New book - 'The Five' by Hallie Robenhold.

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘fraid so, Michael:

Unbelievable!

Hasnt anyone commented against this nonsense!

[MrBarnett]

Hello Gary,

Really? Could you imagine if any writer had said that a few years ago? They’d have been front page news and a laughing stock. Now we’ve probably got people reading that saying - well it’s just not fair that this nice young woman has taken the time to write a book but all these horrible people are saying nasty things about it. Typical white supremacist, misogynistic, poorresearchophobic behaviour.

Another letter to the ThoughtPolice.

‘fraid so, Michael:

[Robert]

Here's a generally positive review of her book which Rubenhold seems not to have highlighted on her twitter thread. Perhaps it's because Prof Gray found the central argument unconvincing?

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=31483&highlight=drew+gray

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hallie Rubenhold has complained about the difficulty of removing unfavourable reviews from Amazon.

Hello Gary,

Really? Could you imagine if any writer had said that a few years ago? They’d have been front page news and a laughing stock. Now we’ve probably got people reading that saying - well it’s just not fair that this nice young woman has taken the time to write a book but all these horrible people are saying nasty things about it. Typical white supremacist, misogynistic, poorresearchophobic behaviour.

Another letter to the ThoughtPolice.

[phantom]

I am reading it at the moment. It reads like a complete work of fiction, a bit like something written by Catherine Cookson. I think it would be pushing it, to call the book history as it is so full of 'we can imagine that' or 'we don't know for sure but'. To her credit she paints a vivid picture but in terms of accuracy I would compare it to a Jack the Ripper film made in the '70s' with Barbra Windsor playing Mary Kelly.

I can see why some people could be convinced by it. However even a quick two minutes on Wikipedia blows most it out of the water. As much as she may try, she cannot change the facts or reality (and my word, does she try!)

As for all this controversy, I think it best that she is ignored. It's all just a ploy to promote a second rate book that without the link to JTR would have ended up in the bargain bucket long ago. Please just don't give her the time, we are better than that! As for her credentials, if she is considered a historian then I am the Pope!

Hi Losmandris

The movie was “A Study in Terror” and Barbara Windsor played Annie Chapman.
Mary Kelly was played by the extremely talented Edina Ronay

Nice comments re the RH business.

All the best.

[MrBarnett]

I’m not 100% sure about that Purkis. We know have people talking about the Orwellian concept of HateSpeach. We have people trying to impose blasphemy laws. We have students demonstrating against people they disagree with and then the universities giving in and banning speakers. We have people scared to speak openly and criticise for fear of retribution.

I think there are worrying signs all around.

Hallie Rubenhold has complained about the difficulty of removing unfavourable reviews from Amazon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think now, in the West at least, that we have more freedom of speech than ever, you can more or less say whatever you want. People may disagree with you, or choose not to give you a platform, but they're not denying your freedom of thought and speech.

I’m not 100% sure about that Purkis. We know have people talking about the Orwellian concept of HateSpeach. We have people trying to impose blasphemy laws. We have students demonstrating against people they disagree with and then the universities giving in and banning speakers. We have people scared to speak openly and criticise for fear of retribution.

I think there are worrying signs all around.

[Purkis]

Freedom of thought and speech will very soon become things of a past era unless some very large and unmovable stakes are hammered into the ground. We’ll be back to burning witches soon at this rate!

I think now, in the West at least, that we have more freedom of speech than ever, you can more or less say whatever you want. People may disagree with you, or choose not to give you a platform, but they're not denying your freedom of thought and speech.

[Ozzy]

If you are reasonably familiar with the subject, I'd recommend reading the book, but remember not to throw it across your living room when it angers you - Kindle glass can be a pain to clear up and you'd have to replace the Kindle. Rubenhold's contextualisation of the victims' lives is good (assuming it's accurate, which we shouldn't assume to be the case) and it's well-written, reading like a novel. However, it should be treated with caution. If you're not reasonably familiar with the case, it's probably best to avoid the book as it can and will be misleading.

I have a lot of respect for Paul Begg and I've been following the Ripper case since the 1970s (Stephen Knight) but I just don't think I can bring myself to reading it.
Maybe I'll feel different in a year or two. Thing is I can usually find something else to read which I know I will probably prefer.

[Losmandris]

I got HR's book for my kindle when it had just came out. I had a couple of other books on the go at the time and by the time I'd finished the other 2 books (and HR's book was next in line) I'd also read a lot of forum posts as well as listened to Jonathan's podcast on the book and was put off of reading it.
As things stand now I still haven't read it as I'm sure I won't like it and it will just anger me. On the flip side I feel that as I haven't read the book I'm not in a position to comment on it. Not that I make many posts anyway.
I wonder if Amazon refunds ebooks? Would I have to prove I haven't read it? Is that recorded somehow within the kindle? Actually, I think I did (virtually) open it. Maybe to look at the contents/chapter titles. I can't recall really.

I am reading it at the moment. It reads like a complete work of fiction, a bit like something written by Catherine Cookson. I think it would be pushing it, to call the book history as it is so full of 'we can imagine that' or 'we don't know for sure but'. To her credit she paints a vivid picture but in terms of accuracy I would compare it to a Jack the Ripper film made in the '70s' with Barbra Windsor playing Mary Kelly.

I can see why some people could be convinced by it. However even a quick two minutes on Wikipedia blows most it out of the water. As much as she may try, she cannot change the facts or reality (and my word, does she try!)

As for all this controversy, I think it best that she is ignored. It's all just a ploy to promote a second rate book that without the link to JTR would have ended up in the bargain bucket long ago. Please just don't give her the time, we are better than that! As for her credentials, if she is considered a historian then I am the Pope!

[richardh]

In George Orwell's '1984' Ingsoc was the ruling political party and machine that controlled ALL in the totalitarian state of Oceania. Oceania doesn't (yet) exist but we already have something that rivals it for abuse of power, the clamping down on civil liberties, the destruction of free speech (and soon enough freedom of thought), the gagging of opinion, the rise of misinformation and THE best tool for mass surveillance ever invented... The internet.

The internet is Oceania's most advanced telescreen.

And it's going to get much worse.

[FISHY1118]

Well said Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Something I've noticed of late across many fields, not just our little corner of research, is the refusal to listen to differing opinions. It's particularly worrying from respected writers or academics. I don't know if it's because of social media or just that the medium makes it more obvious, but too often any attempt to engage or debate, no matter how well intentioned or politely expressed, is an 'attack', 'abuse' or 'trolling' and that becomes the narrative: the brave truth teller being attacked by an abusive hate mob. Surely it creates an environment that hinders progress and learning?

It’s very noticeable and very worrying Paul. Even universities (here and in America) are being overrun by people trying to silence opinion that they don’t agree with even to the extent of getting speakers banned. Freedom of thought and speech will very soon become things of a past era unless some very large and unmovable stakes are hammered into the ground. We’ll be back to burning witches soon at this rate!

Rubenhold is a perfect example of someone with scant regard for historical truth. It’s all about promoting a chosen agenda and self-aggrandisement. Its about portraying herself as the brave voice of truth against the rigid establishment who are all misogynists or racists or who have some made up phobia. It’s transparently dishonest. It’s also pretty worrying.

[Purkis]

The fact is that nobody has compared Hallie Rubenhold to David Irving, there is no justification for Rubenhold to say so, and Rubenhold, who has heard the podcast and read my review, must know that she's not telling the truth. But it makes for good copy and as long as the media doesn't bother checking the facts, she's safe from being called out.

Something I've noticed of late across many fields, not just our little corner of research, is the refusal to listen to differing opinions. It's particularly worrying from respected writers or academics. I don't know if it's because of social media or just that the medium makes it more obvious, but too often any attempt to engage or debate, no matter how well intentioned or politely expressed, is an 'attack', 'abuse' or 'trolling' and that becomes the narrative: the brave truth teller being attacked by an abusive hate mob. Surely it creates an environment that hinders progress and learning?

[PaulB]

I got HR's book for my kindle when it had just came out. I had a couple of other books on the go at the time and by the time I'd finished the other 2 books (and HR's book was next in line) I'd also read a lot of forum posts as well as listened to Jonathan's podcast on the book and was put off of reading it.
As things stand now I still haven't read it as I'm sure I won't like it and it will just anger me. On the flip side I feel that as I haven't read the book I'm not in a position to comment on it. Not that I make many posts anyway.
I wonder if Amazon refunds ebooks? Would I have to prove I haven't read it? Is that recorded somehow within the kindle? Actually, I think I did (virtually) open it. Maybe to look at the contents/chapter titles. I can't recall really.

If you are reasonably familiar with the subject, I'd recommend reading the book, but remember not to throw it across your living room when it angers you - Kindle glass can be a pain to clear up and you'd have to replace the Kindle. Rubenhold's contextualisation of the victims' lives is good (assuming it's accurate, which we shouldn't assume to be the case) and it's well-written, reading like a novel. However, it should be treated with caution. If you're not reasonably familiar with the case, it's probably best to avoid the book as it can and will be misleading.