitutes and the reasons why some of the victims had so many different aliases and could be an explantion for the police referring to each one as a prostitute.

I was more referring to when you posted a police document as proof of the victims being prostitutes. As Paul said at the time, it doesn't tell us why they were suspected by police, especially as some have highlighted the fact that there are a lack of convictions in the court records to prove a history of prostitution in the victims cases. The use of aliases may account for it but aliases were often picked up on and documented by police. RJ touched on something briefly in an earlier post, that it may be that the women were more likely to be picked up and charged for wandering the streets at night that soliciting and I do wonder if Catherine Eddowes and Alice McKenzies convictions for being drunk and/or disorderly in a thoroughfare were made in place of being charged with soliciting. Could that be the case?

That specific police code you posted from is not c 1888 is it?