The Police Code & The Goulston Street Graffito

[Monty]

An entry in Howard Vincent's Police Code, a guide book by which all constables should abide by, under Obscene Publications (Page 122), on the erasing of such chalk writing as seen in Goulston Street.

So it would seem the Met were guided to erase the graffito after all.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Howard-Vincents-Police-Code-1889/dp/0993180604/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

An entry in Howard Vincent's Police Code, a guide book by which all constables should abide by, under Obscene Publications (Page 122), on the erasing of such chalk writing as seen in Goulston Street.

So it would seem the Met were guided to erase the graffito after all.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Howard-Vincents-Police-Code-1889/dp/0993180604/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

Monty

IF they determined it was a threat Monty, since its a vague message as written, seems like a judgment call was made on this.

Cheers

[David Orsam]

The writing on the wall was neither obscene nor did it contain "Threatening words or figures" so I can't see how the police code applies. Sir Charles Warren explained why it was felt desirable to obliterate the writing, because: "there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost".

[GUT]

But how is the GSG obscene or threatening.

It may be racist (at a stretch) it may have been likely to incite a riot, but it doesn't fit the description, unless there is a definition of Obscene or Threatening in the Code that isn't shown that lets it in.

[Monty]

IF they determined it was a threat Monty, since its a vague message as written, seems like a judgment call was made on this.

Cheers

I agree Michael,

And yet it was removed.


Monty

[Wickerman]

Yes I think that applies to nuisance graffiti, not evidence.

[drstrange169]

"A Riot against the Jews.

On Saturday in several quarters of East London the crowds who had assembled in the streets began to assume a very threatening attitude towards the Hebrew population of the district. It was repeatedly asserted that no Englishman could have perpetrated such a horrible crime as that of Hanbury-street, and that it must have been done by a Jew - and forthwith the crowds proceeded to threaten and abuse such of the unfortunate Hebrews as they found in the streets. Happily, the presence of the large number of police in the streets prevented a riot actually taking place."

East London Observer 15 September.

Does this make the graffiti threating?

[David Orsam]

Does this make the graffiti threating?

No it doesn't.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive said here many times that I believe the grafitto was interpreted to be accusatory towards Jews, (just like it reads, with sarcasm...like it seems they never get blamed for anything they do), which would agree with that interpretation by the authorities. They felt Jews were in danger by virtue of that message.

What they, and many since, dont seem to connect that with that message is with the murder on the property of allegedly Radical, Anarchistic Jews on Berner Street. The Jews were vocally seeking to blame "another woman"'s death on a killer at large, and with Israels story, apparently a gentile.

They sought to direct attention away from their club and members....so that The Jews will be, once again according to the grafitto author, the men that dont get blamed for anything.

[The Good Michael]

In it's confusion of meaning, the grafitti was threatening, obscene and thought to be conflagratory. If the code was followed to the letter based upon these conjectures, then erasure makes sense. And , after all, obscenity and threat are always judgement calls.

Mike

[Monty]

"A Riot against the Jews.

On Saturday in several quarters of East London the crowds who had assembled in the streets began to assume a very threatening attitude towards the Hebrew population of the district. It was repeatedly asserted that no Englishman could have perpetrated such a horrible crime as that of Hanbury-street, and that it must have been done by a Jew - and forthwith the crowds proceeded to threaten and abuse such of the unfortunate Hebrews as they found in the streets. Happily, the presence of the large number of police in the streets prevented a riot actually taking place."

East London Observer 15 September.

Does this make the graffiti threating?

Arnold thought so, Warren agreed...so yeah, it does.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

The writing on the wall was neither obscene nor did it contain "Threatening words or figures" so I can't see how the police code applies. Sir Charles Warren explained why it was felt desirable to obliterate the writing, because: "there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost".

agree. Especially since it was found above the bloody apron and therefore tied into the ripper killings.

[David Orsam]

agree. Especially since it was found above the bloody apron and therefore tied into the ripper killings.

Absolutely. The apron was the only thing that attached any significance to the writing on the wall. I'm sure the police didn't take it upon themselves to erase every bit of graffiti in London; the code only made them responsible for removing obscene and/or threatening graffiti, which the writing on the wall in Goulston Street clearly and self-evidently was not, by any definition.

[MysterySinger]

Just as likely it was recognised as a masonic reference and needed to be removed.

[Pcdunn]

No, probably not

Just as likely it was recognised as a masonic reference and needed to be removed.

I think it's a myth that the GSG referred to anything connected to Freemasonry. So, not that likely.