Unmasking Jack - the series continues

When HORACE SKINNER wandered through the unfinished building to play that Monday at No. 1 Hansler Road, south-east London, he did not realise that he had entered a house of horror - until he moved upstairs. In the backroom, in the centre of the floor... he saw her. The year was 1886... June... 9am. But the time and date had ceased to have any meaning to the woman: she was dead.

"Fearful wound"... "Evidence of struggle"... the papers reported. "Horrible discovery near East Dulwich" the South London Observer headlined. Adding that her throat was cut in two places. And Scotland Yard also ticked 'foul play' on the to-investigate list. What unfolds comes from press cuttings of the time. Alongside birth, marriage and death records, and census returns covering the decades concerned, these make interesting reading...

MR HARDY, a surgeon, examined the deceased. She lay in the centre of the floor. Her forehead was resting on her arm. Her features were not recognisable: they had been 'eaten away'. The doctor also found a 'deep' incised wound across her throat. A white handled table-knife was at her left side... he concluded that she had slit it herself.

Thirty-three year old CATHERINE MELLOWS had been missing from her Peckham home since Tuesday 18th May. Husband THOMAS "JOYNES" MELLOWS claimed his wife had a 'presentment' that she would not outlive the day. Apparently she could not sleep at night. On several occasions she had stated that she would commit suicide. 'She had been in a very low state for some time, and seemed depressed by the cares of a large family,' Mellows told the coroner. However it was not until the Thursday morning - two days after her disappearance - that he finally contacted police: her body remained undiscovered for six weeks. A deposition given by domestic help Alice Johnson also alleged that Catherine was behaving 'very strange'that day. When Alice 'missed her' it was between two and three that afternoon; like Mellows the servant did not recognise the knife. But it seemed of little or no importance.

What might seem strange to some is back then coroners' courts sat above the local pub, in this case the St George and Dragon in Camberwell. But coroner GEORGE PERCEVAL WYATT must have had one eye firmly on the bar - suicide was the vedict. "On the 18th May last, witness left home between 8 and 9 in the morning and returned between 5 and 6 o'clock." [South London Press, Saturday July 3, 1886, p2c1.] The reporting into the case seems to cover the husband's alibi and does not speculate on why Catherine chose that particular house - which was still under construction. Or, for that matter, if husband Thomas, a master builder, was constructing it. Mellows had insured his young wife's life for the then not too insignificant sum of five hundred pounds. He did not inform police about his wife's disappearance on the Tuesday - or that she was suicidal - until two days later. Perhaps a standard forty-eight hours notice was needed to file a missing person's report in 1886.

But if Catherine (we don't know if she was left-handed) could slit her own throat right to left as claimed, couldn't the same be said of a right-handed assailant standing in front of her? [In fact a left-handed assailant standing behind or beside Catherine could have cut her in this manner. Two years later, another assailant's cuts were made from left to right. "WAS JACK THE RIPPER LEFT-HANDED?" Stawell Heard concludes Jack was right-handed.]

Forensic science has moved on since 1886, and it is entirely feasible that Catherine Mellows, like the Ripper victims who followed two years later, could have been been strangled, her throat cut afterwards. [Police must have speculated. If so, it does not find its way down to us. In fact, it's entirely plausible - when one ignores the depositions of Mr Mellows who arguably had an incentive in the form of £500 - that Catherine's throat was cut after strangulation. This could have been done wherever the body was positioned, in other words sitting or laying on the ground.] And if that happened Thomas Joynes Mellows would have been the prime suspect.

The above suggests that the handedness of the person is uncertain. (If it was anyone other than Catherine that is.) The doctor's discovery of 'a deep' incised wound across her throat adds even more uncertainty. Newspapers inform us that a white handled table-knife lay at Catherine's left side. QED: it must have been suicide. However was it the position of the knife that led to the assumption that the wound had been inflicted from right to left - therefore, by Catherine' own hand, or was was it the depositions of Mr Mellows and his servant? Perhaps it was both and more. News starved we are left in the dark... the mysterious death at Dulwich quickly moved to a close. And yet...

UNFINISHED BUILDING? BUILDER HUSBAND? FEARFUL WOUND? EVIDENCE OF STRUGGLE? FOUL PLAY? INSURANCE MONEY? MYSTERIOUS KNIFE? Why the rats never went to the open wound of her throat is a mystery (they went for her face instead), but did this obscure tell-tale evidence of anything other than suicide? Had the victim's face been mutilated? CSI Miami Victorian London was not...

Jack the Ripper started his murderous rampage two years after the suicide of Catherine Mellows. Since that time, the dexterity of the Whitechapel/City of London slayer has been commented upon; was he right, left, or both handed? [She, he, they - we don't really know the true sex of the Ripper, or whether it was more than one person actually.] If Catherine slit her own throat she should have been left-handed (or ambidextrous). If she wasn't then that is clearly problematic. And it begs the question: could it have been an insurance job?

Thomas Mellows had insured his wife's life to the value of £500. The South London Observer, July 2, 1890 carried some advice. "Many persons are entirely ignorant of the lamentable consequences which may follow the neglect to make a will. Suppose, for example, a husband die intestate and without children, the widow takes only one half of her husband's personality, and the remaining half become divisible between the husband's next-of-kin, generally his brothers and sisters or their descendants, sometimes very distant relatives - whilst with regard to the realty the widow is only entitled to a life estate in one third as her dower." This was met by a bill in Parliament four years after Catherine Mellows' death and that provided that when a man died leaving no issue and real and personal estate not exceeding £500, the widow should take all of that sum. Amounts above £500 the widow was only allowed up to that amount, the rest becoming divisible amongst the husband's next-of-kin. Thomas Mellows took his wife's 'personality'. He knew beforehand how much insurance money he was going to get.

Thomas Joynes Mellows was born in Nottingham in 1837. The 1861 Census records him unmarried, twenty-three years-old, a 'fruit salesman' residing at 3 Spread Eagle Yard. His mother was Elizabeth, aged 58, the only other occupant being unmarried sister, Anne, aged twenty nine, listed, liker her mother, as a 'green grocer'. [Father "John" is listed deceased on his son's 1862 marriage certificate. Could the middle name "Joynes" be a corruption following a misreading?] Even after his move south to London Mellows remained a greengrocer. His first wife SUSANNA HARKER, whom he married in 1862, died nine years earlier than Catherine in March 1877, aged 38; the cause of death given as pthisis; a vernacular for TB, or pulmonary tuberculosis. The symptoms leading up to death are quite gruelling, the patient is overwhelmed by a large quantity of unmixed blood as it gushes up, and the victim dies from loss of blood or suffocation. Picrotoxin, a powerful convulsive poison was used, principally to check night sweats in phthisis by accelerating respiration. It was also used to adulterate beers, increasing their reputation as intoxicants. Susanna left her (then)'commission agent' from Nottingham with four children. Barely ten months after Susanna's death, at the age of 41, he married CATHERINE PORTORS, aged 25. Six months later she gave birth to their first child. Eight years later she was dead... a mysterious suicide. The Mellows-Portors union produced three issue; in addition to the five from the previous marriage. [The family must have formed a large clan. Additionally, any issue born and dead between the census years would not be recorded.]

Could the care of the children be the reason why Catherine Mellows ended her own life?

According to the 1881 Census the family resided in London's Holborn. Only five children were listed; two from the previous marriage to Susanna, three from Catherine's January 1878 marriage. Two girls and a boy from the first marriage are not present. [Catherine's first child had died. It is not known what happened to the others from the first marriage, save for Thomas jnr... More on whom later. Still, breakfast must have been a bloody nightmare.] But then... Catherine's child Lemuel, a boy, born on the 22 February 1886, has a death recorded at the FRC four months later on the 7th June - thirty days after Catherine is said to have committed suicide by her own left-handedness. Lemuel's death could not possibly have been the cause of his mother's anguish. It was a passing that seems to have gone without remark at his mother's inquest; Lemuel died between the death of his mother and the coroner's court, the discovery of Catherine's body, and the inquest into it, followed just weeks later. Did Lemuel pass away due to abandonment on the 18th? Or is it possible that Catherine did not go missing until after the baby's death? [Hansler Road was still under construction... Why was the site closed from the 18th May until the discovery of Catherine's body 6 weeks later? Her body was described as being badly decomposed. Between the child's death and the discovery of her body three weeks had passed, but could her life have ended after the 7th June? These are the questions that Mr Mellows should have been asked. If the death of Catherine Mellows was due to foul play then a significant inducement could have been the £500 life insurance. However.. there is also another intriguing possibility. If Catherine Mellows was murdered was she known to her killer and had she become in his eyes a whore?

Coming soon in TheBigRetort... The Excellent House that Jack Built.

KERB CRAWLING - Humphrey Hatty investigates various means

I've given up calling Plod. He does not tell me what constitutes an emergency - which the 999 system was set up for I know - but it's only when I dial all the Nines that he then tells me what doesn't. Dropped kerb parking is one that 'apparently and what if sir' - according to local police at Lewisham - doesn't. Many's the time I've had a car or skip parked on the driveway - the latter for building work - when some Mork or Mindy has pulled up and left their car blocking the driveway: effectively trapping mine in. Weird innit I know, but that's life in "Kool Britannia" or Londineum. 'Anyroad' (as me old mam might say by way of meaning 'anyway') the Romans would not put up with it...

The 'route' of the problem
One couple thought I was being unreasonable. They had blocked my skip in overnight... even though it was due to be exchanged for a new one. She screamed that I didn't know who I was messing 'wit'. He screamed equally loudly that I was a 'clot' who had better not 'diss' him, and I had better 'watch it'. 'You don't know him,' the wife warned. I was actually 'datting'' him in terms of 'dat's' my drive don't block it... please. However... surprising how polite one becomes when someone you 'don't know'? threatens to drag you out of the old memsahib zone. Another user of the driveway was also a 'neighbour'- friendliness, consideration etc - who had parked halfway across the driveway, again trapping my car in. She could not see what all the fuss was about. 'I've been working thirteen hours today, and I don't need this,' she said. Adding with visible and contemptuous frustration - a real memsahib - 'You're the only one in the street with this kind of set up anyway!' This was opined in full realisation of what she thought the problem was - mainly, that I had a driveway and she didn't. I've since discovered that she does have a studio so following that same rule I shall move TheBigRetort to the bottom of her garden. I must admit that I was eventually none too polite to both; the first two called me 'wanker' (some truth there) and the other found me 'quite rude'. (Could be a bit of truth in that too as I did use language described in a PC-world as 'strong'.) Still, if an Englishman's home is his castle, then his driveway has to to be the drawbridge... Not according to the Sheriff's men. 'We'll deal with it in a couple of hours, sir. Bit busy now (fighting crime you wally).'

Parking Adjacent to a Dropped Kerb
Depending on who I get I have been told there is no crime in parking across a driveway. It's all about whether it's access or egress. But is that true?
Section 14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
introduced a new parking contravention of parking adjacent to a dropped kerb. This is defined as any part of the foot way or verge where it has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for a road for the purpose of (a) assisting pedestrians to cross or (b) assisting vehicle to enter or leave the road across the foot way or verge. Clearly, the purpose is to stop vehicles blocking these lowered kerbs and preventing them being used for their intended purpose.

Residential premises
In the case of residential premises with a driveway (not shared with other premises), where the purpose of the dropped foot way is to assist vehicles to enter or leave the road from or to the driveway, a Penalty Charge Notice can be served. [A PNC is not issued unless requested by the occupier of the premises. A caveat without which might see a Penalty Charge Notice being issued to the occupier’s own vehicle.] A number of exemptions apply to this prohibition; for example, for boarding and alighting and loading and unloading. But don't dial 999. 'That's a Transport for London matter, sir,' will be the police response. Oh hum.

PATAS TEST CASE

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) admitted today that a test case may be needed to ensure that justice for a driver is received - even though it ruled against it on appeal.

Exclusive to TheBigRetort
In a BigRetort exclusive, "John Paul Morgan -v- Transport for London (the Authority) sat yesterday at PATAS. The Appellant's concerns surrounded his right to halt in a junction box where traffic in front dictated.

The Adjudicator
Andrew Harman, representing PATAS wrote, "The adjudicator, having considered this appeal on the basis of written and personal evidence from the Appellant and written evidence from the Authority, has refused the appeal." The prohibition is set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19, Part 2, Paragraph 7, in which it is claimed:
'...no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.'

But where were the stationary vehicles?
There were no stationary vehicles at the point Morgan's vehicle entered the box, and so the reason for the adjudicator's refusal makes confusing reading. Mr Andrew Harman explained when he wrote: "The prohibition is silent as to whether such stationary vehicles have to be inside or outside the box junction." In this case there were no vehicles stopped in or outside the box, the problem occured later when free-flowing traffic, acknowledged by the adjudicator, was unexpectedly forced to stop inside the box.

A test case?
However, it is what Harman's adjudication went on to say that drives a coach and horses through the junction box 'theory': "The test to be applied is, in law, the state of the traffic when the driver enters the box junction." An admission that the law on this has not been fully tested, something that will find some interest amongst many drivers who have fallen foul of previous 'rulings'.
Morgan stated 'Transport for London (TfL)and PATAS take the interpretation of the regulation on what the law is silent on. In other words what it does NOT say rather than what it does. Which does not seem reasonable.' He believes the statement by PATAS points the way to judicial review.

Silent prohibition, a new term in the English language
So will Morgan be putting the yellow junction box theory to a legal test?
He believes this may be unnecessary. 'I feel certain that the law has made things much simpler than that. It's reasonable to assume that the prohibition is not silent, just misinterpreted... by those who profit most.'

Is PATAS impartial?
PATAS and the London Councils (aka TfL) share the same suite of offices, and the former is paid by the latter, which Morgan feels may affect its impartiality.
Of course, TfL may continue to fine drivers for a contravention that the regulation - the law - is silent on. And PATAS, viewed by Morgan as the monkey to its organ grinder, may continue to rubber stamp the PNCs on appeal because of this, but the road ahead looks pretty bumpy indeed.

Making a monkey out of justice
Coincidentally, Morgan discovered that PATAS is named after the monkey which avoids dense forests... surely this cannot be the reason why it cannot see the wood for the trees?

FINES SCAM CHALLENGE

The Morgan -v- Transport for London appeal took place today at PATAS (the Parking And Traffic Appeals Service). In a surprise move, adjudicator Andrew Harman dispensed with previous TfL 'evidence', and decided to consider video footage instead - made available by the Authority only after the fine was disputed. (See earlier post Lewisham Scam-Cam below.)
But why should the adjudicator choose to decide the merits of the case on the video footage alone? Is it because the photograph TfL presented of the vehicle 'stopped' on the junction box was in fact a snap of a car moving?
The adjudicator claims he does not need to consider the still photograph - in effect evidence of wrongdoing or cock up by TfL - because video footage alone is (now) 'enough' evidence. But the video footage was not what TfL supplied in support of its case against me.... Despite this, the PATAS adjudicator was unable to reach his deliberations at the Hearing, and instead claimed that he needed to view the video footage again - even though he had done so twice that day in my presence.
But let's not lose sight of the regulations in this matter. [7] [1] "no such person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles". [Emphasis added.]
The video reveals that there were no stationary vehicles when my vehicle entered the box. It appears, however, that this may be open to further 'interpretation' by TfL. According to the PATAS adjudicator TfL may (and does) say... 'You should not enter the box if anything (whatsoever) causes you to stop within it.'
Asked how PATAS adjudicators maintain an impartial position - given that the organisation shares an office suite with the ALG Transport & Environment Committee - Harman claimed that this would not affect his decision making.
The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) claims that it "aims to provide a fast, efficient and quality service....[through] panels of independent adjudicators." Coincidentally, it considers appeals against Penalty Charge Notices issued by ALG (now known as "London Councils")whilst also coincidentally being on its payroll...

[Ed's note.. The organisation shares more than an acronym with the Patas Monkey photographed above. Erythrocebus patas is ground-dwelling, should normally avoid dense forests... and, like its namesake PATAS, junction boxes.]

BEEB BLAMED FOR BAD LANGUAGE

My daughter is currently training to be a laptop dancer. There...I feel much better for the admission, however, I should elaborate. Besides being a mummy-daddy (it's a modern world) I like to sneak off between feeds and tantrums, prise open the laptop, run my fingers across old Qwerty and write about, well, pretty much anything really. I love to dilly, I love to dally...etc. Until a tiny pair of feet pin my fingers to the laptop keyboard."She's a handful," as my wife might say. Actually our daughter is a lap-top-full, but the the blame for this lies squarely with the BBC - and, chiefly, CBeebies.
Bash! Thud! Thump! Not the sound of an episode of Batman and Robin but tiny feet kicking at the keyboard. Normally followed by that question that echoes in my mind way into deep sleep, "Can I do CBeebies"?
"No!"
"Why not...?"
"I'm writing."
"I want 'puter'.
"Can't...it's mine, I'm writing. Puter mine."
Bash! Don't know how she does it, she must have very dexterous toes, because half-way through a big-retort "Qwerty" just appeared on the screen. So besides offering new words to the global lexicon - such as "blog" "wwwdot" - why not just say all the "double use?- and "ping", it's "Mylo", "Tweenies" and now "Qwerty".
Blame the BBC.

UNMASKING JACK

Background
Between August and November 1888 five gruesome murders were committed within one square mile of London's East End. Thought to be the work of one man press called him "Jack the Ripper". The hunt to find the East End slayer caused panic in London's Whitechapel district and became an international sensation: Who was he? Where did he come from? Who would he be 'down on' next?

The victims
Newspapers carried theories on the killer's identity but he was never found and the phantom vanished leaving his bloody deeds as a reminder of his evil presence. Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly; the 'Canonical Five' (in this case generally accepted) victims of Jack the Ripper.

Additional murders
Some believe the Whitechapel phantom was responsible for thirteen additional (unsolved) murders but these are not listed under what is termed the canonical group. These victims, which stretch up to 1891, included only one which preceded the Whitechapel slayings and allegedly took place on the 26th December 1887. "Fairy Fay" was later discounted as a myth and, possibly, later creation. No such person has ever been unearthed in any contemporaneous news article or official documents. Five crimes then; apparently committed by one person - alone.

The discovery
Now come closer... I want to share a secret with you...a secret that may begin a process that could lead to the unmasking of Jack the Ripper. Could there be a Ripper victim who has - until now - remained unknown? And from a much earlier date? I think so and I've found her...

Pre-Ripper newspaper account
On Monday morning, in June 1886, shortly before nine o'clock, a boy named Horace Skinner was going over an unfinished building in East Dulwich, when he was horrified to find, crouched up in a corner, the body of a woman. "HORRIBLE DISCOVERY AT DULWICH" The South London Observer, Wednesday June 1886 carried the headline banner detailing reports of the discovery..."Information was at once given at the police-station, when Inspector Harris proceeded to the spot, and found in a back bed-room upstairs, a respectably dressed woman lying upon the ground with her throat cut in two places, and a common table-knife lying by her side in a stream of congealed blood."

Could she have been Jack the Ripper's first victim? Was the cause of her death later misidentified? Did the victim know Jack? Answers soon.... in TheBigRetort "Ripper Uncovered" series.

NUDE CYCLISTS PROTEST CONGESTION CHARGE

In a protest against congestion charges, naked commuters road into the nation's capital on Saturday - on bicycles.

When asked by TheBigRetort what caused one male cyclist to rise that morning (he was on a lady's bike), he responded: 'TfL... It's taken the shirt off my back.' [Photo, Marie Accomiato]

Unveiling the secret finances of the Masons

[punch.co.uk]

STRANGE - BUT TRUE? Flying saucer over England in 1795

UFO SEEN OVER ENGLAND...in 1795

It was nearly half past nine on the clock of a Tuesday evening when what was described as 'a body of fire of an uncommon size' passed over the town of Halifax...
The craft headed 'nearly the line' south west, until it hit the zenith of Halifax, inexplicably changing direction, it then headed a few points from the north east to east.
But what's so unusual about that?
The years was 1795... The object's diameter appeared to be 'more than half that' of a full moon and its velocity was so rapid that it was doing 50 miles a second - or 18000mph!
Certainly its speed was greater than any velocity achieved in that century, and those that followed. (At the time of the report apparently a coach and horses into London took several days.)
The height of the extremely bright object must have been considerable as it passed through clouds, and illuminated those which it passed 'over'. (Great heights were also unachievable in that century.)
Reports at that time relate that its colour was 'pale and livid' and it was visible for about five or six seconds. Finally, it was 'lost in the eye of a big large cloud'.
Could this have been a mother ship? It seems unlikely... the encounter was followed by a 'tremendous peal of thunder' believed to be the 'bursting of the globe' in the negatively electrified cloud. So, following an interstellar journey of some tens of thousands of light years, these poor space travellers, presumably on a mission from a dying planet - to make our world there's no doubt - perished. It's almost as if a guiding hand was at play saying that far and no further. Amazing...
[The Times, Sept 8, 1795, p4,c3. Disclaimer. Please note, the photograph of the downed saucer above did not appear in the original report, as photography did not exist then.]

Alexander Litvinenko - British Citizen

It seems remarkable that Moscow troublemaker ALEXANDER LITVINENKO was murdered only shortly after becoming a British citizen. He was naturalised in October and poisoned at the beginning of November.

But perhaps the biggest question is why this has not been picked up by the general media.

Was someone in the Kremlin sending out a strong and ominous message? (Apparently Putin had always been jealous of Litvinenko's hair.) Or were other forces working to embarrass Moscow by waiting until Litvinenko became a 'Brit'?

Answers may be found at the PRO - in about 100 years (or the Kremlin now).

Perhaps though, as things happen these days, "Rendition Airways" may head East, and another spy may be due in from the cold.

London Congestion Charges - boycott

Opening my mail today, I was surprised to receive a Penalty Charge Notice from my old chums TfL. This time the picture claimed to show my car at an entry point to London's Congestion Zone. (The picture shows the vehicle on an arrow that displays no "C" or other road markings. But is this 'evidence'?)

Little did I realise that as I took the wrong exit on a roundabout, and headed along Newington Causeway instead of the New Kent Road, I was about to be 'mugged' by TfL - again. (See Lewisham Scam-Cam below...)

The wrong exit error took a few seconds to correct... but too little too late, in Livingstone's London: "You are liable to purchase a Congestion Charge for any use of the Congestion Charging Zone, regardless of the duration." And being "unaware" is a defence that falls on deaf red ears. After all, as many of you realise by now, it's all about revenue.
So have you been caught out by an overzealous TfL? Think the law has been applied too strictly in your case? If you're now hopping (mad) onto public transport then you can fight back with a big retort... FINE THE FINER.
If someone profits from your loss unfairly - and let's face it these are huge and sometimes unfair profits - why not simply boycott the goods and/or services of those involved? Remember, by taking your business elsewhere, you ensure that your voice in London is heard - and in this instance by Capita Group Plc.
[See link for more on spy cameras. http://www.spy.org.uk/wtwu.htm.]

CAPITA is responsible for operating the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme on behalf of TfL. Remember... if you can deny them profit - in any way - then you will have gained.
Post details, along with loss of revenue to Capita and its fatcat directors and shareholders here @TheBigRetort.
REMEMBER, BE FAIR. Only deny them what has been taken from you - including increased penalty charges. TheBigRetort will tally up the final shortfall to Capita in a later blog.
But don't forget TfL... you can make a difference there too... by boycotting its transport and other services up to the value of your fine(s) you can ensure that your protest is heard - remember, post at TheBigRetort when you do.

THE BUSINESSES TO AVOID (but only if you feel that you have been treated unfairly):

Local Shops or Post Offices, both receive kickbacks for their part in the traffic fines scandal.

TfL - Transport for London

Capita Business Services
Providing an integrated range of business process outsourcing and professional services to clients in the UK and Ireland.

Capita Commercial Services
Market leader in providing outsourced administration and support services to the general insurance sector and affinity partnerships.

Capita Symonds
Providing a comprehensive range of project management, telecommunications engineering and construction related consultancy services.

Capita IRG
Share registration and employee share scheme administration services.

Capita Trust Company

Corporate trustees and providers of trust and administration services.

Capita Life & Pensions

Administration and customer services for life and pensions operations.

Capita Life & Pensions Regulated Services

Administration and customer services for life and pensions regulated operations.

Constructionline

The UK's register of pre-qualified local and national construction and construction-related suppliers.

Quay Software Solutions Ltd

Veredus

Specialist provider of senior-level recruitment consultancy, public and private sectors.

[If you have any suggestions to add to the list, or think a company may be placed in error, contact TheBigRetort. A list of appointments by Capita Board members to follow in a later blog.]

STOP AND SEARCH

These new anti-terror powers are worthy of Commons sense.

Some years back I was puzzled to see scores of uniformed police officers in body-protection armour and Dayglo jackets, accompanied by sniffer dogs, stopping, questioning and searching commuters as they exited a London tube station. The dogs were quite nice. It was their masters who were the Rottweilers.

When I enquired abut the operation, a police officer quipped, "It's part of a strategy by Ken Livingstone and Transport for London.'

When I pointed out that it seemed a bit over the top, he responded loudly, 'What are you - a bloody anarchist!"

An attempt to photograph this quite visible - the police later claimed sensitive - operation led to my being questioned and detained at length (ten minutes) under... the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

All this despite the fact that I was pushing a pram with my baby daughter inside, and despite the fact that I had asked an officer's permission to film the scene for the local rag. (Not that one needs to in a democracy.)

A police officer later told the newspaper: "The aim of the operation was to show a visible presence to members of the public and lessen the opportunity for criminality and fare defaulters to travel undetected through the area."

Of course, I hear you say, not long afterwards several nutters blew themselves up on London Underground taking many souls alongside their own misbegotten lives, so all's 'fare' then. Be that as it may, would such a highly visible police operation have prevented the nutter atrocities?

Like I said, commuters were being body searched (ostensibly for drugs) and questioned exiting the station - so it seems unlikely.

Operation Extended Powers, as the paper later reported, then as now, had a 'whiff' about it... Guv.[]

Zeno - Solving a 30-year-old literary mystery

A remarkable story from the pages of history (which I am still tidying up, sorry) . The identity of a war hero revealed - ZENO [Reproduced with kind permission of Punch Ltd. http://www.punch.co.uk/. For this and other subjects of interest see Steve Lewis's Mystery File at http://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=260.]

speck

speck

speck

speck

[A sad postscript... Shortly after the article first appeared I was contacted by the Met Police. Death threats had been received by Gerald Lamarque's widow. (A name I did not include in the article, or contact phone number.) However, as a result of files held by me, a person related to Lamarque became the focus of the Met's attention. I do not know if the threats ceased following this, as the police invariably fail to acknowledge assistance rendered to them. See "Brockley Con Artist" for an example.]

KILBURN SRB SCANDAL HITS KEN LIVINGSTONE

After reading an evaluation into Kilburn Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) published in 2005, and now available online [Sean Baine January 2005] here at TheBigRetort one former board member couldn't resist stifling an almighty Told-Yeh-So.

This regeneration Programme supported a number of projects over a period of six years, but after the big bucks were exhausted, what did they actually achieve?

By 'they' one means those members of the Board charged with caring for the money that was filtered their way. And there was loads...

The report’s author, Sean Baine (on whom more later), claims that ‘to ascertain this fully would require in depth evaluations of each project which was not possible within the scope of this evaluation’. Which is just another way of saying I was not commissioned to look. Or, rather, I was commissioned not to look.

Not the only item of note left out of the Baine Re-evaluation – members of the Kilburn SRB (who funded the report) were accused of using public funds for their own self-interest. One local best described them ‘as pigs at the trough’.

But here, I too must declare an interest…. as the community representative (and reporter) that the Board dismissed.

When I called for the creation of a Register of Members’ Interests, I had just joined the Board in November 2002. I quickly discovered that many sitting on it were in fact gaining financially in one way or another. By March the following year, a register was still not in place - and this after millions of pounds (sterling) was allocated. As a result of emailing Board members, who were reluctant to create a register (one accused me of ‘cyber bullying’)I was ‘axed’ (See Kilburn Times, June 11, 2003, p1.) Ironically, the meeting at which I was dismissed had been called to discuss setting up the register. Board members questioned why I had sent the e-mails instead of airing my views through the meeting. (A bit of a chicken and egg situation I know.)

The story takes a bizarre turn… The Board in its paranoid state accused me of being an undercover journalist who had come to write a story about it. I had declared my credentials prior to being voted in and was puzzled by the 'accusation'. Also it would have been highly unlikely to get any story published if it had been acquired by deception... Unless it revealed wrongdoing. However, a local vicar, a beneficiary of funds and a board member (not unusual on Kilburn SRB) had steadfastly refused to declare his business interests - and fuelled much of what followed. (I already knew from Company's House files that amongst appointments held by the reverend was a company styled “beauty parlour”.)

Three private sector members of the Board received funds; Nicholas Kent’s Tricycle Theatre, £30,000 to produce a community safety video, the building frontage where Parvad Ahmed’s Shamrat restaurant was extensively refurbished, in addition, St Mary’s Church, Kilburn, represented on the board by Rev Andrew Cain received £19,000 for computer equipment following SRB 'bids'.

But the funds trickling down the Kilburn High Road to SRB member projects and/or businesses and the amounts acquired were by no means seen as unusual by the London Development Agency. Although Paul Owen of the Kilburn Times [kilburntimes.co.uk] did not report it at the time the funds were in excess of those above and still, a local government source who did not wish to be named (do they ever?) said "If businesses on the board were barred from accessing funding, it would be a disincentive for them to join."

Disincentive? Like Judas board members knew the value of 30 pieces of silver.

But what about the Kilburn SRB Programme, what was it aimed at, and, more importantly, did it represent value for money?

I believe the answer to at least one (if not all) of the above questions represents an own goal to the London Devlopment Agency. Unfortunately value for money was yet another item that the Baine Re-evaluation could not access. ‘This would involve looking at the unit costs of particular programmes and projects i.e. the cost of individual outputs. However this is very difficult to calculate…” etc.

What guff! And why?

In words of plain speak the author (more on his services in a later posting) did not 'consider it useful' to carry out any specific value for money calculations. Why not? This was one of the main items of interest for those local community groups who did not manage to ‘pig out at the trough’. (Kilburn had an agreed allocation of £6,598,800 and the potential financial gain in the wrong hands was therefore enormous.)

Such was the turmoil surrounding the Kilburn 'project' that an experienced manager from the London Development Agency was appointed as Programme Manager - Alan Dorricott. So this then was the LDA managing its own spend, with its very own Rottweiler, but without delivering bite (or rather value). Something that the George Baine report failed in its entirety to 'access'.

But, to be fair to all concerned, was there a blue flashing light on the horizon?

The report rightly claims that towards the end of 2002 complaints started to emerge from 'a small number' of local residents. One individual approached me after my being voted onto the board. Charlie's complaints, as with others, initially centred around the ‘spend’ that covered many aspects of SRB expenditure. However, an attempt at getting a sympathetic ear from the board members proved impossible, made an ill man even graver, and so he would sit ever-present at meetings, silent, waiting to be 'heard'. And never was.

Another complainant, Graham Bacon, seemed particularly hot under the collar. But he was also more vociferous than Charlie. And the more he was sidelined the further entrenched in his accusations he became... His voice grew ever louder. Something the board moved to defend itself against. (Bacon was reported to police. Programme manager Alan Dorricott was himself a former senior policeman. However, no charges were ever brought against Bacon and his character remained unblemished by any board-directed accusations. Soon others would join the voice of this marginalized 'crank'.)
But back to the report (which is also back to Bacon actually)…

Baine claims that ‘actual civil and criminal legal proceedings and complaints to the district Auditor’ were brought, which is partially true. The claims were brought by Bacon against board members or, specifically, Dorricott. But it remained a civil matter only.

Why should the report suggest criminal proceedings when it is clear there were none?

Author Sean Baine (sometimes he uses the first name George) displays his great aptitude for bias when he adds more whitewash to the blemish,‘evaluation has not examined the issues raised by the complainants nor come to any conclusions about their validity.’ Which is about where Kilburn-based Baine should have left it. However, instead he goes on to dig himself into the Kilburn High like a well-practised navvy. ‘However they created an atmosphere that was damaging to NCK and, particularly, to plans to have greater involvement by the local community,' he adds. 'Individual members of the Board felt threatened and under attack while individual staff members felt harassed. The effect of the actions of the individual residents, and the manner in which they acted, could only be detrimental to the working of NCK and any future promotion of Kilburn as a distinct entity.’

Now if that isn’t coming to any conclusions then what is?

The report continues… “Community involvement in the programme was always problematic. This was compounded by the actions of a few individuals in the area who brought complaints against board members and programme staff which affected both morale and commitment to the programme.” However, the biggest giggle in this roll-out-the-same-old-barrel-of-laughs comes under the label ‘COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION’.

“Community involvement and capacity building is a pre-requisite of the sustainable regeneration of the area. We will involve the community under each programme theme, ensure that every project adds capacity to the local community and that the community itself plays a lead role in project appraisal and delivery.” Sean Baine ends his report with a worthy and fitting statement… ‘the sum did not equal more than the parts’. (Not really a reference to what he was paid to deliver, but what he managed to deliver perhaps.)

Well done George from all @TheBigRetort.

[Footnote....The SRB Board later voted that a Register of Members’ Interests was needed. And that it should remain closed to the public (and press). Further reading of this sordid tale continues below...]


Mayor of London PQT, 14 October 2003, Report of Proceedings - Economy, Environment and Regeneration.

Participant
I wondered what the Mayor and London Assembly members would think of an SRB that did not set up a register of members' interests until its sixth year of operation and then kept it secret; that did not hold annual general meetings open to the public, contrary to its own rules; that dismissed a duly elected member of the public without having the powers to do so and then took the powers retrospectively?

Toby Harris
Do you want to give us a hint as to which SRB partnership it might be?

Participant
Personally, I am from the Kilburn and Bromley [actually 'Brondesbury'] Residents Association Group and I think you can work it out.

Ken Livingstone
You need to tell us because there are literally hundreds of SRBs.

Participant
The Kilburn SRB does not hold annual general meetings, it has dismissed a community representative without having the power to do so, it refuses to divulge accounts of activities that it has funded and it has given the majority of its grants to individuals and organisations connected with board members.

Ken Livingstone
I will ask the London Development Agency to look into it and report back to me.

BLOGGERS4LABOUR

Recently discovered that my blog "jpmorganreport.blogspot.com" was appearing on a Google search and flagging me as a "bloggers4labour" member. This was news to me as I have never promoted my political leanings in any post on my weblog.

Andrew Regan, creator of "bloggers4labour", responded to my puzzlement by creating even more:

"I check all blogs before submission and have definitely never seen yours before - either way, it's not in our database. It's possible that one of our 450+ bloggers has referred to you in the past: as we syndicate their posts, it's just possible that the name/URL of your blog has briefly appeared on our from page/recent posts page, but then hundreds/thousands of other blogs would be in the same boat." [A good point that needs further investigation surely.]

speck

Regan claimed that there was 'no evidence anyone is claiming you to be a Labour blogger, and if anyone is getting that impression, that's a case of Google's results being misinterpreted.'

But is it? Can Google be blamed for being Labour's Big Brother?

The answer may be rather more benign... Following concerns, reported only to Bloggers4Labour, the connection is no longer on its site.

It is perhaps noteable that a former Labour councillor had responded to a posting made on another blog I have visited with a local flavour, and it is his website that points to his own (Labour) blog, which is connected to, yes, you've guessed, "Bloggers4Labour".

So beware who answers your non-party political posts.

UNKNOWN WHITE MALE

Unknown White Male is an extraordinary film that allegedly follows a man in the hours and months of his amnesia as he turns his back on attempts to piece his shattered life together. However, as the remarkable story gained pace, it was quickly accompanied by doubt.

Following the film’s release various statements were made regarding why medical treatment ceased. In a website posting the film’s executive producer claimed... “…Doug himself decided to stop seeing doctors as they couldn't offer him anything except contradictory speculation.”
GQ Magazine asked why he was not still seeing doctors - apparently he had seen six – Bruce, who owns a Panamanian plantation, responded: ‘Mainly because I was (a student) under school insurance before. And now I’m not.’ (A statement that itself contradicts the ‘contradictory speculation’ claim above.)

The filmmakers also claim that Coney Island Hospital was filling up - it was the 4th July holiday. Doctors we talking about sending Bruce "upstate to a mental institution… he knew he didn’t want to end up there, so he tried the telephone number for the last time…”
A statement at variance with that which Brian Palmer, of Coney Island Hospital, told me, he claims Doug Bruce was treated first in the medical ER and was later moved to the Psych ER where, significantly, all medical laboratory tests proved negative. CT scan uncovered a pituitary tumour, ‘but this was not felt to be (and I believe still is not felt to be) the cause of his memory loss.’ There was no suggestion of transferral to an upstate mental institution. .

But why did Bruce leave the Manhattan apartment that day (fugue state or not) with the phone number of the one person who could identify him inside a book? [In psychology, a fugue state, also known as a 'psychogenic fugue' or 'dissociative fugue', is a state of mind where a person experiences a dissociative break in identity and attempts to run away from some perceived threat, usually himself.]

Brian Palmer unwittingly provides one potential motivating factor: “…he would not have been discharged had someone not come forward, (and) identified him, etc....”

In other words with no number in the book - and presumably no girlfriend to identify him - the “unknown white male” would have been kept in the hospital.

HBO network is said to have pulled out of co-funding a film on the grounds that the story was "less than credible". The Daily Mail labelled the film a hoax. In New York, Michel Gondry, director of the memory-loss movie Eternal Sunshine, said that he had doubts. (Reports that the central character was on the NY party scene hamming up his forgetfulness did not help. Apparently Bruce would hand attractive women a card with his domain name "unknownwhitemale" printed on it.)

Rumours escalated… was it Memorex?

In fact amnesia and Manhattan had always been neighbours. A play premiered at the Manahattan Theatre Club in October 2000. “Fuddy Meers starts off just as just another normal (special) day for Claire. She wakes up and greets the morning. Her husband brings her a cup of coffee, and patiently explains that she suffers from a form of psychogenic amnesia that erases her memory every night when she goes to sleep.” The author’s first play, it is also known as autobiographical amnesia. It is related to trauma or general psychological disorientation. The rarity of cases leaves some doubt as to whether or not it is a real phenomenon.

Sound familiar? The play’s genesis started with a news report that the author saw about a book on neurological disorders, one of the most interesting being a specific form of amnesia where everything is erased during sleep. He speculated: "what is it like to wake up and not recognize the bed you're in, the clothes you're wearing, the people around you?"
But the subject of memory loss does not end there for Manhattan-based Doug Bruce...
”The nightmare begins in a hotel room in midtown Manhattan. As you take stock of the situation you realize that you have no clothes and no money, and worse still, your memory seems to have been replaced with an unyielding dense fog.” [Amnesia”, by Thomas M Disch, is an interactive electronic detective mystery.]
Among those found missing after the September 11th attacks in NY was a sidewalk vendor who turned up six days later in a Manhattan hospital suffering from amnesia. Amnesia was also a play by the Surveillance Camera Players in NY.
Amnesia and Manhattan, a heady mix… also darkly glamorous and contagiously hip as any cocktail bar… Amnesia is one of Manhatten's coolest nightspots.

To be sure, Manhattan was soaked in memory-loss… But there is further compelling evidence that challenges Doug Bruce’s version of events – the F Train did not run into Coney Island that day.
Coney Island (Stillwell Avenue) Terminal underwent a complete rebuilding programme in 2001 that did not officially complete until May 29, 2005. [The BMT Culver Line (F) was cut back in September 2002. The D, Q, N or F trains usually ran into Stillwell Avenue (the last stop). But the day Bruce claims he awoke on the F train it stopped 40 blocks from Coney Island, at Avenue X. See WIKIPEDIA.]

In the postings of just two commuters who were affected by the Coney Island works:
“After what seemed like hours, but was really about 45 minutes, I got to the final stop on the F train's line. From there I had to take a shuttle bus, because the track work in that area prevents the F from going all the way to Coney Island." [July 13, 2003 Posted by justin.]

[Garratt Murray blog on the Fourth of July celebrations at Coney Island.]
"...grabbed the F train all the way to Avenue X... Then we skipped the shuttle-bus and instead walked the seemingly 40 blocks to Coney Island." Canarsie Courier reported on July 3, 2003. “DIRECTIONS: Due to reconstruction of the Stillwell Avenue Terminal, the W train is the only subway line operating into Coney Island. F trains terminate at Avenue X...”

Rupert Murray, director of Unknown White Male. “I didn’t need to push him to reconstruct anything after his amnesia as he could recall virtually everything from that day in July 2003 onwards, in terrifying, photographic detail.”

So if an unknown white male woke out of his amnesia on the F Train headed to Coney Island - recalling 'virtually everything from that day...in terrifying, photographic detail' - he was either wrong, or lying.

There are other oddities...

Doug Bruce claims that he was born in Nigeria to a Scottish father. My own findings reveal that Douglas Ivan Bruce was born on 2nd November 1967 on the banks of the Seine. The birth was actually registered at the British Consul-General to Paris the day after Douglas was born.
[Home of French actor Gerard Depardieu, Neuilly-Sur-Seine is a North West suburb of Paris near Bois de Bologne. Neuilly is now the Ternes neighbourhood in the Paris 17th arrondisment. Paris was enlarged in 1860 by annexing part of the neighbouring communes. His mother is recorded as Marguerite Loraine Du Bouzet. His (Scottish?) father Andrew Ivan Bruce worked at the time as a tyre sales manager for Dunlop and Hertz in Ikega, Nigeria from 1975-1980. It was here that his son attended school for ex-pats for one year only. The family home was recorded at 21 Avenue du Parc St James 92200 Neuilly Paris. Currently the address of a Gérant de Bouzet, whose activity is ‘service forestier’ and a likely family member. The family actually descends from the French aristocracy. Coincidentally 'Scottish' father “Ivan” was himself born abroad in Budapest in 1937. This birth is also a British Embassy Consular registration but was not recorded in registers at the Family Records Centre until 1950, thirteen years after Ivan's birth. Ivan's father too was born at Bratislava in 1913. The family's paternal Scottish ancestry seems to date back another generation to Ivan's grandfather who was born at Neilston in Scotland in 1874.]

On or shortly after his eighth birthday Douglas was sent to board at St Edmunds in Canterbury, England. His father Ivan had been there before him. He was a bright ‘if not exceptional’ student, but at the senior school he is said to have become ‘a bit of a tearaway’. He passed his A-levels and went on to London University, but left after just one year. (Possibly the reason why his father had no recollection of what his son studied. The University, due to a narrow interpretation of the Data Protections Act, refuses to 'confirm or deny' that he attended.)

It seems fair to say that the majority of Douglas Bruce's academic qualifications ended at the gates of St Edmunds where his father had also attended from 1953-56. Jock Asbury-Bailey, former teacher and historian, had heard of the story but did not immediately recollect ‘Douglas’ with Unknown White Male. (Douglas attended the school from 1976-1985, however, the school heard nothing more from him after he left. (It still retains an address in Marbella for his father.)

Douglas was thought ‘bright enough’ and achieved 11 O Levels, and three A levels, though the latter were ‘less better than the school had hoped’. Apparently he later applied to Universities in Edinburgh and at Asten (Birmingham) though it is questionable if he would have been accepted at either due to his grades. He had hoped to do business studies with French. However, apparently whilst he received an A for his oral French, his written French brought him only a C.

Jock described Douglas as a pleasant young man, ‘rarely at a loss for words.’ He played squash, and was in the Second 11 hockey team. ‘But did not stretch much further than that in sports.’

Boy Douglas was also involved in a young enterprise scheme with the help of local businesses and became a school under monitor responsible for discipline and routine things, looking after more junior boys. He attended the school for 9 years, four of them spent in the juniors and the rest in seniors.

By the age of 17, in his final year, he was secretary of the Forum (debating) Society. He was, Jock claims fondly, ‘A very chatty, easy to get along with person.’ In his early days not only was he number 7 at squash but ‘drama’ was noted amongst his interests. (He played a shepherd in one production but 'did not stretch much further'.)

It was following the short stint at London University that Douglas, possibly in his late teens, headed across the Channel. It was in Paris that he claimed he worked as stockbroker. (It is difficult understand how he did so without the requisite qualifications. He refuses to say where he worked. The Du Bouzet name may have opened doors left shut to many... There is a brokerage firm Patrick Du Bouzet, SA in Paris, a subsidiary of the Banque National Paris Group. Are these 'connections'? The address on his birth certificate matches the home of the Comte du Bouzet, which suggests the Unknown White Male is a known aristocrat.)

He had been very close to his French mother ‘Loraine’ (Du Bouzet) who died of cancer when he was aged 23. At the time his sisters did not remember seeing him cry or hearing him discuss his feelings and this was felt to be a possible motivating factor to his later retrograde amnesia, though doctors do not concur. By the time he was 30, in 1997, he had we are told ‘made a considerable sum of money’ and two years later decided to move to New York. In August 2001, he enrolled in a 4-year course at the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan. The play Fuddy Meers performed nearby ten months earlier in October 2000. Despite the memory loss, he obtained a BFA in 2005 on graduation. Douglas Bruce is now a commercial photographer working in NY.

LEWISHAM SCAM-CAM

John Paul Morgan

-v- Transport for London ("the Authority")

Tuesday, 19th June, 2007 at 12.00pm

DRIVERS BEWARE.... A Penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London (Contravention code 31, Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited) contains two pictures which allegedly show a vehicle stopped in the box - mine. In the 12 seconds it was allegedly there, the light from its headlights could have been to the moon and back nine times - but it was afternoon and they were off.

So could this be why TfL has variously demanded fines somewhere between £50-£150?

With little memory of events, I decided to revisit the scene. This time, just to make certain, I went on foot. After a few minutes I realised that I was not the only driver being legally mugged (no other word for it really) but one of many caught by a Transport for London's 'scam-cam'.

Did you know that 95% of foreign vehicles are not pursued for a traffic offence? (The reason why many of them happily sit in a yellow junction box I suppose.)

And, contrary to why the yellow box junction was sited there in the first place, traffic has slowed?

A Transport for London (TfL) study has revealed, far from easing congestion, camera-regulated yellow boxes are reducing the flow of traffic - severely. Since their inception in 2004, 100,000 drivers have been fined £100 each. The camera box junctions were intended to reduce congestion. However, the penalty for crossing the line without a way out has made many drivers too cautious. The average number of cars passing through camera junctions every hour fell by 150, or four per cent. Cars blocking traffic fell by 23 per cent. Jeroen Weimar of TfL told the Times. "We are concerned by the results because the justification for the cameras was that they would improve traffic flow." TfL said that it would continue monitoring and attempt to improve traffic flow, removing cameras if necessary.

It remains to be seen if this has any baring on the camera-covered yellow box junction at Goldsmith's College.

Watch this space....

YOU'RE NICKED - IS IT A FAIR COP?

There's a warning from police in Lewisham about a door to door scam that's already fooled several residents. A young woman knocks on doors and claims she's locked herself out and needs cash for a cab or a locksmith. Police say many people are falling for it because she's smartly dressed and sometimes even has children with her. Residents in Brockley, Hither Green and Ladywell have all parted with sums ranging from 20 to 100 pounds in cash.
06 November 2006 (time1068.com)

THE CON ARTIST speck

The young woman who stood on my neighbour’s doorstep claimed that she had been ‘locked out’. She desperately needed to get to her sister, a nurse, only then could she grab a spare set of keys and 'return the money later'. Or so she told my gullible neighbour.

Although Mary (not her real name) did not recognise the woman she immediately empathised. She had just withdrawn some money from the bank, a £50 note, and the woman who apparently lived directly opposite said that this would be fine. But, later that evening and well into the next day and the next the young woman never returned.

My neighbour it later transpired had been conned... In fact the mysterious woman did not live opposite and never had any intention of returning the fifty pounds.

Surprisingly police at Lewisham did not investigate the 'theft', and neither was the incident recorded as a crime - and like a little Houdini the con artist vanished. But Mary was not her only victim...

In fact the scoundrel had been knitting the wool over kind old eyes for quite some time, octogenarian Mary was no exception, and the 'perp' (already known to police amongst the wanted) was hooked to deception along with several other substances.

I heard determined footsteps just behind me. I had just returned with my daughter. The woman smiled briefly and suddenly turned into Mary’s pathway. I hung back… There was something in the smile, the body language… she was I realised trying too hard to ‘seem’ casual. I had never seen her on Mary’s step before. And Mary, as the cons who were preying on her knew, could be quite forgetful....

‘What makes you think it’s the same woman?’ came the officious police response after I had dialled the Nines.

She fitted the description given to me by Mary and other neighbours.

But this must have appeared unconvincing to the person at the other end of the phone as the voice appeared doubtful. Fortunately though, it was then that a familiar figure appeared through the glass at my door. ‘She’s here,’ I whispered.

The young woman was slim... and looked quite desperate. She claimed that she had been 'locked out' of the house next door where her sister had been living. (In fact I wanted to tell her that it was Mary's house, the one she had lived in for decades, only leaving briefly when the Germans dropped a bomb on it during the 2nd World War. I also wanted to tell her that Mary had been a doctor and had been seconded to the War Office checking the bomb damage our boys were doing to the Germans, a kind of quid pro quo I guess, but it would not have made a blind bit of difference to this woman. She was part of a later generation known as the Must Gets. (Mary's dad rebuilt the house in Brockley that Hitler bombed and it remains a fine example of a postwar Victorian repro.)

‘Locked out.’ Bexleheath.’ ‘Sister.’ ‘Money.’ I listened to her familiar mantra, along with the police who were no doubt recording on the other end of the phone. Apparently she needed to use the phone - desperately - so I hung up on the police. Heeding the warning that they had given me, 'If she tries to leave don't stop her!'

The phone number she gave belonged to a mobile that was switched off, naturally. But it was money she needed... Only then could she get a taxi to her sister in the hospital. Later that evening she would return it to me. A predicament (through sobs) that was ‘all a bit embarrassing really.’

‘Would fifty pounds do?’ I asked, with the barest trace of irony.

This must have impacted because she immediately stopped crying and nodded. I told her that I was out of money. It wasn't true but I was buying time, waiting for that familiar sound of the sirens. I said that my wife would be back any minute and that she would have cash on her. Unfortunately it was at this point that my five year old piped up, ‘Mummy doesn’t come back ‘til the evening.’ Remembering the police instruction not to stop her if she tried to leave I parried. ‘She thinks the dark afternoons are evenings.’ A ruse that must have made sense.

Unfortunately the best laid plans can also be defeated by elders too… Mary had been down to Lewisham shopping centre and was carrying two bags as she trundled past me. Our seemingly ten-minute game of cat-and-mouse was up. I finally admitted to the woman that I was not going to giver her anything.

‘Because you conned that old lady behind you out of fifty quid!’

Mary confirmed this as she cried, ‘That’s her! She’s the one who stole my money! You naughty girl!’

The con woman seemed reluctant to wait for the police. In fact she took off like a bat out of hell. Suddenly she raced down the pathway screaming at dear old Mary. ‘Shut up, you old bag!’

‘Charming!’ was Mary’s response.

However, just when you need them most... our friends in blue serge arrived. (Actually they don't dress like that anymore but mostly wear stab vests and Day-Glo.) In fact they were in shirtsleeves and their blue-flashing lights appeared from both ends of the street.

‘Well, perhaps you’ll speak to the police instead,’ I said. Finally, after many months of deception, the con had herself been conned.

The following is taken from the Metropolitan Police website...

Conwoman handed an ASBO

27-year-old Pamela Fay was sentenced at Greenwich Magistrates Court on 6 December after she was found guilty of deceiving an 89-year-old woman of money.
The victim recognised Fay as the same person who had knocked on her door on two occasions, whilst pretending to be distressed and in need of money for things like cab or train fares.
Fay admitted two counts of obtaining property by deception and one count of attempting to obtain property by deception. She was sentenced to an eight week suspended sentence and ordered to attend drug treatment sessions.
Eight other counts of deception will be taken into consideration.
Additionally Fay was issued an ASBO with conditions not to approach any member of the public, anywhere and ask for money.
Police Sergeant David Deuchar from the Lewisham Borough, Ladywell Safer Neighbourhood Team said: "Officers from the Ladywell SN teamworked closely with Lewisham Council to secure this ASBO. Fay preyed on the good nature of the public to feed her drugs habit and she committed offences across Lewisham Borough. This case is a fine example of response team officers, CID and Safer Neighbourhood Teams working together to tackle this type of crime."

[Italics mine and meant to convey a fine example of incredulity.]