Saturday, 30 January 2016

Lost and Found : Kelly Armour


I have been prohibited from contributing to any Kelly discussions on the Iron Outlaw Facebook Page, and the Ned Kelly Forum Facebook Page, but I check them out at intervals to see if anything interesting is happening on either of them. Usually I am disappointed : this week for example on Ironoutlaw they are “liking” a new book that recycles the absurd conspiracy theory about Dan and Steve surviving the fire at the Glenrowan Inn. This perfectly illustrates the gullibiity of so many sympathisers, and how little they are interested in critical thought or rational analysis. Ian Jones must despair at times at the intellectual quality of the rabble who follow his Kelly mythology, and who use his name to try to legitimise the rubbish they put in print.

Another item that caught my eye on Facebook recently was a claim made on the Facebook Page of the Ned Kelly Forum that a piece of Ned Kellys armour has gone missing. Because I am unable to contribute there I will comment here, on my Blog – and maybe people like Bill and Peter among other interested and knowledgeable readers might be able to contribute their thoughts as well, and progress the discussion a bit further because it didn’t get anywhere on the Facebook Page.

This  Facebook Post was headlined “Breaking News” which seems a bit hysterical as the topic was something that happened in 1955. The author of this Post, ‘SJ’, watched a DVD which included a short film called ‘A Message to Kelly’, made in 1955, and he noticed a steel component of the armour hanging off the bottom of the back of the armour like the front one does. SJ called it a back lappet plate. Now I don’t know about anyone else but I have never seen an image anywhere  other than on this movie of any suit of the Gangs armour with a ‘back lappet plate’. But, according to SJ that ‘back lappet’ though having never been seen before or after that movie was made, is ‘missing' and “SJ” claims the NKF are working with the State Library of Victoria to try and find it. 

He also claims that in the movie, the director Rupert Kathner “inspects Ned Kelly's COMPLETE set of armour”  a statement that’s simply not true, because as you will see in the movie and even in the photos supplied on the NKF Facebook Page, the left and right shoulder armour is missing. Now, SJ is not a person I have any faith in as a source of reliable information - he’s the one who rubbished Greg Cormick of “Ned Kelly Under the Microscope” fame on those same FB Pages, and also the one who claimed in 2012 to know exactly where Ned Kellys skull is.  He’s got the same track record as the NKF member who announced he had solved the Lonigan killing mystery over 220 days ago, but has still not fronted up with it. So I read his breathless claims somewhat sceptically I have to say. SJ provides a phone number for the SLV but if you ring it you’ll discover nobody there has ever heard of SJ or the so called ‘missing' armour.  I get the feeling that he’s not so much “working" with the SLV as  ‘pestering’ the SLV and big-noting himself because he sent them an email. 


Of all the various suggestions about the missing armour that followed in the subsequent discussion, the best suggestion was that the ‘back lappet plate’ was actually Neds left shoulder armour, which as I noted, and SJ did not, was not in its usual position. I could easily imagine that if you were assembling the armour and had just one piece left over you might think it must hang off the back to balance the piece hanging off the front. However ‘SJ’s response was “When comparing the unidentified piece with the left shoulder plate currently on display with Ned's armour the two still look as though they are completely different pieces but needless to say, we have sent an email to the SLV to see if they can help confirm this information or not” Two weeks later if they replied SJ hasn’t mentioned it.Maybe they replied and told him to go away...

A still from the movie. The ‘back lappet plate’ is narrow enough to fit between the right side of the breastplate and the Armour stand just visible lower left.
A close-up of my photo : the hexagonal rim of the hole is easily visible as is a small bur on the edge above it, also visible on the Movie frame above


It just so happens that I have quite a nice picture of the left shoulder armour, taken at the Imagining Ned Exhibition last year, and comparing it with the still from the 1955 movie convinces me that the ‘back lappet plate’ is indeed the misplaced left shoulder plate. What I noticed in both photos, apart from the identical 'sugar scoop’ shape of the pieces was the raised almost hexagonal shaped edge to the hole in the top right corner of the plate, and just above it at the superior edge of the plate itself theres a distinct little bur that casts a shadow. The other important thing to notice is that it isn’t wide enough to reach and cover the vertical timber stand in the middle of the armour, so it simply isn’t wide enough to be a 'back lappet plate’ but is the perfect fit for the shoulder piece. You can see the vertical frame that  supports the whole suit of armour just to the left of the bottom of the ‘back lappet plate’ which is attached quite close to the bottom right corner of the front breastplate ( as viewed from behind ).

I’ll be interested in what others think, but I think SJ can stop panicking about the lost armour and ring the SLV and tell them to stop looking for his missing part because it never actually existed. The so-called 'back lappet’ is the left shoulder plate in the wrong place.  

32 comments:

  1. When you said "sugar scoop" that reminded me of how Dave White had allegedly help identify the shoulder cap back many years ago.

    See if these urls from the wayback machine work (you will have to cut and paste). If not, then I can maybe tell how to access them another way.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20040405100425/http://www.ironoutlaw.com/html/white_stuff_09.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20090504054407/http://www.glenrowan1880.com/id_the_armour.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Sharon those links worked and I had a nice browse of several articles on the subject of the Armour. I hadn’t realised how dispersed the pieces had been and what an achievement it was to finally get them all back to together. I also came across some commentary about the idea expressed in “Burnt to a cinder was I” that Dan and Steve survived . The opinions expressed were thoroughly disapproving of the story, and one is left wondering why it is the latest Kelly book is regurgitating all that nonsense once again, and Kelly sympathisers on Facebook pages are waving it on through ? I would have thought they would be condemning it as a discredited worn out bit of Kelly mythology...

    One could argue that once you relax your standards of critical thought to allow one bit of unsupported mythology through, you have destroyed your capacity to stop any of it getting through...the slippery slope ..and you have no defence against any nonsense that anyone wants to propose.

    Actually I am still interested in finding out more about the rumour that Ned had the first plans for the Sydney Harbour Bridge among the papers taken from his pocket when he was captured. I believe I read somewhere that a policeman saw the original document but it hasn’t surfaced again, yet. Being a stone-mason and a house builder it makes sense that he would have turned his intellect to something like that, a big statement like a harbour bridge. Totally possible and unless someone can prove me wrong then its something that needs to be more widely talked about. The original plans are probably locked away in some private collection somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dee, your comments about Ned's association with the Sydney Harbour Bridge are worrying me a bit:

    Sydney Harbour Bridge Advisory Board
    Report on designs and tenders submitted in connection with the proposed bridge over Sydney Harbour to connect Sydney with North Sydney / Sydney Harbour Bridge Advisory Board. Sydney: Government Printer, 1904.

    Throughout the 19th century, there were numerous plans put forward to build a bridge across Sydney Harbour, but the first major step towards the realisation of the project came with the holding of a competition in 1900. The conditions set called for a single-span road and rail bridge with headroom of not less than 55 metres above high water for 183 metres of the span, though material and form was left open. The resulting entries, which were all anonymous, included a parabolic truss bridge, a three-hinged arched bridge, several suspension bridges, a combined arch and suspension bridge, and a balanced cantilever bridge with suspended span. All were rejected.

    In 1901, the conditions were re-issued in a far more detailed form, specifying such aspects as the gradients, arrangement and character of deck, the foundations, and the material to be used.

    http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/bridge/competitions.html

    _______________________
    It is possible although exceedingly unlikely that Ned had an early bridge plan in his pockets. Obviously, if so, it was not a plan for the bridge opened in 1932 as demonstrated above.

    The plans will be in a public collection. Most likely NSW Archives or copies at Mitchell Library.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ned was so preoccupied with himself that I think the bridge plan if it existed was probably his toilet paper...

    Pardon me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I should stop feeling sorry for NKF members, but I am inclined to feel that way about SJ who announced on their Forum yesterday “I’m Back” and the rest of the Forum responded with a big yawn. I am sure he was hoping for a few more than ZERO responses in 24 hours, but there were only 25 views and a quarter of them were mine as I checked to see what would be said in response. Mostly his Post was a complaint about me and about this Blog and about what they love to call “a certain anti-Kelly book that was published a number of years ago” onto which they project all their current woes. Inaccurately he also wrote that that book had been "canned by Australia’s leading Kelly historians and researchers of which a number are members of this site” The truth is that there are no leading Kelly historians and researchers in the NKF, and every published Review of the Kelly Gang Unmasked in several places around the world gave it the thumbs up.

    What would have been more useful was for SJ to have updated the Forum on his ‘research’ into the 'back lappet' off Dans armour. No shame needs to be attached to concluding that Aidan Phelan was right about the piece in question, and asking the question about what was shown in that 1955 movie was perfectly legitimate.

    What SJ needs to realise is that there is no such thing as ‘anti-Kelly research’. There is only ‘research’ .

    And BTW, for your proposed MAJOR revamp of the NKF Website - learn a lesson from Iron Outlaws MAJOR revamp last year - it killed it off completely. The only hope for NKF to avoid the same fate and arrest its terminal decline would be to get rid of your obsession with identity and open it up for anyone who wants to join, to get rid of bullies like Fitzy, and to care more abut historical truth than Kelly mythology. Frankly I cant see any of that happening, so I predict the NKF will remain a wasteland, but the Kelly Legend Blogspot will continue to dominate the Kelly discussions online. We’ve just had our biggest month ever!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congrats on the popularity of the blog!

      So far as I know, there were no bad published reviews of The Kelly Gang Unmasked. By published I mean a newspaper or magazine review. He got a very positive full page review in the prestigious Times Literary Supplement. Most writers would give their right arm for a review like that.

      Very well deserved.

      Delete
  6. I should say one thing in SJ’s favour : he might be useless as a Kelly researcher but at least he’s willing to have a go at something and put his thoughts up for everyone to check out. Which is more than I can say for almost every other Kelly sympathiser, whose commitment to the cause rarely advances beyond ‘liking’ something on Facebook, and secretly reading my Blog. As with Brian McDonalds departure, so with SJ’s post, no-one responded to it until after they had read about it here. And within a few hours of my posting on the subject SJ had posted the information I sought - an update on his ‘Breaking News’ - and a couple of NKF members had posted greetings.

    SJ then went on to describe something else about the armour - but try as I might I cant make any sense of it. If I was an NKF member I would be asking him to try to explain again exactly what point he is trying to make. If anyone can explain it here that would be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dee, have a peep at what was produced about the provenance of the Kelly armour in the La Trobe journal which dispels much of the rubbish produced since then:

    http://www3.slv.vic.gov.au/latrobejournal/issue/latrobe-66/t1-g-t4.html

    http://www3.slv.vic.gov.au/latrobejournal/issue/latrobe-69/t1-g-t7.html

    These are original records and not modern imaginings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Horrie - now where have I heard that name before I wonder? Thanks for those links - really terrific reading to be had by following them and just to make it a little easier for readers Ive reposted those links here :

    La Trobe Journal no 66

    La Trobe Journal No 69

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great pair of links Horrie,
    Glad to see you here after the SBC debate a few years ago.

    After reading the reports by Ken Oldis and Allison Holland it all starts to make sense.

    Even J.J. Kenneally [Inner history} surely must have been scratching his head from what he'd been told - reading his 1929 Kelly armour accounts. I find it fascinating too if I am not mistaken, that I had identified Joe Byrne's breast and back plate in the Madeley photo, do I read that right? See first line page 44 [of No66]

    "" The helmet and breast- and back-plate (along with the lappet seen in the 1880 Madeley photograph that has slots rather than holes) identified as Joe Byrne's is now in the custody of a descendant of the Clarke family.""

    This would mean a mix up even just after the armour was raked out of the ashes at Glenrowan?

    And in reference to the Republic notion, on page 46
    "" Beechworth Museum wants a suit of armour but the authorities disapprove - - - as its exhibition will keep up the disgusting Kelly heroism and have a very detrimental effect on the rising generation""

    In other words this tells me there was far more to the Kelly uprising than what the authorities wanted people to know about. The uprising was a real threat to the powers that be.
    ( perhaps pointing to republican causes taking hold )

    Page 49 of No69 report - has Allison Holland explain why some believed. as in JJ Kenneally's book that some of the armour was made by Police after the siege, all absurd really, but with secrecy the police were able to retain some control by spreading false rumors to the press, but in fact there was internal struggle going on for some to get their trophies as well as the rewards monies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Back in the 1940s and 1950s when Ned's armour was displayed at the Aquarium in Melbourne, they displayed the only shoulder piece in public hands as a back apron because they didn't know what it actually was. Well done to Aiden for correcting this 'scoop'.

    The identification of Kelly armour pieces ain't that difficult. Its been suggested that a primary school student could match the pieces quite easily (match the holes, look at contemporary press sketch, photos, etc), as Ken Oldis did.

    The Madeley plate is highly significant. It shows the armour raked from the Inn as well as Ned's rifle, padded cap and ONE of his shoulder plates. The claim that his photo was taken days later or outside the Beechworth Courthouse is rubbish.

    Bear in mind Madeley took his famous pic hours after Ned's capture and therefore Kelly's suit was elsewhere (excluding a shoulder plate) and Joe's suit was dragged out of the Inn while It was still encasing his corpse.

    The reunification of Kelly armour in 2002 was also significant but the job is only 90% complete. For some reason the Victoria Police didn't exchange Ned's actual apron, nor did Rupert Hammond (owner of the Byrne suit) participate in the historic 'armour swap'.

    Ned's authentic apron is still at the Victoria Police Museum attached to his brother's suit, Ned's armour still has the later and quite bizarre addition of the metal hinge and fake apron at the State Library of Victoria; and Rupert Hammond's Joe Byrne suit still has an apron which can't be attached to the breastplate!

    But there's one incredible part of this story involving Ned's armour which is known to only a handful of people.
    It would create one hell of a mess if uncovered. So far everybody else has missed it.

    If SJ (who is a decent fellow by the way and deserves better treatment) really wants a MAJOR scoop he needs to look harder.


    ReplyDelete
  11. “Scoop” seems to be the Word of the Week! But thats a bit unfair to tantalise us all like that with hints of a MAJOR scoop relating to Neds armour. Maybe a couple more clues?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes the SBC Forum was heaps of fun, Bill and Dee. That NKF oaf kept turning up in disguises. Who can forget 'Sarah'?

    The Catalyst story on the Byrne suit of armour:

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s929067.htm


    The Carrington sketch of Ned's suit:

    http://ergo.slv.vic.gov.au/image/ned-kellys-armour-sketch-made-mr-t-carrington

    ReplyDelete
  13. Everyone knows that the four sets of armor have MADE IN CHINA engraved in them!

    ReplyDelete
  14. [IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2gwcnyd.jpg[/IMG]

    ReplyDelete
  15. As I understand,
    Steve Jager is asking what has happened to the little 'back lappet' plate [5] in Carrington's drawing (bottom right image above), Perhaps Steve is not explaining things very well but in Carrington's drawing [6] one is led to think the strap is connected to [5] but, the way its drawn, there is no real connection as the artist has faded the strap as to be not connected, so he must have questioned plate No 5 as well ? Is this the piece Steve is chasing?

    However, as confusing as it all seems, Steve provides images to prove the little distinctive plate 5 is on Dan Kelly's suit of armour held by the Vic Police Museum as a front lappet ? So. it's not lost?
    In McMenomy's book 1984, P 149 this similar piece is on Steve Hart's suit.

    Steve then goes on to compare Ned Kellys body armour back plate with Carrington's drawings.
    He notes - the (left) back plate half riveted together is higher UP and then compares this with The Oswald Madeley photo. But of course they are different made suites, so I don't quite understand why he wants compare.

    But clearly in Carrington's drawing of the Ned suit assembled he does not show this at all. As nicely drawn as the pieces are, the helmet is very dubious. The configuration indicates the artist has not actually seen Ned's helmet at all. He must have drawn what he thought it looked like. So to say Carrington's drawing is accurate, it is not.
    In Carrington's drawing there is not one lappet that looks like any of the four suits lappets.
    Carrington's drawing must have been the best he could do given only engravings were suitable for print. The armour views were just a schematic diagram of sorts, but he did get some details quite right.

    Exactly what Steve is saying on NKF needs further explanation to me.

    Perhaps this image will help. What is this piece arrowed ?

    [IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/2lditdl.jpg[/IMG]
    Madeley photo Kelly armour with Bill's note

    My observation has the central dark armour as Steve Hart's, the other is Dan Kelly's.

    If this does not work here is direct link
    http://www.ironicon.com.au/images/madeley-photo-kelly-armour.jpg
    Anonymous raises some interesting questions, but what could that major scoop be all about?
    Here's two guesses,
    'Not all the iron plates came from plough shares', another is
    'Ned's head would not fit into his helmet without unscrewing the visor'.

    Further,
    I have met Steve and he seems a genuine fellow, but question his Stringy-Bark Creek site view expressed on NKF that does not 'once' question where Burman could have taken his two 1878 photos of where Constable Lonigan was shot. He knows it was not near the Kelly tree site that he now endorses!

    In an email from Steve dated July 2008, he compliments me-
    "" You obviously know what your talking about when it comes to the Stringybark ck site. Good work! Its amazing that when you post something that is obviously correct that the regulars haven't picked up on, they seem not to post anything in reply. It's those people that are confusing the story! Steve"

    Thanks Steve, I agree those other people are confusing the story still,
    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  16. To see Steve's posting about Stringy Bark Ck Police camp discussion on NKF
    www.nedkellyforum.com/forums/topic/the-police-camp/page/2
    www.nedkellyforum.com/forums/topic/the-police-camp/page/2
    Here is Steve 'I am Back'
    www.nedkellyforum.com/forums/topic/im-back
    www.nedkellyforum.com/forums/topic/im-back

    ReplyDelete
  17. Has anyone yet managed to work out exactly what point SJ is making in that Post on the NKF? I keep reading and rereading it and still cant figure out what his point is! He points out that the piece Carrington described as Neds ‘back lappet’ (no 5 in the drawings) is in fact nowadays said to be and is displayed as the front lappet of Dans armour, so I think what he is trying to prove, using Carringtons drawing, is that Ned DID have a back lappet and the people who reassembled the armour got it all wrong.

    I note looking at the “Carrington” drawings the front lappet drawn as Neds (No 6) is unlike any piece anywhere in existence. He has also drawn both pieces of shoulder armour as “sugar scoops” when in fact only one is shaped like that, so I am in agreement with Bill that these drawings were perhaps from memory. By the way, the Caption to those drawings says they are made not by Carrington but “FROM A SKETCH BY MR T CARRINGTON” - no doubt one of the points at which such errors crept in.

    SJ then goes on somewhat laboriously to point out his observation that the backplate on the suit at the SLV ( which is Ned’s) , which has one side higher than the other, is seen in the Carrington drawings but not seen in Madelys photo - but thats to be expected as the Photo was of Dan and Steves armour - not Neds....so what is the point being made here?

    Next he says that the front lappet plate on Dans armour “is a match to carringtons sketch and to the SLV back plate” well yes it matches the Carrintons sketch but how exactly does it match the SLV ( i.e. Neds) back plate?? What connects these two except the Carrington drawings - which we have already agreed are inaccurate...

    He finishes off saying "it is without a doubt that these two pieces were worn together as originally sketched by the famous artist”

    I cant agree. Other than the drawing I cant see he’s established any sort of link between the two, and given the errors in the drawings, to link them ‘without a doubt’ is going way beyond what the evidence supports.

    What do others think? SJ is welcome to contribute.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Someone posted a response that I haven’t let through because of the choice language, but the point of it was to agree that as a researcher SJ is pretty hopeless. I note, in relation to his latest post about the Armour, Fitzy and one other on the NKF congratulated him on a job well done but I am pretty sure they haven’t the faintest idea what point he was trying to make. Nobody else there has bothered to comment - theyre probably as bamboozled as Bill and I am. Its a pity he isn’t willing to explain himself either there or here. Or maybe he’s just too embarrassed to admit he’s made another stuff up.

    Looks like this conversation has run out of steam. I’ll have to dream up something for a weekend Posting. I notice the Ned Kelly Centre is deleting Posts and banning people from joining in, even actual Kelly descendants, so as I keep saying, that enterprise is doing it all wrong. and of course the promised web site is now three months overdue.

    Stay tuned folks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dee, you doubting Thomas,you.

      In three months Joanne Griffiths and her henchmen have raised a whopping $1100.00 from three donors. They're on their way to paying a deposit on the refreshments at their grand opening.

      Only $9,998,900.00 to go.

      Delete
  19. The Ned Kelly Centre Facebook Site...well...hmmmmm....

    For a start I was one of those who was initially in support of it....then last night I was one you make mention of, also blocked!!! Now I have no way of contacting them to express my genuine concern, or ask why. My comment wasn't rude, aggressive, but simply suggesting what I too had noticed.

    I noticed quite a few comments being selectively deleted, and the users being blocked. So I made a polite post, suggesting that they not delete ALL comments that might give a misleading (or controlled) perspective, as it makes the Facebook string too fabricated, and confusing to the readers. I also suggested that the Facebook site was becoming mostly all "likes". Oooops My Bad!

    Not good for a so called "public" Facebook site promoting the Ned Kelly Centre, which in turn is asking for donations. It is very questionable, and extremely misleading to the community. I for one won't be donating. If the Ned Kelly Centre ever gets up and running, I wonder if I will be denied access because I may not "like" it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Leigh Olver must be one of the most famous Kelly descendants, since it was his mitochondrial DNA that was used to identify Ned Kellys bones, yet even he has been banned from the NKC Facebook page. He went on to post on his own FB Page a long list of complaints and details about the way Joannes group elbowed everyone else aside and had the reburial of those bones, and the commemorative headstone at Greta drawn up to suit her own beliefs about how things should be done. According to Leigh a huge majority of the Kelly descendants are vehemently opposed to her being the self-appointed spokesperson, and he complained about being banned and not being able to contribute. Somewhat inconsistently, Mr Olver has banned ME from posting on HIS site so his opposition to censorship is not based on principle but expedient. But that is the way of the Kelly Gang from time immemorial...And now he has deleted that Post of his, and the accompanying image of the Memorial Stone at Greta that he altered by changing it from Ned Kelly Centre to Joanne Griffiths Center! I suppose we just have to stand back and watch as the Kelly clans tear themselves apart...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually now I realise my comments on Leigh Olvers site disappeared with a whole lot of other ones, including some of his own, so I think rather than censoring me personally he was having second thoughts about a thread he started.. and I think the Privacy settings have changed so I would need to be his FaceBook Friend to post there now...SO it seems only the extremist Kelly groups - NKF and IO - have actually banned me. Fitzy won’t ban me because if he did no-one would EVER comment on his dumb book-hating FB site ( which LONG LONG ago gave up on the purpose for which it was started, and is now 235 days late in providing the promised Part Two of his explanation for Lonigans injuries...)

      Delete
  21. Oh now I see Mr Olver has reposted the doctored Photo...

    I am starting to think that Joanne Griffiths decided that as the Kelly descendants hadn’t done a damn thing about their famous relative in the previous 135 years - probably from bickering and infighting - she decided nothing was ever going to get done unless somebody just decided to get on and do it. And so she has - and lo and behold all the do-nothing Kelly descendants are grizzling and complaining like brats who think someone got a bigger piece of cake than they did...why don’t they recognise that she at least has had the guts to get up and do something, knowing I am sure that all these whingers would never be happy no matter what she did, and she was going to get attacked from all sides for having a go. She’s got more of the Ned Kelly Spirit than the rest of them put together I think. Why don’t they grow up and give her some support instead of whining?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're wrong Dee. Very wrong. Perhaps you should do some investigative work into why this situation has unfolded. Toclaim the vast majority of Kelly family members are 'whining' is grossly unfair and completely inaccurate. The principle of this doomed project has a lot to answer for.

      Delete
    2. Its not much help to simply say I am ‘very wrong’ What we need you to tell us WHY I am wrong - I am happy to be shown to be wrong but what I have seen is a woman trying to take Kelly history back from all the non-kelly experts and tell it from a Kelly perspective , something that as far as I can tell hasn’t been successfully done till now, but all the Kelly descendants are opposed to her, are bickering about minor detail and tearing her efforts down on Facebook. I see all this from the outside of course, but what I see is the public perception that is being created by that whole mob of Kelly people - I can only guess, but have a good idea given my experiences at the hands of ‘sympathisers’ , at the sort of nastiness and venom that is being sprayed round inside the Kelly circle....but the public perception is bad, and no doubt accounts for her failure so far to attract significant material support. “Likes” on Facebook won’t do it.

      And yet despite all this she created nationally a huge amount of publicity for the Ned Kelly reburial, and again for the launch of her NKC, but it seems she is to be torn down.

      So if the 'vast majority’ of Kelly descendants are not whining are they doing something of their own as an alternative project or are they just attacking the only game in the Kelly descendants town?

      Delete
  22. Get to know her or speak to those who have dealt with her and everything will fall into place.

    ReplyDelete
  23. My genuine apologies to the Descendant who just sent in a Post. I quickly read it and then pressed Delete BY MISTAKE. PLEASE resend it if you would and I will put it up. Sorry about that!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry - it took me ages to write that post - unless you know a way to re -post.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Again my apologies - Ive only ever done that once before on the Blog . if I could have got it back I would have! Please try again...

    ReplyDelete
  26. I will try and replicate over the next few days - I hope you will understand more clearly our position through reading my post - I do not believe this makes us weak or whingers

    ReplyDelete
  27. It appears the Ned Kelly Centre FB page has added a statement as to why people were blocked. But I for one did NOT post anything defamatory towards any individual as the FB comment states. Why I was blocked, was because I just questioned why they typically only accept (and praise statements) who are "liked" and not keep the more challenging statements, or those of a different perspective. It is still a very sensored page, displaying a NOT SO accurate view of the Kelly Story, only one admins perspective. For an organisation wanting donations, it needs to accept everyone's (non-defamatory) opinion, good or bad.

    ReplyDelete

1. Moderation is back on. I haven’t got time to be constantly monitoring what comments are made and deleting the mindless rubbish that Kelly sympathisers have been posting lately. Please post polite sensible comments, avoid personal abuse and please use the same name whenever you Post, even if its a made-up name.


2. Do you want to provide an active Link in your Comment? The simplest way that I can suggest is to click HEREand follow the simple instructions. This site creates the Tag that you then copy and insert into your Comment.