Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Police Code & The Goulston Street Graffito

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    We are arguing about something that is answered satisfactorily by the contemporary investigators, it was perceived as a threat to Jews and their safety.
    But that isn't true at all. Please provide a single example of a contemporary report stating that the writing was considered to be "threatening".

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      Since it appears on a wall that leads to dwellings that were almost 100%populated by Immigrant Jews, I can see why they felt the need to have it erased.
      That's not the point at issue between us. In fact, you are now arguing against yourself somewhat. I'm saying it was erased despite the Police Code not because of it. In other words, the Police Code had nothing to do with the erasure (because it wasn't threatening!)

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        Perceptions very often rule over realities. Your threatening man, by virtue of that very adjective, is a threat. A perceived one, in your example.
        You have added in the word "perceived" which wasn't originally present but in any case you have focussed on the wrong part of my example. The key bit was that something can be a threat without being threatening. They are different. You haven't disagreed with that. So the fact that the writing might have been a threat does not mean it was necessarily also threatening. That's the point.

        Comment


        • #49
          You guys are still arguing over this? The key point is that regardless of how the police perceived the message, their concern focused on how it might be perceived by a crowd. That point seems to keep being overlooked.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by c.d. View Post
            You guys are still arguing over this? The key point is that regardless of how the police perceived the message, their concern focused on how it might be perceived by a crowd. That point seems to keep being overlooked.
            The point hasn't been overlooked at all. I have quoted Sir Charles Warren's concerns about how the mob would perceive it and stated that the writing was obviously regarded by the police as inflammatory. However, this thread is about the relationship of the writing on the wall to the Police Code which requires (or advises) the erasure of obscene and threatening messages. Establishing whether the writing was obscene and/or threatening is what my discussion with Michael and others has been about.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              Perceptions very often rule over realities. Your threatening man, by virtue of that very adjective, is a threat. A perceived one, in your example.
              The first thing they teach you in advertising is "perception IS reality".
              Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
              - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by SirJohnFalstaff View Post
                The first thing they teach you in advertising is "perception IS reality".
                Yes, in the world of the easily led.

                But anyone with a soul will only ever be impressed by substance over form.

                Comment


                • #53
                  "The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing."

                  This is one of two things:-

                  either a statement of fact (for those who share the sentiment expressed) or

                  the expression of the writer's opinion (for those who don't).

                  By no stretch of the imagination could this be considered obscene. The only way it could be threatening would be if an inference was drawn that such was the intention. Its possible value as evidence (an issue still debated to this day) should have been the overriding factor which led to its being photographed before being erased. The wording of the GSG entered the public domain anyway at the Eddowes inquest. There was no consequent disorder that I am aware of and there is no indication that I am aware of that any precautions were taken against such an eventuality. Monty's highlighting of the relevant section of the code against the GSG is interesting but I find it very hard to make a case for it's being threatening or obscene.
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Unfortunately,it was not photographed.
                    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by DJA View Post
                      Unfortunately,it was not photographed.
                      Yes I know, but it should have been. There is no valid police protocol for destroying what might be evidence on the basis of a judgement (valid or not) that it probably isn't. The GSG was erased before it could be photographed because rank (Warren & Arnold) over-ruled sound investigative judgement (Halse).
                      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                        "The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing."

                        This is one of two things:-

                        either a statement of fact (for those who share the sentiment expressed) or

                        the expression of the writer's opinion (for those who don't).

                        By no stretch of the imagination could this be considered obscene. The only way it could be threatening would be if an inference was drawn that such was the intention. Its possible value as evidence (an issue still debated to this day) should have been the overriding factor which led to its being photographed before being erased. The wording of the GSG entered the public domain anyway at the Eddowes inquest. There was no consequent disorder that I am aware of and there is no indication that I am aware of that any precautions were taken against such an eventuality. Monty's highlighting of the relevant section of the code against the GSG is interesting but I find it very hard to make a case for it's being threatening or obscene.
                        I agree with most of this, but I find it easy for those in charge at the time to believe the message could have been interpreted in a way as to cause problems. That makes the interpretation of the message threatening to certain pairs of eyes. A message itself is never threatening or obscene. It is always a bit of judgement to claim such a thing. They judged differently from how we may have, but it doesn't make anyone right or wrong. It just makes for frustration.

                        Mike
                        huh?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I find it interesting that the report/letter by Warren, dated 6th Nov., detailing the circumstances of his removal of the graffiti makes no allusion to the possibility that it was evidence, or connected to the crime in any way.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X