Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Cutbush Book : The Man Who Would Be Jack: The Hunt For Jack The Ripper

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

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    The papers said he retired on ill health. It was claimed to have been brought on due to his large workload since Henderson left in 1886. He never returned from his 1891 sick leave and was said to be seriously ill in July 1891.

    Thanks Robert. I didn't know that about O'Connor.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    Bloody pension laws are always changing! And here is little ol me only two years away from that dreadful date.
    Anyways... where exactly was that newsagent who wrote a letter to the Sun about young Thomas?

    'Draft surrender, engrossed copy and warrant ACC/0351/433, 434, 435 1899

    Contents:
    William Cutbush of High Street, Highgate newspaper agent, to Edward Lyon Shelton of Manor House, Hornsey Solicitor and Amelia his wife.
    to enter satisfaction of mortgage.
    7 cottages as in ACC/0351/432.
    Remarks: In warrant Rev. G. S. Weston is described as of 117 London Road, St. Leonards on Sea, co. Sussex and W. B. Lofthouse as of Endcliffe, Caterham Valley. Co. Surrey, gent.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    That had changed by the time Cutbush retired. Can't remember the details of hand but around 1890 retirement was after 25 years service. Abberline took advantage of it for one.

    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Hi AP

    I do agree that CHC was probably unfit for service in 1891 - after all, he killed himself a few years later. But on the technical point about retirement,I think the 1890 act allowed for a pension for all officers who had completed 25 years service - I'm fairly sure that CHC had the required 25 years though I'd need to check through old posts to be certain.

    http://content.met.police.uk/Article.../1400015496899



    Debs, re the Sun, one thing that's always intrigued me is that O'Connor didn't mention the Sun articles in 1894 in Parliament. In fact, I think that was the only year when he didn't speak at all (from 1880 to 1928).

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    Old post, rediscovered:

    'A quick note on the early retirement of Charles Henry Cutbush:

    ‘No policeman may retire on a pension under sixty years of age, unless on the certificate of the chief surgeon that he is unfit for duty.’

    Metropolitan Police. 1889.

    He did, so he must have been unfit for duty.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    True, Robert. I think I've seen books on google (only annoying snippets mind you) that claim to be the Met Police Superannuation accounts so maybe the Sun were just trying to cause trouble?
    Debs

    Debs....if I can help find the meat and potatos in full, please send me a link and I'll try to get the goods you're looking for.
    XXX

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Keep the info coming, Debs. The more the merrier.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by A.P. Wolf View Post
    Somewhere along the line we are also forgetting the report concerning daily police movements and beats that Robert found where CHC is clearly operating at a superior level of the Metropolitan Force than that of a clerk.
    No one is forgetting anything. I'm just posting stuff I find interesting but I'm beginning to think it's a waste of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    I should point out that the 'subscribers' are the police officers who contributed to the pension fund on a weekly basis.
    Fifty gold sovereigns is, and was, a powerful lot of money.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    Well, regardless of the press, and the Sun in particular, CHC fared well in the pension stakes. Just a little something I posted way back in 2005:

    'The Police Guardian. Friday, October 21st 1887'.

    'Presentation To Superintendent Cutbush.
    At Scotland-yard late on Saturday afternoon Chief Superintendent Dunlap, at the request of the subscribers, presented to Superintendent Cutbush, of the executive department, Scotland Yard, a handsome purse containing 50 sovereigns'.

    I think we should be very careful here to make sure that when we look at Cutbush's private role in the pension's fund of the Metropolitan force we do not confuse that with his official position in the Metropolitan force.
    In his role in pension funds he was acting - more or less - as a trade unionist, against the very departments he controlled, but in his official role he was something quite different.
    The press reports of the time show him just as active at beating Fenian heads as he was at championing the cause of police pensions in almost confrontational situations with his superiors.
    Somewhere along the line we are also forgetting the report concerning daily police movements and beats that Robert found where CHC is clearly operating at a superior level of the Metropolitan Force than that of a clerk.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Hi Robert. I think it was you who originally found it-
    I checked up-Superintendents Butt, McHugo and Cutbush all got a special allowance of £25 per year for 'good and meritorious service' in January 1891.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Hi Debs

    I can't remember if he was given a pay rise, but I do seem to remember him trying to get the general police pension raised around that time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
    Blimey, Debs, if CHC really was the only one who knew the details of the fund, then what if he'd dropped dead? Hopefully he had the paperwork somewhere.

    I think this particular scheme had only been in existence since 1890, so it could have meant a lot of pressure on him, learning the ropes.
    True, Robert. I think I've seen books on google (only annoying snippets mind you) that claim to be the Met Police Superannuation accounts so maybe the Sun were just trying to cause trouble?

    It must have been a massive burden to him, I agree. I think they gave him a lump sum or a raise in his annual pay around 1890 didn't they? .That must have been to make up for the extra hassle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Blimey, Debs, if CHC really was the only one who knew the details of the fund, then what if he'd dropped dead? Hopefully he had the paperwork somewhere.

    I think this particular scheme had only been in existence since 1890, so it could have meant a lot of pressure on him, learning the ropes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    The Sun (London, United Kingdom), March 16, 1890

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X