JtR: Petition to Declassify & Preserve all Related Files

[Taylor]

Some of us have started the action to declassify and preserve all files relating to the Ripper/Whitechapel murders. It isn't about who did what; the ledgers and connected documents contain a goldmine of British history.

Recent attempts to gain full access to these files have all been denied. The request has been rejected the police Tribunal and the Information Commissioner's Office, and repealed, to no avail.

Arguments against declassifying the records include the need to protect informants; if they reveal names, then current informants will think twice about helping police solve current or future crimes. Never mind that it's been over a century and all the people involved are long dead.

Members of the victims' families would like full access too, but alas, another argument against full disclosure is descendants of either side might just ignite some sort of grudge violence against the other.

There has also been talk of simply destroying the records. They need to be preserved as an important part of Victorian history and not just for Brits, but for people around the world who are interested in the case. So we decided to do something before it's too late.

The next stage is getting the support of as many people as we can through an official British government petition. We wrote one up and submitted. Although they edited out stuff that made the government look bad, they approved it. Only British citizens/residents can sign it. You can find it here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18403

We are also working on a world petition for non-Brits. It should be up within the next few days, so I'll post it here when it's ready. We've also written to the Home Office, which is the next level of government responsible in the process. As yet, we haven't heard back.

Any and all suggestions on how to change the government's mind are welcome!

Please post questions if you have them...

[String]

They could protect the families by simply redacting the names of informants at least the rest of the information would then be available.

[Paul]

Some of us have started the action to declassify and preserve all files relating to the Ripper/Whitechapel murders. It isn't about who did what; the ledgers and connected documents contain a goldmine of British history.

First of all, there is a distinction between "closed" and "classified" files, so you need to be clear about what you are petitioning about. As far as I know there are no "classified" files relating to the Whitechapel murders and there may never have been any "classified" files relating to them, and if such "classified" files ever existed they will almost certainly have been destroyed by now, and if they haven't been, it's unlikely that their existence will be made known and thus be made available, whether your petition is a success or not.

All known files relating to the Whitechapel murders have already been made public and are preserved at the National Archives and in other record repositories. So, unless you suspect the existence of secret files, you are specifically petitioning for the SB ledgers to be made public.

Arguments against declassifying the records include the need to protect informants; if they reveal names, then current informants will think twice about helping police solve current or future crimes. Never mind that it's been over a century and all the people involved are long dead.

I think this misses the point; the SB's concern is that the promise of anonymity was given in perpetuity and should be honoured, and that current informers and would-be informers might not want their actions known about, ever, and might be discouraged from giving information if they know that after 100 years or whatever time is agreed, that their actions will be made public. I assume the SB have a greater understanding of the psychology of informers than we do, so on what grounds is their belief challenged?

There has also been talk of simply destroying the records. They need to be preserved as an important part of Victorian history and not just for Brits, but for people around the world who are interested in the case. So we decided to do something before it's too late.

The SB offered the ledgers to the National Archives who returned them as of no historic value. Lindsay Clutterbuck thought they were of historic value. Who was right and why? But it seems that the SB recognised that some people had the qualifications, knowledge and ability to make use of this material and consequently made it available to such people on completion of an nda. That privilage has now been denied as a direct consequence of actions similiar to this.

I'm therefore at a loss to know what you are petitioning about.

[SPE]

Sums It Up

First of all, there is a distinction between "closed" and "classified" files, so you need to be clear about what you are petitioning about. As far as I know there are no "classified" files relating to the Whitechapel murders and there may never have been any "classified" files relating to them, and if such "classified" files ever existed they will almost certainly have been destroyed by now, and if they haven't been, it's unlikely that their existence will be made known and thus be made available, whether your petition is a success or not.
All known files relating to the Whitechapel murders have already been made public and are preserved at the National Archives and in other record repositories. So, unless you suspect the existence of secret files, you are specifically petitioning for the SB ledgers to be made public.
I think this misses the point; the SB's concern is that the promise of anonymity was given in perpetuity and should be honoured, and that current informers and would-be informers might not want their actions known about, ever, and might be discouraged from giving information if they know that after 100 years or whatever time is agreed, that their actions will be made public. I assume the SB have a greater understanding of the psychology of informers than we do, so on what grounds is their belief challenged?
The SB offered the ledgers to the National Archives who returned them as of no historic value. Lindsay Clutterbuck thought they were of historic value. Who was right and why? But it seems that the SB recognised that some people had the qualifications, knowledge and ability to make use of this material and consequently made it available to such people on completion of an nda. That privilage has now been denied as a direct consequence of actions similiar to this.
I'm therefore at a loss to know what you are petitioning about.

That about sums it up Paul, I totally agree. All this was explored, analysed and commented upon some twenty five years ago.

[Taylor]

Well, I am referring to the classified information contained within the files, such as names and info that have been blacked out. Nowhere in the petition does it say "closed" files, nor did I say that here. Yes, the blacked out version is there for the public. The petition is about releasing the full copy.

You do have a point about informants and psychology, but then, why isn't indefinite anonymity the consistent approach regarding police files? Some police files with classified names and info are made public while others are not. Why is that?

Yes, certain people were allowed full access until one individual screwed it up. I don't agree with the National Archives. The documents provide insight to far more than just the Ripper case, like criminology and other elements of society at that time.

We are petitioning about declassifying the blacked out info in those documents.

[Paul]

Well, I am referring to the classified information contained within the files, such as names and info that have been blacked out. Nowhere in the petition does it say "closed" files, nor did I say that here. Yes, the blacked out version is there for the public. The petition is about releasing the full copy.

Nobody said you mentioned "closed" files, but you referred to an action to declassify "all files", which implied that there were files other than the ledgers.

You do have a point about informants and psychology, but then, why isn't indefinite anonymity the consistent approach regarding police files? Some police files with classified names and info are made public while others are not. Why is that?

You tell me. You're the one wanting signatures on a petition to have SB information made public, so what comparable information has already been made public?

Yes, certain people were allowed full access until one individual screwed it up. I don't agree with the National Archives. The documents provide insight to far more than just the Ripper case, like criminology and other elements of society at that time.

Okay, but I think the petition needs a clear and full exposition of how the documents advance understanding.

We are petitioning about declassifying the blacked out info in those documents.

But this isn't about "all files" is it. Indeed, is it about files at all? It's a petition to get the SB material made public.

[SirRobertAnderson]

See under Pooch, Screwing of the

I think this misses the point; the SB's concern is that the promise of anonymity was given in perpetuity and should be honoured, and that current informers and would-be informers might not want their actions known about, ever, and might be discouraged from giving information if they know that after 100 years or whatever time is agreed, that their actions will be made public. I assume the SB have a greater understanding of the psychology of informers than we do, so on what grounds is their belief challenged?

Not hard to imagine the great grandchildren of folks informing against Fenians to experience a wee bit of discomfort even in 2011.

I think this entire exercise is madness and a great example of how NOT to approach a bureaucracy.

[Jeff Leahy]

I think this entire exercise is madness and a great example of how NOT to approach a bureaucracy.

Hi Robert

I listened to Trevor's lecture with interest. ANd no one could argue that I'm a Marriott sympathizer..

So heres my take:

Its most unlikely that anyone mentioned in the ledgers is still alive or any reprisalls might happen to modern day living relatives.

Most of the information contained in the ledgers appears to be useless.

Someone in the MET appears to have taken offence at the actions of one individual and decided to spend large amounts of my money on expensive Barristers and legal action.

Their case seems to be that 'modern day informers' might be ressident to give information if they know that info might be released in 100 years time?

So that stops new info being obtained? (i'm somewhat synical of this personally)

The other thing that worries me ,more than anything else, is that any information destroyed and denied will create an atmosphere of mystery and feed conspiracy theories...about JtR

Holding back will give the wierdos fuel to feed the fire...

And thats why i will be signing this partician....

1) To stop the conspiract theory Mob...looney's

2) That this money should be spent on front line policeman we require, not piontless court actions which is a national discrace, and simply massage senoir officials ego.

Thats my Take

Apart from the fact that I support David Cameron in his drive to cut senior officers (save money and pensions) and put front line policeman back on the beat

Yours Jeff

PS Do you know Britain currently has more generals in the army than tanks?

[Maria Birbili]

I listened to Trevor's lecture with interest. ANd no one could argue that I'm a Marriott sympathizer.

Same here.

Its most unlikely that anyone mentioned in the ledgers is still alive or any reprisalls might happen to modern day living relatives.

Agree. And most archives abide by the 100 years rule anyway for making materials public.

Most of the information contained in the ledgers appears to be useless.

In my book, there's no such thing as “useless“ information.

People might be relieved that I'm not a UK resident and can't sign this petition (:-)), but I'm most certainly planning to sign the Canadian one, supposedly to be announced on the other site soon.

[Donald Souden]

Jeff,

Its most unlikely that anyone mentioned in the ledgers is still alive or any reprisalls might happen to modern day living relatives.

Sorry Jeff, but you your sense about "no reprisals" is not a guarantee I'd want to put any faith in.

As it is, Paul and Stewart are quite right in this instance.

Don.

[Paul]

Jeff,

Its most unlikely that anyone mentioned in the ledgers is still alive or any reprisalls might happen to modern day living relatives.

Sorry Jeff, but you your sense about "no reprisals" is not a guarantee I'd want to put any faith in.

As it is, Paul and Stewart are quite right in this instance.

Don.

Also, Don, this isn't about reprisals being taken against the descendants of past informers, it's about (1) that anonymity was promised in perpetuity and that promise should be honoured, and (2) that if it isn't honoured then it might deter modern day informers from giving information.

I doubt that there is anyone who isn't at least a bit cynical about 2, but are we in a position to dispute it, and the FIA judges have twice upheld it, so they evidently feel it is a serious consideration.

However, even the tribunal acknowledged that the historical importance of material eventually outweighs its political/personal sensitivity, and it said how ludicrous it would be to use the SB's arguments as a reason for keeping documents pertaining the English Civil War classified, so some clarity about when and how sensitive material should be released would be valuable.

Of course, files are routinely culled before being opened to the public and some are destroyed. After all, storage space is finite and the material destroyed is generally dross. But as Maria says above, there is no such thing as dross.The National Archives returned the material to the SB as of no historical importance, yet Lindsey Clutterbuck found it of great value in helping to understand counter-terrorism and police operations in the late 19th century. And the SB don't appear to have been blind to the balance between protecting perceived sensitive information in the files and making the files available to those who can extract useful historical material from them. There was a procedure in place to do that and in this instance it appears to have been an author named Alex Butterworth who screwed it up. Again, perhaps the petition would be better directed at establishing a legal and formal way whereby the information can be seen and used by people who know what they are looking at and know how to use it.

Jeff also seems to be ticked off about the costs, but that's utterly irrelevant. One would hardly expect the Met to seek to defend its position with a cheap, penny-ante legal team headed by a kid just out of law school, and if the SB is correct and the release of this material did deter a future informer from giving information about and thus helping to prevent a terrorist outrage, they'd be over their heads in effluence if it transpired that they'd done anything less than their very best to prevent the information being made public. One can doubt that such would ever happen, but...

Anyway, I think Trevor was criticised for making a case that was too diffuse, full of irrelevant details and unfocused, and I'm not at all sure that this petition is any clearer in its purpose.

[SPE]

Professor Bernard Porter

The problem for the Metropolitan Police in keeping Special Branch records secret in perpetuity is always going to be the implication, by some, that they are 'hiding something', and thus begins conspiracy theories.

The truth of the matter is rather more mundane than that. In the early days there was also the agents provocateur aspect which, undoubtedly, had some factual basis and which the police would rather not be aired. There was always a 'by fair means or foul' aspect to counter-terrorism, which is reflected in Anderson's writings. The Special Branch was involved in a difficult job, and public scrutiny would not make that job any easier. Things were much easier when no one was bothering to ask.

As academic historians and researchers became more interested in the mystery-shrouded history of the Special Branch police, and the secret service in general, the probing delved deeper and sleeping dogs were disturbed. The Metropolitan Police were refusing access to the files because they 'saw no compelling reason to do otherwise', a rather lame response for a focused historian.

In 1983, on being pressed by that excellent researcher and historian Professor Bernard Porter, they cited section 3(4) of the Public Records Act of 1958 in justification. This piece of legislation gave government departments the right to withhold documents from the public domain for more than the usual period as long as they could persuade a sympathetic Lord Chancellor that they had 'special reason'.

They do not have to tell the public what the 'special reason' is and the Home Office (which is responsible for the police) was asked by Bernard Porter to review the ban in September 1983. The Home Office response was that it was not a straightforward matter as there were doubts that the police really were legally accountable to the Home Office for what they did with their own records. The question was rendered immaterial in the summer of 1984 when Scotland Yard 'discovered to their surprise' that the papers it had been holding back from researchers no longer existed!

No one at the Yard could remember when they had been destroyed, nor on whose authority. One of the likely reasons given was 'a pressing demand for the repulping of paper during the Second World War'. That, at that time, was Scotland Yard's last word on the matter and those wishing access to the material had to accept it. Bernard Porter is to be congratulated on his early efforts to challenge officialdom in an attempt to record this important area of historical research. Unfortunately it seems he met barriers that even he was unable to overcome.

[Paul]

The problem for the Metropolitan Police in keeping Special Branch records secret in perpetuity is always going to be the implication, by some, that they are 'hiding something', and thus begins conspiracy theories.

The truth of the matter is rather more mundane than that. In the early days there was also the agents provocateur aspect which, undoubtedly, had some factual basis and which the police would rather not be aired. There was always a 'by fair means or foul' aspect to counter-terrorism, which is reflected in Anderson's writings. The Special Branch was involved in a difficult job, and public scrutiny would not make that job any easier. Things were much easier when no one was bothering to ask.

As academic historians and researchers became more interested in the mystery-shrouded history of the Special Branch police, and the secret service in general, the probing delved deeper and sleeping dogs were disturbed. The Metropolitan Police were refusing access to the files because they 'saw no compelling reason to do otherwise', a rather lame response for a focused historian.

In 1983, on being pressed by that excellent researcher and historian Professor Bernard Porter, they cited section 3(4) of the Public Records Act of 1958 in justification. This piece of legislation gave government departments the right to withhold documents from the public domain for more than the usual period as long as they could persuade a sympathetic Lord Chancellor that they had 'special reason'.

They do not have to tell the public what the 'special reason' is and the Home Office (which is responsible for the police) was asked by Bernard Porter to review the ban in September 1983. The Home Office response was that it was not a straightforward matter as there were doubts that the police really were legally accountable to the Home Office for what they did with their own records. The question was rendered immaterial in the summer of 1984 when Scotland Yard 'discovered to their surprise' that the papers it had been holding back from researchers no longer existed!

No one at the Yard could remember when they had been destroyed, nor on whose authority. One of the likely reasons given was 'a pressing demand for the repulping of paper during the Second World War'. That, at that time, was Scotland Yard's last word on the matter and those wishing access to the material had to accept it. Bernard Porter is to be congratulated on his early efforts to challenge officialdom in an attempt to record this important area of historical research. Unfortunately it seems he met barriers that even he was unable to overcome.

That's bureaucracy for you. If the people don't need to know, don't tell them. Or, put another way, if people don't know what you've done, they don't know what you've doing wrong.

Or, if people don't know what you do, they won't know you're doing nothing.

The bureaucratic mind says to keep it secret even when the need for secrecy has long passed.

In this case, though, the petition is deceptive, perhaps deliberately so, in that on the one hand, clearly it is specifically about the SB files, but it hides that behind a reference to "all files", and couches it in accusatory language which prima facie is wrong, and is appallingly non-specific:

“The unwarranted secrecy surrounding this historically-important series of unsolved murders has prevailed for over 120 years. We the undersigned therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to declassify and make available to the public at the UK National Archives all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders in their entire and unredacted form.”

Now, to the best of my knowledge, and yours I would guess, there has never been any “unwarranted secrecy” surrounding the murders, no secrecy has prevailed for 120-years, there are no known classified documents to be declassified (apart from the SB ledgers), and unless there is some evidence or reason to suppose that there exist unpublished files, documents or papers, and the probable whereabouts, content or existence of such material can be specified or identified, there exist nothing to make available. Or at least nothing that anyone's going to admit to.

As it stands, this petition is so non-specific that the official response will simply be that there are no classified files and all other files are already lodged at the National Archives, and, if anyone divines that this is specifically about the SB ledgers, the response will almost certainly be that there is an established procedure for seeking access to sensitive material and requests that the specified material be made publicly available has twice been assessed under the provisions of the FIA, it being concluded that the release of this material is contrary to national security. So suck it up Charley.

In other words, it is a waste of time.

[SPE]

I agree

...
In this case, though, the petition is deceptive, perhaps deliberately so, in that on the one hand, clearly it is specifically about the SB files, but hides that behind a reference to "all files", and couches it in accusatory language which prima facie is wrong, and is appallingly non-specific:
“The unwarranted secrecy surrounding this historically-important series of unsolved murders has prevailed for over 120 years. We the undersigned therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to declassify and make available to the public at the UK National Archives all hitherto unpublished files, documents and papers relating to these murders in their entire and unredacted form.”
Now, to the best of my knowledge, yours too I would guess, there has been any “unwarranted secrecy” surrounding the murders, no secrecy has prevailed for 120-years, there are no known classified documents to be declassified (apart from the SB ledgers), and unless there is some evidence or reason to suppose that there exist unpublished files, documents or papers, and the probable whereabouts, content or existence of such material can be specified or identified, there aren't any to be forthcoming.
What this petition is really about is that access to the known Special Branch material, to which the response will almost certainly be: there is an established procedure for seeking access to sensitive material and requests that the specified material be made publicly available has twice been assessed under the provisions of the FIA, it being concluded that the release of this material is contrary to national security. So suck it up Charley.
I'd suggest that more thought be put into this.

I have to agree with you Paul.

I would hazard a guess that the petition is rather vague, or non-specific, as the petitioner(s) do not fully understand the nature of the source material in question and the fact that there are also 'bales' of unsorted and uncatalogued Home Office paperwork, some of which undoubtedly touches upon the Special Branch, stored at Kew. Who, exactly, are the 18 signatories to this petition?

I have never encountered 'unwarranted secrecy' surrounding material relating to the murders, in fact quite the contrary, the National Archives have always been very helpful and responsive to enquiries. Likewise the Metropolitan Police.

Surely a petition such as this is going to have to specify exactly what material is being referred to, as you say, and the nature of the 'secrecy', or obstruction, encountered.

With regard to the Special Branch legers, I thought that Trevor has all that in hand and is appealing against the decision made. When Don and I were researching and writing Scotland Yard Investigates, we made a rather half-hearted attempt, with New Scotland Yard, to access the Special Branch legers. We knew what the response would be as at that time the proverbial had well and truly hit the fan and further enquiries were the last thing they wanted.

[Paul]

I have to agree with you Paul.

I would hazard a guess that the petition is rather vague, or non-specific, as the petitioner(s) do not fully understand the nature of the source material in question and the fact that there are also 'bales' of unsorted and uncatalogued Home Office paperwork, some of which undoubtedly touches upon the Special Branch, stored at Kew. Who, exactly, are the 18 signatories to this petition?

I have never encountered 'unwarranted secrecy' surrounding material relating to the murders, in fact quite the contrary, the National Archives have always been very helpful and responsive to enquiries. Likewise the Metropolitan Police.

Surely a petition such as this is going to have to specify exactly what material is being referred to, as you say, and the nature of the 'secrecy', or obstruction, encountered.

With regard to the Special Branch legers, I thought that Trevor has all that in hand and is appealing against the decision made. When Don and I were researching and writing Scotland Yard Investigates, we made a rather half-hearted attempt, with New Scotland Yard, to access the Special Branch legers. We knew what the response would be as at that time the proverbial had well and truly hit the fan and further enquiries were the last thing they wanted.

I, too, sought access to the material and received quite a positive, open and helpful response, albeit one that didn't go anywhere, but the smell of the proverbial was still strong at that time. It had clearly diminished when Alex Butterworth made his approach.

Trevor's appeal will have to be clear and focused, as the absence of precision was commented on and may have influenced the final decision, as the report does not suggest to me that the judges were particularly hostile to the request. The contrary in fact.

The petition couldn't be less precise if it tried, and but for the necessary courtesy of issuing a reply and having to keep it on file, I'm sure it would otherwise go right into the bin. Deservedly, too. I don't know who the 19 are.