Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Was Jack The Ripper ? (H Division, 2019)

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

  • #76
    The topic under discussion is actually the book.
    It was diverted to a discussion about plagiarism and I think my experience is very pertinent.

    Well yes, people screen shot the photo of Charles Lechmere that appeared on the documentary. The documentary credited me with giving them the picture. Those screen shots was how it got into widespread useage. Even on Ancestry by all accounts.
    Initially I tried to prevent that widespread usage because - as I pointed out - I was using it to raise money for an East End charity. After a while it clearly became futile.
    Several people on Facebook did do the decent, gentlemanly, thing and took the picture down on request.
    One person did initially take it down after the circumstances were explained to them, after they had posted it on a thread on a forum which was discussing the documentary.
    This person added the rider that if I discussed Lechmere any more, they would put the picture back up. I assumed that was a joke.
    Inevitably I discussed Lechmere again and the picture went back up.
    Clearly it wasn't a joke but was a deliberate use of the photo.

    Comment


    • #77
      Whitechapel was also the immigrant district, due, in part, to the large influx of Jewish, Russian and Irish transport ships docking nearby in Limehouse.

      I’m guessing you won’t find that in a book by Paul Begg or John Bennett.

      Jewish transport ships docking in Limehouse?’ Tell me more...

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
        The topic under discussion is actually the book.
        It was diverted to a discussion about plagiarism and I think my experience is very pertinent.

        Well yes, people screen shot the photo of Charles Lechmere that appeared on the documentary. The documentary credited me with giving them the picture. Those screen shots was how it got into widespread useage. Even on Ancestry by all accounts.
        Initially I tried to prevent that widespread usage because - as I pointed out - I was using it to raise money for an East End charity. After a while it clearly became futile.
        Several people on Facebook did do the decent, gentlemanly, thing and took the picture down on request.
        One person did initially take it down after the circumstances were explained to them, after they had posted it on a thread on a forum which was discussing the documentary.
        This person added the rider that if I discussed Lechmere any more, they would put the picture back up. I assumed that was a joke.
        Inevitably I discussed Lechmere again and the picture went back up.
        Clearly it wasn't a joke but was a deliberate use of the photo.
        Not really. The alleged plagiarism was in the book under discussion, so there was no diversion.

        Comment


        • #79
          Actually Gary... I'm not sure which Docks immigrants would have arrived at.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
            Actually Gary... I'm not sure which Docks immigrants would have arrived at.
            All of them to a greater or lesser degree, I would have thought, although ‘Docks’ handled cargo rather than passengers. If there had been such a thing as a ‘Jewish transport ship’, it wouldn’t have offloaded its passengers at Limehouse. The passenger wharves near the London and St Katherine docks, which received a lot of immigrants from the continent, are more likely.

            http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/...-the-port.html

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Andrew Firth View Post

              Let's not beat about the bush here, this is plagiarism, theft of other people's work.
              That is exactly what it is.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Andrew Firth View Post
                I'd be very interested in hearing how the text from such a widely known work such as CSI Whitechapel published in 2012, can suddenly end up in a chapter of a book published in 2019?

                Let's not beat about the bush here, this is plagiarism, theft of other people's work.

                Do John Bennett and Paul Begg know about this? And what about their publisher?

                We have been made aware of this and have looked into it further in consultation with our agent Robert Smith.


                John

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by John Bennett View Post
                  We have been made aware of this and have looked into it further in consultation with our agent Robert Smith.


                  John
                  It was disappointing to see our work used in this way. I think I'm right in saying that only Richard Cobb and Keith Stride appear to have published verbatim and as their own the work of others. And it seems that H Division Crime Club has undergone a name change.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Paul View Post
                    It was disappointing to see our work used in this way. I think I'm right in saying that only Richard Cobb and Keith Stride appear to have published verbatim and as their own the work of others. And it seems that H Division Crime Club has undergone a name change.
                    Its a pity that the work of the other researchers/authors has been overshadowed by all this.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      There seems to be about 100 words of generalised blurb lifted in Chapter 1.

                      As for the Barnett chapter by Mr Stride it is difficult for me to judge. That would be a chapter where the content was relating to research rather than general commentary.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                        Its a pity that the work of the other researchers/authors has been overshadowed by all this.
                        I couldn't agree more.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                          There seems to be about 100 words of generalised blurb lifted in Chapter 1.

                          As for the Barnett chapter by Mr Stride it is difficult for me to judge. That would be a chapter where the content was relating to research rather than general commentary.
                          Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean. What is 100 words of generalised blurb mean? Wasn't text reprinted verbatim from another source without acknowledgement?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                            There seems to be about 100 words of generalised blurb lifted in Chapter 1.

                            As for the Barnett chapter by Keith Stride it is difficult for me to judge. That would be a chapter where the content was relating to research rather than general commentary.


                            "100 words of generalised blurb" may be the case, Ed (and it was hardly ground-breaking stuff), but the author of that chapter sat down in front of somebody else's book and made use of their work, obviously it turns out, and with a failed effort to hide it. As did the author of the Barnett chapter, who must have literally cut and pasted the content from the Ripper Wiki Page. Only an idiot could not see this.


                            I am not going to go into pedantic circular arguments about what is and what isn't legally plagiarism. Simply, a published work has material in it allegedly written by somebody who is not the credited author of that material. Ricky Cobb and the mysterious Keith Stride have done this, to varying degrees, that much is obvious.


                            Anyone here find that acceptable? Anybody want to argue the toss over how using other people's work is OK? Maybe the authors in question would like to say something about their actions?


                            Gary Barnett: "Its a pity that the work of the other researchers/authors has been overshadowed by all this."


                            Yes, it is unfortunate that this has come up and derailed any debate on any other merits of this book, but some people should have thought of that before they submitted their pieces, shouldn't they?


                            JOHN

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by John Bennett View Post
                              Yes, it is unfortunate that this has come up and derailed any debate on any other merits of this book, but some people should have thought of that before they submitted their pieces, shouldn't they?
                              How could they have known before they submitted their articles?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                                How could they have known before they submitted their articles?
                                I'm referring to the articles which used others' work.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X