Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Who were these people that were not telling the truth - in that society that you were so scornful about a few posts back, but about which you seem now so expert?
    Amazing what a couple of hours as an administrator on a hijacked Facebook page can achieve.
    1) Who? The ones who've been caught in lies.

    2) I was never scornful about the society. I subscribe to the journal and have published in it before. I have nothing but love for Sue and Frogg. I've been scornful about their choices this last week - as have literally everyone but you.

    3) I am not nor have I ever been an admin on any WS or WS related facebook page. Where the hell did you get that? Ally started a page and Ricky started one. I'm not an admin on either.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Comment


    • Oh so you have gone all coy about 'Certain people were shown to not be telling the truth about things and went to the powers that be at the WS and talked them into shutting down their fb page'.

      You stated that you saw the WS Society as primarily a social group and not a serious study group - I would regard that a scornful attitude and it is far from the truth.

      Indeed I am not scornful of Sue and Frogg's choices. I chipped in because it was apparent to me that an attempt was being made to vilify them (or more accurately the WS Society) for events over the weekend, and that it was not fair to do so. I would suggest that after the initial propaganda barrage a more balanced view has come out. But that doesn't suit your narrative.

      When the WS Society page was hijacked (which precipitated it being closed down it seems to me) I re-joined not knowing what was going on and your name came up as an administrator. Perhaps that was a glitch.

      By the way people joined that Facebook page because it was the Official Whitechapel Society page, not because someone had set it up on their behalf and not because someone had been given administrator rights to act on behalf of the committee. Morally the site 'belonged' to the Whitechapel Society but they were deprived of it
      So far as I am aware a Committee member was delegated to be 'in charge' of that area of the operation, but was kept off it recently and only 'graciously' allowed back on occasion by a non Committee member.
      I notice that you were suggesting using that Facebook page and the names of the people who had joined it under the impression it was the Official Whitechapel Society page for your own ends.

      This is indeed a sorry episode, not least because the detail of what was said on the Dr Jari talk and the Q and A (some of which was interesting) has been obliterated by the barrage of criticism and it has become near impossible to get a clear view of what demands were made and when they were made.
      And I doubt very many people got interested in Jack the Ripper to engage in internal politicking and jostling for position and perceived influence.

      Comment


      • Again Ed Stow rambles on with subjects he knows very little about.

        There was no hijacked Group page.

        The WS committee have made a unanimous decision to shut down their FB group and no longer partake in social media.

        I as a member have protested this as have others and at first was not going to allow it being the chief admin.

        When it was made clear to me that this was indeed a full committee decision I reluctantly made Jackie Murphy an admin so she could delete every person off the list.

        Over 400 people , members who had posted historical references , quotes, pictures and comments. Not to mention the research articles where effectively destroyed.

        It was a shameful act and effectively marketing suicide .

        I can confirm several members and myself quickly set up a new page in the hope to retrieve some of the lost information and to continue the social media angle for all crime enthusiasts.

        I will add here that all this was the decision of 6 people who should seriously consider their position. I would openly encourage anyone to challenge this ruling and gather the necessary votes for a complete change of leadership and effectively save the club.

        A sad day indeed for all members.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
          Oh so you have gone all coy about 'Certain people were shown to not be telling the truth about things and went to the powers that be at the WS and talked them into shutting down their fb page'.
          I didn't get coy, I'm just not doing your homework for you. If you're paranoid as to whether I'm accusing you of lying, rest assured I'm not. Though others have.

          Originally posted by Edward Stow
          You stated that you saw the WS Society as primarily a social group and not a serious study group - I would regard that a scornful attitude and it is far from the truth.
          How is that scorn? I said the same thing years ago. If I'm wrong, please point me to the wealth of 'serious research' that they've produced. I wager I have more of their journals than you do (including the very first issue of Ripperologist). I see nothing offensive in a social group. It's a great idea and one I would have taken part in a long time ago if I were near London. I think you're desperate to turn my words into an insult somehow.

          Originally posted by Edward Stow
          When the WS Society page was hijacked (which precipitated it being closed down it seems to me) I re-joined not knowing what was going on and your name came up as an administrator. Perhaps that was a glitch.
          My name didn't come up as admin. It told you that I approved your request. The setting for the page allowed ALL members to approve requests. We all got notified of your request, I just happened to be the one to click approve.

          Originally posted by Edward Stow
          By the way people joined that Facebook page because it was the Official Whitechapel Society page, not because someone had set it up on their behalf and not because someone had been given administrator rights to act on behalf of the committee. Morally the site 'belonged' to the Whitechapel Society but they were deprived of it
          How were they deprived of it? Frogg Moody was an admin from the word go.

          Originally posted by Edward Stow
          I notice that you were suggesting using that Facebook page and the names of the people who had joined it under the impression it was the Official Whitechapel Society page for your own ends.
          I said no such thing and everyone else will back me on this. I and many others suggested they keep the page but completely change the name. That is often done and would effectively do away with any connection to the WS. This made more sense to me than deleting that page only for everyone to have to go and join a different one. But Ricky decided to remove himself as admin and let Jackie delete the page.

          Originally posted by Edward Stow
          it has become near impossible to get a clear view of what demands were made and when they were made.
          Not at all. Trevor Bond's informed and unbiased posts made it all perfectly clear.[/quote]

          Originally posted by Edward Stow
          And I doubt very many people got interested in Jack the Ripper to engage in internal politicking and jostling for position and perceived influence.
          I can't disagree with that. In fact, that's what has most of us upset.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • Not a Facebook member myself so not sure how this would work, but lost items can sometimes be retrieved via Google cache.

            Comment


            • Ricky - you are the person who effectively hijacked the Facebook page and provoked the WS Society to shut it down - so it ill behoves you to moan about it. They did not just shut it down on a whim.
              I suspect that the motivation is contained in your last sentence.

              Tom did you not say that there were 380 odd members of the page and these could be kept together for a new site or the existing site under a different name - effectively a different site in other words. These were people who joined it under the impression it was the Official Whitechapel Society.

              Trevor Bonds post does not make it clear that demands were made not to raise the DNA question at all.

              You are right about the adminstrator thing though, I got mixed up.

              Comment


              • On a separate note everyone is more than welcome to join us at the all new "H Division" Crime club UK , Facebook page.

                I will attempt to retrieve photos and info from the old site so they can still be of use to enthusiasts of the future.

                Every little helps I guess.

                Thanks

                Ricky

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                  Ricky - you are the person who effectively hijacked the Facebook page and provoked the WS Society to shut it down - so it ill behoves you to moan about it. They did not just shut it down on a whim.
                  I suspect that the motivation is contained in your last sentence.

                  Tom did you not say that there were 380 odd members of the page and these could be kept together for a new site or the existing site under a different name - effectively a different site in other words. These were people who joined it under the impression it was the Official Whitechapel Society.

                  Trevor Bonds post does not make it clear that demands were made not to raise the DNA question at all.

                  You are right about the adminstrator thing though, I got mixed up.
                  I might be mistaken, but I believe Ricky actually created that page and has been the admin since day one.

                  I never mentioned any number of member names. I said what I said I said. That they could keep the page, change the name. People could leave if they wanted to. Most would choose not to but those who did could click a button and POOF it's gone. Since the WS is a social group it makes sense their members would want to continue on in social media.

                  Trevor's posts made it very clear that Edwards would not allow DNA questions. Those are the only questions any real Ripperologist would care about.

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott

                  Comment


                  • Just for the record, Ed. I've also said in the past and will say now that ALL Ripper conferences are primarily social events and not about serious research. That includes Ricky's. You can call that 'scorn' if you wish, I say it without scorn. That's my observation. Lots of people enjoy it that way. For serious research, you read Ripperologist or books. But when people get together in person and drink beer, I call it a social event.

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=Edward Stow;251514]Ricky - you are the person who effectively hijacked the Facebook page and provoked the WS Society to shut it down - so it ill behoves you to moan about it. They did not just shut it down on a whim.
                      I suspect that the motivation is contained in your last sentence.

                      When the committee ask you to help them and set up a new facebook page after Adrian Morris closed the old one down that is not Hijacking .

                      Again we have to speak to you like a 7 year old Ed

                      1. My first act was to ensure the page had adequate Admins to keep everything in check and stop repeats of the Adrian episode .

                      2. Over time Frogg stopped using facebook , but was still an admin and Jo Edgington deleted her facebook account effectively ending her admin powers.

                      3. Jackie Murphy was an admin but deleted herself off by mistake when she was prob trying to unfriend me.

                      4. Jackie was given full admin rights today ,when we realised she was no longer on there . She instantly began deleting Members.

                      5. Fearing a coup or a Morris episode was happening I deleted her , while at same time awaiting a proper committee response to how to proceed.

                      6. When this was confirmed to me I immediately (although with protest) gave Jackie the admin power to delete the group which she did with no care for the members. I couldn't bring myself to delete months of hard effort from members.

                      7. I stated that although I totally disagreed with the ruling , I am but a member not a committee person so being the democratic person that I am I let them destroy their page.

                      8. These are the facts , do what you will with them .

                      Comment


                      • Tom
                        I just re-read Trevor's post and it did not make it very clear that Edwards would not allow DNA questions. I specifically raised this issue afterwards as Ricky claimed that at the Sunday meeting Sue said that DNA questions were off limits. Trevor did not corroborate this claim. I regarded this as an important claim but it was never substantiated.

                        Regarding the starting up of the 'Official Whitechapel Society' Facebook page and its admin, I will repeat this...
                        By the way people joined that Facebook page because it was the Official Whitechapel Society page, not because someone had set it up on their behalf and not because someone had been given administrator rights to act on behalf of the committee. Morally the site 'belonged' to the Whitechapel Society but they were deprived of it.
                        So far as I am aware a Committee member was delegated to be 'in charge' of that area of the operation, but was kept off it recently and only 'graciously' allowed back on occasion by a non Committee member.

                        Comment


                        • Ricky
                          I don't think I accused you of hijacking the Facebook page when it was set up. It was today. Even from your version of events it is clear you hijacked it and the only reason they shut it down was because of your actions.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                            Ricky
                            I don't think I accused you of hijacking the Facebook page when it was set up. It was today. Even from your version of events it is clear you hijacked it and the only reason they shut it down was because of your actions.

                            Do you even bother to read my posts ?

                            Comment


                            • Ed I seriously think you need to go and lie down somewhere. Have a wee rest, you're like that last angry man from the movie 12 angry men .

                              The facts are not enough for you.

                              Comment


                              • Yes I did.
                                Either your actions caused the WS Society to shut it down or they were suddenly possessed of a bout of senseless Ludditism.
                                I wonder which?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X