|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 9:40 am: |       |
Security of Police Information
Hi folks:
I am following a few lines of research at the moment with which I am having very little success and I was wondering if any of you good folks would have any info that could help. The line of research broadly covers how secure police information that could be of use to the murderer would have been on the ground in 1888. I am not not talking about high level, confidential reports and speculations but day to day police business.
With regard to this I am trying to find out info on any of the following:
1) The police in the UK today employ a large number of civilian support staff - clerical, computer specialists etc. What would have been the position in 1888? I presume there must have been at least some civilians employed in police stations, if only in menial positions as cleaners, cooks etc. What checks, if any, would have been done into the background of any such employees?
2) How secure would the day to day documentation have been within the police stations? The item I am particularly thinking of are details and times of police beats. Would these have been openly displayed in police stations, on a notice board for example?
3) How much information would the police have shared with bodies such as the local vigilance committees? Would the police have to any extent co-ordinated their beats and coverage of the district with civilian volunteers?
Any help on any of these would be most gratefully received
Chris |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 291
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
Hello Chris,
An interesting tack you seem to be on.Unmarried police constables resided in police billets,so there would have been a land-lady and a cook and cleaning maids there.I doubt if the stations had them.
I do not know anything about the employment of civilians in the lower ranks at suburban police stations.
(For upper echelon see W. BOULTBEE private secretary to three Police Commissioners.
He was a civilian and a distant relative by marriage of Montague Druitt.See the A to Z of JTR).
Paralleling your imagined thoughts, reporters, particularly those who could bribe Station Sergeants or local Detectives, would have had the freedom to roam about the station corridors nosing at notice-boards and police rosters.
An interesting point about the links between the police and the Vigilance Committees is that either Backert or Lusk -I forget which- was a fellow member of an East End Masonic Lodge with several of the detectives involved in Ripper investigations..The comment I saw in the website investigating links between Masons and the Ripper crimes noted that some of the JTR murders occurred on the same night as Lodge meetings at that particular lodge!
I suppose yarning over a pint in the pub after lodge could have elicited details of shifts and
rosters.
Don't know if any of this is helpful... |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3397
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
Hi Chris, John
I'm sure I saw domestic staff at BPS in the 1881 census.
With all the extra police imported from other areas during the killings, bobbies who would have been unfamiliar with the locations of their beats, the authorities may conceivably have put up maps in the stations with the beats highlighted, in order to help newcomers find their way around. Whether these maps would have been in the public areas of the stations, I don't know.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1504
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Hi guys,
some very interesting points.
John:
Whilst the point about police billets is very valid (and useful!) the lower level employees I was thinking of would have been involved in the cleanliness of the station and the feeding of the prisoners etc. Would a prisoner kept for a matter have days been fed by a cook at the station or wouled food have been sent out for to some local establishment?
The Masonic link I did not know about. I'm pretty certain I know the website you are referring to and will have a look.
John:
I will have a look at police stations for domestic staff. The point about police unfamiliar with the local district is an interesting one I had not thought of
Thanks again
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
Hi guys
With reference to the above mentioned research, I am trying to assemble as full a list as possible of police stations in the Aldgate, Whitechapel, Spitalfields area. of course I know the ones most commonly mentioned in the statements and press articles, Leman Street, Commercial Street, and Bishopsgate. Any info that nayone has to help compile as full a list as possible would be very gratefully received
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on November 08, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3399
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 2:18 pm: | |
Hi Chris
This only applies to 1879. From the Victorian Dictionary :
Victorian London - Directories - Dickens's Dictionary of London, by Charles Dickens, Jr., 1879 - "Police Force"
[ ... back to main menu for this book]
Police Force.—The following is a list of divisions and stations, showing the rank of officer in charge of each station. The figures at the end of each paragraph denote the total strength of the division:
A OR WHITEHALL DIVISION.
Andrew Gernon, Supt. Station: Gt. Scotland-yard.— Inspectors: 22, King-st, Westminster; Hyde-park. 577.
B OR WESTMINSTER DIVISION.
Wm. Hayes, Supt. — Inspectors:Rochester-row, Vincent-square; Cottage-rd, Pimlico; Walton-st, Brompton. 550.
C OR ST. JAMES’S DIVISION.
Joseph Henry Dunlap, Supt— Inspectors: Little Vine-st, Piccadilly; Marlborough-mews, Marlborough-st. 354
D as MARYLEBONE DIVISION. George Draper, Supt.— Inspectors:Marylebone-lane; Molyneux-st. 353
E OR HOLBORN DIVISION.
James J. Thornson, Supt.— Inspectors: 34, Bow-st ; Tottenham-court-rd; Hunter-st, Brunswick-sq. 558
G OR FINSBURY DIVISION.
William Fidge, Supt.— Inspectors: King’s - cross- rd, Clerkenwell; Old-st, St. Luke’s. 382.
H OR WHITECHAPEL DIVISION.
Thos. Arnold Supt. — Inspectors: Leman.st, Whitechapel; Commercial-st, Shoreditch. 309.
K OR STEPNEY DIVISION.
GeorgeTurner, Supt.— Inspectors: Arbour-st Stepney; East India. dock-rd, Poplar; King David’s-lane, Shadwell; Bethnal Green; Bow-rd; Great Ilford; West Ham-lane; Plaistow; Barking; Barking Side; Isle of Dogs; Dagenham; North Woolwich. Sergeant: Chadwell Heath.
Constable: Mile End-rd. 776.
L OR LAMBETH DIVISION.
James Brennan, Supt.— Inspectors: Kennington-lane; Kennington-rd. 293.
M OR SOUTHWARK DIVISION.
Thomas Garforth, Supt. — Inspectors: Blackman-st, Southwark; 63, Bermondsey-st, Bermondsey. 384.
N OR ISLINGTON DIVISION.
William F. Green, Supt.— Inspectors: High-st, Stoke Newington; Dalston-lane, Dalston; Upper-st, Islington; Kingsland-rd, Hoxton; Mare-st, Hackney; Lea Bridge-rd, Walthamstow; Wanstead; Leytonstone; Woodford ; Loughton; Waltham Abbey; Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey. Sergeants: Chingford; Chigwell; Enfield-lock (Small Arms Factory). 753.
P OR CAMBERWELL DIVISION.
Thomas Butt, Supt.— Inspectors:Carter-street Walworth; Clock House, Peckham; Gipsey-hill, Norwood; Bromley; Sydenham; Camberwell-green; Penge; 3 & 4, Vicarage-ter, Lewisham; Rodney-rd; Beckenham; Lock’s Bottom, Farnborough; Dulwich; Knight’s-hill, Lower Norwood. 590.
K OR GREENWICH DIVISION.
Inspectors: Blackheath-rd, Greenwich; William-st, Woolwich; Lee-road ; Shooter’s Hill Paradise -street, Rotherhithe Prince-street, Deptford; Park-row, East Greenwich; Eltham; St. Mary’s Cray; Sidcup; Bexley Heath; Erith; Chislehurst. 464.
S OR HAMPSTEAD DIVISION.
Chas. J. Q’Logan, Supt.— Inspectors: 104, Albany-st, Regent’s-park; New-st, Portland Town; Roslyn-st, Hampstead; High-st, Barnet; Whitechurch-lane Edgware; High-st, Bushey South Mimms; Hendon; Shenley Whetstone; Elstree Finchley. 529.
T OR KENSINGTON DIVISION.
Wm. Fisher, Supt— Inspectors: Kensington; Chelsea; Hammer-smith; Brentford; Bedfont; Chiswick; Fulham; Hampton; Hounslow; Isleworth: Twickenham; Hampton; Sunbury
Staines; Teddington; Norwood Green. 667.
V OR WANDSWORTH DIVISION
Charles Digby, Supt.— Inspectors: Love-la, Wandsworth; Battersea-bridge-rd; George-st, Richmond; London-rd, Kingston; Epsom; Barnes; Ditton; Putney ; Wimbledon; Wandsworth-common. 428.
W OR CLAPHAM DIVISION.
William Wiseman, Supt. — Inspectors: Brixton; Clapham; Croydon; Streatham; Sutton; Carshalton; Banstead; Tooting; Mitcham ; South Norwood. 467.
X OR PADDINGTON DIVISION
Hugh Eccles, Supt.— Inspectors: Notting Hill; Notting Dale; Paddington; Harrow-rd; Hanwell; Uxbridge; Kilburn; Acton; Willesden; Harrow; Ealing ; Harefield; Ruislip; Hayes. 548.
Y OR HIGHGATE DIVISION.
Edwd. Worels, Supt— Inspectors: Kentish Town; Somers Town. Caledonian-road; Holloway
Highgate; Tottenham; Enfield Town; Southgate; Edmonton ; Enfield Highway; Cheshunt;
Wood Green; Potter’s Bar. 627.
THAMES DIVISION.
William Astlin, Supt.— Inspectors: Wapping, near the River; Waterloo Pier; the Ship Royalist, lying off Folly-wall, Poplar; Station Cutter Spray, Erith. 150.
CHATHAM DOCKYARD DIVISION.
John Smith, Supt. —Inspectors: Chatham Dockyard; Sheerness Dockyard. Sergeants: Chatham
Naval Hospital; Chatham Gun Wharf. 160.
DEVONPORT DOCKYARD DIVISION
William Wakeford, Supt.— Inspectors: Devonport Dockyard; Keyham Factory Yard; Stone-house Victualling Yard; St. George’s Hall, Stonehouse; Royal Magazine, Bull Point.
Sergeants: Stonehouse Naval Hospital; Gun Wharf; Devon-port. 155
PEMBROKE DOCKYARD DIVISION.
Inspector: Pembroke Dockyard. 24.
PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD DIVISION.
Archibald M’Donald, Supt.— Inspectors: Portsmouth Dockyard; Gosport Victualling Yard; Haslar Naval Hospital, 202.
WOOLWICH DOCKYARD DIVISION. Thomas E. Hindes Supt —Inspectors: Woolwich Roya1 Arsenal; Woolwich Dockyard; Greenwich Naval College; Deptford Victualling Yard. 174.
Charles Dickens (Jr.), Dickens's Dictionary of London, 1879
The Victorian Dictionary
compiled by Lee Jackson
Robert
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 2:32 pm: | |
Hi Chris
I agree with John and Robert that this is a potentially fruitful and interesting line of enquiry. I would like to suggest that before the First World War and the Second World War, the notion of having to keep information secure was not as greatly felt or as actively promoted by the government agency, in the case of 1888, of course, the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard, and the City of London Police.
By the time of World War II, there was the "Loose Lips Sink Ships" campaign. I have read that even cafeteria napkins were printed with warnings that diners should think of security and not to speak out of turn. "Are you one of Hitler's little helpers?" was the question posed each week on Canadian Broadcasting Company Radio's "Comrades in Arms" series (hear it at http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-110-1423-9194/1940s/1942/clip7). "Don't forget that walls have ears" and "Careless talk costs lives" were two other period slogans.
But as for decades earlier, one has to wonder if in 1888, the policeman on the beat, or even experienced officers such as Sgt. "Johnny Upright" Thick would necessarily think of the need to not talk in front of the maid cleaning out either the office grate in the "nick" or his home fireplace. The mind boggles that word could have been passed to the murderer through such loose talk. Or else it could be that the killer, if, as popular myth would have it, he really was an upper class "toff", the bounder might have quite other means of gaining information about the police enquiry, don't you know? 
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Rudolphe Giordani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Hi Chris
Re #3 I can offer something by Walter Dew which seems to hint that no such sharing of knowledge took place:
"Senseless criticism of so-called police inefficiency broke out again when it became obvious that the Hanbury Street crime would have to be relegated to the " unsolved " list, and it was probably the distrust thus engendered that caused the formation of a Vigilant Committee. The members of this committee-all men-took upon themselves to patrol the streets at night in the hope that they would succeed where the police had failed.
The motive was praiseworthy enough, but the organization turned out to be more of a handicap than a help. It had no official recognition, and the only result, so far as I could see, was that the task of the police was doubled. The fewer people using the streets at night the better the chance of the police in checking the movements of any suspicious person !"
Regards
RG
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
