首页> 外文OA文献 >The Office Boy’s Triumph’: Deceit and Display in early Twentieth-Century Wolverhampton
【2h】

The Office Boy’s Triumph’: Deceit and Display in early Twentieth-Century Wolverhampton

机译:办公室男孩的胜利”:二十世纪初伍尔弗汉普顿的欺骗与展示

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Insofar as the ‘Varley affair’ of 1917 is remembered today, it is the preserve of local historians and those interested in the development of local government. There is only one extended study. In the edited volume Corruption in Urban Politics and Society, Britain 1780-1950, that John Smith and James Moore published in 2007, Smith contributed a chapter on the affair which he entitled ‘”Ingenious and Daring”: The Wolverhampton Council Fraud 1905-17’. He begins by setting out the key points of what happened.\ud The case in question concerned Jesse Varley, accountant clerk to Wolverhampton \ud education committee who between 1905 and 1917 defrauded the Corporation of a\ud total of £84,335 (about £5 million in today’s values). His crime eventually came to\ud light when an office boy reported his suspicions to the town clerk. Varley was \ud arrested, tried and found guilty of larceny, falsification of accounts and forgery: he\ud was sentenced to five years’ penal servitude. \udThere was an element of serendipity, it must be said, in Varley’s downfall. Although those working in his office had harboured their suspicions about him for some years, it was apparently only when one of them, Osmond Richards, decided to check how much teachers at his old school were taking home that he discovered payments (supposedly) being made to members of staff whom he knew had never existed. The uncovering of the ‘Varley affair’, trumpeted the Wolverhampton Chronicle, was ‘The Office Boy’s Triumph’. In fact, as we shall see, Richards worked as a ‘Junior Clerk’ (or ‘Junior Assistant’) rather than as an ‘Office Boy’. The misunderstanding presumably arose either because local journalists knew a good headline when they saw one or because junior staff in the Education Department were sometimes referred to collectively – and dismissively – as ‘the office boys’.
机译:直到今天人们都记得1917年的“瓦利事件”,它是当地历史学家和对地方政府发展感兴趣的人的保护区。只有一项扩展研究。在约翰·史密斯(John Smith)和詹姆斯·摩尔(James Moore)于2007年出版的英国《城市政治与社会腐败》(1780-1950年)一书中,史密斯撰写了一篇题为“英明而大胆”的文章:《沃尔夫汉普顿议会欺诈案1905-17》 '。他首先阐明发生了什么事情。\ ud该案涉及杰西·瓦尔利(Jesse Varley),伍尔弗汉普顿(Wolverhampton)\ ud教育委员会的会计文员,他在1905年至1917年之间骗取了该公司$ 84,335英镑(约合5英镑)以今天的价值百万计)。当一个上班族向该镇的店员报告他的怀疑时,他的罪行最终暴露出来。瓦利(Varley)被逮捕,审判并被判犯有盗窃罪,伪造账目和伪造罪:他被判处五年徒刑。 \ ud必须说,瓦雷(Varley)的垮台有一个偶然性的因素。尽管那些在他办公室工作的人对他隐瞒了好几年,但显然只有其中一个人,奥斯蒙德·理查兹(Osmond Richards),决定检查他旧学校的老师带回家的多少,才发现他(据说)正在付款致他所知从未存在过的工作人员。在《沃尔夫汉普顿纪事报》上大肆宣扬的“ Varley婚外情”是“办公室男孩的胜利”。实际上,正如我们将要看到的那样,理查兹(Richards)担任的是“初级文员”(或“初级助理”),而不是“办公室男孩”。造成这种误解的原因可能是因为当地记者看到他们时知道一个很好的头条新闻,或者是因为有时教育部门的下属人员被统称为“上班族”,而被轻描淡写地称为“上班族”。

著录项

  • 作者

    Benson, John;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2017
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号