View previous topic | View next topic

Youlgreave

Page 218 of 222
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222  Next

Celebaelin
1392582.  Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:17 pm Reply with quote

P.T. Stripper.

Isn't that a tautology?

 
suze
1392597.  Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:13 pm Reply with quote

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
DPP rather than R I believe...


I think criminal prosecutions have always been brought in the name of the sovereign, even if they are private prosecutions.

The one in question would probably have been a private prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service didn't exist until 1986. Before then, most prosecutions were brought by the police, who only referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in serious cases - which in those days mostly meant murder or treason.

The prosecution was normally brought by a police officer of the rank of Inspector. Technically he did so in a private capacity - but police officers are Servants of the Crown, and so the prosecution was still brought in the name of R.

What I'm not actually sure of is what the charge against Miss Stripper would have been. Outraging public decency, as contrary to the common law?

 
AlmondFacialBar
1392599.  Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:26 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
AlmondFacialBar wrote:
DPP rather than R I believe...


I think criminal prosecutions have always been brought in the name of the sovereign, even if they are private prosecutions.

The one in question would probably have been a private prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service didn't exist until 1986. Before then, most prosecutions were brought by the police, who only referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in serious cases - which in those days mostly meant murder or treason.

The prosecution was normally brought by a police officer of the rank of Inspector. Technically he did so in a private capacity - but police officers are Servants of the Crown, and so the prosecution was still brought in the name of R.

What I'm not actually sure of is what the charge against Miss Stripper would have been. Outraging public decency, as contrary to the common law?


What I'm saying is that I've always assumed the same nationality for Ms Patricia (or shall I say Delicia) as her creator's, so while I'm not quite sure when the DPP actually came into being, in 1924 the judge who tried her would definitely no longer have represented the British monarchy. 😉

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
1392601.  Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:22 pm Reply with quote

What, Argentinean !?!?

But sorry, that is a point which I had failed to consider. Ireland introduced the office of DPP in 1974. Before then, criminal prosecutions had ordinarily been brought by the Gardaí in much the same way as they were brought by the police in England.

But at this point I'm a bit stuck. While criminal cases in Ireland are now listed as (let us say) DPP v Murphy, I don't know and cannot at once discover what the format was before that office existed. I'm seeing references to Murphy v Attorney-General (with the defendant named first, contrary to usual English-speaking world practice), The People v Murphy (which looks rather American to me), and Murphy v Irish Free State (as it would have been at the time). What the difference is between these formats, and which would have been used for a minor offence in 1924, would be a question for an historian of Irish law.

All the same, I think I'd always imagined Patricia plying her trade in London rather than Dublin. Now I know that Mr de Burgh is as Anglo- as Anglo-Irish Argentineans get, but would he have referred to the "police" if it had been An Garda Siochána?


Last edited by suze on Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
ali
1392602.  Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:26 pm Reply with quote

The Dublin Metropolitan Police existed as a separate force until 1925.

 
Awitt
1392619.  Fri Oct 15, 2021 4:10 am Reply with quote

Mondegreen here - watching a gardening program and the segment presenter talks about 'vegetables and high heels'.

Yields.

 
AlmondFacialBar
1392622.  Fri Oct 15, 2021 4:30 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
But at this point I'm a bit stuck. While criminal cases in Ireland are now listed as (let us say) DPP v Murphy, I don't know and cannot at once discover what the format was before that office existed. I'm seeing references to Murphy v Attorney-General (with the defendant named first, contrary to usual English-speaking world practice), The People v Murphy (which looks rather American to me), and Murphy v Irish Free State (as it would have been at the time). What the difference is between these formats, and which would have been used for a minor offence in 1924, would be a question for an historian of Irish law.


I have put this question to the person in my life who knows such things and am awaiting their reply.

UPDATE - it would at any rate not have been The People because that was reserved for serious shit which, even in those times, did not ever involve sex work. I shall research further.

suze wrote:
All the same, I think I'd always imagined Patricia plying her trade in London rather than Dublin. Now I know that Mr de Burgh is as Anglo- as Anglo-Irish Argentineans get, but would he have referred to the "police" if it had been An Garda Siochána?


We know that Patricia was strutting her stuff "on the quay", so... While it's customary for sex workers to exhibit their wares near port facilities, has there ever been a race track on any quay in London? There was to some extent on the Dublin quays, much as most of the action took place a couple of blocks further back in the Monto. Anyhoo, assuming we're talking Custom House or North Wall Quay here (which, if any, it would have been), historical accuracy would have made it necessary not to refer to the gents who brought Patricia to court as guards, because, indeed:

ali wrote:
The Dublin Metropolitan Police existed as a separate force until 1925.


So... Where was that quay?

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
1392661.  Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:41 am Reply with quote

I think I have to give you that. While London does of course have quays, "down by the quay" isn't a meaningful expression as regards London and it is as regards Dublin.


Unless it wasn't London or Dublin, but Great Yarmouth. According to the Irish Times (31 Oct 2020):

Irish Times wrote:
Patricia was inspired by a party in Norfolk to which de Burgh was invited by a hoity-toity woman who worked in publishing. There was fly fishing (he fell in head first and was covered in mud) and dressing for dinner. The toffs you hear at the beginning are a caricature of de Burgh’s companions that weekend.


That all sounds rather Bertie Wooster, and I hadn't realised that such country house gatherings still existed in the 1970s. Perhaps they still do; where's Sebastian Flyte when we need him?

 
AlmondFacialBar
1392663.  Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:53 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
I think I have to give you that. While London does of course have quays, "down by the quay" isn't a meaningful expression as regards London and it is as regards Dublin.


Unless it wasn't London or Dublin, but Great Yarmouth. According to the Irish Times (31 Oct 2020):

Irish Times wrote:
Patricia was inspired by a party in Norfolk to which de Burgh was invited by a hoity-toity woman who worked in publishing. There was fly fishing (he fell in head first and was covered in mud) and dressing for dinner. The toffs you hear at the beginning are a caricature of de Burgh’s companions that weekend.


That all sounds rather Bertie Wooster, and I hadn't realised that such country house gatherings still existed in the 1970s. Perhaps they still do; where's Sebastian Flyte when we need him?


Indeedy... Also, where else exactly would people who graduated from the Bullingdon socialise, so I guess they do.

Great Yarmouth, though... I've already cast this one and Messrs Fry and Laurie are definitely in it.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
1392668.  Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:14 am Reply with quote

"Guadalquivir would fit the meter, Mr de Burgh", said Jeeves.

 
AlmondFacialBar
1392680.  Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:30 pm Reply with quote

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
suze wrote:
But at this point I'm a bit stuck. While criminal cases in Ireland are now listed as (let us say) DPP v Murphy, I don't know and cannot at once discover what the format was before that office existed. I'm seeing references to Murphy v Attorney-General (with the defendant named first, contrary to usual English-speaking world practice), The People v Murphy (which looks rather American to me), and Murphy v Irish Free State (as it would have been at the time). What the difference is between these formats, and which would have been used for a minor offence in 1924, would be a question for an historian of Irish law.


I have put this question to the person in my life who knows such things and am awaiting their reply.

UPDATE - it would at any rate not have been The People because that was reserved for serious shit which, even in those times, did not ever involve sex work. I shall research further.


UPDATE OF THE UPDATE - I fear that unless someone toddles up to Enniskerry, rings Mr De Burgh's doorbell and asks when exactly before the summer of 1924 the trial of Ms Stripper took place (and I honestly can't be arsed to do that) we shall never know what the format was because, guess what, the Courts of Justice Act (Acht Cúirteanna Breithiúnais) under which the entire court system of the Irish Free State was revamped was passed on 12-April-1924 and commenced on 24-June of the same year, so I suspect case name formatting changed along with that. I can, however, say with some certainty that, as sex work was a criminal act at the time, if her proposed summer run in the 'Joy took place after the 24-June, the case would have been The Attorney General v. Miss Stripper.

suze wrote:
"Guadalquivir would fit the meter, Mr de Burgh", said Jeeves.


*nods*

Btw, is it just me or would a judge in 1920s Norfolk haven been rather less chill about Ms Stripper's (lack of) attire?

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
suze
1392719.  Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:53 am Reply with quote

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
We shall never know what the format was because, guess what, the Courts of Justice Act (Acht Cúirteanna Breithiúnais) under which the entire court system of the Irish Free State was revamped was passed on 12-April-1924 and commenced on 24-June of the same year, so I suspect case name formatting changed along with that. I can, however, say with some certainty that, as sex work was a criminal act at the time, if her proposed summer run in the 'Joy took place after the 24-June, the case would have been The Attorney General v. Miss Stripper.


Top research, AFB and friend with Irish legal knowledge!


If Chris de Burgh had it mind that Patricia was a prostitute, he was discreet enough not to tell us so in the song. If all she did was take her clothes off, then the offence alleged was probably outraging public decency.

That offence covers a multitude of sins, but in those days the charge was most often brought for urinating in public after being told to stop it, and for making pornography, but there is precedent for it being used against "exotic dancers". (Pornography became a separate specific offence in the 1950s, while Miss Stripper could not have been charged with indecent exposure because that offence can only be committed by a person with a penis.)

Vague as the offence might sound, one could be imprisoned for it and in the England of 1924 it would have been tried at the Quarter Sessions. (Replaced by the Crown Court in 1972.) The Irish Free State abolished Quarter Sessions under that Act of 1924, after which such a charge would have been tried at the Circuit Court.


AlmondFacialBar wrote:
Btw, is it just me or would a judge in 1920s Norfolk haven been rather less chill about Ms Stripper's (lack of) attire?


In Norwich he certainly would have been. Norwich was perceived as a rather dour and cheerless city, and its courts were notorious for sentencing people to hard labour for petty offences.

But Great Yarmouth was a county borough, which meant that it had its own Court of Quarter Session. It was perceived as a louche town, and it knew very well that its economy was dependent on tourism well before anyone ever used the word tourism.

Especially at the smaller quarter sessions - and Great Yarmouth's court would certainly have been in the "smaller" category - the chairmen of quarter sessions were often alleged to be fairly easy to buy. The chairman would have known which way his town's bread was buttered, and a private show might easily have been sufficient.

 
Big Martin
1392994.  Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:51 am Reply with quote

On the break room table when I was volunteering at Newark Park yesterday was a leaflet from the National Trust on recognising various types of assistance dogs that we will allow into the house by what they should be wearing. I did wonder what a Metal Detection Dog was for. No it's Medical Detection!

 
RLDavies
1393036.  Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:57 am Reply with quote

Big Martin wrote:
I did wonder what a Metal Detection Dog was for.

"You spent our life savings on dogs!"
"They're golden retrievers. They retrieve gold. I did it for us."

 
PDR
1393037.  Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:18 am Reply with quote

I was looking for some liquorice allsorts so I hired a basset hound

PDR

 

Page 218 of 222
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group