Tweet
I am watching the above - the assertion is that the early victims were not prostitutes. They refer to a contemporary observer who reported mass prostitution and then dismiss the account as "an obsession with prostitution". It seems to me to be a woke/left wing attempt to portray the investigation as bigoted. Even if Polly Nicholls was out in the early hours looking for her cat (thr programme makes no mention of the times these ladies were on the streets) it makes no difference to the investigation. One of the Yorkshire Rippers victims was a young respectable girl - so what? It doesn't matter to the investigation. I am disappointed with this programme and its agenda to denigrate Victorian policing ,& society. Another attempt to potray Brits as bigoted misoganists.
-
-
I envisaged that the background to the Catherine Eddowes murder might be a problem for this programme. The programne skirted over her comments and went on insisting that Mary Jane Kelly was the only admitted sex worker. -
the ginger crumpet would be a bullseye for our JackComment
-
Oh Jeezo!Originally posted by milchmanuk View Post
Bawdy, 1970's style use of the word "crumpet".
Used to be a window cleaner in London.
Please tell me you're not Robin Asquith, Milchy.......Comment
-
It is the agenda of the 'left wing' to deny the reality of street prostitution?Originally posted by Coster View Post
I suspect that Josephine Butler and thousands like her would heartily disagree.Comment
-
Got this recorded!! Never expected too much but will still watch
Comment
-
still in London and whistling at crumpetOriginally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
Oh Jeezo!
Bawdy, 1970's style use of the word "crumpet".
Used to be a window cleaner in London.
Please tell me you're not Robin Asquith, Milchy.......Comment
-
-
i have toothbrush and travel .Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
It's like #MeToo never happened.
Comment
-
I suspect Ms Diddles might find an ingenious way for you to get it back home...Originally posted by milchmanuk View Post
i have toothbrush and travel .Thems the Vagaries.....Comment
-
No reason was given as to why Annie Chapman was legitimately in the back yard at 29 Hanbury Street when she had the rotten luck to have JtR wander in off the street and find her there. Just saying.Why a four-year-old child could understand this report! Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it.Comment
-
-
Perhaps Chapman,In need of a place to urinate,might have known of the toilet in the back yard,and on leaving 29 met someone who was able to coax her back inside?Comment
-
My comment concerning Chapman being legitimately in the rear of Hanbury Street was sarcasm about the TV show proclaiming there was no evidence she was engaged in prostitution. I mean, the odds she visited the premises (while trespassing) to use the toilet or to adjust her clothing and then JtR happened along at the same time defy belief.Why a four-year-old child could understand this report! Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it.Comment
-
It's got so bad it's enough to make this life long Labour voter say "they're not with me"!Originally posted by Harry D
I just heard of this documentary. Whilst downloading I thought I'd have a look on Casebook and see if anything had been said about it. I've stopped the download.These are not clues, Fred.
It is not yarn leading us to the dark heart of this place.
They are half-glimpsed imaginings, tangle of shadows.
And you and I floundering at them in the ever vainer hope that we might corral them into meaning when we will not.
We will not.Comment
Comment