Book recommendations.

[c.d.]

Just finished "Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders" by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi was both the chief investigator on the case as well as the prosecutor. So it is very detailed. A long book - about 650 pages in paperback. I enjoyed it but it was kind of depressing. Manson and his family were some sick individuals.

https://www.amazon.com/Helter-Skelte...s%2C198&sr=8-1

Next up is "Gentleman in Moscow."


c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Just finished "Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders" by Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi was both the chief investigator on the case as well as the prosecutor. So it is very detailed. A long book - about 650 pages in paperback. I enjoyed it but it was kind of depressing. Manson and his family were some sick individuals.

https://www.amazon.com/Helter-Skelte...s%2C198&sr=8-1

Next up is "Gentleman in Moscow."


c.d.

Yeah c.d. It's a riveting read, although by the end of it I felt pretty battered by the sheer unremitting nihilism and dumb cruelty of Manson and his tribe.

I was constantly reminded of Hannah Arendt's comment about "the banality of evil".

[c.d.]

Bugliosi talked about how Manson became this huge cult figure in England especially among the younger generation and the prevalence of "Free Manson" posters seen everywhere. What was behind that?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, long review alert.

The book is The Suffragette Bombers: Britain’s Forgotten Terrorists by Simon Webb.

Over the years we’ve gained a picture of the Suffragettes that makes any attempt to challenge it an uncomfortable experience. This book does exactly that. It challenges two main themes: that the Suffragettes were fighting for votes for all women and that their struggle was a largely non-violent one. Neither are true. By any definition they were not democratic by any definition they were terrorists. Uncomfortable but true.

Their declaration was that “The Women’s Social and Political Union are NOT asking for a vote for every woman, but simply that sex shall cease to be a disqualification for the franchise.” Sex shouldn’t be a disqualification for the franchise of course but the Suffragettes made it quite clear in their literature that they were only fighting for votes for middle and upper class women. Those that owned property, paid rates or who had attended University. Some socialists at the time felt that rather than ‘Votes for Women’ their slogan should have been ‘Votes for Ladies.’

Terrorists? Examples are numerous but how else could we describe - petrol splashed around the carpets and curtains of a crowded theatre then set alight at the same time several bombs were set off inside the building. It was only extreme good fortune that no one was killed. Or, a bomb exploded in the Church of St Martin-in-the-Fields which blew out the windows showering passers by with shards of broken glass. Or a bomb planted in an empty train which exploded as another train passed causing a beam of wood to be hurled into the cab nearly killing the driver. These are only three examples but there were many, many more examples including letter bombs being sent to politicians and Judges. We all know about Emily Davison who threw herself under the King’s horse but were we told that she initiated an extensive arson campaign and was responsible for the first terrorist bomb being set off in England in the 20th century? These are undeniable documented facts.

There is also evidence that the Suffragettes slowed down rather than hastened votes for women. For years Suffragists (those that sought the vote through peaceful protest and constitutional methods) had made such gains that by the 1890’s a comfortable majority of 340 in the House Of Commons was in favour of female suffrage. In 1897 a motion was passed by 71 votes in favour. No further progress was made though and so Emmeline Pankhurst founded the WSPU stating ‘deeds not words.’ The outdated and obviously sexist notion that women couldn’t cope with the complications of politics was dying out. Whilst in no way achieving equality the writing was definitely on the wall. By 1911 for example there were 477 women doctors and in 1913 the first female magistrate was appointed in London as well as women being able to vote in local elections. It was also shown that women could equal and even out perform men in higher education. Votes for women was going to happen sooner rather than later. In 1906 Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman told a delegation of women “You have made before the country a conclusive and irresistible case.” What delayed the inevitable were the details and other events which the politicians felt had to take priority like mass strikes, possible military mutiny, Irish Home Rule and the huge constitutional issue of The House Of Lords blocking governments attempts to pass laws on issues like pensions plus the growing threat of war with Germany. Political self-interest also came into play of course. If women of the middle and upper classes gained the vote then the Conservative Party would have benefitted massively. The Independent Labour Party was absolutely in favour of votes for all women but they fell out with the Suffragettes because of their aim of only achieving votes for those of the middle and upper classes. At such a difficult time, with such issues unfolding it’s hardly that a government would have been unwilling to be seen to be ‘giving in’ to the those using the tactics of the terrorist.

It’s worth pointing out the usually ignored fact that the majority of women seeking the vote did it by non-violent means. The WSPU (Suffragettes) had between 3 and 5000 members whilst the non-violent National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (Suffragists) had 50,000 members. It’s also worth pointing out that many people compared the WSPU to fascist movements. Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence (one of the WSPU’s biggest supporters and benefactors) called it “an enthusiastically supported dictatorship.” Indeed many of its members moved politically to the right and the far right. Emmeline Pankhurst stood as a Conservative candidate. Norah Elam became the most prominent woman in Moseley’s British Union Of Fascists. The chief organiser of the BUF (women’s section) was Mary Richardson, who had slashed the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery in protest at the treatment of Emmeline Pankhurst. Mary Allen, who organised Emily Davison’s funeral was an active Moseley supporter. Many rank and file members were to be found in Moseley’s Blackshirts. This isn’t stated to blacken the movement as a whole but to point out the whitewashing that has resulted over the years by those seeking to place Suffragettes on a pedestal with wings and a halo.


No one can doubt the cause, but the methods used? How do they differ from the IRA apart from the amount of resulting deaths? If you set off bombs in public places or post bombs in the mail or set fire to public places you know that innocent lives will be put at risk; not to mention the ordinary people who lost their living due to the resulting destruction. Another way of putting it is that if person A shot someone in the head then person B shot someone in the head but person B’s victim survived whilst person A’s victim died would we say that person B was less culpable or worthy of censure because he hadn’t actually killed anyone? I think that we can all answer that one easily. The majority of women who fought for women’s suffrage deserve nothing but respect and admiration but this book shows how the Suffragettes have been whitewashed over the years to the extent that the reality is well hidden. They have become beyond criticism. This is a brilliant book in my opinion. It won’t be a universally popular book but I think it’s an important one.


My apologies again for the length of this review.

[Ms Diddles]

Ok, long review alert.

The book is The Suffragette Bombers: Britain’s Forgotten Terrorists by Simon Webb.

Over the years we’ve gained a picture of the Suffragettes that makes any attempt to challenge it an uncomfortable experience. This book does exactly that. It challenges two main themes: that the Suffragettes were fighting for votes for all women and that their struggle was a largely non-violent one. Neither are true. By any definition they were not democratic by any definition they were terrorists. Uncomfortable but true.

Their declaration was that “The Women’s Social and Political Union are NOT asking for a vote for every woman, but simply that sex shall cease to be a disqualification for the franchise.” Sex shouldn’t be a disqualification for the franchise of course but the Suffragettes made it quite clear in their literature that they were only fighting for votes for middle and upper class women. Those that owned property, paid rates or who had attended University. Some socialists at the time felt that rather than ‘Votes for Women’ their slogan should have been ‘Votes for Ladies.’

Terrorists? Examples are numerous but how else could we describe - petrol splashed around the carpets and curtains of a crowded theatre then set alight at the same time several bombs were set off inside the building. It was only extreme good fortune that no one was killed. Or, a bomb exploded in the Church of St Martin-in-the-Fields which blew out the windows showering passers by with shards of broken glass. Or a bomb planted in an empty train which exploded as another train passed causing a beam of wood to be hurled into the cab nearly killing the driver. These are only three examples but there were many, many more examples including letter bombs being sent to politicians and Judges. We all know about Emily Davison who threw herself under the King’s horse but were we told that she initiated an extensive arson campaign and was responsible for the first terrorist bomb being set off in England in the 20th century? These are undeniable documented facts.

There is also evidence that the Suffragettes slowed down rather than hastened votes for women. For years Suffragists (those that sought the vote through peaceful protest and constitutional methods) had made such gains that by the 1890’s a comfortable majority of 340 in the House Of Commons was in favour of female suffrage. In 1897 a motion was passed by 71 votes in favour. No further progress was made though and so Emmeline Pankhurst founded the WSPU stating ‘deeds not words.’ The outdated and obviously sexist notion that women couldn’t cope with the complications of politics was dying out. Whilst in no way achieving equality the writing was definitely on the wall. By 1911 for example there were 477 women doctors and in 1913 the first female magistrate was appointed in London as well as women being able to vote in local elections. It was also shown that women could equal and even out perform men in higher education. Votes for women was going to happen sooner rather than later. In 1906 Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman told a delegation of women “You have made before the country a conclusive and irresistible case.” What delayed the inevitable were the details and other events which the politicians felt had to take priority like mass strikes, possible military mutiny, Irish Home Rule and the huge constitutional issue of The House Of Lords blocking governments attempts to pass laws on issues like pensions plus the growing threat of war with Germany. Political self-interest also came into play of course. If women of the middle and upper classes gained the vote then the Conservative Party would have benefitted massively. The Independent Labour Party was absolutely in favour of votes for all women but they fell out with the Suffragettes because of their aim of only achieving votes for those of the middle and upper classes. At such a difficult time, with such issues unfolding it’s hardly that a government would have been unwilling to be seen to be ‘giving in’ to the those using the tactics of the terrorist.

It’s worth pointing out the usually ignored fact that the majority of women seeking the vote did it by non-violent means. The WSPU (Suffragettes) had between 3 and 5000 members whilst the non-violent National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (Suffragists) had 50,000 members. It’s also worth pointing out that many people compared the WSPU to fascist movements. Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence (one of the WSPU’s biggest supporters and benefactors) called it “an enthusiastically supported dictatorship.” Indeed many of its members moved politically to the right and the far right. Emmeline Pankhurst stood as a Conservative candidate. Norah Elam became the most prominent woman in Moseley’s British Union Of Fascists. The chief organiser of the BUF (women’s section) was Mary Richardson, who had slashed the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery in protest at the treatment of Emmeline Pankhurst. Mary Allen, who organised Emily Davison’s funeral was an active Moseley supporter. Many rank and file members were to be found in Moseley’s Blackshirts. This isn’t stated to blacken the movement as a whole but to point out the whitewashing that has resulted over the years by those seeking to place Suffragettes on a pedestal with wings and a halo.


No one can doubt the cause, but the methods used? How do they differ from the IRA apart from the amount of resulting deaths? If you set off bombs in public places or post bombs in the mail or set fire to public places you know that innocent lives will be put at risk; not to mention the ordinary people who lost their living due to the resulting destruction. Another way of putting it is that if person A shot someone in the head then person B shot someone in the head but person B’s victim survived whilst person A’s victim died would we say that person B was less culpable or worthy of censure because he hadn’t actually killed anyone? I think that we can all answer that one easily. The majority of women who fought for women’s suffrage deserve nothing but respect and admiration but this book shows how the Suffragettes have been whitewashed over the years to the extent that the reality is well hidden. They have become beyond criticism. This is a brilliant book in my opinion. It won’t be a universally popular book but I think it’s an important one.


My apologies again for the length of this review.

That sounds interesting, Herlock.

I will check it out, although I'm pretty sure I will remain a suffragette sympathiser regardless.

I don't doubt that some of the tactics used were decidedly unsavoury, but I'm unlikely to condemn a movement which has given me so much.


When I was about ten, my mum ran a nursing home and I used to help out in the kitchen and with serving cups of tea and afternoon sherry.

One of the residents was 104 (so likely born around 1880).

As a teenager she had worked for a milliner in London and had made hats for Queen Victoria.

She had also been involved in the original suffragette movement.

Amazing woman.

At 104 she was still quite feisty and extremely imperious.

Even at that early age, I was a little in awe of her although I didn't fully appreciate the full significance.

I always made sure she got a really good glug of sherry!

[Herlock Sholmes]

This book is a well researched eye opener. I’d recently read another book on the Suffragettes and unsurprisingly none of the stuff in Webb’s book was mentioned. Emmeline Pankhurst Suffragettes need a major historical re-assessment.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Suffragette-Bombers-Britains-Forgotten-Terrorists/dp/1783400641

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just finished The Case Of The Murderous Dr Cream by Dean Jobb. This one is a cracker. The author has clearly done lots of research to track Cream’s life and career. I can’t think of a fault. Its one of those books that makes you wonder if anyone else will ever bother writing a book on Cream?

Highly recommended

[Ms Diddles]

I just finished The Case Of The Murderous Dr Cream by Dean Jobb. This one is a cracker. The author has clearly done lots of research to track Cream’s life and career. I can’t think of a fault. Its one of those books that makes you wonder if anyone else will ever bother writing a book on Cream?

Highly recommended

Thanks Herlock!

Moving it to my basket from "saved for later" on Amazon!

[Ms Diddles]

I recently enjoyed "Murder Isn't Easy: The Forensics of Agatha Christie" by Carla Valentine.

It intersperses biographical information about Christie with contemporaneous advances in forensic science.

I'd never really considered how well informed and ahead of her time old Agatha was!

There are many references to the influence which Conan Doyle had on her writing (Herlock!) and Bernard Spillsbury, Lombroso and Locard etc all feature.

It's really light, unchallenging reading.

One for reading over the festive season, curled up by a roaring fire with a glass of sherry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I recently enjoyed "Murder Isn't Easy: The Forensics of Agatha Christie" by Carla Valentine.

It intersperses biographical information about Christie with contemporaneous advances in forensic science.

I'd never really considered how well informed and ahead of her time old Agatha was!

There are many references to the influence which Conan Doyle had on her writing (Herlock!) and Bernard Spillsbury, Lombroso and Locard etc all feature.

It's really light, unchallenging reading.

One for reading over the festive season, curled up by a roaring fire with a glass of sherry.

I saw a documentary about her a while ago and found that she was fascinated by poison and new her stuff. I’ve read all of her Poirot short stories and a couple of the longer ones but that’s all really. Just something I’ve never gotten around to. When I finish my Dr Thorndyke stories (which I’m dipping in and out of) I might try a bit of Agatha. Problem is that I also have 2 books of Holmes stories to read and one book of new Pons stories. I’ll never catch up.

[Ms Diddles]

I saw a documentary about her a while ago and found that she was fascinated by poison and new her stuff. I’ve read all of her Poirot short stories and a couple of the longer ones but that’s all really. Just something I’ve never gotten around to. When I finish my Dr Thorndyke stories (which I’m dipping in and out of) I might try a bit of Agatha. Problem is that I also have 2 books of Holmes stories to read and one book of new Pons stories. I’ll never catch up.

Yeah, Agatha worked as a nurse during WW1 and developed a real interest in and knowledge of poison IIRC.

I'm a huge fan, but a large part of that is because I was practically weaned on her books.

They are like a big comfort blanket to me!

If you're going to give it a shot, I'd recommend The Murder of Roger Ackroyd or And Then There Were none for excellent writing and ingenious plot twists.

They are very easy reading, and you would likely take out a whole book over an evening or maybe two.

Edited for spelling. Bloody predictive text.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd is one that I’ve read after seeing it in a charity shop. I’ll definitely make the effort to read more of hers in time though.

[c.d.]

Just started a very good and intriguing (so far) outdoor adventure/true crime book entitled "Journal of the Dead" by Jason Kersten. Two twenty something best friends get lost in a U.S. National Park. One of the friends admits to killing his buddy saying his buddy was in agony being without water for so long and begged to be killed. He claims it was a mercy killing but is put on trial for murder. A true story.

https://www.amazon.com/Journal-Dead-...ct_top?ie=UTF8

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just started a very good and intriguing (so far) outdoor adventure/true crime book entitled "Journal of the Dead" by Jason Kersten. Two twenty something best friends get lost in a U.S. National Park. One of the friends admits to killing his buddy saying his buddy was in agony being without water for so long and begged to be killed. He claims it was a mercy killing but is put on trial for murder. A true story.

https://www.amazon.com/Journal-Dead-...ct_top?ie=UTF8

c.d.

Sounds interesting c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

Yeah, I do enjoy true outdoor adventure books. Nothing like sitting comfortably at home on your butt drinking a cold beer and reading about the adventures of others.

What happened to them was truly scary. They were in Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico so a desert environment. It was supposed to be just a simple overnight camping trip. They were repeatedly warned that anyone camping should be carrying at least a gallon of water per person per day. For some unknown reason they started into the desert canyon with just three pints of water between them. They pitch their tent, spend the night and start hiking back to their car which is really not that far away. Somehow they fail to find the trail they took down and can't find the car. Now they are really lost and no water. It rapidly goes down hill from there. One of the hikers kept a journal of what happened and then the book goes into his trial for the murder of his friend.

I will give a final review when I finish it.

c.d.