WS Magazine Dec 2009

[caz]

About the afore mention charity appeal we organised for Children With Leukaemia that raised the sum of £1,700. This is still ongoing.

So if any of you, Grave Maurice, Caz or even Ally wish to make an extra contribution - please do!

Hi Adrian,

I think you'd find that I contributed more than my fair share to that enormous figure (and counted most of it for Liza in the ladies' loo!) so I resemble that remark.

On the proof reading issue, those who have offered their services above need not apply, we need professionals!

Blimey mate, calm down. I'm glad you don't need my amateur eye on the ball - not enough hours in the day and all that. I wanted to give Jackie Murphy a break because it was suggested it was her slip of the pen, when the missing letter may well have been a casualty at printing stage, too late for the best proofreader in the world to do anything about. My comment to Rob Clack was in regard to our personal experiences with different publishers and publications. As you of all people must know, I have had no problems at all with the few articles I have submitted to the WS1888 mag. I am always pathetically grateful if they appear more or less as I wrote them.

With the best will in the world, and the highest paid 'professional' proofreaders, nobody could be expected to produce a brilliantly edited magazine every time. And I did NOT suggest that you would ever deliberately change the wording of articles submitted by others, all of whom write well, unpretentiously and with care. I particularly enjoy the regular articles by Mickey Mayhew and John Bennett for example.

All the very best to you for 2010. The mag would still be terrific value with half the number of articles and twice the number of howlers. So stop taking things so personally and flash us your happy face.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Bennett]

Folks,

The Whitechapel Society Journal is perfectly fine. Mistakes appear anywhere, even in published books. It's unavoidable, unfortunately, but if people want to get on their high horse, then they should put something out themselves 6 times a year. The content and the intent is THERE.

Ignore the pedants and keep going, I say.

John

[adrian]

Thank you John.

Thank you Caz for setting the record straight.

Sometimes, we at the WS1888 feel that the world of Ripperology looks down their noses at us. We tried to make [I]The Journal[I] more Ripperish last year, but this did not garner any debate anywhere, Casebook or otherwise.

So it appeared that the comment concerning a single error in The Journal was a way of mocking The Journal. Also, it seemed to be mocking the writer and the subject of the passage, which I can assure you was not the case. And I understand that some initial comments were jocular in tone.

We welcome criticism and debate - anyone who has attended a Whitechapel Society meeting will agree with this.

In the past, Caz, you kindly responded to an article by Bill Beadle on the Maybrick journal with an excellent article of your own. This is the sort of critique and debate that we would wish to encourage.

Caz, your efforts during the recent Children with Leukaemia fund raiser were unbeknown to me and I can only add further thanks.

Peace, love and Guinness

[adrian]

Also,

Where there is a ying there's a yang! We have had more hits on this thread than the Mafia. The amount of emails we are getting from people asking about the WS1888 is unbelievable.

So for all of you who have contacted us concerning subscription rates etc, go visit:

https://www.whitechapelsociety.com

Editor.

[Robert]

Adrian, there isn't much debate about the articles in Ripperologist either - but that too is an excellent mag.

The mag that's been the subject of the most debate is probably RN - but that's because it doesn't appear.

[caz]

Hi Adrian,

That's more like it!

All of us at the WS1888 (including contributors and subscribers to the mag) belong to the world of Ripperology in some way or another, and we don't look down our noses at ourselves. If outsiders do that's their loss.

As long as you don't fill the mag with stuff that would make John Pope de Lockup's efforts look polished, you will be doing fine.

If anything, the 'mockery' was directed at Rob Clack, for getting an award that couldn't go to a nice man. It was VERY gentle and he doesn't seem to have taken umbrage.

Lots of love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

If anything, the 'mockery' was directed at Rob Clack, for getting an award that couldn't go to a nice man.

... nicER man, surely!

[caz]

Er no, Sam. That's been the whole point of this little discussion. Keep up!

First post in the thread:

Congratulations again to Clacky on his award, though I was a bit puzzled by the mag's comment "This award couldn't have gone to a nice man."

I think there is an 'r' missing - unless they thought Rob couldn't be 'r'sed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Ah... the dangers of joining a thread too late!

[Jeff Leahy]

Blimmey that is a star stud'id list of speakers. Count me in Adrian how do I join?

I think I will be at next meeting with DVD's anyway, so grab me then

Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Interesting thread. I was a subscriber and supporter of WSJ for a while when it was brand new, and even contributed an article on Tabram, which I thought they did a fine job in presenting. However, I let my subscription lapse for two reasons - 1) Very little Ripper material, and 2) What Ripper material that was published was among the worst and most factually inaccurate that I have ever read. Bill Beadle's series on Stride remains the worst published Stride literature ever, and will likely remain so. I was shocked not only that someone who has studied the case for so long and as closely as Bill could produce such crap, but that no one on the editorial staff was familiar enough with the facts to have done something about it.

Material this full of factual errors and sloppy theorizing hurts the field and sends would-be Ripperologists to the casebook boards to get torn up by people like myself who are tired of correcting other writers' errors.

Having gotten that off my chest, I think Coral is the salt of the earth and Adrian seem like an amazing guy, and if the Ripper content and quality of research has risen (as one would expect) since the journal's first couple of years, I would love to resubscribe.

Any readers want to comment here or by PM?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[adrian]

Tom,

Thanks for your rather colourful comments.

The [I]WS Journal[I] covers East End history as well as Ripperology. Last year, however, we embarked on a victims' series, this year we will embark on a suspects series, so the Ripper content has been upped. However, we do not cater only for the Ripper community and I would suggest you look elsewhere. If we are to get a continuous stream of good articles then people have to be prepared to write them.

Bill Beadle is a very serious researcher and writer. You may disagree with his work. I am not a Ripperologist, and proud of that, (I mean life is to short!) but I would say that if you felt like this, then why did you not write a critique for us to publish? Caz did this very thing with one of Bill's articles.

I do not beg people to subscribe, and never will, the choice is yours. We offer six copies a year at very cheap rates.

But to anyone who feels the same way, put pen to paper, point out the historical errors, reassess the data and send it in. "He who can does.." and that sort of thing.

Thanks for your kind comments about Coral and myself.

Love, peace and Guinness.

Adrian

[adrian]

For all those who have emailed me over the last week asking about how to subscribe and prices, you can find them on the WS1888 website:

https://www.whitechapelsociety.com

But to help you out I will recapitulate: for six issues delivered to your door

UK £10 per year.

Europe £13 per year.

Rest of the World £19 per year.

Post and packaging inclusive. Our web site accepts Paypal.

ADRIAN.

[Tom_Wescott]

Adrian,

I considered writing you at the time, but my correction list would have been almost as long as Bill's essays, so I didn't see the point. You misunderstood me if you thought I said I disagreed with Bill's research. It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of factual accuracy and arriving at conclusions that possess some modicum of logic and sense. That particular series did not.

People get involved with your club and magazine for Jack the Ripper. Plain and simple. That's it. They tolerate the fluff. Your suspect series sounds interesting, and I applaud what you do. In spite of your encouraging me not to subscribe to your journal again, I might pick up some issues any way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Try knitting instead, Tom, it will keep your fingers off the keyboard.
You got spunk, I'll give you that, you cheeky bastard.