CHAPTER TWO 1

“WE MUST GO ABOUT IT IN OUR OWN WAY 2

AND HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL”: 3

THE BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY 4

AND THE METROPOLITAN POLICE PRESS 5

BUREAU, 1919-1938 6

ALEX ROCK 7

8 9 10 This chapter investigates the methods employed by the Metropolitan 11 Police (hereafter ‘Met’) to manipulate cultural productions, making use of 12 source materials held at the National Archives, Kew, which detail the use 13 of public relations within the force between the two twentieth-century 14 world wars. In doing so, this chapter builds upon extant research by a body 15 of scholars who have indicated the importance of studying the methods by 16 which police forces manipulate the production of culture (Chibnall 1977; 17 Reiner 1992; Chermak and Weiss 2005; Mawby 2010). One such method, 18 now commonplace, involves the employment of a Public Information 19 Officer (PIO) to execute public relations (PR) policy. While the 20 aforementioned scholars have fruitfully researched the influence of the 21 PIO role within police forces, in a number of wildly differing contexts and 22 time periods, the history of the PIO role itself remains a neglected object 23 of study. The present chapter addresses this oversight by providing a 24 history of the formation of the Met Press Bureau in 1919 and its early 25 dealings with the press and the British film industry. Established as a 26 conduit for information between the Met and the press as a means of 27 ostensibly improving transparency, the Bureau instead became a 28 mechanism for control of written and visual media. It was not until the 29 Second World War that the opportunities for collaboration between the 30 police and the press were fully realised, with success for both parties. 31

The Met Commissioner responsible for the formation of the Press 32 Bureau, Nevil Macready, reflected on its purpose in his memoirs: 33

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 27

Another innovation that was started during the year 1919 was the 1 institution of a press room at Scotland Yard, where at certain hours each 2 day pressmen could get reliable information on any subject of public 3 interest connected with police activities in the metropolis. The leakage 4 which occurs in all public offices was very noticeable in police circles 5 when I first went to the Yard, and I found that it was partly due to the 6 temptations offered to the police by people connected with the press, who 7 paid either in cash or in kind for the information, often inaccurate, which 8 they extracted. One well-known man in newspaper circles told me that this 9 source of information cost him £1,000 a year. From the police point of 10 view it was all wrong that officers should take money, or its equivalent, on 11 any pretence whatever, as, while the information given was at times 12 harmless enough, the principle was vicious and might at any moment lead 13 to a public scandal. (Macready 1924, 416) 14

Apart from its stated intention to resolve an endemic culture of bribery 15 within the Met, the Press Bureau also proposed to improve transparency 16 between the machinery of the state and its subjects. Macready mentions 17 that the Press Bureau “helped in some measure to dissipate the clouds of 18 mystery in which Scotland Yard was supposed to be enveloped” 19 (Macready 1924, 417). Publicly, the Commissioner and the Home Office 20 were open about these two purposes upon which the Press Bureau was 21 founded, but private internal correspondence indicates that the Bureau 22 aspired to manage public perception of the police. Instead of maintaining 23 accountability through transparently presenting the work of Scotland Yard 24 to the media, the Press Bureau instead managed the release of data in order 25 to construct an ideologically loaded depiction of the Met in the press. 26

On 27 September 1919, Commissioner Macready wrote to Sir Edward 27 Troup, Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, to request permission 28 to form the Press Bureau. To be housed in a basement room at Scotland 29 Yard and staffed on a part-time basis by Macready’s secretary, George 30 Rivers-Bodilly, the proposal to form the Bureau indicates the controlling 31 ideas behind its formation. Macready wrote: 32

I understand that, in the past, the policy has rather been to discourage 33 communications with the Press, and the result has been that certain Papers 34 spend sums of money to procure information which is often inaccurate, 35 and which – especially in intricate cases – tends to hamper the Police in 36 their work.

1 37

1 Sir Nevil Macready, letter to Sir Edward Troup, 27 September 1919. HO

45/24442, Public Record Office, The National Archives (hereafter PRO TNA).

Note: all references of this sort will be contained in footnotes from here on.

Chapter Two

28

The introduction of the Press Bureau must be situated within the 1 unique context of post-war Britain. After the trauma of the Great War, 2 various British institutions—including the Bank of England—were 3 attempting to introduce Press Offices and it was felt that a similar body 4 might assist in dissipating the culture of secrecy surrounding Scotland 5 Yard.

2 The Police Strikes of 1918 and the ensuing campaign for the 6

unionisation of the Metropolitan Police provide further reasons as to why 7 Macready chose to accommodate the Press: in calling a strike, the banned 8 National Union of Police and Prison Officers (NUPPO) had despatched 9 Macready’s predecessor, Sir Edward Henry. By getting the Press “on 10 side”, Macready may have speculated that he could manipulate national 11 sympathies against police unionisation. 12

It was also during the latter half of the First World War that the 13 propaganda potential of the cinema for the government had been realised: 14

On 28 May 1917 Topical Budget, a minor British newsreel with an 15 audience of little more than half a million, found itself taken over by the 16 British government, renamed War Office Official Topical Budget, and over 17 the next year and a half widening that audience to over three million at 18 home and abroad. It became the chief channel for British film propaganda. 19 (McKernan 1992, 19) 20

For Luke McKernan, the takeover of the newsreel provides “one of the 21 first instances of the authorities accepting the popularity of the cinema and 22 making it work for them” (ibid., 28). The Topical Budget was founded by 23 William Jeapes of the Topical Film Company. Jeapes and Topical were 24 crucial in developing cinema’s domestic propaganda potential; Topical 25 was sold to the newspaper magnate Edward Hulton in 1919 and was 26 immediately awarded the task of producing an official film of the activities 27 of Scotland Yard. The “Official Film”, as it was known during production, 28 provides the earliest example of collaboration between an independent 29 film production company and a domestic state control agency, and its 30 primary purpose was to improve the image of the police following a period 31 of negative press coverage involving strikes, ‘Third Degree’ interrogation 32 practices and a culture of police bribery and corruption (Carter Wood 33 2010). 34

2 The Bank of England—traditionally an institution which viewed the press with

some skepticism—began to manage its public image in the years immediately

following World War I by control-releasing certain information to the press in

order to construct a positive image of the monetary policies introduced in this

period (Sayers 1976, 373-85).

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 29

An article by Herbert Ponting was published in the Manchester 1 Guardian on 11 September 1917 concerning the educational possibilities 2 of cinema and the methods by which the British educational system may 3 make use of it.

3 This article was passed to the War Cabinet and proved the 4

inspiration for Sir Edward Carson, a Conservative Minister and Unionist 5 leader, to organise a conference in January 1918 to “consider certain 6 questions connected with the utilization of Cinematograph films for 7 purposes of Propaganda”.

4 The government subsequently proposed the 8

introduction of liaison officers to be appointed by “Departments and 9 Committees which are interested in the production or utilization of 10 Cinematograph films”.

5 It is clear then, with regards to the nationalisation 11

of Topical Budget, the January 1918 conference and the introduction of 12 Press Offices at both the Bank of England and the Met, that a movement 13 towards the manipulation of cultural productions by governmental control 14 agencies was gaining momentum. 15

“Interviewed by a responsible official”: 16 The Transparency/Control Dichotomy 17

Despite this, the relationship between the media and the state was 18 fractious. The memo proposing the formation of the Press Bureau makes 19 this clear: 20

I propose, therefore, to set aside one room in Scotland Yard where, at any 21 hour of the day, Press Representatives will be interviewed by a responsible 22 official, be given information on matters on which they seek it, and be 23 supplied with such Police information as it may be of advantage to make 24 public.6 25

The relationship between transparency and control is perceptible in 26 Commissioner Macready’s proposal and, as borne out by the statistical 27 research of Chermak and Weiss, is still of relevance today. Instead of 28 acting as a means of improving transparency and accountability by openly 29 disclosing non-prejudicial information to the free press, the Press Bureau 30

3 Herbert Ponting, “Education and the Film: Its Place in the Schools”, Manchester

Guardian, 11 September 1917. HO 45/10960/340327, PRO TNA. 4 Sir Edward Carson, letter to the Home Office and Board of Trade, 11 January

1918. HO 45/10960/340327 (see also BT 13/83), PRO TNA. 5 Lieutenant Colonel John Buchan, letter to the Home Office, 28 January 1918. HO

45/10960/340327, PRO TNA. 6 Macready, letter to Troup, 27 September 1919. HO 45/24442, PRO TNA.

Chapter Two

30

was instead founded upon a principle of control wherein the flow of “such 1 Police information as it may be of advantage to make public”—essentially, 2 propagandist image-management data—was mediated through a partial 3 arm of the establishment. 4

The Bureau was influenced by the prevalent tradition among the higher 5 echelons of the Met of recruiting from the armed forces during the 6 interwar period, and as a result, the Bureau’s impact upon the written and 7 visual media was largely censorial. The illicit NUPPO railed against this 8 recruitment tendency. Macready, for example, was a General in the British 9 Expeditionary Force in France during World War I, immediately prior to 10 his appointment as Met Commissioner. Despite this, Macready possessed 11 a liberal arts background; his upbringing as the son of the noted stage actor 12 William Charles Macready and maternal grandson of an artist had instilled 13 in him a respect for the arts, and he was a committed amateur dramatist.

7 14

He did, however, follow in his predecessor’s footsteps by continuing to 15 appoint former armed forces officers to influential Met positions. George 16 Rivers-Bodilly was a Captain in the British Army and had been awarded 17 several medals in distinguished World War I military campaign.

He retired 18

from the Army in January 1919 to take a post with Macready as his Private 19 Secretary before moving on to the Press Bureau. Rivers-Bodilly’s time at 20 the Press Bureau was characterised by the refusal of almost all press and 21 film company requests, as evidenced by the extant Press Bureau ledgers 22 and files relating to this period. 23

Before the start of the Second World War, only one film was made 24 with the official endorsement of the Met. Topical Film Company’s 25 Scotland Yard 1921: For the King, the Law, the People (Edmund Distin-26 Maddick, 1921) was considered a failure critically and internally within 27 the Met. Using the Press Bureau files, I will now move on to examine, 28 with explicit reference to the “official film” Scotland Yard 1921, as well as 29 a subsequent “unofficial” production, and notable filmmakers and 30 producers who wanted to depict the police in their films, the early attempts 31 at collaboration between the state and the British film industry in order to 32 demonstrate the markedly anti-media stance of the Metropolitan Police in 33 the interwar period. 34

7 Macready Snr was a leading stage actor and a close friend of Charles Dickens.

His diaries provide an excellent insight into the Victorian theatrical scene (Trewin

1967).

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 31

“The Official Film” 1

The first film made with the express permission and assistance of the Met did 2 not, strangely, fall under the control of George Rivers-Bodilly. This may have 3 been because of the fact that the seeds for the project were sown on 4 4 September 1919, preceding Macready’s official request for the formation of 5 the Press Bureau by just under four weeks.

8 It is also indicative of the early 6

Press Bureau’s limitations: it would appear that Rivers-Bodilly managed the 7 relationship between the written press and the Met, with the relatively new 8 form of visual media embodied by the newsreel and other cinematic narratives 9 falling under the jurisdiction of Major Edmund Distin-Maddick, a pioneer of 10 British cinema exhibition with—again—significant military experience. 11 Distin-Maddick approached the Topical Film Company on the Met’s behalf, 12 proposing the production of an official police film. William Jeapes, founder of 13 Topical, agreed to the proposal put forward by Distin-Maddick: 14

Conditionally that we have the exclusive right of distribution ... we shall 15 be very pleased to undertake the manufacture of all films that you may 16 produce and pay to the Commissioner 50% of all profits that may accrue 17 from the distribution for the Commissioner to dispose of to such Police 18 Charities as he may elect.9 19

The film to be taken, according to Topical, was to remain “under [the] 20 direction”

10 of Distin-Maddick, and the Commissioner was to be provided 21

with a copy of the film. This degree of control may have led to the film’s 22 failure; the filmmakers were ‘directed’ by the police’s PR machinery, and 23 so any independent insight was denied to Topical. 24

Correspondence between the Met and Topical makes it quite clear that 25 the latter were considered contractors by senior Met figures. The film was 26 completed by January 1921 and Commissioner William Horwood, 27 Macready’s successor, composed the following for William Jeapes: 28

Our first view of the Official Film yesterday was most satisfactory, and I 29 am very much obliged for the kind assistance which Major Maddick tells 30 me that you have rendered him.11 31

8 William Jeapes, letter to Major Edmund Distin-Maddick, 6 September 1920.

MEPO 2/6207, PRO TNA. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Brigadier-General Sir William Horwood, letter to William Jeapes, 26 January

1921. MEPO 2/6207, PRO TNA.

Chapter Two

32

Any indication of artistry is lacking in Horwood’s response. The film, 1 referred to simply as the Official Film, was produced under the direct 2 control of Distin-Maddick, with the “kind assistance” of Topical. 3

The proceeds from Scotland Yard 1921 were directly paid to the Met 4 Commissioner’s Office whereby they were channelled into police 5 benevolent funds.

12 The film was not commissioned with the intention of 6

providing insight into the machinations of the Met, or with improving 7 transparency and accountability. The two Commissioners involved in the 8 production of the film, Nevil Macready and William Horwood, chose to 9 retain powerful and far-reaching direct control of the project with the 10 intention of boosting the legitimacy of the Met and the coffers of the 11 benevolent fund. The choice of filmmakers involved in the project—12 Distin-Maddick and Topical—again provides an example of this; they 13 were as firmly entrenched within the British establishment as the 14 Commissioners themselves. 15

Scotland Yard 1921 did, however, foster a more collaborative 16 relationship between the press and the police for the short publicity period 17 leading up to the film’s release. Horwood even welcomed this, noting in a 18 letter sent to Topical that “[a]ny help we can give in publicity for our 19 mutual benefit we shall be glad to render”.

13 Despite this openness, 20

Horwood remained deeply suspicious of the press. On 9 March 1921, in 21 preparation for Scotland Yard 1921’s trade show, Horwood sent the 22 following letter to the editors of all national papers and certain high-23 circulation local newspapers: 24

I have caused a film to be constructed at Scotland Yard showing some of 25 the work of the Metropolitan Police ... I shall be most grateful if you will 26 see that the subject is treated seriously and kindly, and so help our Public 27 and our Force to appreciate one another.14 28

The letter concludes with an invitation for the press to see the film at the 29 trade show. Its tone betrays the ideological sentiment behind the film; 30 through embracing the technologies of the cinema and manipulating their 31

12 Horwood mentions, in a press release announcing the release of Scotland Yard

1921, that, “I have a fund at my disposal for police organisations which I hope this

film will assist to swell”. (Brigadier-General Sir William Horwood, circular to the

Press, 9 March 1921. MEPO 2/6207, PRO TNA). 13 Brigadier-General Sir William Horwood, letter to William Jeapes, 26 January

1921. MEPO 2/6207, PRO TNA. 14 Brigadier-General Sir William Horwood, circular to the press, 9 March 1921.

MEPO 2/6207, PRO TNA.

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 33

meaning-making potential, Horwood hoped to promote the social legitimacy 1 of the police within British society. The letter indicates his fear of a poor 2 reception for the film, and his polite insistence regarding the kind and 3 serious treatment of the film thinly veils a threat to the press; to lose 4 favour with the Met in the early days of official police-press relations 5 risked losing any limited access to the official sources of law-and-order 6 news. Horwood, in the circular, identifies himself as the author of the film 7 (“I”) and reveals his sentiment that the press are an inconvenient buffer 8 between the police and the public. The Times review published three days 9 later demonstrates that Horwood’s polite intimidation proved successful: 10

[Scotland Yard 1921] shows the daily routine of every member of the 11 police force from the highest to the lowest. It is a fascinating record, and 12 will give the public the unique opportunity of appreciating the work which 13 is carried out by the force. The earlier sections of the film deal with the 14 work of Scotland Yard and all its specialized branches, but later on the 15 daily life of the constable from the first moment of his entry into the force 16 is shown in detail. (Anon. 1921, 8) 17

The production of the film, as made explicit by Sir John Baird, Under-18 Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the opening speech given 19 at the trade show, was motivated by similar ambitions that led to the 20 formation of the Press Bureau: 21

It is a Film of propaganda to show you citizens of the Metropolis and other 22 places where the Film may be shown exactly what the Police do for you, 23 to create a liaison between the Public and the Force, and to increase ... that 24 kindness of feeling and thankfulness to our “Men in Blue”.15 25

This need to “create a liaison” between control agencies and British 26 subjects necessitates the development of a relationship with the press, 27 whether they be represented by the national or provincial newspapers or, 28 as is the object of this chapter, the British film industry. However, in 29 opening the doors to Scotland Yard, the Met Commissioner risked the 30 ‘transparency’ of the free press outweighing the ‘control’ of the Met’s 31 agency. John Baird’s choice of words is telling; he understands the need to 32 improve the relationship between the police and the public but fails to 33 mention the body represented by his audience—the press—who of 34 necessity must facilitate the building of the relationship of accountability 35 and acquiescence between the public and the police. His ignorance of this 36

15 Sir John Baird, draft speech ‘Concerning the Importance of Being A Policeman’.

MEPO 2/6207, PRO TNA.

Chapter Two

34

requirement is emblematic of police policy towards the press throughout 1 the interwar period. The control maintained at the expense of transparency 2 in the making of Scotland Yard 1921 provides one example of this, but so 3 too do other examples of correspondence between the Met and the British 4 film industry. 5

The film was considered a failure and disowned immediately after the 6 advent of sound in British cinema. The Chief Constable of the Cumberland 7 and Westmorland Constabulary wrote to the then-Commissioner, Viscount 8 Byng, in February 1931, requesting a copy of Scotland Yard 1921 with 9 which to illustrate a lecture he had been invited to give at a school.

16 H. M. 10

Howgrave-Graham, the Secretary to the Met, wrote in reply that the film 11 “is out of date and as it was never regarded as a very successful or 12 flattering production from our point of view, the Commissioner thinks that 13 it is better forgotten”.

17 By August 1933, Howgrave-Graham had decided 14

that the film—the only surviving copy of which belonged to the 15 Commissioner’s Office following a severe fire at Topical’s premises in 16 1924—should be removed from Scotland Yard. He wrote the following to 17 the War Office: 18

19 I have discovered in an old cupboard here an old police film which was 20 made just after the war. 21

It was a commercial failure and I don’t suppose anybody is very likely 22 to want it again, but I feel that it should not be destroyed and I want to ask 23 you whether you would take it and keep it for us in your store.18 24 25

A reply was not filed, and the film is considered lost. The failure of the 26 film—judged presumably in terms of both profit and positive publicity—27 could be attributed to the control levied by the Met through the 28 Commissioner’s Office; as demonstrated above, William Norwood was 29 directly involved with the film, and answerable for its outcome. Scotland 30 Yard 1921 provides an example of the state recognising the propaganda 31 potential of the controlled cinematic depiction of its machinery, and also 32 the concern surrounding the influence of the uncontrolled cinematic 33 image. The failure of Scotland Yard 1921 to develop the public image of 34 the Met, and subsequent controversies involving independent crime films 35

16 P. T. B. Browne, letter to the Viscount Byng of Remy, 10 February 1931. MEPO

2/6207, PRO TNA. 17 H. M. Howgrave-Graham, letter to P. T. B. Browne, 25 February 1931.

MEPO 2/6207, PRO TNA. 18 H. M. Howgrave-Graham, letter to E. Foxen-Cooper, 29 August 1933. MEPO

2/6207, PRO TNA.

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 35

depicting Scotland Yard, may have prevented the Met and the Home 1 Office from directly collaborating with the British film industry for the 2 remainder of the interwar years. 3

Keeping the Secrets of Scotland Yard 4

A month before the trade show of Scotland Yard 1921, advertisements 5 began appearing in Kinematograph Weekly for an unrelated serial sharing 6 similarities in both content and title with the Met’s official film. The 7 sensationalist advertisements for this serial—which was produced by the 8 rather roughshod Frederick White Company presented it as an insider’s 9 tale of life in Scotland Yard, promising that “the chief outstanding events 10 in this great detective’s life [the “insider” in question] will be portrayed”.

19 11

The press campaign was noticed by Film Booking Offices (1919) Ltd, 12 Topical’s distribution arm, who, fearing significant competition to their 13 Scotland Yard 1921 product, drew the attention of Commissioner 14 Horwood to the advertisements.

20 Horwood sought legal advice in an 15

attempt to either impose an injunction upon the aforementioned “great 16 detective”—who, it materialised, was a recently retired ex-Chief Inspector, 17 Ernest Haigh—or undertake libel proceedings against the production 18 company.

21 Solely on the basis of the advertisements, legal counsel was 19

unable to recommend either form of legal action, and instead letters of 20 varying severity were sent to ex-Chief Inspector Haigh, the publishers and 21 editorial board of Kinematograph Weekly, and the Frederick White 22 Company. 23

The letters express the level of anxiety felt by the Met regarding the 24 unofficial serial (not least due to its title), the most severe of which was 25 addressed to ex-Chief Inspector Haigh himself: 26

27 [The Commissioner’s] attention has been drawn to an advertisement in 28

the “Kinematograph Weekly” for February 3rd, 1921, of a film called 29 “Scotland Yard” which purports to reveal official secrets of Scotland Yard 30 and with which your name is associated. 31

This advertisement is calculated seriously to prejudice the Criminal 32 Investigation Department of the Metropolitan Police Force in the 33

19 Advertisements from Kinematograph Weekly, undated (presumed late January

1921). MEPO 2/7442, PRO TNA . 20 Arthur Clavering, letter to Major Edmund Distin-Maddick, 3 February 1921.

MEPO 2/7442, PRO TNA. 21 Hugh Fraser, handwritten note, 8 February 1921. MEPO 2/7442, PRO TNA.

Chapter Two

36

estimation of the public, and to impede its work by destroying public 1 confidence in it. 2

The Commissioner ... desires me in this connection to remind you of 3 the provisions relating to the forfeiture of pension contained in Section 8 4 of the Police Act, 1890 as amended by Section 5 of the Police 5 (Superannuation) Act, 1906.22 6

7 The protectionist fervour expressed by the Commissioner’s Office is 8 indicative of establishment fears of unauthorised depictions of its own 9 agencies and the effects of such depictions. The unofficial Scotland Yard 10 was uncontrolled, unmediated and therefore in sharp contrast to the sterile 11 “Official Film”. The Met’s fear of uncontrollable images of itself in the 12 media is tangible in this case. 13

Haigh’s reply to the Met was apologetic. After speaking to the 14 Frederick White Company on the Met’s behalf, Haigh succeeded in 15 preventing any further publication of the trade advertisements, and 16 requested clarification from the Met regarding his role in the film industry: 17

Before proceeding further with the series of films I should be glad to know 18 whether there is any objection to my working as a film artist in a series of 19 stories, all pure fiction, without disclosing my former connection with the 20 service. The stories which I have written are all clean, of good moral tone, 21 do not depict sordid crimes or murders and most certainly do not in any 22 way prejudice the C. I. Department or tend in the slightest degree to 23 destroy the public confidence that exists therein.23 24

Haigh defends his motive for working with the Frederick White Company, 25 stating that in doing so, he is attempting to “provide for the education and 26 needs” of his family, which in turn implies that the pension he received 27 was unsuited to maintaining the lifestyle to which he and his family had 28 become accustomed. Despite this, it is clear from Haigh’s correspondence 29 that his loyalties lie with Scotland Yard, although his image and 30 involvement in the Scotland Yard serial may have been exploited by the 31 production company. In another letter, he reveals that a business venture 32 with which he was financially involved had collapsed and he had fallen on 33 hard times, with his “available savings ... swallowed up in paying for a 34

22 W. H. Kendall, letter to Ernest Haigh, 8 February 1921. MEPO 2/7442, PRO

TNA. 23 Ernest Haigh, letter to W. H. Kendall, 9 February 1921. MEPO 2/7442, PRO

TNA.

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 37

few slight house repairs + alterations”.24

It would seem that Haigh fell foul 1 of monetary extravagance; his pension of £304. 7/6 was, by his own 2 admission, “a liberal one”, but his inability to resist the allure of the film 3 industry and the naivety with which he approached his film career seems 4 to have caused him considerable embarrassment: 5

That I should have been so easily enmeshed in Trouble makes me 6 ashamed. The over anxiety I have felt to relieve myself of financial 7 embarrassment is the sole reason... I loathe the work I have so unwittingly 8 accepted and if the question is that my pension is to be forfeited if I 9 continue with such work and saved to me by abandoning it I shall choose 10 without hesitation and make the best arrangements I can with my 11 principals.25 12

The attempted suppression of the serial continued apace following Haigh’s 13 letter. A meeting was arranged between the Frederick White Company, 14 Haigh and Scotland Yard, which, revealingly, was represented by Edmund 15 Distin-Maddick amongst others.

26 Distin-Maddick’s involvement indicates 16

the reasoning behind the proactive suppression of the unofficial Scotland 17 Yard film; as it would be released so close to the Official Film, the 18 Commissioner seems anxious that audiences should not confuse the two. 19 Whether Frederick White’s Scotland Yard came to be titled so in an 20 attempt to benefit from the publicity of the Official Film is unclear, but 21 Norwood seems less concerned with the actual title itself as with the 22 content of the serial, and its attractive promise (whether legitimate or 23 otherwise) to reveal the Met’s inside secrets. However, Haigh himself, 24 despite being the author of the serial’s scenario, seemed to have very little 25 control over the way in which the serial was advertised. In his defence, he 26 wrote, “I had no idea that my work was to be advertised as it was. I was 27 not even consulted on the point and when the true facts came to my 28 knowledge I took such steps as I could to put things right.”

27 29

Despite the attempted suppression of the film by the Metropolitan 30 Police, Frederick White’s Scotland Yard serial was trade-shown in the first 31 week of May 1921, two months after the trade show of the Official Film 32

24 Ernest Haigh, letter to W. H. Kendall, 13 February 1921. MEPO 2/7442, PRO

TNA. 25 Ibid. 26 W. H. Kendall, account of meeting 14 February 1921 between Ernest Haigh, H.

B. Parkinson, Kendall, ‘Mr. Muskett’, and Major Edmund Distin-Maddick, 15

February 1921. MEPO 2/7442, PRO TNA. 27 Ernest Haigh, letter to W. H. Kendall, 13 February 1921. MEPO 2/7442, PRO

TNA.

Chapter Two

38

and three months after the initial publication of the offending Kinematograph 1 Weekly advertisements. Whether or not the serial was picked up for 2 national release is unclear, particularly given the lukewarm reception 3 accorded to it in the national press. The Daily Telegraph’s review of the 4 serial compares it unfavourably with a Sherlock Holmes serial trade-5 shown in the same week but, tellingly, blames not the producers or Ernest 6 Haigh for its “tame and insipid” content, but the machinations of state: 7

No doubt if [Haigh] was absolved from the trammels of professional 8 secrecy, and given a free hand, the man from Scotland Yard could also 9 make our flesh creep.28 10

The Met’s proactive approach to the suppression of Frederick White’s 11 Scotland Yard contrasts with their enthusiastic embracing of Topical’s 12 production; however, the failure to prevent the release of the former, 13 alongside the latter’s inability to generate either significant income for the 14 Benevolent Fund or the right kind of publicity of the police, seemed to 15 have set in motion a hands-off approach to future projects involving the 16 British film industry. Scotland Yard, particularly under the Commissionership 17 of William Horwood, demonstrated an aversion towards the British film 18 industry, setting in motion a series of policies which remained relatively 19 untouched until the end of the Second World War and the appointment of 20 Harold Scott to the position of Commissioner. 21

The “1927 Principles” 22

Stung by their inability to collaborate on a successful British entertainment 23 film, the Met’s distrust of the film industry grew under the Commissionership 24 of William Horwood. Upon his retirement in November 1928, Lord Byng 25 was appointed his replacement. With the change of regime, filmmakers 26 again began to approach the Met for facilities, emboldened by the 27 introduction of the Cinematograph Films Act (1927): a protectionist piece 28 of legislation intended to reverse the decline of the British film industry, to 29 encourage filmmakers to produce more films in Britain and the Empire by 30 imposing “ a statutory obligation on renters and exhibitors to acquire and 31 show a minimum ‘quota’ of British films out of the total number they 32 handled, British and foreign (Dickinson and Street 1985, 5). This would 33 forcibly create a marketplace for British productions within the domestic 34 exhibition circuits. In introducing such legislation, the state was 35 28 Anon., untitled review of new serials, Daily Telegraph, 5 May 1921. MEPO

2/7442, PRO TNA.

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 39

encouraging British filmmakers to undertake a production drive. However, 1 when producers approached state control agencies, they were met with a 2 response that contradicted the spirit of the Films Act. 3

One such filmmaker was Norman Lee.29

Lee, writing on behalf of H. 4 B. Parkinson Film Productions, addressed a letter of complaint directly to 5 the then Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, in which he detailed his prior 6 treatment by the Met when shooting on location. Lee contends that 7 Horwood had not accorded “sufficient facilities for filming London” to 8 production companies eager to put the capital on screen.

30 He lists five 9

experiences of such difficulties, including being “hunted by detectives in 10 Hyde Park” whilst attempting to film there, being refused permits to film 11 Billingsgate Market, Westminster Abbey and Regents Park, and also being 12 refused collaborative facilities for a film based on the work of the London 13 fire brigade.

31 His fifth example indicates the hostility towards filmmakers 14

from the higher echelons of the Met: 15

I wrote to Scotland Yard and asked if I might make notes for a scenario 16 connected with a river police story, such notes to be the result of a ride in a 17 police boat. I guaranteed that the Police should appear in the very best 18 possible light and that no interference with duty should take place while 19 my investigations were going on. I received a blank refusal. In reply I sent 20 a protest to Sir William Horwood who did not answer.32 21

The situation improved somewhat following Norman Lee’s protestations. 22 A series of rules, informally known as the “1927 principles”, had governed 23 the treatment of film companies by the Met since 1927. I would speculate 24 that these may well have been drawn up in response to the Cinematograph 25 Films Act (1927) as a means by which the Met could be seen to be 26 supporting the British film industry. The principles, reiterated by the 27 Metropolitan Police Secretary H. M. Howgrave-Graham in a private 28 memo to the Home Office reflecting upon Lee’s letter, stipulate conditions 29 under which permission for facilities and collaboration might be granted to 30 film companies. The conditions require that prospective collaborators are 31 affiliated with “bona-fide firms”, that only the “ordinary work of police is 32 portrayed”, that all completed films are submitted to the Met prior to 33 29 Lee would go on to become best known as the co-writer of Hitchcock’s The

Farmer’s Wife (1928). He would later direct Bulldog Drummond At Bay (1937)

along with a series of Edgar Wallace adaptations. 30 Norman Lee, letter to Stanley Baldwin, 11 January 1929, MEPO 2/2259, PRO

TNA. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.

Chapter Two

40

release for “examination”, that no “stunts” are arranged as part of the 1 filming, and also “that photographs or films are not used as part of a story 2 (in the sense of fiction)”.

33 Of course, compliance with these stipulations 3

proved impossible for almost all prospective productions. Indeed, even 4 Scotland Yard 1921 would have failed these strict guidelines, having 5 depicted the work of Hendon Police College alongside sports events and 6 the interior of the Criminal Record Office. Though these principles were 7 drawn up with the intention of benefitting potential collaborators, 8 Howgrave-Graham seems to have been unaware of the impossibility of 9 obeying such stipulations whilst producing a commercially viable 10 collaborative project. Introducing his series of rules, he declared that “[w]e 11 get so much publicity of the wrong kind that I can’t help feeling it might 12 be to our advantage to have a little of the right kind”.

34 13

Howgrave-Graham, having played an important role in the introduction 14 of these guidelines, defended his refusal to grant Lee production facilities 15 for his river police film on the basis that it would contravene the clause 16 involving the use of images of the police in a fictional narrative.

35 17

However, following a meeting involving Norman Lee, H. B. Parkinson 18 and the Permanent Under Secretary of State to the Home Office, Sir John 19 Anderson (later to give his name to the Anderson Shelter) and his 20 Assistant, A. L. Dixon, the Home Office intimated that there was “some 21 little margin”

36 between the Met’s position regarding the use of images of 22

the police in a fictional narrative and the Home Office’s belief that the 23 police should “be as helpful as possible”

37 towards British film companies. 24

Lee was, eventually, granted permission to film a variety of street scenes, 25 including incidental images of police patrols, in April 1929 for a film whose 26 plot involved “the Atlantic having been flown by two Englishmen”.

38 His 27

33 M. Howgrave-Graham, memo to ‘S. of S.’ (presumed Under-Secretary of State

for the Home Office), 23 February 1929. MEPO 2/2259, PRO TNA. 34 Howgrave-Graham, private minute to Horwood, 6 December 1927. MEPO

2/6978, PRO TNA. It is worth noting that the Met appeared to not differentiate

between the two types of requests they received from film companies – the 1927

principles applied to both applications to film within public areas of the Met

district and also to prospective collaborative projects involving the production of a

narrative that depicts aspects of the Met on screen. 35 Howgrave-Graham, letter to A. L. Dixon CBE, 26 February 1929. MEPO

2/2259, PRO TNA. 36 Dixon, letter to Howgrave-Graham, 5 April 1929. MEPO 2/2259, PRO TNA. 37 Ibid. 38 Inspector W. Irwin, Police Report filed at Bow Street Station, 9 April 1929.

MEPO 2/2259, PRO TNA.

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 41

project involving the work of the river police failed to come to fruition, but 1 his earlier lobbying of the Prime Minister had led to film companies being 2 more likely to have requests for filming in public places granted. His 3 protestations were not enough to encourage the Met to banish the 4 memories of the two 1921 Scotland Yard films, and to attempt a 5 collaborative project. 6

The appointment of Lord Trenchard to the post of Commissioner in 7 1931, again led to a review of the 1927 principles. This review separated 8 the two types of approaches from film companies received by the Met. 9 Whereas, previously, applications to film street scenes within the 10 Metropolis and applications for support and guidance in filming the police 11 were covered by the same rules, Trenchard began to separate them. In a 12 private minute discussing the particular 1927 rule that forbids applicants 13 from taking “films or photographs [for use as] part of a story”,

39 Trenchard 14

clarifies as follows: 15 16

It does not matter what the rule was supposed to mean; what I would 17 like it to mean is that no facilities shall be given to photograph any part of 18 Scotland Yard if the intention is to weave such pictures into one of these 19 horrible film plots. 20

It is quite another matter for film companies to take photographs in the 21 street, and I have no objection provided obstruction is not caused. This 22 does not involve filming the police with a view to making a ‘story’ about 23 them: if they happened to come into the picture it would only be in an 24 incidental way.40 25 26

As a result of this clarification, more freedom was accorded to film 27 companies in their attempts to film the capital, but not without some 28 controversial moments. For example, Warner Bros First National Pictures 29 approached the Met to request permission to film “certain exterior shots in 30 the vicinity of Barclay’s Bank, Twickenham” for their production, The 31 Blind Spot (John Daumery, 1932).

41 The film’s plot involves a bank 32

robbery, and the exterior shots that were to be taken consisted of the six 33 robbers approaching the bank. The Warners foreman responsible for hand-34 delivering the introductory letter to Twickenham Police Station mentioned 35

39 Anon., memo ‘Summary of applications for facilities to make films depicting

Police work, etc.’, undated (possibly 1938, or early 1939). MEPO 2/7442, PRO

TNA. 40 Lord Trenchard, Minute 2, 19 February 1932. MEPO 2/6978, PRO TNA. 41 Mr. Royce, letter to Twickenham Police Station, 12 April 1932. MEPO 2/7392,

PRO TNA.

Chapter Two

42

as much to Inspector Bradford of the station, who forwarded a report of 1 the verbal information gathered, along with Warners’ introductory letter, 2 to the Commissioner’s Office.

42 Trenchard’s secretary wrote in response 3

that the Commissioner “will raise no objection to the proposal ... provided 4 that no obstruction is caused”.

43 However, Trenchard was concerned at the 5

content of the film and wrote to the Home Office to recommend that they 6 put some pressure on the British Board of Film Censors to stop the film 7 being shown: “I think that this sort of film does harm to the men of about 8 18 or 19, as it shows them that these sort of things are fairly easy to carry 9 out if done with determination.”

44 10

However, it transpired that Barclays had refused permission to Warner 11 Bros to film inside the branch. Warner Bros circumvented this refusal by 12 filming the bank’s exterior and switching to studio-shot scenes to represent 13 the bank interior. Permission had, in the Met Commissioner’s name, been 14 given to film the exterior of the bank for a film that not Barclays, the 15 Home Office, nor the Met, actually wanted made. This event, occurring a 16 mere six weeks after Trenchard expressed his openness towards film 17 companies shooting street scenes in London, caused film companies to 18 again be regarded by suspicion by the Commissioner’s Office. Stung by 19 the same seed of doubt as his predecessors had been, Trenchard 20 strengthened the 1927 principles by authorising the addition of the 21 following clause: “No facilities will be given to photograph scenes which 22 are open to the objection that they suggest methods of committing crime. 23 Although Police have no authority, provided that obstruction is not caused, 24 to prohibit the taking of such scenes, it is probable that the withholding of 25 Police facilities will make it impossible to continue”.

45 Unable to reconcile 26

its twin, and contrary, approaches of transparency and control to a 27 collaborative film project, the Met and its Press Bureau floundered until 28 the war. Table 1 details all written approaches to the Metropolitan Police 29 Press Bureau from film companies requesting assistance in the period 30 immediately following the debacle surrounding The Blind Spot until the 31 end of 1938. All requests for collaboration were refused, alongside 32 requests for the supply of props for studio-shot films. 33

34 42 Inspector H. Bradford, Police Report filed at Twickenham Station, 13 April

1932. MEPO 2/7392, PRO TNA. 43 “S.R.” on behalf of the Commissioner’s Office, letter to Mr. Royce, 16 April

1932. MEPO 2/7392, PRO TNA. 44 Lord Trenchard, letter to R. R. Scott, 7 May 1932. MEPO 2/7392, PRO TNA. 45 Lord Trenchard, private minute to H. M. Howgrave-Graham, 5 July 1932.

MEPO 2/7392, PRO TNA.

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 43

1

Req

uest

Th

e su

pp

ly o

f “t

wo

Po

lice

no

tice

s su

itab

le t

o h

ang

on

th

e w

all

in a

Sco

tlan

d Y

ard

off

ice”

. *

Req

ues

t to

fil

m t

he

“act

ivit

ies

of

Po

lice

, an

d S

cotl

and

Yar

d i

n p

arti

cula

r”,

for

20

-min

ute

sh

ort

fil

m.

**

Req

ues

t fo

r fa

cili

ties

to

co

llab

ora

te o

n f

ilm

ab

ou

t th

e M

et.

**

Th

at t

he

Met

su

pp

ly a

set

of

no

tice

s, i

ncl

ud

ing

“M

oto

r R

ule

s an

d R

egu

lati

on

s” a

nd

a “

Wan

ted

Cri

min

als”

po

ster

,

alo

ng

wit

h h

old

er c

ard

s fo

r fi

ng

erp

rin

ts.

*

Req

ues

t fo

r co

llab

ora

tiv

e fa

cili

ties

to

pro

du

ce a

fil

m a

dap

tati

on

of

Sir

Bas

il T

ho

mso

n’s

bo

ok

, T

he

Sto

ry o

f S

cotl

an

d

Ya

rd.

Th

om

son

was

Ass

ista

nt

Met

rop

oli

tan

Po

lice

Co

mm

issi

on

er d

uri

ng

Wo

rld

War

I.

**

Th

at t

he

Met

co

llab

ora

te o

n a

fil

m p

roje

ct “

to ‘

tell

th

e st

ory

of

Sco

tlan

d Y

ard

’”.

**

Th

e p

rov

isio

n o

f fa

cili

ties

to

fil

m t

he

wo

rk o

f th

e M

et f

or

the

new

sree

l. S

ever

al r

equ

ests

wer

e m

ade

to t

his

eff

ect.

**

Th

at t

he

Met

all

ow

sp

ecia

l p

rov

isio

n f

or

the

new

sree

l’s

cam

eram

en t

o f

ilm

th

e C

oro

nat

ion

of

Geo

rge

VI.

**

Th

at t

he

Met

pro

vid

e fa

cili

ties

fo

r a

film

dea

lin

g w

ith

th

e h

isto

ry o

f S

cotl

and

Yar

d.

**

Th

e p

rov

isio

n o

f fa

cili

ties

fo

r th

e m

akin

g o

f a

“cri

me”

fil

m.

**

Th

at t

he

Met

co

llab

ora

te o

n a

“fi

lm o

n a

lar

ge

scal

e ab

ou

t S

cotl

and

Yar

d”.

**

Th

at t

he

Met

pro

vid

e fa

cili

ties

fo

r a

film

dep

icti

ng

Sco

tlan

d Y

ard

“at

wo

rk”.

**

Th

e co

nsi

der

atio

n o

f fa

cili

ties

fo

r a

film

dep

icti

ng

th

e w

ork

of

the

Met

. *

*

Th

at t

he

Met

su

pp

ly a

po

ster

ref

erri

ng

to

bai

l fo

r d

isp

lay

in

sid

e a

stu

dio

set

of

Hy

de

Par

k P

oli

ce S

tati

on

. *

Fil

m T

itle

Bri

gh

t L

igh

ts o

f L

on

do

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Th

e M

arc

h o

f T

ime

new

sree

l

Th

e M

arc

h o

f T

ime

new

sree

l

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Th

e P

ass

ing

Sh

ow

Un

kn

ow

n

Stu

dio

/Ap

pli

ca

nt

Bri

tish

an

d D

om

inio

ns

Fil

m

Co

rpo

rati

on

Ltd

Zen

ifil

ms

Gau

mo

nt-

Bri

tish

Pic

ture

Co

rpo

rati

on

Bri

tish

an

d D

om

inio

ns

Fil

m

Co

rpo

rati

on

Ltd

Nat

ion

al P

rog

ress

Fil

m

Co

mp

any

“Mr

Ro

se”,

fil

m p

rod

uce

r

Un

iver

sal

Stu

dio

s

Un

iver

sal

Stu

dio

s

Nat

ion

al P

rog

ress

Fil

m

Co

mp

any

Th

e C

rite

rio

n F

ilm

s

Pro

du

ctio

ns

Ph

oen

ix F

ilm

s L

td

Bri

tish

Pic

tori

al P

rod

uct

ion

s

Ltd

Bri

tish

Fin

e A

rts

Pic

ture

s L

td

Wel

wy

n S

tud

ios

Ltd

Da

te o

f A

pp

ro

ach

14

Sep

tem

ber

19

32

19

34

19

35

30

Oct

ob

er 1

93

5

19

35

19

36

19

36

19

36

19

36

19

36

19

37

19

38

19

38

6 S

epte

mb

er 1

93

8

(en

trie

s m

ark

ed

* a

re s

ou

rced

fro

m T

NA

PR

O M

EP

O 2

/55

19

; en

trie

s m

ark

ed

**

are s

ou

rced

fro

m M

EP

O 2

/74

42

.)

Ta

ble

1:

Reco

rd

of

Ap

pro

ach

es

fro

m F

ilm

Co

mp

an

ies

to t

he M

etr

op

oli

tan

Po

lice P

ress

Bu

rea

u

Chapter Two

44

The Met’s Relationship with the British Film Industry 1 in the Late Interwar Years 2

In 1935, Lord Trenchard retired from the post of Commissioner, and Sir 3 Philip Game was appointed in his place. Game remained Commissioner 4 until the cessation of hostilities in 1945. Game retained his predecessor’s 5 suspicion of British film interests, as seen in the table outlined above. His 6 responses to some of the requests for collaboration from the British studios 7 are laced with the same discourses involving the need to control, rather 8 than mediate, independent images of the police as his predecessors. A 9 memo, compiled in late 1938, summarised the previous six years’ 10 correspondence between various interests within the British film industry 11 and the Met Press Bureau. This memo provides evidence of Sir Philip 12 Game’s attitude towards the British film companies so desperate to 13 collaborate with the Met during the late interwar years. For example, the 14 memo reports the following response to Sir Basil Thomson’s request for 15 Met collaboration on a film project adapting his memoirs: “The 16 Commissioner added that if and when we want an official film, we must 17 go about it in our own way and have complete control”.

46 The memo also 18

mentions that Game, as a result of Thomson’s approach, discussed the 19 possibility of the Met “advantageously” producing a film with the long-20 serving Secretary, H. M. Howgrave-Graham, in 1935. Howgrave-Graham 21 set out a series of potential subjects for films that would, he felt, “clearly 22 be of public appeal and be of a kind which a film company could make 23 money out of” and also propagandistically benefit the Met: 24

The only subjects which occur to me as suitable for treatment in this way 25 are (1) publicity for Information Room and wireless organisation, and (2) 26 vulnerability of certain types of flat and jerry built houses and also of Yale 27 locks; advantages of mortice locks.47 28

The unexciting nature of these subjects indicates the Met’s lack of 29 understanding of the film industry and also demonstrates the Met’s lack of 30 desire to break the inherent culture of suspicion, reticence and secrecy 31 within Scotland Yard. 32

46 Anon., memo “Summary of applications for facilities to make films depicting

Police work, etc.”, undated (possibly 1938, or early 1939). MEPO 2/7442, PRO

TNA. 47 Ibid.

The British Film Industry and the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau 45

Conclusion 1

An analysis of the Metropolitan Police’s attitude towards the written and 2 visual media during the twenty years of peace separating the two world 3 wars helps, through contrast, to illuminate the difference of approach in 4 PR taken in the mid-to-late 1940s. The Press Bureau was established in a 5 climate where PR opportunities were being re-evaluated by the institutions 6 of the state, but, much to the chagrin of the film companies hoping for a 7 new culture of openness and collaboration, the Bureau’s aspirations of 8 providing transparency and demystifying the Met were too ambitious for a 9 body whose traditions were drawn from the military and which sought to 10 control the public image of the police through denying access to 11 collaborative provisions. Successive administrations viewed the British 12 film industry with an ever-increasing degree of suspicion, reinforced by 13 the failure of the only collaborative production of the period, Scotland 14 Yard 1921, and a series of controversies surrounding the production of 15 unauthorised depictions of the Met by British film interests intent on 16 placing the British police on screen. 17

The post-World War II Press Bureau regime of PIO Percy Fearnley, 18 augmented by the progressiveness of Commissioner Harold Scott, 19 maximised the PR potential of depictions of the Met on British screens, 20 but the interwar failure of the Met to regard the British film industry with 21 anything less than deep suspicion led to a series of missed opportunities to 22 increase the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public. The PR 23 failure of the Met prior to the Second World War is neatly summed up by 24 an incident in 1937. Howgrave-Graham compiled a series of notes in 25 preparation for a parliamentary question asked of the Home Secretary, 26 enquiring “if there is at present any public relations officer attached to the 27 Metropolitan Police; and, if not, whether he will consider the appointment 28 of such an officer”.

48 Howgrave-Graham minuted the following for the 29

attention of the Commissioner: 30 31

The work of a Public Relations Officer is publicity – i.e. publicity by 32 means of liaison with the Press, Films, Advertisement, and so on. 33

We have, as you know, our press organisation here and the assistance 34 of the Home Office Press Officer is also available to us. We don’t need 35 advertisement in the same way as a big “business” like the Post Office.49 36

48 Captain Alec Cunningham-Reid, parliamentary question 11 February 1937,

dossier prepared 4 February 1937. MEPO 2/8393, TNA PRO. 49 H. M. Howgrave-Graham, letter to Commissioner Philip Game, Minute 4, 9

February 1937. MEPO 2/8393, TNA PRO.

Chapter Two

46

The Commissioner and the Secretary eventually arrived at a suitable 1 response: “There is no person bearing the title ‘Public Relations Officer’ 2 attached to the Metropolitan Force, and the need for such an officer has 3 not been felt”.

50 The war, however, forcibly began to change this 4

perceived lack of need within the Met. 5

Bibliography 6

Chermak, Steven and Alexander Weiss. 2005. “Maintaining legitimacy 7 using external communication strategies: An analysis of police-media 8 relations”. Journal of Criminal Justice 33: 501-12. 9

Chibnall, Steve. 1977. Law-and-Order News. London: Tavistock. 10 Dickinson, Margaret and Sarah Street. 1985. Cinema and State: The Film 11

Industry and the British Government 1927-84. London: BFI. 12 Macready, General Sir Nevil. 1924. Annals of an Active Life Volume II. 13

London: Hutchinson and Co. 14 Mawby, Rob C. 2010. “Chibnall Revisited: Crime Reporters, the Police 15

and ‘Law-and-Order News’”. British Journal of Criminology 50: 1060-16 76. 17

McKernan, Luke. 1992. Topical Budget: The Great British News Film. 18 London: BFI. 19

Reiner, Robert. 1992. The Politics of the Police. London: Harvester 20 Wheatsheaf. 21

Sayers, R.S. 1976. The Bank of England, 1891-1944. Cambridge: 22 Cambridge University Press. 23

Trewin, J. C. (ed.). 1967. The Journal of William Charles Macready 1832-24 1851. London: Longmans. 25

Wood, John Carter. 2010. “‘The third degree’: press reporting, crime 26 fiction and police powers in 1920s Britain”. Twentieth Century British 27 History 21: 464–85. 28

Anon. 1921. “Police Pictures: Tribute to the Work of the Force”. The 29 Times, March 12. 30

50 HC Debate, 11 February 1937. Hansard vol. 320 cc. 571-2.