Ripperologist 129: December 2012

[lynn cates]

M O

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"It would almost have to be recognition by face."

Agreed.

"If detectives approached them in the past because of their political agendas, would there have been a chance that these detectives WERE NOT working for Special Branch?"

Probably not. But I wonder why Special Branch would approach them? Much of their work consisted in loitering about and keeping an eye out. Of course, for the discerning, they may have been easy to spot.

"If detectives were going back and forth, working for CID and also Special Branch on occasions, recognizing individuals just might have caused the confusion."

Indeed. And it might also cause all of them to be lumped together as "Secret Police."

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

It would almost have to be recognition by face. If detectives approached them in the past because of their political agendas, would there have been a chance that these detectives WERE NOT working for Special Branch? If detectives were going back and forth, working for CID and also Special Branch on occasions, recognizing individuals just might have caused the confusion. Is this clear as mud?

Sincerely,
Mike

[lynn cates]

recognising Special Branch

Hello Mike. There is little doubt but that they would have had some experience with Special Branch. But I wonder how they would have distinguished them from other plain clothes officers?

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

So, many of you are saying the publishers of Arbeter Fraint most likely referred to plainclothed detectives as 'secret police', but this seems to be more of an educated guess than based upon evidence. In my opinion, this is a significant issue. If we see this paper consistenty referring to Scotland Yard officials as secret police, then this would give it more merit. On the other hand, if this was an unusual phrase, it may just mean Special Branch. It seems a political group would have had experience with Special Branch.

Sincerely,

Mike

[lynn cates]

non-uniformed

Hello Chris. You make a good point.

I wonder whether "secret police" just meant "non-uniformed"?

Cheers.
LC

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Autospirograph,

I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm certainly not disputing the accuracy of the translation. Quite apart from anything else, I am in no way qualified to do so. For me what is at issue is not whether the word so translated actually meant 'secret police' - I accept that it did - but what the publishers of the Arbeter Fraint meant by that term. Would they have been aware of Special Branch as a separate entity, or would they have bracketed all plain-clothes officers under one generic term? I don't want to duplicate Monty's post, but I agree with his remarks about the intended meaning of 'secret police'.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell and Spiro

I also don't feel qualified to fully interpret what the publishers of the Arbeter Fraint meant by using the term "secret police" in that passage of the narrative, although possibly Bridewell is right in thinking that they might have bracketed all plainclothes officers under one generic term. As an extension of that idea, I also do think it's likely that as a radical group under suspicion by the British authorities, they probably had an "us and them" approach to talking about the cops. So in that case, even if they were perfectly able to distinguish regular Scotland Yard detectives from Special Branch men, it might have behooved the publishers to label all such English detectives the same way, with a broadstroke dismissal, just as they do in the rather sarcastic way they talk about the religious Jews in the article. In other words, in both those cases, there could have been a political motive for characterizing the cops and the observant Jews in a distinctive way because they would have known that it would have played well with the readership.

Best regards

Chris

[Bridewell]

Secret Police

If the term which has been translated as "secret police" is claimed in dispute and in error, as seems to be the case here amongst a few, then translation of the entire article should be approached with caution.

Hi Autospirograph,

I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm certainly not disputing the accuracy of the translation. Quite apart from anything else, I am in no way qualified to do so. For me what is at issue is not whether the word so translated actually meant 'secret police' - I accept that it did - but what the publishers of the Arbeter Fraint meant by that term. Would they have been aware of Special Branch as a separate entity, or would they have bracketed all plain-clothes officers under one generic term? I don't want to duplicate Monty's post, but I agree with his remarks about the intended meaning of 'secret police'.

Regards, Bridewell.

[ChrisGeorge]

Why then, not simply express in Yiddish the word for detective if that is truly what they referred to?

If the term which has been translated as "secret police" is claimed in dispute and in error, as seems to be the case here amongst a few, then translation of the entire article should be approached with caution.

Hi Spiros

The translator, Dr. Khane-Faygl "Anita" Turtletaub who kindly rendered the Arbeter Fraint article of 5 October 1888 into English, got as close to the English meaning of each term as expressed in the original Yiddish text of the article without distorting what was actually said. So, similarly, her translation at one point reads, "Dimshits, Eygel and Gilyarovsky ran to look for a policeman; ten minutes later they had found a pair of peace-keepers." She added the explanatory note, that we ran in the footnotes, to explain, in giving the translation of the Yiddish term as "peace-keepers", that "They are policemen, but that term is not used here."

Best regards

Chris

[Monty]

Its quite clear where Swanson was in 1888.

Secret Police was a common term used by the Yiddish immigrants of the time because thats how they saw Plain clothed detectives. Its what they were use to.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

When James Monro set up Section D in February 1887, for administrative purposes its officers had to be members of the CID 'and not be ostensibly distinguished from other "Constables" of that Force'; but they were financed (secretly) out of Imperial and not Metropolitan Police funds.

Thus did officers such as Abberline, Andrews and Jarvis wear two hats—CID and SB, and as early as 1882 Inspector Swanson had been doing routine work for Edward Jenkinson.

It's often hard to know who they were working for at any given time.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Anderson & Swanson "in Special Branch"

On what basis do you presume that they were not...

I would turn that question round and ask on what basis you presume that they were.

At the material time Anderson was Assistant Commissioner CID and therefore of too high a rank to be "in Special Branch"; Swanson was Chief Inspector (CID). CID and SB operate as entirely separate entities.

Regards, Bridewell.

[auspirograph]

The danger was not in secret police as such, but in police doing secret things. As occurs today.

Indeed Harry and a good, common sense view which the police are entitled to do in defense of their statutory duties. But it is with the politics of crime where the problems start for without the celebrity serial killer, law enforcement and forensic units are poorly funded.

No doubt pleasant Christmas table conversation with the best of the festive season to you and all.

But correct me if I am wrong here... Swanson and Anderson were not in Special Branch...

On what basis do you presume that they were not...

Anyway, this detracts from the intent of this thread so I suggest you read my book where the evidence is fully given for your consideration.

[harry]

The danger was not in secret police as such,but in police doing secret things.As occurs today.

[robhouse]

To Rob House,

Special Branch officers were not restricted to 5 as you've guessed, otherwise with Anderson, Littlechild, Swanson and Williamson at their desks, 1 would remain to attend all of Victorian England, the European Continent and the United States.

Well there were probably more than 5, as you say. There were 5 in 1884, apparently about 30 by 1893, according to Le Caron. But correct me if I am wrong here... Swanson and Anderson were not in Special Branch...

"There are, I believe, some thirty men charged with the special duty of circumventing political crime in London. All praise and honour to them for the work they have done, and the sincerest congratulations to Chief Inspector Littlechild, who so ably conducted the arrests of all the principals of the latter day dynamite plots. " ----- Le Caron, 1893


"Whatever the exact mechanism was for introducing both the name and the concept to
London, the end result was twofold. The designation of "Special Branch" was adopted to describe Section d, consisting of Littlechild and his four Inspectors and the role that they performed was a very similiar one to that of their namesake in India." --- Clutterbuck, p. 224.

RH

[auspirograph]

Hi Mike, Lynn, et al.

Yes I think they were actually just referring to detectives rather than secret police. We have to be careful in assessing the rendering of the Yiddish and sometimes not be too literal. For example, the reference to "little Jews" apparently meaning the observant Jews with whom the Socialist Jews were carrying on a running propaganda battle and occasionally real battles in the streets of the East End. It does occur to me though that it's probable that Special Branch was in and around the Socialist club keeping an eye on them, even if in this instance the "secret police" referred to were just regular Scotland Yard detectives.

Best regards

Chris

Why then, not simply express in Yiddish the word for detective if that is truly what they referred to?

If the term which has been translated as "secret police" is claimed in dispute and in error, as seems to be the case here amongst a few, then translation of the entire article should be approached with caution.

Of course Special Branch held watch over Berner Street with alarm bells ringing loud that night whether its members were involved in the Whitechapel murders or not.

It stands to reason with support of credible documentary sources which now, it seems to me, includes translation of this circular.

To Rob House,

Special Branch officers were not restricted to 5 as you've guessed, otherwise with Anderson, Littlechild, Swanson and Williamson at their desks, 1 would remain to attend all of Victorian England, the European Continent and the United States.