The South London all-women gang that once terrorised West End department stores
Now, a new Disney+ series is telling the story of this girl-power crime group which hailed from the streets of Elephant and Castle.
But this all-women working-class group is not to be underestimated. The Forty Elephants were a well-organised gang of thieves which kept shop-lifters on their toes in the West End.
READ MORE: The 86 London boroughs that used to exist because it was decided there were too many
READ MORE: Live updates as London Underground lines suspended and others delayed
The group, which was active between 1870 and 1950, would dress-up like film stars in furs and expensive jewellery before stealing items from department stores, largely in the West End, to sell on for profit.
Life in Elephant and Castle, which inspired the group's name, was tough in the late 1800s. This area of South East London struggled with poverty, sanitation and high rents. It is therefore likely that the Forty Elephants saw their life of crime as a way of surviving in a tough environment.
The makeup of the Forty Elephants was inherently a family affair that was passed down through the generations. Leaders of the gang were called 'Queens' and the title went to whoever was deemed to be the best leader.
In the 1900s, a notorious female gangster, Alice Diamond, led the group in their criminal activity. Using their gender to their advantage, the Forty Elephants could blend into the luxury department stores they targeted better than male criminals. The group worked in cells which targeted certain areas of the city.
Brian McDonald, who in 2015 published his book 'Alice Diamond and the Forty Elephants: The Female Gang That Terrorised London,' said: "The girls benefited from prudish attitudes of the time by taking shelter behind the privacy afforded to women in large stores.'
He added: "They threw the liveliest of parties and spent lavishly at pubs, clubs and restaurants. Their lifestyles were in pursuit of those of glamorous movie stars, combined with the decadent living of 1920s aristocratic flapper society. They read of the outrageous behaviour of rich, bright young things and wanted to emulate them.'
The group members would dress up in luxury clothing before heading out to carry out their criminal activity. 'Dressed to kill, those girls would descend on a West End store like a swarm of locusts,' one police detective said, according to The London Museum.
One technique used by the gang was to distract shop assistants while others carried out the thievery. They would also wear specially made garments that could store stolen goods, such as underskirts with pockets or belts with hooks.
Members of the Forty Elephants would then go on to sell the stolen items to earn a profit and earn money on a commission basis. While many of the Forty Elephants evaded arrest, some leaders such as Alice Dimond and Maggie Hughes, were imprisoned in Holloway in Islington.
The new Disney+ series, A Thousand Blows, was released on February 21. The drama follows the Forty Elephants as they clash with a self-declared emperor of the East End's bare-knuckle boxing world.
Got a story? Please get in touch at katherine.gray@reachplc.com
Looking for more from MyLondon? Subscribe to our daily newsletters here for the latest and greatest updates from across London.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Kneecap ‘banned from advertising' on London Underground
Belfast rap trio Kneecap have said they are 'banned' from advertising one of their posters on the London Underground. The group have been in the headlines since one of their members, who is due to appear in court next month, was accused of allegedly supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. On Thursday, in a social media post, they said: 'We've been banned from advertising on the London Tube. We've been banned from advertising on the London Tube. How petty can political policing and interference get… After using the tube to advertise loads of times for gigs, records and our movie, all without issue. The below poster has been rejected because: "it is likely to… — KNEECAP (@KNEECAPCEOL) July 10, 2025 'How petty can political policing and interference get… 'After using the tube to advertise loads of times for gigs, records and our movie, all without issue. 'The below poster has been rejected because: 'It is likely to cause widespread or serious offence to reasonable members of the public on account of the product or service being advertised, the content or design of the advertisement, or by way of implication.' 'Speak out against genocide and they'll use every single angle they can to silence you.' The poster shows their logo, based on the balaclavas worn by paramilitaries during the Troubles, and reads: 'Kneecap. OVO Arena Wembley, London. Thurs 18th September '25.' In May, Liam Og O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was charged with a terrorism offence relating to displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, during a gig in November 2024. Ahead of his first court date billboards appeared in London that said 'More Black, More Dogs, More Irish, Mo Chara', referencing discriminatory signs placed in some London boarding houses across the capital in the mid 20th century. O hAnnaidh, 27, and his bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and JJ O Dochartaigh were cheered by hundreds of supporters when they arrived at Westminster Magistrates' Court on June 18. The group performed at Glasgow's 02 on Tuesday, in a gig which sold out in 80 seconds. They were due to perform at TRNSMT festival in Glasgow this weekend but their set was axed after concerns raised by police. Their set at Glastonbury Festival in June followed Bob Vylan on the West Holts stage, and both acts are being investigated by Avon and Somerset Police for comments made on stage. Transport for London (TfL) has been approached for comment.


Atlantic
04-07-2025
- Atlantic
Welcome to the Mafia Presidency
Theoretically, it's illegal for the president to accept or solicit bribes. The plain language of the statute is perfectly clear: It is a crime for a public official to seek or receive 'anything of value' in return for 'being influenced in the performance of any official ac t.' The prohibition applies whether the public official seeks or receives the bribe personally or on behalf of 'any other person or entity.' As I said: theoretically. On Tuesday, the media-and-entertainment conglomerate Paramount announced a $16 million payment to President Donald Trump's future presidential library. The payment settled a lawsuit that Trump had filed against the Paramount-owned broadcaster CBS because he was unhappy with the way the network had edited an election-season interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump's lawsuit was about as meritless as a lawsuit can be, for reasons I'll explain shortly. If CBS were a freestanding news organization, it would have fought the case and won. But like the Disney-owned network ABC, which also paid off Trump for an almost equally frivolous lawsuit, CBS belongs to a parent corporation with regulatory business before Trump-appointed agencies. Paramount is pursuing an $8 billion merger that requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission. In November 2024, then-incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr warned that merger approval would depend on satisfying Trump's claims against CBS. Carr told the Fox News interviewer Dana Perino, 'I'm pretty confident that that news-distortion complaint over the 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of that transaction.' 'News-distortion complaint?' What's that? Nearly a century ago, in 1927, Congress empowered a new Federal Radio Commission to police the accuracy of news broadcasts. In the preceding decades, the airwaves had become a chaos of transmissions interfering with one another. The right to use any particular frequency was a valuable concession from the federal government, the owner on the public's behalf of the nation's airwaves. Congress felt that it could impose conditions in return for such concessions. One condition was a duty to meet public-interest standards in broadcast content, which included giving equal time to opposing political candidates in an election. In 1934, the Federal Radio Commission evolved into the Federal Communications Commission. As television technology spread, so did the FCC's ambition to police the new medium, resulting in 1949 with its power to compel the fairness doctrine on ' all discussion of issues of importance to the public.' The fact that opinions can differ about what counts as 'accuracy' and what counts as 'distortion' rapidly became obvious. Government efforts to police the boundary between fair reporting and unfair scurrility create conflicts with First Amendment rights. For print media, the courts have been very clear: Editing, even arguably unfair editing, is protected free speech, subject only to the laws of defamation. In the 1960s and '70s, the FCC groped its way toward a similar rule for broadcast media. Interestingly, some of the crucial milestones involved CBS News. In the early days of color television, CBS News pioneered the use of aggressive editing to tell powerful stories in dramatic ways. In 1971, for example, CBS broadcast a documentary, The Selling of the Pentagon, that accused the Department of Defense of manipulating public opinion. To amplify the argument, the producers cut and reassembled questions and answers. Some of the affected individuals filed complaints against CBS, and the matter was taken up by members of Congress. Yet the FCC declined to get involved in the case on free-speech grounds. Before the end of the first Nixon administration, the FCC had generated a series of precedents that more or less nullified the agency's Calvin Coolidge–era status as a monitor of broadcast accuracy and a potential censor. The whole issue soon became moot, because the FCC had no jurisdiction over cable television or the internet. As Americans drew more of their information from sources outside the FCC's domain, the very idea of content regulation by the agency came to seem absurd to all parties, including the FCC itself. Who would think of invoking a doctrine that originated in 1927 to police speech in the 21st century? Then came Trump and the loyalty-above-law appointees of his second term. Evident from the Trump legal filing against CBS is that not even the president's own lawyers took his complaint seriously. Three whopping clues give away the game about the filing's farcicality. The first is where the lawsuit was brought: the Amarillo division of the U.S. district court for the northern district of Texas. CBS is not domiciled in Amarillo. Neither is Trump or Harris or any person significantly connected with the 60 Minutes segment. What is located in Amarillo is America's premier pick for right-wing forum-shopping, a practice criticized not only by liberal counterparties but also, at least implicitly, by The Wall Street Journal and National Review. Amarillo is the court where a partisan-conservative plaintiff goes with a case that would be summarily thrown out elsewhere. The next clue is the language of the filing, which reads like direct dictation from the president: As President Trump stated, and as made crystal clear in the video he referenced and attached, 'A giant Fake News Scam by 60 Minutes & CBS. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election interference. She is a Moron, and the Fake News Media wants to hide that fact. AN UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!! The Dems got them to do this and should be forced to concede the election? WOW!' See President Donald J. Trump, TRUTH SOCIAL (Oct. 10, 2024). And so on, through 65 paragraphs of irrelevant name-calling and Trump-quoting obsequiousness. The final clue lies in the carelessness of the complaint's quoted sources, two of which actually argue against the Trump claim. A cited law-review article concluded that 'the reinvented news distortion doctrine would undermine the very democratic norms marshaled in its defense.' Similarly, an FCC decision referenced found against taking action (in another case involving CBS)—explicitly on free-speech grounds: 'In this democracy, no government agency can authenticate the news, or should try to do so.' One has to wonder whether Trump's lawyers even read the texts they cited. The complaint's flimsy legal basis—including Trump's claim of standing under a Texas consumer-protection law—indicates its pure-nuisance quality. And yet, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a case that it could almost certainly have won for a fraction of the price. U.S. law forbids both accepting a bribe and soliciting a bribe, yet they're not exactly the same offense. There is an important difference between a police officer who takes money to let a criminal escape and a police officer who uses the threat of arrest to extort money from an innocent citizen. Paramount did not come up with the idea to pay Trump $16 million; Trump decided to squeeze Paramount for the money. What's going on here is extortion—and it does not get any less extortionate for being laundered through Trump's hypothetical future library. A systematic pattern has emerged: shakedowns of law firms, business corporations, and media companies for the enrichment of Trump, his family, and his political allies. Every time targets yield, they create an incentive for Trump to repeat the shakedown on another victim.


Chicago Tribune
03-07-2025
- Chicago Tribune
Details emerge from Disney cruise incident when father, daughter went overboard
After a father jumped in after his daughter fell overboard from a Disney Cruise Line ship Sunday, the Broward County Sheriff's Office released a statement clarifying details from its investigation. The pair were rescued by crew from the Disney Dream after the father treaded water with his 5-year-old daughter for about 20 minutes, the release said. The incident happened about 11:30 a.m. Sunday when the girl 'lost her balance while sitting on a railing and falling backward through a porthole,' the release said. The family were on Deck 4 of the ship, which features a wraparound walking track and railings mostly covered by plastic that would make it difficult for a child to climb over. There are parts of Deck 4, though, that have porthole features with a different railing protection design. Deck 4 is about 20 feet above the water line. The ship was returning from the Bahamas to Port Everglades at the end of a four-night cruise, and was in international waters. 'After the girl's mother alerted her husband, who didn't see the incident, he jumped into the ocean to save his daughter,' it continued. 'BSO detectives said after the 37-year-old father found his daughter, he treaded water until they were rescued by a tender that was launched from the ship.' Part of the reason the sheriff's office put out the release was because of 'misinformation.' Several social media posts have conjectured just how the child was in a position to go overboard. While detectives are still investigating, the sheriff's office said the account of the incident of the daughter's fall and the father's involvement has been confirmed. 'BSO detectives have reviewed the ship's security video, which corroborates the statements from the family and cruise ship staff,' the release stated. The release also praised Disney's 'man overboard' training, and once the pair, who have not been identified, were brought back on board, they were checked out by the ship's medical staff. After the rescue, Disney Cruise Line also praised the crew. 'We commend our crew members for their exceptional skills and prompt actions, which ensured the safe return of both guests to the ship within minutes.' read a statement from a DCL spokesperson. 'We are committed to the safety and well-being of our guests, and this incident highlights the effectiveness of our safety protocols.' The release said once the ship was back on shore, the pair were transported by Broward Sheriff Fire Rescue to an area hospital. The father was hospitalized. 'For the family's continued privacy, detectives are not releasing their names, where they live, or the details of the father's injury.' the statement reads. Disney Dream is the lone Disney ship for now sailing from the line's new second home in Fort Lauderdale. Most of its ships are based at Port Canaveral to the north. 'This family is so blessed. It's great to be able to respond to good news rather than what could have been a tragic outcome,' the sheriff's office statement reads.