The Police Code & The Goulston Street Graffito

[David Orsam]

and a threat to public peace is threatening.

That is not the case. I shouldn't have to explain basic principles of the English language but doing it as simply as possible by way of example:

A man can walk into a room with a threatening manner, using threatening language, but in fact pose no threat to anyone at all.

Equally, a man can walk into a room with a non-threatening manner, using no threatening language, but can pose a serious threat to everyone in the room.

Or a man can walk into a room with a threatening manner, using threatening language, AND pose a threat.

I'm sure you can see the difference. The fact that the message might have posed a threat to the public peace does not mean that it was inherently threatening. It is something different. The words "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" are not inherently threatening. If there was a law against writing threatening messages you would never be able to convict the author for that rather neutral sentence. The message might have been a threat to the peace but it was most certainly not threatening.

[David Orsam]

never said it was obscene....you may check that..

I gathered that Michael hence my #38 but I remind you that in #20 you highlighted my entire sentence which said:

"In no definition of the English language can this sentence be described as obscene or threatening. There are no obscenities and no individual, or group of people, is being threatened in that sentence."

And of that sentence you said "David the part I captured in bold was what I wanted to address". That's why I thought you were challenging my claim that the writing cannot be described as obscene. But fine, I can see you weren't doing that now.

However, it is amusing that Monty bases his argument that the writing on the wall fell under the Police Code by arguing that it was obscene whereas you say it was because it was threatening. Neither is correct and it makes me wonder why people are so keen to try and squeeze the writing unnaturally to make in fall under the jurisdiction of the Police Code.

[Michael W Richards]

Are you calling me "Robert"?

If you are now describing the writing as "a threat to public peace, and safety" this is totally different to a threatening message so that, as I have consistently stated, the Police Code did not apply to it.

I assume you have given up your earlier claim that the message was also obscene.

never said it was obscene....you may check that...and a threat to public peace is threatening.

[Pierre]

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

Hi Monty,

it is a known problem within the social sciences and history that there are norms and practice and that they are different things. Practice doesn´t always correspond to norms.

So if you want to use a motive explanation for why they erased the graffito, you will not know if the motive was the norm or if it might have been something else.

But if you chose to think functionally, which many historians do, you can use this book and think that you know why they did it.

I merely want to point out some critical aspects of analyzing data sources from the past. We all have problems with these aspects, all the time.

Perhaps you are already aware of this, since you just write that "they were guided". With that you have not given any explicit explanation as to why they did it.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

I assume you have given up your earlier claim that the message was also obscene.

If you were, in fact, claiming this by highlighting my sentence in which I denied it was obscene. Perhaps you didn't mean to?

[David Orsam]

I didn't think we'd have to beat this to death Robert, but the line in bold keeps getting injected. If the message was considered derogatory towards Jews and intended to incite gentiles, its a threat to public peace, and safety. So yes, they obviously thought it represented a threat, despite what you perceive as benign.

Are you calling me "Robert"?

If you are now describing the writing as "a threat to public peace, and safety" this is totally different to a threatening message so that, as I have consistently stated, the Police Code did not apply to it.

I assume you have given up your earlier claim that the message was also obscene.

[Michael W Richards]

The police may or may not have considered the writing to be inflammatory. That is not really the point. The point is that they had no way of knowing whether someone in the crowd reading it might consider it inflammatory and definitely antisemitic. That person shouts out "I knew the Jews were behind all this" and the crowd is off and running. I don't know why the Police Code has to enter into it when it seems the police were simply acting out of an abundance of caution.

c.d.

As I said to Robert, they obviously believed it presented a threat to public safety, and that it might incite violence. That superceded any value it may or may not have had based on the proximity of the cloth.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm not sure what it is about what I have said in this thread that makes you think I don't understand this. It is why I have said that the police considered the writing on the wall to be inflammatory. I have already said that Sir Charles Warren believed that leaving the writing on the wall would lead to an onslaught upon the Jews, destruction of property and loss of life. But there is no threat as such contained in the writing on the wall. It was regarded as inflammatory by the police and inflammatory statements were not covered by the Police Code.

I didn't think we'd have to beat this to death Robert, but the line in bold keeps getting injected. If the message was considered derogatory towards Jews and intended to incite gentiles, its a threat to public peace, and safety. So yes, they obviously thought it represented a threat, despite what you perceive as benign.

[c.d.]

The police may or may not have considered the writing to be inflammatory. That is not really the point. The point is that they had no way of knowing whether someone in the crowd reading it might consider it inflammatory and definitely antisemitic. That person shouts out "I knew the Jews were behind all this" and the crowd is off and running. I don't know why the Police Code has to enter into it when it seems the police were simply acting out of an abundance of caution.

c.d.

[David Orsam]

David I believe the sociopolitical climate in London at that time was dangerous to Jews at any time, but particularly at a time when at least one was being suggested as a maniacal killer by no less than Anderson himself.

I'm not sure what it is about what I have said in this thread that makes you think I don't understand this. It is why I have said that the police considered the writing on the wall to be inflammatory. I have already said that Sir Charles Warren believed that leaving the writing on the wall would lead to an onslaught upon the Jews, destruction of property and loss of life. But there is no threat as such contained in the writing on the wall. It was regarded as inflammatory by the police and inflammatory statements were not covered by the Police Code.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, I understood which part of my post you were referring to. The word "inflammatory"- which I assume you are referring to - was originally highlighted in bold by me.

You still haven't addressed the issue of how the sentence could be described as obscene.

There has to be some kind of objective standard by which a sentence can be reasonably described as "threatening". By the same standards you are adopting, if the author had written "A Jew committed the murders" you would presumably describe it as threatening even though it would, in reality, have been an inflammatory accusation.

As I said earlier, to describe the writing on the wall as "threatening", when there is no threat actually conveyed in or by that message (and you are reduced to speculating as to the intentions of the author) seems to me to be a clear attempt to unnaturally squeeze it into the terms of the Police Code which simply did not apply here.

David I believe the sociopolitical climate in London at that time was dangerous to Jews at any time, but particularly at a time when at least one was being suggested as a maniacal killer by no less than Anderson himself. He stated offhandedly that the primary suspect would be a Polish Jew in that specific area.

So any antisemitic rhetoric was dangerous to Jews. One that is found above a solid piece of murder evidence, that much more dangerous to the local Jews. Many of the basic truths about that area come to light when studying these murders, antisemitism, a prejudice similar to what has been seen lately towards all Muslims, was a very dangerous presence throughout these murders.

Cheers Robert

[David Orsam]

Perhaps I shouldnt have included that single word in bold, when the majority of which I did highlight "In no definition of the English language can this sentence be described as obscene or threatening. There are no obscenities and no individual, or group of people, is being threatened in that sentence" was what I was intending to address."

If the message was written to incite anger towards Jews, which I believe it was simply by reading it with some emotional context, then it is threatening.

Semantics, is all.

Michael, I understood which part of my post you were referring to. The word "inflammatory"- which I assume you are referring to - was originally highlighted in bold by me.

You still haven't addressed the issue of how the sentence could be described as obscene.

There has to be some kind of objective standard by which a sentence can be reasonably described as "threatening". By the same standards you are adopting, if the author had written "A Jew committed the murders" you would presumably describe it as threatening even though it would, in reality, have been an inflammatory accusation.

As I said earlier, to describe the writing on the wall as "threatening", when there is no threat actually conveyed in or by that message (and you are reduced to speculating as to the intentions of the author) seems to me to be a clear attempt to unnaturally squeeze it into the terms of the Police Code which simply did not apply here.

[Michael W Richards]

But that's what I said! You have actually avoided any discussion of the part of my post that you highlighted in bold.

Perhaps I shouldnt have included that single word in bold, when the majority of which I did highlight "In no definition of the English language can this sentence be described as obscene or threatening. There are no obscenities and no individual, or group of people, is being threatened in that sentence" was what I was intending to address."

If the message was written to incite anger towards Jews, which I believe it was simply by reading it with some emotional context, then it is threatening.

Semantics, is all.

[David Orsam]

Whilst Warren does not mention the Code in his explanation (why would he?, its guidance, not law)

Well hold on, you said in the OP that the Police Code was "a guide book by which all constables should abide by". You once kindly explained to me that the reference to "constables" in the Police Code applied to every officer of all ranks. Thus, Sir Charles should have abided by the Police Code. That being so, I would have expected him to refer to the code as justification for his controversial decision to erase the writing if the Police Code had actually been on his mind, which I am quite sure it wasn't. The simple fact is that the decision he made that morning had nothing at all to do with the Police Code.

[David Orsam]

The definition of criminal obscenity, as described by Lord Chief Justice John Coleridge, is that it "tends to deprave and corrupt," and publication of it, no matter the form, is a misdemeanour.

But Monty, there is a gaping hole in your argument in that you have not demonstrated or explained how the words "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" could conceivably tend to deprave and corrupt.

The only evidence you have offered in support is Sir Charles Warren's comment that the words were written "with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews". That simply confirms what I said about the writing being regarded by the police as inflammatory.

Something being inflammatory is totally different from something which tends to deprave and corrupt.

The writing definitely wouldn't have come under the Obscene Publications Act of 1857 which was actually called "An Act for more effectually preventing the Sale of Obscene Books, Pictures, Prints and other Articles" because the obscene publication had to be created for gain/sale but let's assume that the Act did cover writing on a wall. In that case, if the author of the writing had been caught and charged under the Obscene Publications Act I guarantee you the case would have been dismissed by the magistrate and literally laughed out of court. That is because the writing was not obscene. And you do know that by "obscene" is basically meant pornographic don't you?