Talk:Whipping Tom

Spanko!

Oh my God this article is genius. Exactly all that is brightest and best about Wikipedia. Spanko! 86.152.241.97 (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

It seems the term is not restricted to just two, but a bunch of those who practice the act of waylaying lone women and flagellating them? The haberdasher who was caught, for example, was said to be part of a gang of 50 "Whipping Toms", and the mid-18th century seems to have this term used for a custom(?) in Leicester.[1] Jappalang (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This blogger had investigated Whipping Tom six months earlier and seemed to have found that Poor Robin's Intelligence was the source for "Spanko" in an opinion piece (suggesting that women were looking to be spanked); Robin's was a weekly publication that lasted two years (1676–77) and seems to have an attitude of encouraging of men to "assert" themselves.[2] It seems Tom was already operating when Robin's was in print (about five years before Whipping Tom Brought to Light and Exposed to View). Perhaps it is worth investigating? Jappalang (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The only source I can find for the "gang of 50" is a single (recent) book, which just includes it as a passing mention. I intentionally excluded it as nothing else seems to mention more than the haberdasher and his accomplice in 1680, including Narcissus Luttrell who along with Pepys is generally the most reliable source for the period (admittedly, not saying much). I strongly suspect the author has confused these with the Mohocks attacks.

The gang in Leicester seems to be unrelated to the London attacks; it's unlikely a term would have been in use in both London and Leicestershire but nowhere in between. This kind of "attack the public" gang was a Restoration tradition; while the Leicester gang were the "Whipping Toms", the equivalent London gangs were the Muns, the Hawkubites and the Mohocks. I've never seen "Whipping Tom" used in the context of a London gang. There is something to be written about the Leicester gang at some point, but probably in a separate article (Whipping Toms?).

I don't think anything georgianlondon.com says can be taken as a reliable source; that they get basic details such as the years of Wallis's attacks wrong gives me no confidence in the rest of what they say. – iridescent 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting to use the blog; I was wondering if it would be worth it to investigate if Poor Robin's Intelligence might have additional material (and to verify the "Spanko" origin), but that will entail trips to libraries that have archives of 300-year-old publications... Jappalang (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not losing sleep over it, and certainly not going to trek out to Cambridge to wade through old volumes in the UL, given that this is about as low-priority an article as it's possible to get. I have a bigger topic to deal with at the moment. – iridescent 23:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

There was no police force in London until 1829, even the Bow Street Runners weren't around in the 1600s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.48.232 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Metropolitan Police was founded in 1829, but it didn't appear from a vacuum; it replaced the Watchmen and parish constables which dated back to the 13th century and themselves absorbed and replaced the system of tithed patrols which dates back to before the Conquest. The Bow Street Runners were the first publicly funded detective service and (arguably) the first policing agency in London with professional full-time officers, but certainly not the "first police service". (There's a very brief summary of the origins of London's police service, and the social pressures which led to the formation of the Met Police, here.) – iridescent 12:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What's up with the capitalization in the excerpt?

I assume the excerpt from the book is copied verbatim from the original, but the capitalism is all over the place. Just wondering if there should be a [sic] or something.75.141.120.228 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom Wallis's punishment

According to Jeff Kacirk, Wallis was found guilty of "oppression and tyranny" by an all female jury. He was then whipped by two maids twice a week a Bridewell Prison, put into the Pillory three times at Temple Bar, made to "run the gauntlet" through 200 maids, wives and widows at Cheapside, and was heavily fined. John (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)