Ripperologist 108

[Ripperologist magazine]

Dear Chris, Tom and all,

Glad to see that our review, along with other content, has generated discussion.

As subscribers, you'll aware that we'd prefer to have specific questions on our content directed to the magazine, where we will respond accordingly.

If you're happy with my extracting your post as a letter to the magazine, Chris, we'll gladly publish it in the imminent December issue.

On another note, it's incorrect to assume that Paul Begg reviews every book featured in Ripperologist.

Best wishes
Adam Wood
Executive Editor,
Ripperologist

contact@ripperologist.biz

[Tom_Wescott]

Surely someone connected with Mr Begg's organ can let us know what the wording should have been?

Too easy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Nice cover though.

Monty

shouldn't the author of the review have addressed Mr. Trow's sophomoric explanation of Robert Mann's supposed carte blanche to come-and-go from the Whitechapel Union Infirmary; rather than coming up with his own conjectural bullshit?

My problem is I don't even understand what his own "conjectural bullshit" means!

"Although a pauper inmate of the workhouse, it would appear that Mann was employee, the workhouse as mortuary keeper, a function he had performed for some years. It is to be assumed that he received bed If that was the case then presumably he would have enjoyed greater liberty than the otherwise largely transient population of such places."

"… it would appear that Mann was employee,"

"… mortuary keeper, a function he had performed for some years."

Robert Mann was admitted to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, in March 1873 - in all likelihood, never to be discharged, until his death, in 1896.

But Robert Mann was a nearly life-long resident of specifically the Whitechapel Union's Charles Street facility - even following its conversion to Union Infirmary. So why would he have worn a workhouse uniform, if in fact he resided in the Whitechapel Union Infirmary - as opposed to the Whitechapel Union Workhouse - , in 1888?

…

My guess, is that he was discharged from the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, Charles Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town, upon its relocation to South Grove, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, in ~1872; and that as a result of his continued state of destitution, he was re-admitted to the facility, from which he had been discharged, upon its conversion to Whitechapel Union Infirmary.

But, why would an able-bodied pauper be admitted to the Union Infirmary, rather than the Union Workhouse, on the basis of his being "Destitute"? Perhaps, so that he could fulfill certain infirmary-based responsibilities: e.g. that of 'Mortuary Attendant'.

Point of Clarification:

I am suggesting that Robert Mann was 'technically' a uniformed inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse - in any case, he was a uniformed ward of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union - , even though he actually resided in the Whitechapel Union Infirmary.

Robert Mann was not an "employee" of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union! He was an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Infirmary - as opposed to the Whitechapel Union Workhouse; having been admitted in 1873, on the basis of his being "Destitute".

It would appear that he was retained at the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, Charles Street / Baker's Row, Hamlet of Mile End New Town, rather than being transferred to the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, South Grove, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town (as would normally be the case for any 'able-bodied' pauper, admitted to the infirmary on the basis of destitution), so that he could fulfill certain infirmary-based responsibilities, such as 'Mortuary Attendant'.

But, his 23-year residence at the Whitechapel Union Infirmary notwithstanding, he was in all likelihood - technically speaking; i.e. for all intents and purposes - an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse. We know after all, that he did in fact, wear a Whitechapel Union Workhouse uniform.

Again;

"… mortuary keeper, a function he had performed for some years."

For "some years"? How do we know that? I don't believe that we do!

While we can rightfully assume that by 1888, he had spent fifteen years fulfilling infirmary-based responsibilities, we cannot be certain as to the point in time, at which he was given responsibility for the infirmary's 'dead house'.

And by the way, we have no reason to assume that this particular responsibility entailed anything more than transporting decedents from the union infirmary or nearby casual ward, to the 'dead house'; receiving decedents from the union workhouse (~1.5 miles distant); receiving decedents from the local constabulary, in cases of murder or the discovery of unidentified bodies, within the boundaries of the Whitechapel District of the Metropolitan Board of Works; stripping/washing such decedents; maintaining cleanliness and order within the 'dead house'; and maintaining possession of the keys to the 'dead house'. This, in all likelihood, would not have constituted a full-time 'job'; and so it can be assumed that Robert Mann spent a great deal of his time at the infirmary itself, fulfilling other responsibilities.

"It is to be assumed that he received bed …"

Robert Mann was not a civilian employee of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union, who "received bed" (i.e. 'received room & board') in return for fulfilling the responsibilities of some sort of 'job'. He was a ward of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union; and as such, was confined* to the poor law facility, in which he resided.

* Confined: In accordance with the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834; and the Poor Law Commission Consolidated General Order 1847, and its applicable guidelines for the administration of 'Poor Relief' facilities (i.e. workhouses, infirmaries, and casual wards).

For Messrs. Trow, George and Begg**, who don't seem to know the difference between a workhouse and a crack house: That's C-O-N-F-I-N-E-D !!!

** That, assuming that Paul Begg is in fact, the author of the book review in question.

"… If that was the case then presumably he would have enjoyed greater liberty …"

Nonsense! Actually, … Bollocks!

Again;

As a nearly life-long ward of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union, who had perhaps been a loyal and trustworthy servant; might Robert Mann have been granted some sort of passage, with which he was able to occasionally 'come-and-go'? I would think so! But, were this the case; he would surely have been held strictly accountable for his 'comings-and-goings', in every instance. And to suggest that he might have been granted such passage, between the hours of midnight and 6:00AM, is ridiculous.

[Chris]

shouldn't the author of the review have addressed Mr. Trow's sophomoric explanation of Robert Mann's supposed carte blanche to come-and-go from the Whitechapel Union Infirmary; rather than coming up with his own conjectural bullshit?

My problem is I don't even understand what his own "conjectural bullshit" means!

I think something has clearly gone amiss with the wording of the review at some stage of the process. Surely someone connected with Mr Begg's organ can let us know what the wording should have been?

[The Grave Maurice]

You should be in a better mood, SB. My son tells me that Chelsea won again today.

I believe Paul Begg writes the book reviews for Ripperologist.

As I have already stated; …

... the author of the review, like Mr. Trow, doesn't know the difference between a workhouse and a crack house!

Incidentally, shouldn't the author of the review have addressed Mr. Trow's sophomoric explanation of Robert Mann's supposed carte blanche to come-and-go from the Whitechapel Union Infirmary; rather than coming up with his own conjectural bullshit?

... the much debated opportunity to get out of the workhouse, is taken care of thusly:

"For Mann, the first problem would be actually getting out of the workhouse with its locked gates and gate-keepers. This was in fact surprisingly easy. As an inmate told Jack London in 1902, the Whitechapel Infirmary was ΄the easiest spike going΄, and when London ran for it through the open gates, no one tried to stop him or gave chase."

"This was in fact surprisingly easy."

As easy as pulling fantasy out of one's own ass!

Mr. Trow is suggesting that Robert Mann was able to come-and-go from the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, as often as he damn well pleased, in 1888; on the basis that Jack London 'done a bunk' from the Whitechapel Union Casual Ward, on a single occasion, in 1902.

And to think that 'Ripperology' is not considered a legitimate academic discipline!

[Ally]

I believe Paul Begg writes the book reviews for Ripperologist.

[ATTACH]7154[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]7154[/ATTACH]

... it would appear to me that, after all, the fellow had a "night job" which probably gave him a free pass to get out of the workhouse in the hours of darkness, ...

I believe we can rest assured that Robert Mann was sent to the 'dead house' belonging to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, on a 'case-by-case' / 'as needed' basis. How that can possibly constitute his having "a 'night job' which probably gave him a free pass to get out of the workhouse in the hours of darkness", is beyond reason.

[ATTACH]7154[/ATTACH]

... I don't have a problem with that and believe Mann probably could have got out any time he liked.

If you wish to obsequiously lick the wounds that Mr. Trow might have sustained, then go right ahead. But, please do not attempt to re-write history - as it pertains to the English Poor Law, and its accordant guidelines for the confinement of long-term able-bodied inmates of 'poor relief' facilities - with wild conjecture, for which there is no basis whatsoever.

As a nearly life-long ward of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union, who had perhaps been a loyal and trustworthy servant; might Robert Mann have been granted some sort of passage, with which he was able to occasionally 'come-and-go'? I would think so! But, were this the case; he would surely have been held strictly accountable for his 'comings-and-goings', in every instance. And to suggest that he might have been granted such passage, between the hours of midnight and 6:00AM, is ridiculous.

--- Click the Respective Quote Prompt (White Arrow) to view the original post, in JTR Forums.com ---

"Although a pauper inmate of the workhouse, it would appear that Mann was employee, the workhouse as mortuary keeper, a function he had performed for some years. It is to be assumed that he received bed If that was the case then presumably he would have enjoyed greater liberty than the otherwise largely transient population of such places."

Apart from the fact that the writer seems to be unaware that it was laid down by statute that paupers were not allowed to go out of the workhouse without the permission of the master, I find it very difficult to work out what those two (or is it three?) sentences are meant to convey. Can anyone help?

They are intended to convey the simple fact that the author of the review, like Mr. Trow, doesn't know the difference between a workhouse and a crack house!

[lynn cates]

others

Hello Tom. I meant some of the others. No slight intended.

Most of the chaps who have been here a while are veterans, I take it. That is why I feel fortunate to be here and hence learn.

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris is a veteran Ripperologist, Lynn.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

strange

Hello Chris. It does indeed.

I wonder what the veteran ripperologists have to say about the freedom Mann was supposed to have?

The best.
LC

[Chris]

Hello Chris. In plain English, I take it this means, "We wish this bloody book to sell and consequently grasp at straws to overcome the difficulties that the theory entails."

To be fair, on the whole the review is not very favourable. Which in a way makes this special pleading stranger.

[lynn cates]

straws

Hello Chris. In plain English, I take it this means, "We wish this bloody book to sell and consequently grasp at straws to overcome the difficulties that the theory entails."

The best.
LC