Ripperologist 129: December 2012

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[lynn cates]

non-uniformed

Hello Chris. You make a good point.

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

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]

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]

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]

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

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Having only the comments posted here to assess what kinds of statements are being made in this edition, I would think that the term "Secret Police" if made by Russian Socialists referred to plain clothed policemen. Not CID or Special Branch or Section D or that lot.

My perceptions is that the Socialists at that time were seen as sources of civil unrest and disturbances, but they were primarily drawing others to a cause, causing civil disturbances and promoting the dismantling of the social system, certainly a threat to the local economy.....but we dont have any evidence that they were planning to blow up Victoria, or blowing up train stations, or planning violent acts to draw attention to strife elsewhere in the world. Which was one of the focuses of the "Secret Police" at that time. Acts that sought to bring down an entire government.

National Security and National and International instabilities that might impact England were the focus,...the Socialists were referred to as anarchists,... not dynamiters or assassins. Which other groups were considered to be. Preventing more Labour strikes and identifying individuals or groups responsible for them were the reasons the Socialists were watched. The authorities saw them as a potential mob threat mobilizing the masses of poor against the government, but that was a perceived threat, not an actual identified threat.

Planning to blow up Parliament was an identified threat, and thats where "Special Police" were very active.

Best wishes for the Holidays all.

[robhouse]

Much of their work consisted in loitering about and keeping an eye out.

Are you basing this on any actual source, or is this just your assumption?

RH

[lynn cates]

sources

Hello Rob. Thanks. No, it is from the sources. I personally know little about spying.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

You make a good point.

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

Hello Lynn

I imagine so. The principle of non uniformed policemen is old hat and dates back a couple of centuries. The Brit phrase is 'plain clothed policemen' but hardened criminals can spot them a mile off by their dress and haircuts or whatever.