Harry Bensley: What You Don't Know

In Edwardian England a man accepted an incredible wager: the prize - £21,000. It was set down by two notable men, J P Morgan (the wealthy banker) and the Earl of Lonsdale. But following several sightings around various cities and towns, "Iron Man", who pushed a pram 'throughout the world', face covered in an iron helmet, surviving only on the sale of pamphlets and postcards, disappeared like a phantom. Only to return 6 years later having 'nearly' completed his remarkable odyssey around the globe.

The story of The Man in The Iron Mask captured public imagination, then and now, and today people the world over are searching old newspapers and dusty archives in an effort to trace the footsteps of this intrepid perambulator.

TheBigRetort reveals all, for the first time...

Alleged Frauds

Four years before he took up his remarkable challenge, in 1904, Harry Bensley, then described as age "29", a labourer, appeared at Willesden Magistrates Court. Charged (on remand) with obtaining various sums of money 'by false pretences', the details of his arrest were indexed in the Times for various dates from September to November. This the first time the 'full' story of Bensley's escapades have been presented to a gullible public... and it makes shocking reading.

The scam

Bensley had claimed that he was the son of one Sir Robert Burrell, and as such was heir to extensive estates in Norfolk. He also made the claim that he was heir to his godmother's estate, also at Thetford, Norfolk, the late Mrs Holland. On his thirtieth birthday Bensley let it be known that he was due to inherit an impressive property and the thousands of acres of land that came with it. But there was one problem... or so Mr Bensley confided to his victims,. If he attempted to raise money against the value of his future inheritance then 'the whole of the estate fell into the hands of the trustees'.

He showed a Mr Jordan a telegram. It came from a moneylender offering him two hundred pounds against his future inheritance. However, although Bensley badly needed money, for some unexplained reason (perhaps a caveat in the 'will'), if he accepted the offer then this would thwart his inheritance. Or so he claimed...

By curious but timely coincidence, Mr Jordan (the victim of Bensley's scam) received two telegrams from the moneylender himself. This was most curious. Mr King offered him sums of £50 and £100 if he would 'induce' Bensley 'to accept this offer and a second one of £1000'.

And then there was Bensley's sister...?

She urged her brother to borrow £200 on 'his furniture' in order that he could go on a cruise with her. Bensley told Mr Jordan and a Mr Bradley, warehouseman (and is second victim), that he could not go on the cruise without the money. But, of course, there was that inheritance...

Bensley reeled his 'marks' in like two haddock on a fishing line. Messieurs Jordan and Bradley duly lent the money... but without surety. Bensley had instructed them to destroy any IOUs as these would stop his inheritance. Eventually nothing was heard from Harry Bensley. A visit to Thetford resulted in the police being called in.

A history of bogus claims

The claims were bogus. Harry Bensley was a well-practised fraudster with no regard for his victims or their families. "Jordan and Bradley had been defrauded of their lifelong savings and their provision for their children," the Times reported. 'Mr King' the moneylender did not exist. There was no relationship between Bensley and Robert Burrell (who was indeed wealthy, very alive, but had not received a knighthood). In what must have been a classic version of a long-firm fraud, Jordan and Bradley had been scammed.

Unknown to his victims Harry Bensley, using the alias "Harry Barker", had preplanned the whole thing, as far back as 1903. By the 17th May of the following year he had set sail on a ship headed for Sydney. Bensley had purchased the tickets, one for him and the others for his wife and child, with the first tranche of money he had taken from Jordan. This remarkable and elaborate deception, which revealed a degree of prescience found in a sociopath, had taken a year to complete, involved his 'wife' who was a seamstress, and was commenced by the same man who four years later would announce to the world that he had accepted a remarkable challenge, an astounding wager, (amongst others) to walk 'through' world, always wearing an iron mask, pushing a perambulator, picking up a wife, peddling photographs and pamphlets of his 'planned' endeavours - whilst keeping his identity secret. As we shall later discover there was a very good reason for this.


Harry's Game

On completion of this mammoth six-year task Harry Bensley was set to win an astonishing $100,000... a fortune back in those days. Or at last that is what Bensley claimed, for whatever Harry claimed should always have been taken with a (huge) pinch of salt. In fact, like all good tales there was (and is more) than meets the eye to this franky modern myth. Besides being a conniving, and rather nasty fraudster, Harry Bensley, a labourer and no more, was also a wife 'deceiver'.

In August 1898 he had married Kate Green, laundress, also of Thetford. The marriage produced two issue. At his later 1904 Old Bailey trial, the Common Serjeant heard that the family lived together until two years previous in Norwood. (Anthony road then Cobden road.) However, in July 1902, one year before he commenced his elaborate fraud on Messrs Jordan and Bradley, Mr Bensley - strangely now described as 'a remarkable man' (by some at least?) - deserted Kate his wife and their two children leaving them absolutely destitute. (Perhaps' remarkable' is the word.)

The barmaid and the bigamy

Sometime at this juncture, Harry Bensley had made the acquaintance of a barmaid in Norwood called Lily Chapman. (Listed as "Clapham" in some documents.) Ironically, it was a bigamous marriage to Lily that would catch up with Bensle. But that was after he absconded with Jordan and Bradley's money. Mr Bensley had presented himself as bachelor and heir to a large estate at Thetford to unsuspecting Lily. The modus operandi of the career criminal following its traditional agenda, Harry married Lily under the bogus surname "Burrell". Of course the representations he had also made to Lily were untrue, as indeed were those he would go on to make to Messrs Jordan and Bradley much later. He compounded this deception, the false pretences, by committing bigamy. He was still after all married to Kate Green. Another false representation that was soon to catch up with him.

At the Old Bailey, an additional charge was brought for 'feloniously and unlawfully inter-marrying (sic) with Lily Chapman at Marylebone Registry Office on February 5, 1903, his lawful wife, Kate Beasley (sic), being then and now alive'. (The Times, 11 Oct, 1904, p13, clmn c.)

Having upgraded to a 1st-class cabin with his new 'wife and child', "Harry Barker" - the name he travelled under - set sail on the 17th May with his wife and their child. Having paid £10 for each ticket, "Barker" upgraded to 1st-class passages for himself and his wife and child, a difference of £64 we are told. But all did not go as planned...

The arrest

The ship arrived at the Cape on the 4th June and a reception party awaited. Harry Bensley, son of a sawmill worker at Thetford, was 'nicked'. Brought to book by Detective Sergeant Cole and Detective Inspector Pollard, the prisoner was sent by Willesden magistrates to the Old Bailey. Finally, his deceptions had caught up with him. (Presumably he had more form as 'previous good character' is not recorded in any reporting on the trail.) Harry Bensley, aka Burrell, aka Harry Barker (etc) was sentenced to 4 years penal servitude. Significantly (or so it must surely seem later) he responded to the Common Serjeant at the Old Bailey, "Thank you, my Lord. I deserve it." Perhaps the first time that Harry Bensley had issued a truthful statement.

To follow in the TheBigRetort's buried news series, something the 'experts' and national newspapers missed completely... Iron Mask: The Truth Revealed.

Council tax scam

Council Tax is a property-based charge with one bill for each household set by the various councils to help pay for local services such as refuse collection etc. A tax which not too many of us have an issue. And yet there was that little investigation by TheBigRetort?

Councils can be rather vague regarding the "discounts" and "exemptions" that are available to the homeowner. In fact, when it comes to working out how much council tax is due some offer a 25% discount, providing there is only one occupant. Paradoxically, if the same property is empty then the discount is reduced by 10% only - leaving the council to claim a whopping 90% tax....but on an empty property.

The discount is offered on a 'furnished dwelling not used as a sole or main residence’ - a second home for example - and is curiously 'lower' when a property is empty. Why we haven't a clue... and TheBigRetort would have liked to have posed that question to that august body known as London Councils, previously known as the ALG. Unfortunately as the only representative for the thirty-two London authorities it does not - we were informed, on more than one occasion - 'speak to freelancers'. And so we, alongside council tax payers and buy-to-let landlords in particular, must remain forever in the dark - which is just the way 'they' like it. In this post, TheBigRetort lifts the lid on the council tax scam that may be costing property owners millions. But first, a little bit of taxing history....

Council Tax and the Landlord

The Local Government Act 2003 gave local councils 'discretion' in the level of discounts offered to council tax payers, enabling them to reduce the discounts on furnished properties. 'Second home' tax savings were reduced from 50% to 10%. [Defined in the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003 and prescribed by the Secretary of State under the provisions of Section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.]

But we discovered that the councils make various ‘assumptions’ in order to ‘steer’ any homeowner with an empty property towards the '2nd home' discounted schemes - where tax is always due. In fact, many if not all landlords should be awarded an “exemption” - thereby paying zilch. The “discretion” reveals that there is a lack of co-ordination by the authorities in London, and that their lobby body London Councils does not have a tight grip on the reigns, as usual. This can be very costly to the not so savvy landlord with an empty property. "An empty property gets charged at a higher rate than a property with a single occupant." Make sense? It does for the councils... because it’s the law of increasing tax returns.

However, novice landlords may be unaware (because councils like it that way) but they are being 'guided' toward discounted schemes - both on websites and over the telephone - to get them to pay tax that they do not in fact owe . It's a scam. A slight of hand that would in any other case be classed as out-and-out deception. And, what's more, it's happening nationally...

Landlords who not only face voids in their property also face crippling and unnecessary council tax payments - unless they wise up to this not-so-neat little tax trick. Or until London Councils reigns in its members and halts the practice. But don't hold your breath.

And then, there are ways to avoid the tax altogether.

TheBigRetort's step-by-step guide to avoiding council tax on an empty buy-to-let property. And it's legal.

Take the furniture out.

A “Class C” exemption applies if a ‘property is vacant and substantially unfurnished’ for up to six months. And rightly speaking no tax is due.

Following an initial phone query in Brent, we reveal that the exemption for empty properties is kept in the background. “The discount for properties that are empty but furnished (including second homes) is ten per cent” many councils claim up front. But more often than not we had to dig to find the exempt categories, where they were found, in many instances, the burden of proof was weighted against the landlord with the empty property - which obviously makes it difficult (if not impossible) to pursue the exemption. Which is the way that many of these councils want it.

Wandsworth Council states on its website that landlords are ‘required to notify us' when there is a change of occupancy. Are they really? Additional requests include forwarding addresses of any tenant who moves out of the property and other ‘relevant’ information. Landlords could easily find themselves on the wrong side of the Data Protection’s Act, or harassment laws. But the motivation behind such demands is obvious....

“You must also note that for any period between tenancies, you will be made responsible for Council Tax payments.” Wandsworth goes on to say, "If the property remains furnished during this period, you may be eligible for a 25% discount from your Council Tax."

It's a con... if your property is partly furnished and empty then you don't have to pay a bean. It's only when TheBigRetort knocked at the proverbial door of truth that we discovered the following... "If unfurnished and unoccupied you may be eligible for a six month exemption from Council Tax..."

But there is no 'may' about it, you are entitled to the exemption, and to the buy-to-let landlord facing a dreaded rental void that may mean the difference between retention or repossession.

Lambeth Council claims, “Even if they do not live there, the owner of the property will have to pay the Council Tax if: (i) the property is no one's main home." In fact if a landlord has a - partly or totally unfurnished - empty property due to a void or refurbishment circumstances then s/he will find that the same exemption applies – and no tax is due.

A property counts as a main home if you live there for the majority of the time and most of your possessions are kept there. However what Lambeth then goes on to claim is both puzzlingly and contradictory, “There is no discount for unfurnished empty properties.” [Lambeth’s emphasis.] It is only when we read on that we discover that the council speaks with forked tongue…. "Such properties may be exempt from Council Tax for up to six months but after that time, there is now no discount.’"

Misleading, or what? In a very roundabout bureaucratic way, Lambeth Council tells us that there is no discount for unfurnished properties: which is true, because it’s - wait for it - an exemption. [Lambeth just hopes that you landlords don't log on to TheBigRetort and discover how misleading.]

Southwark Council also goes boldly where Lambeth has gone before when it states, “There is only one council tax bill per household whether it is owned, rented or empty.” Which is true…. owned, rented, or empty, there is only one council tax bill. But what if the property is partly furnished and empty? Well.... no council tax is due.

Landlords in Southwark should watch out for this council tax jiggery-smokery. The council lists the answer(s) under separate categories marked “Discounts” and “Exemptions”. Under the first it duly reveals that there are circumstances when a discount can be awarded, “If there is only one adult we could reduce your Council Tax bill by 25% (one quarter). If there are no adults we could reduce your Council Tax bill by 50% (one half).” [Other councils only - curiously - reduce the discount by 10% on an empty property.] So what if a property is empty and (partly) unfurnished? The fallback answer is found under the heading "Empty Properties and Second Homes", but novice landlords ignore the “2nd Home” ten percent discount - that's just the red herring - it's the exemption you need.

Reducing a council tax bill to zero

There are a number of ways that a homeowner can reduce a council tax bill to zero….and it is with the help of that Great Landlord in the Sky.

Religious Community status is a must for those choosing to avoid council tax... The only requirement is a written confirmation of the number of adults resident in the property and the name and details of the religious community and details of any income. Seem fair? Why should non-believers pay tax on behalf of those who believe in a greater being? Can an atheist classify a ‘faith’ in non-existence and thereby escape the tax? What is ‘belief’ and - more importantly - why should it be totally exempt from council tax anyway? Surely the believers amongst us go to a tax-free haven in the sky and get the best of both worlds. [But don't ask us, ask London Councils.]

Class C Exemption

In fact "Class C" exemptions should be applied nationally to empty unfurnished homes and should not be classed under ‘2nd home ownership, which simply qualifies for a discount - and that is probably the sole motivation for any council withholding the exemption information.

In tower Hamlets a ‘Second Home’ (in other words not the main home but a furnished one), sees the council tax bill reduced by 10%. As with other councils prior to 1st April 2004 the discount was 50%, which is still applicable where it is ‘job related’ and the occupier is liable to pay council tax for another dwelling by an employer. [How much does an MP pay?] In fact, it is only when we looked under the Exempt Homes category that we discovered a transparent explanation: “Vacant properties are exempt when they are ‘unfurnished’ (exempt for up to six months).”

Camden Council gave a full and forward and open account on its website of the exemption: “Section 75, of the Local Government Finance Act 2003, gave local councils' the discretion to amend the council tax discounts; that they give to the owners of unoccupied domestic properties, with effect from 01 April 2004. Regulations made by the Secretary of State namely, The Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations SI 2003: 3011, specified the classes of domestic property for which the discounts could be reduced as follows: A Class C exemption applies if the property is unfurnished and unoccupied. By unoccupied, we mean that a property is not anyone's main home.”

All great stuff... Unfortunately the council then goes on to argue, “In the case of Class C, the discount can be removed altogether so that the full council tax bill is payable.”

A case of giving it with one hand and taking it back with the other if ever. Camden Council passed a resolution in 2004. It ruled that an empty property exemption could be reduced from 50% to zero. Does this apply to a landlord with an empty unfurnished property?

The policy is discretionary. Local authorities' throughout England follow different strategies. Indeed, just within the Greater London area alone there are great differences. However, and here’s the rub… An exemption will still apply for the first six months, where a property becomes substantially unfurnished. [In the case of uninhabitable properties, this period increases to 12 months. Lewisham Council is very helpful in this regard.]

And that leaves us with the council that misled the most...

Brent Council initially claimed that council tax was due on an empty property - even though it was ‘unfurnished’. It claimed, wrongly, that the exemption only applied if the property was being ‘refurbished’, which is not true. Nevertheless Brent ignored this and demanded more than £200 for the months the unfurnished property was empty. [Brent Council's press office was very helpful when we queried this and other behaviour but did not get back to us at the point of writing with any answers, so we may never learn what has gone on there. Firstly why is it more expensive for tax on a discounted empty property? And, secondly, why is the council directing landlords away from the all-important no-tax exemptions?]

So landlords in Brent do not be cowed. If your empty property is partly furnished, or unfurnished, then no council tax is owed, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of the regulations, or a thief. But then, to a council, a ten percent discount sounds much better than a zero exemption.

Ealing Council stated on its website - and of the 'Thirty-Two' it wasn't alone - “If only one adult lives in the property the council tax will be reduced by 25%. Properties which are unoccupied and furnished will get a 10% discount."

Ealing's landlords are supposed to see this and go, Oh my property’s empty, why don’t I just say it’s got one person in it and avoid a further 15% tax! Don’t bother… It’s a scam. You don’t owe the council grifters a penny. Seek out the all-important “exemptions” column.

So, if you’re a landlord with an empty (partly) unfurnished property... just say No to Council Tax.

Free speech costs plenty

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." An eloquent defence of tolerance, or a cosy assumption from people who don't have to face the consequences of what they defend?

Had the Oxford Debating Society students known their onions they may have been surprised to learn that the saying attributed to French writer François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire was actually written by Stephen G Tallentyre, a pseudonym for (female) writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall. She added it to her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire. It was only intended to summarise Voltaire's attitude and were not words that he himself actually uttered.

Renowned for his satirical wit, Voltaire, a millionaire at forty, did not occupy the moral high ground - and even if he had uttered 'his' famous expression he would not have extended it to all.
It was Voltaire's (erroneously based) free speech ideals that led to the Oxford Union Debating Society's controversial invitation to two 'racists'. However, Voltaire believed that Africans were a separate species, inferior to the Europeans and that ancient Jews were "an ignorant and barbarous people".
Paradoxically an atheist-in-religious-guise, Voltaire used 'faith'. In his day freedom of expression came with the caveats not against the Church and not against the State - he fell foul to both. Little wonder that a biographer - writing under a male pseudonym - placed an often misunderstood ideal in his mouth. Women did not have the same rights as men circa 1906.

So was female writer Hall was secretly lobbying for the rights of women at the beginning of the 20th Century through an early liberal racist philosopher?

Ironically the Oxford Two are a symbol of Voltaire himself. He was in complete accord with what both had to say and would no doubt defend... to the death.
What is even more ironic - something the free-speech-brigade avoids - Voltaire shared the same self-absorbed belief that his 'race' alone was at the pinnacle of species, rather than a fractious part of humankind.

But freedom is not democracy and democracy is not free.
[Voltaire.]

Philippines hotel siege: surrender

Military ‘rebels’ who seized a luxury hotel in the Philippines capital have agreed to surrender, for the safety of the hostages.
"We're going out ... because we cannot live with our conscience if some of you get hurt in the crossfire," Antonio Trillanes, a Navy Lieutenant informed them.
About 200 civilians (many journalists) were trapped inside the Peninsula Hotel in Manila when the rebels, calling for the overthrow of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, took control of the building which is ringed by troops. Guest inside were said to be 'calm'.

Scandal of the high street banks

THERE IS A VERY OLD SAYING THAT 'HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF TIME AND TIME AGAIN'. RECENTLY TWO COMPUTER DISCS CONTAINING THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF 26 MILLION PEOPLE DISAPPEARED.... IN THE POST. BUT HASN'T IT ALL HAPPENED BEFORE? THEBIGRETORT REVEALS ...

Some years back, an investigation was conducted by two undercover reporters working for Punch Magazine - Pete Sawyer and Jon Paul Morgan . The pair of sleuths presented a groundbreaking piece of journalism, following months of painstaking research, that was featured on Channel 4 News - as the lead item - and copied in newspapers and magazines the length and breadth of Britain. Reproduced here (with the kind permission of Punch Magazine) is what the pair uncovered...

THE REPORTERS SIFTING THROUGH MOUNTAINS OF PERSONAL BANK INFORMATION LEFT OUT ON THE STREETS. [Sawyer pictured left, Morgan right.].

THE TITLE SAID IT ALL...

'Doing undercover work at night, can make you stick out like a sore thumb. Pete and I used to dress quite smartly at first and pose as businessmen searching for our own documents, sometimes we used to dress like tramps, and actually hardly ever got noticed. Except when we appeared on Channel 4, and our cover was blown. We still caught them dumping personal details though!' (JPM)

'The banks had become really sloppy, creating an illusion of security where in fact none existed. In many instances we found passwords, opinions on customers, amounts held, phone numbers, pass numbers, oh... and a jam doughnut.'

'In order to show that this wasn't just a London problem, we broadened our investigation with the help of colleagues credited above.'
THE BANKS WERE CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN, AND COLLAPSED UNDER THE WEIGHTY EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY MORGAN AND SAWYER. THOUGH SOME TRIED TO WRIGGLE FREE... WHICH WAS ALWAYS VERY INTERESTING... THE REPORTERS TARGETED THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND YES... THEY WERE STILL DOING IT.
Can our data ever be secure in their hands? Is there still a place for a National ID Card? We leave it up to you to decide. Data recovery

Why we are alone

Could Mankind be the only technologically advanced society in the Cosmos?

D. Bruce Merrifield, writing in Integrated Patterns of Civilization, seems to think so. Apparently it is due to surges in greenhouse gases, which coincide with periods of global warming, that we may occupy a unique place in the Cosmos... alone.

Merrifield's report, published in American Thinker (November 2007), claims that it is only during the last 5,000 years weather conditions have allowed an advanced civilisation to emerge on planet Earth. Samples taken from ice cores in the Antarctic Ice Cap and the Sargasso Sea record that a unique set of circumstances led towards our present civilisation.

Global warming has been periodically recurring for many hundreds of thousands of years Mankind has evolved by periodic 100,000-year great ice age-ending warming periods, each coincident with enormous surges of carbon dioxide and methane from the oceans. These surges, lasting about 15,000 to 25,000 years, are far greater than those currently generated from fossil fuels. Remarkably, in the last 5,000 years, a number of shorter periods of warming have taken place, lasting 200 to 300-years. And in the brief history of Mankind, each of the shorter warming periods has coincided with the rise and decline of major civilisations.

Amazingly, between these sequential warming periods, advances made in one civilisation have not been lost to the next. This one factor alone has allowed Mankind to gain an evolutionary foothold. We are currently about 20,000 years into the most recent of the 100,000-year cycles, and this one peaked about 10,000 years ago. It has since been cooling. However, these warming cycles are coincident with the earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun. Solar radiation bombarded the planet and as it did so it increased and decreased in strength. The Earth has cooled from its most recent peak up to about 8500 B.C. when a previous civilisation was ‘snuffed out’.

In Fact, the rise of the civilisations has been coincident with these warming – or birthing - periods. Times that were conducive to the increased availability of food. Naturally civilisations grew. The cooling process was reversed when a new great surge of methane rose into the atmosphere at about 5000 B.C. Is it any coincidence that this was the period that coincided with the beginning of civilisation in the Nile, Euphrates, and Tigris River Valleys?

Fortunately, the rise and fall of civilisations, which were sufficiently close together, ensured that any cultural advances made in each civilisation did not die out. Such a fortuitous sequence has never occurred before in any of the previous 100,000-year warming periods. The result has been that the extraordinary advance of civilisation to its present state and may be unique in the process of Earth's evolution - and the Cosmos itself. Remarkably all the great incremental advances in the human condition were made during these sequential periods About 90 percent of all scientific knowledge has been generated during the last ‘30’ years.

London Councils: double indemnity.

Is service-provider London Councils really running a range of services designed to make life better for 'all'? In a previous article we tried to test this claim by posing a question: how many councils know the law. Unfortunately, instead of an answer we were given the old heave-ho. [Blame the press office... 'freelancers' are apparently amoeba.] Be that as it surely may…

TheBigRetort was intrigued to find a press release - posted by London Councils on the Internet under its then guise the "ALG". It boasted of inconsiderate motorists who were to face fines for blocking people's driveways in London.

So, a simple question, well answered. Albeit many years ago.

Really...?

The problem is that it was posted back in 2003... before our undercover investigation began. [See London Councils: Just the ticket.]

So why then does this 'four year old' press release have the same reference number (83/03) as another press release dated three days later? [Headed “Press release: New measures will help tackle child poverty in London – says Association of London Government” - aka... London Councils.]

Different story. Different date... But with the same press release number...?

Perhaps one was meant for the eyes of the mainstream press and the other for those lower down the chain.

But don't take our words for it, take theirs... just click on the enclosure link above.