Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 8 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Michael W Richards 9 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 11 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Michael W Richards 14 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 15 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by MrBarnett 23 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (27 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (23 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (15 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Christie Case - (1 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > General Police Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #311  
Old 03-06-2015, 04:22 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
But from what they told you:



It's 2 years after the last request so a request made on 17 November 2013 would have seen the date pushed out to 17 Nov 2015 even if that request was denied.
What I quoted above was the procedure that follows after making a request from day one
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 03-06-2015, 04:38 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,193
Default

Hello Colin,

"Stinks"...

Yes it does rather.

Now why I am about to write may seem a little controversial..but it might...and I use the term loosely.. might be a reason.

Those 30,000 odd one line entries are Special Branch orientated. They date (I believe-correct me if I am wrong Trevor) to 1894.

Given that all entries would include 1889..and the Cleveland St scandal..The "involvement" per se of high ranking gentry known to have been involved in said scandal would be named under the one line investigations carried out by said Special Branch. Those one line references being obliterated protects ANY name from being revealed at any time if the ledgers/registers were still in existence and any subsequent attempt, such as Trevor, to have the ledgers in unrelated form would leave the possibility open for names involved in anything to be seen.

Transparency..A word bandied about in the media by the police has been shown to be shortcoming in this situation.

You used the word "stinks". I call it an appalling disregard to understand the complete history of the Met Police. They simply don't want Joe Public to latch on to anything..good or bad. Odd that I consider the word "Criminal" when describing this action.

Disgraceful. I wonder if they have destroyed the redacted copy without real names too?

Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....

Last edited by Phil Carter : 03-06-2015 at 04:40 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 03-06-2015, 04:42 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
What I quoted above was the procedure that follows after making a request from day one
That's what am saying Trevor, the 2 years runs from the date of the LAST REQUEST. So a request made before the date of expiry of the last 2 years period resets the clock.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 03-07-2015, 04:10 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
I'm not being critical, of Trevor or anyone else, but it just shows the importance of knowing the rules and time limits when dealing with Govt instrumentalities.
I think they are making up the rules as they go along in this case. The Information Commissioner does recommend not destroying any information that has been the subject of a request until six months after the last correspondence, to make sure there's been time to exhaust all the appeal procedures. But otherwise public bodies are meant to have proper schedules for disposing of records, which are not meant to be influenced by Freedom of Information requests. I don't believe for a moment that these documents had been scheduled for routine destruction, independent of the FOI requests.

Also, the decision about preservation is meant to be made by a responsible officer of the public body, under the guidance of the National Archives. TNA has published its own preservation criteria, which include:
"records relating to individuals or national and international events of significant contemporary interest or controversy"
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/d...olicy-2012.pdf

I don't think there's any doubt that the Register met that criterion. So I think the justification for destroying these records is extremely dubious. It would be interesting to know what discussions were held between the police and TNA, and what advice TNA really gave. Perhaps that would be a suitable subject for a Freedom of Information request to TNA.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 03-07-2015, 04:21 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
I think they are making up the rules as they go along in this case. The Information Commissioner does recommend not destroying any information that has been the subject of a request until six months after the last correspondence, to make sure there's been time to exhaust all the appeal procedures. But otherwise public bodies are meant to have proper schedules for disposing of records, which are not meant to be influenced by Freedom of Information requests. I don't believe for a moment that these documents had been scheduled for routine destruction, independent of the FOI requests.

Also, the decision about preservation is meant to be made by a responsible officer of the public body, under the guidance of the National Archives. TNA has published its own preservation criteria, which include:
"records relating to individuals or national and international events of significant contemporary interest or controversy"
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/d...olicy-2012.pdf

I don't think there's any doubt that the Register met that criterion. So I think the justification for destroying these records is extremely dubious. It would be interesting to know what discussions were held between the police and TNA, and what advice TNA really gave. Perhaps that would be a suitable subject for a Freedom of Information request to TNA.
Chris
That is a very good point you raised I will follow it up.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 03-07-2015, 04:52 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
I think they are making up the rules as they go along in this case. The Information Commissioner does recommend not destroying any information that has been the subject of a request until six months after the last correspondence, to make sure there's been time to exhaust all the appeal procedures. But otherwise public bodies are meant to have proper schedules for disposing of records, which are not meant to be influenced by Freedom of Information requests. I don't believe for a moment that these documents had been scheduled for routine destruction, independent of the FOI requests.

Also, the decision about preservation is meant to be made by a responsible officer of the public body, under the guidance of the National Archives. TNA has published its own preservation criteria, which include:
"records relating to individuals or national and international events of significant contemporary interest or controversy"
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/d...olicy-2012.pdf

I don't think there's any doubt that the Register met that criterion. So I think the justification for destroying these records is extremely dubious. It would be interesting to know what discussions were held between the police and TNA, and what advice TNA really gave. Perhaps that would be a suitable subject for a Freedom of Information request to TNA.
FOLLOW UP POST

I have just sent in two requests to both The TNA and the police I wonder if they will both be singing from the same song sheet?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 03-10-2015, 01:22 PM
Archaic Archaic is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,902
Default

[quote=Chris;333014] I think they are making up the rules as they go along in this case. The Information Commissioner does recommend not destroying any information that has been the subject of a request until six months after the last correspondence, to make sure there's been time to exhaust all the appeal procedures. But otherwise public bodies are meant to have proper schedules for disposing of records, which are not meant to be influenced by Freedom of Information requests. I don't believe for a moment that these documents had been scheduled for routine destruction, independent of the FOI requests. [quote]

In the US a large quantity of Kennedy Assassination related documents went missing. It's unknown if they were destroyed.

Many others are being held back for 75 years - basically until all people alive at time of assassination are deceased - and quite likely their offspring too.

I've seen other Kennedy documents that have finally been been released under the Freedom of Information Act where 95% of the entire document has been "redacted for National Seurity reasons" = blacked out with opaque black marking pen, including name of agency/person(s) who wrote it, name of recipient(s), initials of those who read it, and subject matter.

Sometimes only a few words random words are visible like "and" and "the"... like tiny islands floating in a sea of black marking pen. Researchers have fought for over 51 years to get these documents, and they are finally released in a completely obliterated state devoid of any information!

It would be interesting to ask your National Archives:

a.) If they really were offered the Special Branch documents as claimed

b.) If so, what were the reasons for deciding they weren't worthy of preservation even as digital images that take up very little physical space, and

c.) Who made that decision?

Best regards,
Archaic

Last edited by Archaic : 03-10-2015 at 01:24 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 03-10-2015, 04:38 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,760
Default

Other good questions might be:

If these documents were irrelevant to any policing purpose why were they retained for as long as 120 years?

What was the policing purpose which justified their retention for 120 years but which then suddenly ceased to pertain after that length of time?

Having been retained for such an inordinate length of time, why was there a need for them to be so hastily destroyed shortly after somebody had asked to look at them?
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 03-11-2015, 04:56 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,895
Default

Trevor obviously framed the request wrong - he should have said "Dear Sir, I most definitely do NOT want to see...."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 03-11-2015, 08:04 AM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
Other good questions might be:

If these documents were irrelevant to any policing purpose why were they retained for as long as 120 years?

What was the policing purpose which justified their retention for 120 years but which then suddenly ceased to pertain after that length of time?

Having been retained for such an inordinate length of time, why was there a need for them to be so hastily destroyed shortly after somebody had asked to look at them?
Hello Colin,

Could it be that before all the fuss started. .They simply didn't realise what they had?


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.