Canes, coffees, ducklings, damsels in distress and dragons

In a valiant attempt to use up my annual leave before the end of the leave year I took the day off. However, as ever, my inability to have a lie-in led me getting on the overground at just before 9am. What I discovered was that commuting after 8am is a very different experience to my usual route to work. In hindsight I question why I would feel compelled to travel to Whitechapel at such an hour to buy some bamboo canes for my tomatoes. However, I'll allow the qualified psychologists amongst you to delve into my inner psyche.

Regardless, I obtained 6 novelty sized canes for the reasonable price of £1.50 and headed over to St Katharine Docks to get a coffee from White Mulberries to try a latte made from their current guest espresso, Nude, of Brick Lane. Despite the heat and lugging around both my e-reader and novelty canes I'm glad I did; Nude's beans make a lovely smooth espresso, and with due care and attention given to the milk from the barista, makes for a rich, velvety latte with a distinct cocoa flavour and a delicate crema. The mild flavour profile provides a contrast (and thus an excellent stablemate) to White Mulberries' house espresso from Allpress.

Making my way back home via Waitrose, I walked down the canal and was amazed to see the hundreds of small damselflies hovering above the water. Slightly more odd was reaching the basin and seeing a straggly haired fellow swimming in the basin.

What I was really struck by though was a handful of larger flying insects that I think are dragonflies (I'm not an entomologist, so apologies if this is spurious). On getting home, I dropped off my shopping, rejigged my tomatoes with novelty canes and headed back out with my camera.

Lessons on the basin were in full swing, with both dinghies and kayaks on the water.

Having just returned from Whitechapel, seeing the Air Ambulance flying overhead made me think that helicopter would be a speedier means of transport than the D3, and a reminder of how important a service the Air Ambulance offers.

Also on the basin was a large group of ducks, seemingly sticking together in solidarity. Walking round to the canal, I met the newest brood of mallard ducklings. As I took some photos I became aware of the looming presence of a chap with a rather large net. Chatting with him, he introduced himself as Aaron, and his net as belonging to the sailing club, readying himself to try and lift the ducklings out of the canal and into the basin. Aaron told me about youths which had stoned the last brood of ducklings and the extent of duck poaching and the landing of fish that has been going on. Despite some perpetrators having been caught red handed by the police these incidents continue to occur.

At this point we were also joined by Dom, a neighbour of Aaron and LBTH's biodiversity officer. The chap from the council wasn't keen on netting the ducklings, so a floating piece of chip board was commissioned into a ramp in the hope the ducks would sort themselves out. Dom also explained that in addition to adult ducks being poached and ducklings being stoned, any ducklings trapped in the canal were also at the mercy of foxes.

Leaving the ducks to get on with their escape plan, I returned to my original plan of taking some photos of the insects, whilst Aaron chatted to the chap from the council. It appears as ever that there is no joined up thinking, with every authority one can imagine stating that a given aspect of wildlife protection is the responsibility of a different agency or organisation. Everyone denies owning the basin, the Council is prepared to accept responsibility for the canal but not for crime, the police see ASB as something the council needs to deal with etc etc ad nauseam. Aaron flagged up Love Wapping's blog post on the cygnet death to the Chap from the Council (I understand that Aaron and Dom may in fact be deputized LW Wildlife Rangers).

As we were about to go our separate ways, two fellows on scooter and motorbike drove over Brussels Wharf and stripped off and began diving by a coot's nest. Almost immediately a white staffie started barking at the swans in the south-east corner of the basin. It was quite clear to me from just a few minutes talking to Aaron some of the problems wildlife in the area have to face. As we made our goodbyes, the white staffie and its owner had reached the canal, at which point the dog climbed out on to the stone of the terraced steps on the canal and made it known it was interested in duck for dinner. Fortunately however the duck escaped, though without any intervention from its owner. His lady friend instead picked up a stick and started jabbing in the vicinity of the ducks.

Having let Aaron know how to find me if he needed future assistance (give a little whistle), I made my way down the canal. I discovered that taking photos of flying insects is rather difficult - I managed a handful of shots in focus out of about 200. However, I now have plenty of practice in manual focusing. However, I'm rather pleased with what I managed to achieve.

By the time I returned home, the number of swimmers, divers and sunbathers on the pontoon and Brussels wharf had swollen, unaware of some of the unintended consequences of the actions of others, including previously damaging the sailing clubs pontoon. Realizing the number of people in bathing costumes, I put away the camera and headed home.

Crime on public transport in London

Another day, another dataset.

Today's data is crime rates on the TfL transport network.

The data whilst published as one dataset is derived from two different sources -British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police. The Met are responsible for bus related crime and BTP for rail (heavy and light, over and underground). The Met doesn't have  a category for bus crime, rather it runs various searches on crime reports for certain words, namely bus and bus stop, so may under or overstate 'bus' crime.

As with most crime data, we have the absolute number of crimes reported and the crime rate. The crime rate is expressed as number of crimes per million passenger journeys, so is not comparable to standard crime rates of 'crimes per thousand residents' which I refer to elsewhere.

I should also caveat that these figures are for ALL crimes, so in comparing the crime rate, we might find equal levels of crime on the bus and tube, but if all of the bus crime is theft whilst all tube crime is murder - I know I'd rather be on the bus, but from this data I wouldn't be able to make that call.

So, where to begin? I will be answering the following questions:

• Has the overall level of crime changed across the network?
• Has the crime rate changed across the network?
• Which mode of transport is the safest?
• Is my journey getting safer, more dangerous or the same?
• Does the number of crimes increase with the number of journeys made?

Q: Has the level of crime changed across the network? A: Yes, the number of reported crimes has dropped.

There was 11.6 per cent reduction in reported crimes on all forms of transport in March 2013 compared to April 2009 with the number of crimes reported in those months falling from 3,341 to 2,953. Annually (financial year) the number of crimes reported has fallen from  40,570 to 34,510, or a 15 per cent reduction.

Q: Has the crime rate changed? A: Yes, the number of reported crimes compared to the number of journeys has dropped.

Because there were changes to the integration of the Overground and measurement of journeys, the number of journeys for the Overground isn't available pre 2011 and a crime rate can't be calculated. In looking at the overall rate I have excluded overground crime pre April 2011, but included it for periods we do have.

Looking at the change in rate from April 2009 to March 2013, the rate fell from 12.1 crimes per million journeys to 9.1 per million journeys, a fall in the rate of nearly a quarter (24.5 per cent). If we exclude the overground completely, the reduction is slightly smaller 23.4 per cent.

Q: Which mode of transport is the safest?  A: Overground

Comparing crime rates at three points we can see that the Overground looks to be safest with a substantially lower crime rate.

However, these are for invidual months. Looking at all of 2012/13 the rates are:

You can see the danger of using point measures of crime, as as we will see there is significant fluctuation in crimes, particularly on the Tramlink. However, because of the fewer journeys on both Overground and Tramlink, any fluctuation in the number of crimes affects the crime rate more.

Is my journey getting safer, more dangerous or the same? A: Most likely safer but depends

Looking at the number of reported crimes, there is a reasonably steady reduction in the number of crimes reported relative to the number of journeys. However, Tramlink is very erratic, but demonstrates an overall downward trend. The Overground experienced one large spike, but otherwise shows little evidence of a trend.

Calculating the crime rate over a rolling, three month period, suggests a marginal downward trend, but not conclusively. However, the Overground was the mode of transport with the lowest crime rate and as noted above, as significantly fewe people make journeys on it more susceptible to spikes.

Q: Does the number of crimes increase with the number of journeys made? A: Sort of yes. Sort of no. But probably yes

If one plots the number of crimes (y axis) against the number of journeys (x axis) for each of the four modes of transport, you basically get a cluster of points which shows relatively little evidence of correlation, with the exception of the Overground, where there is a decent relationship, driven in part by the relatively sharp rise in the number of journeys.

In part we have a problem that we know that the rate of crime is decreasing, even though the number of journeys are increasing, which is a result of both a) more journeys and b) less crime. Surely then, crime decreases with increased journeys? Well no. If you plot the data points for all four modes as a single series, what you get is an R square value of 0.96 - showing an incredibly strong link between the two.

In the chart below, you can see this relationship. In part, this apparant contradiction is because there is a certain degree of steadiness - neither crime nor journeys are that variable over a relatively short period.






So I bunged the numbers into a regression. Each month was coded 1-48 (April 2009 was 1, March 2013 48), so that I could control for changes due to reduction in crime as a factor of time.

The results of the regression are striking- R square of 0.99 and all of the p-values are very very low, suggesting the probability of a relationship being random for all variables unlikely. So, we know that crime is definitely going down with time (negative coefficient), but also increases with the number of journeys (positive coefficient) , and the resultant crime rates are affected by both factors.

Wapping Woods

With the report of a robbery in Wapping Woods at the Weekend (a shout out to my good friend @olopoto for sharing this info with residents), personal safety in Wapping has again become a hot topic, to the extent I even heard my next door neighbours discussing the attack, which makes a change from football and toddlers.

In his response, LoveWapping quoted  minutes from the Police Ward panel held on 24th April. There were two interesting nuggests of information.

The first:

"Robbery – there have been 2 robberies through Wapping Woods where an arrest has been made.  Since the arrest there have been no more robberies in this area."

It's not fully clear what period these two robberies occurred over but it seems likely to be March and April, based on other references to numbers of crimes in those months and the fact that the meetings appear to be every other month.

The second nugget was that:

"Wapping ward is in the top three safest places to live in London according to crime rates and ASB reported to the police."

I am now pretty certain that this is not factually correct, unless there is some particular qualifying factor on the analysis, such as "2-4pm on that last wet wednesday, when the phone wasn't answered", and I think it's rather misleading - I discussed this claim in a previous post where I found the ward was actually the 402nd safest ward, not including ASB, in London. However, I have also written at length that safety is an emotion, or a feeling and not a statistic.

In my thoughts about crime and safety, I often return to Wapping Woods. Recently I've been walking through twice a day, to and from work. I've never felt unsafe or uncomfortable, but @potoft, my partner in crime (?) has been feeling increasingly uneasy. I noted recently to @potoft that as the trees become covered in leaves the light and the feel of the woods changes.

I have come to the conclusion that the woods are particularly ill designed given that there are both east-west and north-south pedestrian routes crossing through them. I don't know what would improve safety other than chopping the trees down, but I wondered if the Woods were actually any less safe than other parts of London, or Wapping.

The conclusion

Starting with the null hypothesis that crimes occur with equal likelihood in any given square metre of either Wapping, LBTH or London, the fact that two robberies occured in Wapping Woods in two months proves that this is not the case. I found that for the underlying number of  robberies in Wapping, there is a 0.2% probability that two robberies would have occured in an area the size of Wapping Woods, suggesting that in those two months users of the Woods were statistically more exposed to the risk of robbery, or more specifically - we would not expect this level of crime purely at random, if crime was equally distributed. Only if our basis of analysis was using LBTH crime levels and we double the relative size of Wapping Woods is the finding not significant at the 95% confidence level. However, the police report suggests that this blip was due to one individual's actions. If this is the case, then a look at longer term levels of crime is necessary. I don't know if this will be forthcoming.

In reality a myriad of factors interact to make crime more or less likely to occur in different places and I can't control for these. I know and accept that my analysis isn't fully robust, but it does approach the situation rationally and without emotion, it avoids anecdote and relies on facts. What it does tell me, is that more work needs to be undertaken by the police and community to reduce the dangers of this area.

The Boring Bit

For this analysis, I'm using the Poisson distribution, which expresses the probability of events occurring in a fixed period, independent of when the last event occurred. When the distribution is plotted, its a broadly bell shaped curve.

Where this analysis differs from some I've done previously, is thinking about the probability of a given level of crime occurring in an area, rather than the number of crimes recorded.

So before we start. A few points:

• I'm looking only at robbery (ie theft from a person)
• I'm including robbery of both personal and business goods
• In the 24 months to March 2013, there were 71,536 robberies across London, or 2,980.7 per month
• In the same period there were 44 in St Kats and Wapping, or 1.83 per month.
• For all of LBTH the figures are 2,703 and 112.6
• The area of St Kats and Wapping is approximately 11.4 square kilometres

Using this information we can calculate the probability of different numbers of robberies across all of Wapping, using the average number of robberies for the preceding 2 year period. I then go on to think about the likelihood of 'x' robberies occuring in an area the size of Wapping Woods.

The first table shows the probability of a given number of robberies having occurred in a given month anywhere in St Kats and Wapping, based on a) number of robberies that occurred in St Kats & Wapping in the last 2 years b) the number that one might expect in Wapping if robberies occurred with equal frequency across all of London and c) the number in Wapping based on LBTH robberies. The final two calculations are based on geographic area, rather than the number of people (so if LBTH is 10 times the size of Wapping, I divided the LBTH figure by 10 to get the equivalent Wapping figure).

So based on Wapping's underlying number of robberies, there is an 84% (100%-16%) chance of at least one robbery. Using London and LBTH rates, this figure increases to 88.4% and 99.8% respectively. LBTH rates are considerably higher on the basis of geographic density of crime, which is likely linked to its much greater population density than Wapping and London as whole.

Looking at what we would expect from an area the size of Wapping Woods, I calculated the Woods to be around 18,000 square metres, or 0.02 square kilometres. Wapping is 1.14 square kilometres. Now assuming that crimes occur with equal frequency on any given bit of land, we can try and calculate what the probability of a robbery occurring in a piece of land of the area of Wapping Woods. What we find is that based on Wapping's number of robberies, is that there is a only a 2.8% probability of a robbery in Wapping Woods in a given month, but based on Tower Hamlets as a whole, the probability increases to 9.1%.

If we consider the likelihood of different numbers of robberies occurring over two months (which is what we have information for from the minutes), the probability of a larger number of robberies occurring, intuitively increases.

Similarly, looking at the Wapping Woods area, the likelihood of 2 or more robberies occuring in the Woods is between 0.2% and 1.8%. Clearly, the probability of two robberies occuring at random in an area the size of the Woods is very low, suggesting this isn't something that would happen by chance.

However, there are some flaws in my model - in real life I assume robbery is likely to occur outdoors rather than indoors (at which point it may become classed as burglary, other than in say shopping centres), whereas this model doesn't distinguish between relative areas of indoors/outdoors/private/public; therefore I acknowledge using a method based on total area without adjusting for buildings may distort results. To assess the sensitivity of my findings, I have doubled the estimated size of Wapping Woods to make it account for a greater proportion of the area of Wapping. However, even with this, assuming robberies occur with equal likelihood anywhere in Wapping, in a two month period, there is only a 0.6% probability that two or more robberies would have occurred in this period and even with the crime rate of LBTH, there is only a 6.2% probability of two or more robberies occurring in the Woods in this period. So at the 95% confidence level, this speight of robberies is not what we would expect in Wapping or London as a whole, but might be consistent with Tower Hamlets. If data was available for a longer period for the number of robberies in the Woods we would have a clearer idea. However, it seems that the Woods was certainly accounting for a disproportionate number of robberies in the area in those two months.

Robbery at the Prospect of Whitby, 1953 part 2

In part 1, we left the diners of the Prospect of Whitby on that Foggy January night in 1953 having just had their valuables taken (including umbrella you will recall) by three masked men in raincoats standing over them. Would they escape? Would justice prevail?

As the three masked robbers stood there, with cash and jewellery worth around £3,500 (around £80,000 in 2011 prices), one of the robbers made a fundamental error of judgement. He removed his mask. The game had now changed. He could be identified. The gang had a choice. Would they run and take the chance that they could get far enough away to avoid identification, or would they need to be certain that there were no witnesses left.

It might at this point be informative to introduce one Robert Harrington Sanders, aged 29, who occasionally worked as an electrician. Sanders had served in the army during the war, as part of the Black Watch, but deserted during the invasion of Germany. Taking advantage of the situation, he was described at his subsequent court martial in June 1945 to have run riot. Whilst in Germany he committed two cases of robbery with aggravation, four cases of rape, and one of indecent assault. When he was caught and tried, he was sentenced to 15 years of penal servitude, but this was subsequently reduced to 7 years. Sanders escaped from prison and went on the run.

Sanders then went on another spree, and when again caught, a year later, he was sentenced to an additional 14 years for possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life and also given concurrent sentences of seven years, three years and one year for attempting to steal a motorcar, receiving a wireless set, and other offences.

On December 13, 1952, just a month before our diners found themselves lying on the floor, Sanders escaped from Wakefield Gaol and made his way to London. Sanders formed a band of six men, who became known as the "Red Scarf Gang", with Sanders pleased to describe himself as the leader.

It seems likely then, that those men in the pub that night were 'in' with Sanders, but I can tell you that Sanders was never arrested, charged or tried for the Prospect of Whitby Robbery.

Once the gang had finished robbing the pub and its customers, the three masked men and a lookout escaped in the Daimler, which was later found abandoned. The following Monday's Times included a brief report that the police were on the lookout for four criminals.

On January 26, two weeks after the robbery, Edward Penfold, aged 21, a labourer, of Whitworth House, Falmouth Road was visited at home and was told that he answered the description of the man who was not masked. At an identification parade he was picked out by Peter Brusey and his wife, and by Patrick Campbell. Cherry Campbell however, picked out another of the eight men who were on parade. Penfold denied any involvement and said that he was at the fair ground at Walworth Road on the night in question. Penfold on the basis of witness testimony was remanded in custody.

On the 16th of February Penfold was released without charge. For three weeks Penfold had been in police custody. He had appeared before the courts three times and had been identified by three eye witnesses. This change of events came about because of the actions of Edward Plumpton.

It was Plumpton that had been the unmasked man and he had come forward out of guilt that another man might go to prison in his place.

In discharging Penfold, the magistrate was rather philosophical:

"So far as this case is concerned you leave this court without a stain on your character. You have been the victim of extraordinary circumstances which were very unfortunate for you, but the police cannot be blamed, as they acted on the information given them."

The magistrates words suggest that he wasn't entirely convinced that Penfold was an angel, even if on this occasion, the accusation was unfair. Penfold was denied costs from the courts but was advised by the magistrate to approach 'the right authorities' for compensation.
Taking Penfold's place in the dock was the aforementioned Edward Plumpton, aged 27, a lorry driver, of Rill House, Harris Street, Camberwell, and Derek Donald Gould, aged 23, a street trader, of Brondesbury Road, Kilburn, charged with seven charges of robbery, armed with a revolver and truncheon.

The trial was started afresh with evidence given at previous hearings against Penfold was repeated.

When asked whether he wished to question Mr. Brusey, Plumpton said: "I admit I was the man without a mask."

It's not clear how Gould was identified but both plead guilty.

During interrogation Edward Plumpton stated:

"Two fellows approached me and asked me if I wanted to earn a few pounds. One of them said he had the needle with the governor a pub over the way and they were going to get their own back. Up to the time we got outside the Prospect of Whitby I did not realize anybody had a gun. I thought we were going to have a fight with a gang. I did not know it was to be a robbery."

Mr. A. E. Bolton, appearing for Gould, said that "the two men in the dock were merely the small fry in this affair".

And what of the other two?

Chief Inspector John Freshney, reported that the third man who carried the revolver (and hit Campbell) had been arrested on another charge. This man was Sanders, who had been arrested for attempted murder of a police man. The look-out was also apprehended and was being tried for another offence, but his identity wasn't reported in the press.

Inspector Freshney said Plumpton had no criminal record and was  a British Road Services driver with a decent home and two children. Plumpton had got into trouble at dog racing and took part in this robbery to get money for his wife. Gould in contrast had four previous convictions, one of which he committed with his father.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson, appearing for Plumpton, said that Plumpton thought he was merely going to a " pub brawl " and did not know that the others were armed. He went without a scarf and without taking any precautions against being identified, although witnesses stated there were three men in masks, implying that Sanders may have provided Plumpton with a mask when they committed the crime.

At sentencing, Gould received four-and-a-half years' imprisonment and Plumpton two- and-a-half years' imprisonment.

Passing sentence the Recorder (Sir Gerald Dodson) told Plumpton that he had done his best to ruin his life and to Gould the Recorder said: " You have sold yourself to the powers of darkness. You are far too sophisticated, far too tutored in the ways of wickedness for corrective training."

So, it all turned out ok, and everyone was brought to justice and no one was seriously injured.

Epilogue

Patrick and Cherry Campbell divorced. Patrick went on to gain fame as a panellist on Call My Bluff
Owen Cunningham married one of waitresses in the 1960s, a lady some thirty years his junior, and with whom he had six children. He was in talks to open a chain of Cunningham restaurants in the USA when he died in 1974.
Robert Harrington Sanders was convicted for attempted murder and sentenced to life.
Peter Brussey emigrated to Australia, developed a reputation as an excellent Barrister and eventually returned to the UK. A contemporary stated Brusey disliked confrontation and declined appointment as a judge as he could not contemplate sending someone to prison, perhaps an echo of his own misidentification of Penfold?

And as a parting gift, a recipe from Captain Cunningham.

 

Robbery at the Prospect of Whitby

Many know about the Prospect's association with Princess Margaret, Grace Kelly and Richard Burton, but what of the armed robbery of Saturday, January 10 1953?

It had been a chilly, but reasonably mild January day in Wapping. As the clock approached midnight the Prospect was closed and empty, other than the manageress Eva Johns and two barmen tidying up the pub. Fresh sawdust was scattered across the floor. Voices from the first floor seeping through the ceiling and down the stairs.

Anthony Owen Lynch, aged 40, was sat in his Daimler waiting patiently, the temperature skirting above zero. He had been hired by Captain Cunningham for the evening to chauffeur some of his party to and from the pub. Lynch would have known it would soon be time for the party to depart. It had been foggy most of the day, and would have been growing thicker as Lynch sat in the car.

Owen Cunningham

In the pub, Owen Cunningham, or Captain as he liked to be styled had been dining with a small group of friends and made his way to the stairs. Their meal had been hosted by George Broadbent, the licensee in the upstairs Samuel Pepys restaurant. Captain Cunningham was well known in society circles, both for his eponymous oyster bar on Curzon Street in Mayfair and for his private life. Tales of his antics appeared regularly in the press, including notably a fist fight with the Duke of Marlborough at the Twenty One Club in 1949.

Cunningham's divorce had kept the papers busy, not only for the scandal of a society divorce, but for his wife's imprisonment during the proceedings for contempt of court. Across the Commonwealth, newspapers carried stories of the socialite going from Mayfair to Holloway in a Rolls Royce. Her temporary incarceration arising from interfering with witnesses set to testify to her adultery. In the run up to the divorce proceedings Cunningham had even been forced to resort to advertising in The Times to ensure his estranged wife did not obtain credit using his name. Yet even once the decree nisi was granted, press attention did not fade, as scandal raised its head again when Jessie was declared bankrupt shortly after.

Outside the pub, in the thickening fog, Lynch's car door was opened, a figure stood beside Lynch, draped in a light coloured raincoat. as Lynch turned to confront the stranger, he was taken aback, not only by the petulance of this interloper but by the fact that the figure's face was concealed by a red scarf; only the stranger's eyes revealing the danger Lynch now found himself in. The figure's arm extended and Lynch knew instantly that the evening was not going to plan. A revolver was being pointed at him. A second figure, identically dressed but holding a  truncheon stood beside him and a third identical figure became apparent and ordered him out of the car.

Lynch was ordered to walk to the pub door and beckon the staff to let him in. Lynch knocked and called at the door until one of the barmen opened it. As the door opened, and the cold night air poured in, two of the gang grabbed the barman and dragged him inside. Lynch, restrained by a third member of the gang was thrown to the floor.

At this moment, Captain Cunningham and his party were walking down the stairs. As Cunningham descended, he would have seen the manageress and two barmen lying on the floor, and the back of the chauffeur who had driven them to pub. More disturbing than this were the three masked figures; three demons in trench coats. Two of the figures dashed to him, and shouted in the style of so many gangster movies “this is a stick-up”.

Patrick Campbell

Neither the honourable Patrick Campbell, first son of Lord Charles Campbell, second Baron Glenavy, nor his wife Cherry, had expected their meal to end with a taste of sawdust and on being told to get on the floor Campbell refused, and was rewarded by having his head cut open by the butt of the revolver.

The diners and bar staff were ordered upstairs, presumably away from the ground floor windows. Cunningham and his party were thrown to the floor, their faces resting on the fresh sawdust, lying with the bar staff, staring at the wooden floor. There on the floor lay Lynch, Cunningham, Mr and Mrs Campbell, Elizabeth Smith, Mr Peter Brusey, a solicitor’s managing clerk and his wife, two barmen, Eva Johns, the manageress and George Broadbent the landlord.

When the anyone tried to turn their heads to see what was going on, a threatening flick of the truncheon or revolver was directed perilously close to them.

"Keep your eyes down" came the command from somewhere in the room every time one the prisoners moved. The gang collected wallets, money and jewellery from their captives. Eva Johns was forced to hand over the key to the safe, which with two tills were emptied into an old fish bag.

After finishing their work, the thieves had acquired £1,000 from the safe, from George Broadbent a watch and a diamond ring worth £2,500, rings worth £47 from Eva Johns, £8 from Peter Brusey, £75 from Captain Cunningham, three bracelets worth £10 from Elizabeth Smith, 5s from Patrick Campbell and a bracelet worth £2 from Cherry Campbell.

The thieves were unrelenting, even taking Peter Brusey’s umbrella.

Find out what happened next in part 2 of....Robbery at the Prospect

Should have dined at home?