Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
I wonder what it is about George Soros that make the online radical right so keen to portray him as a bogeyman controlling the media etc.
Because he's not one of them, doesn't give them money and the people that give them money love for stories blaming Soros to be dropped into the conversation once in a while to spread misinformation?
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
“Two-tier Kier” hasn’t gone away, and the utter lack of interest in cases like this only reinforces such opinions.
Did anyone from the Home Office say anything about the Cenk Uygur story from yesterday, or do we only have his own account? IIRC ministers were all over similar decisions around friends of “Tommy” a few weeks ago.
I suspect that Cenk got caught up by association with his nephew, Hassan Piker, who by all accounts is a total scumbag.
The MAGAsphere in which you seem somewhat immersed is not ‘all accounts’.
It's not just the MAGAsphere. For example, look at the comments under any Facebook post by local papers about almost anything criminal and you'll find angry comments about "TTK".
It's probably only a fairly small subset of the population, but they are very, very angry. It does cut both ways, there are plenty of people angry about Farage too.
Some time since I've found a comment about Kemi in the wild mind you!
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
According to the evidence at trial, those calling 999 told the police that Henry had been stabbed, as did Henry himself. The police should have checked.
I've seen many a bodycam video out of the US where some drunk belligerent clearly falsely claim to be hurt in some way, and the police (irritably) take them to the local hospital for an official check just to make sure they are not accused of missing a genuine potential injury.
Obviously that is not how they always act, particularly in the USA where horror stories about the police are common, but whilst the police do have a difficult job to do, taking a few seconds to check just in case seems like it protects them from just this kind of scenario and would not be onerous or burdensome.
The officers concerned must be made an example of, but the rot runs far deeper. The police have been utterly captured by progressive ideology, and like deathwatch beetle, it has made them completely useless bordering on malign from top to bottom.
I'm not sure whether the police service can be reformed, or whether we should just started again. Not sure where from though, as apparently the army is every bit as bad.
I hope that Reform and the Tories know what sort of job they have on their hands.
Oh, yes, look at these police and how they’ve been “utterly captured by a progressive ideology”…
A total of 53 police officers or staff have been sacked since 2020 after sexual misconduct was proven against them, Thames Valley Police (TVP) said.
The largest non-metropolitan force in England and Wales has periodically published reports into reports of sexual misconduct within the force since April 2024.
It said since April 2020, 110 of its officers or staff have been sanctioned by the force, with measures including dismissal and final written warnings.
Clearly, the main problem with British police is their progressive ideology. /s
53 over 6 years as a proportion is what exactly ?
And over that time how many have gone to Pride, for example. Police cars with rainbow flags on them. It’s only because of the hard work of women’s rights activists this politicisation is ceasing
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
“Two-tier Kier” hasn’t gone away, and the utter lack of interest in cases like this only reinforces such opinions.
Did anyone from the Home Office say anything about the Cenk Uygur story from yesterday, or do we only have his own account? IIRC ministers were all over similar decisions around friends of “Tommy” a few weeks ago.
I suspect that Cenk got caught up by association with his nephew, Hassan Piker, who by all accounts is a total scumbag.
The MAGAsphere in which you seem somewhat immersed is not ‘all accounts’.
Piker? He visited Cuba as a guest of their government, thinks China is a great model to follow, that America deserved 9/11, campaigned with Mamdani in New York, and has voiced support form domestic terrorism in the US, saying that murder victim Brian Thomson was himself guilty of “social murder”,
Reform UK is becoming increasingly reliant on socially conservative views for political support, and therefore could struggle to push its poll ratings much higher, a large-scale research project led by the leading psephologist John Curtice has found.
A study of Nigel Farage’s party carried out as part of the British Social Attitudes report found that while Reform supporters were disproportionately more likely to be unhappy with politicians and public services, recent recruits had seemingly more robust attitudes in areas such as diversity and welfare.
Given such views were only held by a minority of voters, Curtice said, it was possible support for Reform might plateau close to its current percentage range in the mid- to high-20s.
Reform supporters are more likely to have voted for Brexit and be older, male and with fewer qualifications, it found, while just 9% of graduates back the party, against 40% of those with qualifications below A-level standard.
A striking thread for Reform supporters was mistrust in politicians and the ability of government to improve things, including higher levels of dissatisfaction with the NHS and a greater tendency to agree with statements such as: “Politicians talk too much and take too little action.”
They were also more likely to be worried about their own personal circumstances, particularly their finances...But more notable still were attitudes to social issues, with 67% of Reform supporters believing migrants are bad for the economy, and 75% thinking they undermine the UK’s culture, more than double the respective figures of 33% and 35% for the population at large.
Similarly, 88% of Reform backers say equal opportunities for transgender people have “gone too far”, against 48% of the general public. Of Reform supporters, 52% expressed the same view about lesbian, gay and bisexual people and 51% about black and Asian people. Nationally, the figures for these were 27% and 17%.
People who were both authoritarian and dissatisfied were particularly likely to back Reform, with support for the party among this “interaction group” rising to 46%.'
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
I wonder what it is about George Soros that make the online radical right so keen to portray him as a bogeyman controlling the media etc.
Because he's not one of them, doesn't give them money and the people that give them money love for stories blaming Soros to be dropped into the conversation once in a while to spread misinformation?
I give money to worthy causes You are a foreign influence He/She/They are buying elections
Take the money out of politics. Full stop.
Would Farage’s bung be better if it came from inside the UK and been declared (as it should have been)? Not much, in my view.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
According to the evidence at trial, those calling 999 told the police that Henry had been stabbed, as did Henry himself. The police should have checked.
I've seen many a bodycam video out of the US where some drunk belligerent clearly falsely claim to be hurt in some way, and the police (irritably) take them to the local hospital for an official check just to make sure they are not accused of missing a genuine potential injury.
Obviously that is not how they always act, particularly in the USA where horror stories about the police are common, but whilst the police do have a difficult job to do, taking a few seconds to check just in case seems like it protects them from just this kind of scenario and would not be onerous or burdensome.
If someone's been stabbed 4 times, I imagine there'd be a fair amount of blood. Would it really have been that hard to notice it? The police are trained in basic first aid after all.
For info (I'm not enough over the detail to draw conclusions, never mind about motivations) AIUI, he had bled 2l internally, from a deep vein / artery behind his collar bone.
Henry Nowak’s murderer will be out of prison in just over 20 years.
Why did he not get longer? Because the judge ruled that - as a Sikh - he had a “good legal reason” to carry a 21cm “Shastar” knife on the streets of Southampton.
The usual self-serving, dishonest unpleasantness from Jenrick here. When he loses Newark at the next general election I will raise a particular glass to the demise of an unprincipled bastard.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
“Two-tier Kier” hasn’t gone away, and the utter lack of interest in cases like this only reinforces such opinions.
Did anyone from the Home Office say anything about the Cenk Uygur story from yesterday, or do we only have his own account? IIRC ministers were all over similar decisions around friends of “Tommy” a few weeks ago.
I suspect that Cenk got caught up by association with his nephew, Hassan Piker, who by all accounts is a total scumbag.
The MAGAsphere in which you seem somewhat immersed is not ‘all accounts’.
Piker? He visited Cuba as a guest of their government, thinks China is a great model to follow, that America deserved 9/11, campaigned with Mamdani in New York, and has voiced support form domestic terrorism in the US, saying that murder victim Brian Thomson was himself guilty of “social murder”,
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
I wonder what it is about George Soros that make the online radical right so keen to portray him as a bogeyman controlling the media etc.
He’s in a basket of people alongside Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Neville Singham, and a handful of others, all very wealthy people funding activism around open borders, defunding police, organised protesting, and other activities designed to make the world a much worse place.
Soros is merely the most famous and public about his work.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
According to the evidence at trial, those calling 999 told the police that Henry had been stabbed, as did Henry himself. The police should have checked.
I've seen many a bodycam video out of the US where some drunk belligerent clearly falsely claim to be hurt in some way, and the police (irritably) take them to the local hospital for an official check just to make sure they are not accused of missing a genuine potential injury.
Obviously that is not how they always act, particularly in the USA where horror stories about the police are common, but whilst the police do have a difficult job to do, taking a few seconds to check just in case seems like it protects them from just this kind of scenario and would not be onerous or burdensome.
The officers concerned must be made an example of, but the rot runs far deeper. The police have been utterly captured by progressive ideology, and like deathwatch beetle, it has made them completely useless bordering on malign from top to bottom.
I'm not sure whether the police service can be reformed, or whether we should just started again. Not sure where from though, as apparently the army is every bit as bad.
I hope that Reform and the Tories know what sort of job they have on their hands.
Oh, yes, look at these police and how they’ve been “utterly captured by a progressive ideology”…
A total of 53 police officers or staff have been sacked since 2020 after sexual misconduct was proven against them, Thames Valley Police (TVP) said.
The largest non-metropolitan force in England and Wales has periodically published reports into reports of sexual misconduct within the force since April 2024.
It said since April 2020, 110 of its officers or staff have been sanctioned by the force, with measures including dismissal and final written warnings.
Clearly, the main problem with British police is their progressive ideology. /s
53 over 6 years as a proportion is what exactly ?
And over that time how many have gone to Pride, for example. Police cars with rainbow flags on them. It’s only because of the hard work of women’s rights activists this politicisation is ceasing
Luckyguy is quite right.
The uptick on police officers being sacked and convicted for sexual offences is largely down to crimes not being covered up. And they used to be.
Not very long ago, making a complaint against a fellow officer who was consider One Of Us would result in the complainant being pushed out of The Farce. Quite often with a disciplinary action or even prosecution against the *complainant*.
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
I wonder what it is about George Soros that make the online radical right so keen to portray him as a bogeyman controlling the media etc.
He’s in that basket of people, alongside Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Neville Singham, and a handful of others, all very wealthy people funding activism around open borders, defunding police, organised protesting, and other activities designed to make the world a much worse place.
Soros is merely the most famous and public about his work.
Mike Bloomberg too.
Of course Bondezegou is implying it’s racism. It isn’t. It’s the causes he funds like Best for Britain.
Ironic when the right does the funding then it’s a problem to the same people who are sticking up for Soros.
The left have always been good at funding like this. The right are doing it now.
If he sent the boys in, arrested Netanyahu and his cronies and deposited them in The Hague, better still mid Atlantic, the Middle East with a more moderate Israeli PM would soon be a more peaceful place.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
According to the evidence at trial, those calling 999 told the police that Henry had been stabbed, as did Henry himself. The police should have checked.
I've seen many a bodycam video out of the US where some drunk belligerent clearly falsely claim to be hurt in some way, and the police (irritably) take them to the local hospital for an official check just to make sure they are not accused of missing a genuine potential injury.
Obviously that is not how they always act, particularly in the USA where horror stories about the police are common, but whilst the police do have a difficult job to do, taking a few seconds to check just in case seems like it protects them from just this kind of scenario and would not be onerous or burdensome.
If someone's been stabbed 4 times, I imagine there'd be a fair amount of blood. Would it really have been that hard to notice it? The police are trained in basic first aid after all.
For info (I'm not enough over the detail to draw conclusions, never mind about motivations) AIUI, he had bled 2l internally, from a deep vein / artery behind his collar bone.
It was not treatable by an ambulance crew.
The chest woind was not visibly bleeding due to the victims dark clothing, though there was blood visible elsewhere.
It was not a survivable chest wound according to the pathologist but the police on the scene didn't know that and should have called an ambulance.
The religious aspect was very much a smokescreen put ut together by the defence, and not believed by the court. This was actually a much more common case of an angry man, knife crime (note not involving a kirpan) and a fight over a mobile phone.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
“Two-tier Kier” hasn’t gone away, and the utter lack of interest in cases like this only reinforces such opinions.
Did anyone from the Home Office say anything about the Cenk Uygur story from yesterday, or do we only have his own account? IIRC ministers were all over similar decisions around friends of “Tommy” a few weeks ago.
I suspect that Cenk got caught up by association with his nephew, Hassan Piker, who by all accounts is a total scumbag.
The MAGAsphere in which you seem somewhat immersed is not ‘all accounts’.
Piker? He visited Cuba as a guest of their government, thinks China is a great model to follow, that America deserved 9/11, campaigned with Mamdani in New York, and has voiced support form domestic terrorism in the US, saying that murder victim Brian Thomson was himself guilty of “social murder”,
I guess all this must have happened after Piker came to debate at the Oxford Union last year? Old Hasan sure packed a lot into 12 months!
The 9/11 comment was old, but the others, yes all within the last 12 months. Oh, and I forgot about the animal abuse and his overt support of Hamas, also in the last 12 months.
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
What a sleazeball. Not to mention being totally an American talking point, he is so terminally plugged into the MAGAsphere, clearly.
Very much also a Hungarian talking point, Reform back to being genuinely anti-semitic
Educate me: how is whinging about Soros worse than whinging about Murdoch's influence? (Yes, I know Soros is jewish).
Because the people whinging agree with Soros, not Murdoch, of course.
He has donated money to political and non political causes in the U.K. including anti Brexit lot ‘Best for Britain’.
But I guess simply screaming Jew hate closes debate down.
Yusuf’s claims are false. Soros has donated money to political causes in the UK, but he is not illegally funding election campaigns in the UK, nor does he fund “many in the media”. Yusuf’s rhetoric repeats anti-Semitic tropes.
If he sent the boys in, arrested Netanyahu and his cronies and deposited them in The Hague, better still mid Atlantic, the Middle East with a more moderate Israeli PM would soon be a more peaceful place.
Extremism breeds extremism
Indeed but you’ll never see people like that at The Hague, or the Mullahs. It’s all East Europeans, African warlords and the guy from the Phillipijes.
Quite why any nation co-operates with it is a mystery.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Also it seemed to generally accepted* that law enforcement shouldn’t kneel on someone’s neck for 12 minutes (or however long it was) whatever the circumstances.
*even if some of the MAGA crowd are rowing back on that.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
According to the evidence at trial, those calling 999 told the police that Henry had been stabbed, as did Henry himself. The police should have checked.
I've seen many a bodycam video out of the US where some drunk belligerent clearly falsely claim to be hurt in some way, and the police (irritably) take them to the local hospital for an official check just to make sure they are not accused of missing a genuine potential injury.
Obviously that is not how they always act, particularly in the USA where horror stories about the police are common, but whilst the police do have a difficult job to do, taking a few seconds to check just in case seems like it protects them from just this kind of scenario and would not be onerous or burdensome.
The officers concerned must be made an example of, but the rot runs far deeper. The police have been utterly captured by progressive ideology, and like deathwatch beetle, it has made them completely useless bordering on malign from top to bottom.
I'm not sure whether the police service can be reformed, or whether we should just started again. Not sure where from though, as apparently the army is every bit as bad.
I hope that Reform and the Tories know what sort of job they have on their hands.
Oh, yes, look at these police and how they’ve been “utterly captured by a progressive ideology”…
A total of 53 police officers or staff have been sacked since 2020 after sexual misconduct was proven against them, Thames Valley Police (TVP) said.
The largest non-metropolitan force in England and Wales has periodically published reports into reports of sexual misconduct within the force since April 2024.
It said since April 2020, 110 of its officers or staff have been sanctioned by the force, with measures including dismissal and final written warnings.
Clearly, the main problem with British police is their progressive ideology. /s
53 over 6 years as a proportion is what exactly ?
And over that time how many have gone to Pride, for example. Police cars with rainbow flags on them. It’s only because of the hard work of women’s rights activists this politicisation is ceasing
Luckyguy is quite right.
I might be wrong but I think women's rights activists generally complain about police institutional misogyny not the police becoming less homophobic.
'Months since Denmark's general election, acting prime minister Mette Frederiksen, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, will form a centre-left coalition minority government.
Twelve parties won seats in March's inconclusive election. The Social Democrats won the most votes but saw their weakest performance since 1903.
Speaking to reporters after meeting King Frederik X, Frederiksen said the deal was reached following long and fraught negotiations, adding that she would present the new cabinet on Wednesday.
The deal gives her a third term as prime minister at a time when US President Donald Trump has said he wants to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark.
With 21.9% of the vote, Frederiksen's party won just 38 seats in the March election – losing 12 and falling well short of the 90 needed to form a majority.
The coalition will consist of Frederiksen's Social Democrats, the Socialist People's Party, the centre-left Radikale Venstre and the centrist Moderates, according to a statement from the palace.'
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
“Two-tier Kier” hasn’t gone away, and the utter lack of interest in cases like this only reinforces such opinions.
Did anyone from the Home Office say anything about the Cenk Uygur story from yesterday, or do we only have his own account? IIRC ministers were all over similar decisions around friends of “Tommy” a few weeks ago.
I suspect that Cenk got caught up by association with his nephew, Hassan Piker, who by all accounts is a total scumbag.
The MAGAsphere in which you seem somewhat immersed is not ‘all accounts’.
Piker? He visited Cuba as a guest of their government, thinks China is a great model to follow, that America deserved 9/11, campaigned with Mamdani in New York, and has voiced support form domestic terrorism in the US, saying that murder victim Brian Thomson was himself guilty of “social murder”,
I guess all this must have happened after Piker came to debate at the Oxford Union last year? Old Hasan sure packed a lot into 12 months!
The 9/11 comment was old, but the others, yes all within the last 12 months. Oh, and I forgot about the animal abuse and his overt support of Hamas, also in the last 12 months.
Wait til you hear who else has been bumming up China..
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
I wonder what it is about George Soros that make the online radical right so keen to portray him as a bogeyman controlling the media etc.
He’s in that basket of people, alongside Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Neville Singham, and a handful of others, all very wealthy people funding activism around open borders, defunding police, organised protesting, and other activities designed to make the world a much worse place.
Soros is merely the most famous and public about his work.
Mike Bloomberg too.
Of course Bondezegou is implying it’s racism. It isn’t. It’s the causes he funds like Best for Britain.
Ironic when the right does the funding then it’s a problem to the same people who are sticking up for Soros.
The left have always been good at funding like this. The right are doing it now.
If both of you cannot see the anti-Semitism behind the way George Soros has become the go-to bogeyman financier for voices on the radical right, then I fear we have a long way go to to educate people about anti-Semitism.
Yusuf’s Facebook comments quoted above are not true, are libellous, and are anti-Semitic.
If he sent the boys in, arrested Netanyahu and his cronies and deposited them in The Hague, better still mid Atlantic, the Middle East with a more moderate Israeli PM would soon be a more peaceful place.
Extremism breeds extremism
Indeed but you’ll never see people like that at The Hague, or the Mullahs. It’s all East Europeans, African warlords and the guy from the Phillipijes.
Quite why any nation co-operates with it is a mystery.
I think the failings of the Hague are because nations don't cooperate with it, the US, Russia etc obstruct their attempts to bring the better connected to trial. Sadly I don't think deposing Netanyahu will bring change, the Israeli electorate will elect someone as or more extreme.
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
What a sleazeball. Not to mention being totally an American talking point, he is so terminally plugged into the MAGAsphere, clearly.
Very much also a Hungarian talking point, Reform back to being genuinely anti-semitic
Educate me: how is whinging about Soros worse than whinging about Murdoch's influence? (Yes, I know Soros is jewish).
Because the people whinging agree with Soros, not Murdoch, of course.
He has donated money to political and non political causes in the U.K. including anti Brexit lot ‘Best for Britain’.
But I guess simply screaming Jew hate closes debate down.
Yusuf’s claims are false. Soros has donated money to political causes in the UK, but he is not illegally funding election campaigns in the UK, nor does he fund “many in the media”. Yusuf’s rhetoric repeats anti-Semitic tropes.
Nothing in that quote from Yusuf claims what Soros is doing is illegal.
The OSF has given money to the media and influential think tanks to support its causes, just as Mayor Bloomberg has to support his causes. So has the Gates foundation. And others.
Still it’s all,Jew hate to point it out with Soros 🙄
If he sent the boys in, arrested Netanyahu and his cronies and deposited them in The Hague, better still mid Atlantic, the Middle East with a more moderate Israeli PM would soon be a more peaceful place.
Extremism breeds extremism
Indeed but you’ll never see people like that at The Hague, or the Mullahs. It’s all East Europeans, African warlords and the guy from the Phillipijes.
Quite why any nation co-operates with it is a mystery.
I think the failings of the Hague are because nations don't cooperate with it, the US, Russia etc obstruct their attempts to bring the better connected to trial. Sadly I don't think deposing Netanyahu will bring change, the Israeli electorate will elect someone as or more extreme.
I agree. But he’s built himself up as being the tough guy on Iran and that approach has failed. So it will be someone more extreme.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
If he sent the boys in, arrested Netanyahu and his cronies and deposited them in The Hague, better still mid Atlantic, the Middle East with a more moderate Israeli PM would soon be a more peaceful place.
Extremism breeds extremism
Indeed but you’ll never see people like that at The Hague, or the Mullahs. It’s all East Europeans, African warlords and the guy from the Phillipijes.
Quite why any nation co-operates with it is a mystery.
I think the failings of the Hague are because nations don't cooperate with it, the US, Russia etc obstruct their attempts to bring the better connected to trial. Sadly I don't think deposing Netanyahu will bring change, the Israeli electorate will elect someone as or more extreme.
There’s also the issue that The Hague is for cases where there is no attempt at domestic prosecution.
Which throws an interesting light on some of the (somewhat) performative prosecutions with respect to Northern Ireland. Some people might be quite keen, in fact, to be able to point out that they were prosecuted.
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
I wonder what it is about George Soros that make the online radical right so keen to portray him as a bogeyman controlling the media etc.
He’s in that basket of people, alongside Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Neville Singham, and a handful of others, all very wealthy people funding activism around open borders, defunding police, organised protesting, and other activities designed to make the world a much worse place.
Soros is merely the most famous and public about his work.
Mike Bloomberg too.
Of course Bondezegou is implying it’s racism. It isn’t. It’s the causes he funds like Best for Britain.
Ironic when the right does the funding then it’s a problem to the same people who are sticking up for Soros.
The left have always been good at funding like this. The right are doing it now.
If both of you cannot see the anti-Semitism behind the way George Soros has become the go-to bogeyman financier for voices on the radical right, then I fear we have a long way go to to educate people about anti-Semitism.
Yusuf’s Facebook comments quoted above are not true, are libellous, and are anti-Semitic.
If they’re libellous he can sue. He won’t. For a good reason.
Soros/The OSF has funded groups and media that supports the agenda he believes in. Nothing illegal with it but it’s a matter of record he has.
It’s not antisemitic because you say so. I doubt most people would,even know he was a Jew. He’s a left,of centre wealthy man using his money to advocate causes he supports just as others do.
The Mandelson dump has highlighted more about apparent disagreement in parts of Labour than anything new about Mandelson
Glee in some quarters but nothing new.
What's new is social media, electronic communications and the imprint it leaves.
Any Government from the 70s up to a few years ago had the same sort of internal spats, some on the Tory 2010 to 2020 Brexit scism would have been brutal to read... The fact is the shredder was a great friend and the delete button far more likely to delete internal non Web based intranet communications.
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
What a sleazeball. Not to mention being totally an American talking point, he is so terminally plugged into the MAGAsphere, clearly.
Very much also a Hungarian talking point, Reform back to being genuinely anti-semitic
Educate me: how is whinging about Soros worse than whinging about Murdoch's influence? (Yes, I know Soros is jewish).
Because the people whinging agree with Soros, not Murdoch, of course.
He has donated money to political and non political causes in the U.K. including anti Brexit lot ‘Best for Britain’.
But I guess simply screaming Jew hate closes debate down.
Yusuf’s claims are false. Soros has donated money to political causes in the UK, but he is not illegally funding election campaigns in the UK, nor does he fund “many in the media”. Yusuf’s rhetoric repeats anti-Semitic tropes.
Nothing in that quote from Yusuf claims what Soros is doing is illegal.
The OSF has given money to the media and influential think tanks to support its causes, just as Mayor Bloomberg has to support his causes. So has the Gates foundation. And others.
Still it’s all,Jew hate to point it out with Soros 🙄
Soros regularly features in anti-Semitic memes. If you were being charitable to Yusaf this is a carefully worded dog whistle
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
What a sleazeball. Not to mention being totally an American talking point, he is so terminally plugged into the MAGAsphere, clearly.
Very much also a Hungarian talking point, Reform back to being genuinely anti-semitic
Educate me: how is whinging about Soros worse than whinging about Murdoch's influence? (Yes, I know Soros is jewish).
Because the people whinging agree with Soros, not Murdoch, of course.
He has donated money to political and non political causes in the U.K. including anti Brexit lot ‘Best for Britain’.
But I guess simply screaming Jew hate closes debate down.
Yusuf’s claims are false. Soros has donated money to political causes in the UK, but he is not illegally funding election campaigns in the UK, nor does he fund “many in the media”. Yusuf’s rhetoric repeats anti-Semitic tropes.
Nothing in that quote from Yusuf claims what Soros is doing is illegal.
The OSF has given money to the media and influential think tanks to support its causes, just as Mayor Bloomberg has to support his causes. So has the Gates foundation. And others.
Still it’s all,Jew hate to point it out with Soros 🙄
Yusuf describes it as “foreign election interference”. Foreign political donations are banned in the UK.
Soros hasn’t funded any mainstream UK media. The OSF did give a big donation to Full Fact, who might be considered media adjacent.
Yusuf describes Soros’s actions in the present tense. What funding by Soros in 2026 or 2025 concerns you or would match Yusuf’s description?
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
What a sleazeball. Not to mention being totally an American talking point, he is so terminally plugged into the MAGAsphere, clearly.
Very much also a Hungarian talking point, Reform back to being genuinely anti-semitic
Educate me: how is whinging about Soros worse than whinging about Murdoch's influence? (Yes, I know Soros is jewish).
Because the people whinging agree with Soros, not Murdoch, of course.
He has donated money to political and non political causes in the U.K. including anti Brexit lot ‘Best for Britain’.
But I guess simply screaming Jew hate closes debate down.
Yusuf’s claims are false. Soros has donated money to political causes in the UK, but he is not illegally funding election campaigns in the UK, nor does he fund “many in the media”. Yusuf’s rhetoric repeats anti-Semitic tropes.
Nothing in that quote from Yusuf claims what Soros is doing is illegal.
The OSF has given money to the media and influential think tanks to support its causes, just as Mayor Bloomberg has to support his causes. So has the Gates foundation. And others.
Still it’s all,Jew hate to point it out with Soros 🙄
Yusuf describes it as “foreign election interference”. Foreign political donations are banned in the UK.
Soros hasn’t funded any mainstream UK media. The OSF did give a big donation to Full Fact, who might be considered media adjacent.
Yusuf describes Soros’s actions in the present tense. What funding by Soros in 2026 or 2025 concerns you or would match Yusuf’s description?
There are 5 million reasons why Yusuf is a two faced lying.....
Edit - and that's a problem reform will have until Farage disappears - 5 million reasons why they can't be trusted on infinite repeat...
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
Both victims said "I can't breathe". When you watch the video, it's eerily similar to the Floyd case.
I think the police officers should be facing a charge of gross negligence manslaughter.
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
I wonder what it is about George Soros that make the online radical right so keen to portray him as a bogeyman controlling the media etc.
He’s in that basket of people, alongside Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Neville Singham, and a handful of others, all very wealthy people funding activism around open borders, defunding police, organised protesting, and other activities designed to make the world a much worse place.
Soros is merely the most famous and public about his work.
Mike Bloomberg too.
Of course Bondezegou is implying it’s racism. It isn’t. It’s the causes he funds like Best for Britain.
Ironic when the right does the funding then it’s a problem to the same people who are sticking up for Soros.
The left have always been good at funding like this. The right are doing it now.
If both of you cannot see the anti-Semitism behind the way George Soros has become the go-to bogeyman financier for voices on the radical right, then I fear we have a long way go to to educate people about anti-Semitism.
Yusuf’s Facebook comments quoted above are not true, are libellous, and are anti-Semitic.
If they’re libellous he can sue. He won’t. For a good reason.
Soros/The OSF has funded groups and media that supports the agenda he believes in. Nothing illegal with it but it’s a matter of record he has.
It’s not antisemitic because you say so. I doubt most people would,even know he was a Jew. He’s a left,of centre wealthy man using his money to advocate causes he supports just as others do.
Yusuf isn’t just saying Soros is funding causes that Yusuf disagrees with. Yusuf is saying that Soros controls the media, which is a standard anti-Semitic trope.
It’s like the mural Jeremy Corbyn didn’t see as anti-Semitic. The mural evoked specific anti-Semitic tropes, as Yusuf does here.
Am getting a VAST amount of stuff on my FB feed because I searched Makerfield by election. George Soros is now pivotal according to Zia Yusuf.
Is he actually bring up Soros? My opinion of that online troll has just dropped further.
"George Soros is spending vast amounts on British election campaigns to push his open borders agenda and ruin Britain.
This is foreign election interference and the media are silent about it, because many in the media are funded by him too.
Reform will end this."
Zia Yusuf Facebook post 8 hours ago.
What a sleazeball. Not to mention being totally an American talking point, he is so terminally plugged into the MAGAsphere, clearly.
Very much also a Hungarian talking point, Reform back to being genuinely anti-semitic
Educate me: how is whinging about Soros worse than whinging about Murdoch's influence? (Yes, I know Soros is jewish).
Because the people whinging agree with Soros, not Murdoch, of course.
He has donated money to political and non political causes in the U.K. including anti Brexit lot ‘Best for Britain’.
But I guess simply screaming Jew hate closes debate down.
Yusuf’s claims are false. Soros has donated money to political causes in the UK, but he is not illegally funding election campaigns in the UK, nor does he fund “many in the media”. Yusuf’s rhetoric repeats anti-Semitic tropes.
Nothing in that quote from Yusuf claims what Soros is doing is illegal.
The OSF has given money to the media and influential think tanks to support its causes, just as Mayor Bloomberg has to support his causes. So has the Gates foundation. And others.
Still it’s all,Jew hate to point it out with Soros 🙄
The words 'Jew Hate' are repellent and are invariably used by people with an ulterior motive. It sounds like a disease. If you mean 'hate Jews' say so and don't try to get extra mileage out of it or people who understand these things will treat you with the utmost suspicion..
The bit with the handcuff chap on the ground saying that he has been stabbed, and the policeman saying no you haven’t, seems rather negligent.
As with Floyd, I suspect that this is as a result of mental categorisation of people as things.
The American policeman saw George Floyd as “black habitual criminal” = dangerous and not very valuable.
The policeman in this case probably thought (due to the statements made by liars) “racist violent wanker” = dangerous and not very valuable.
Don’t be like that. Be like Richard Jolly.
Yes, this is it. A load of the Farage lot on X are saying this is all the result of DEI etc. etc. It's not.
As you say, the police have a low opinion of a white guy who they perceive to be a gobby so and so. The others appear very nice and well-mannered. I have no doubt that they feel absolutely awful about it now, but they should be facing criminal charges.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Lumping both cases together as “behaved badly” is ridiculous. In one case, a police officer murdered someone. In the other case, the police didn’t murder anyone.
The bit with the handcuff chap on the ground saying that he has been stabbed, and the policeman saying no you haven’t, seems rather negligent.
As with Floyd, I suspect that this is as a result of mental categorisation of people as things.
The American policeman saw George Floyd as “black habitual criminal” = dangerous and not very valuable.
The policeman in this case probably thought (due to the statements made by liars) “racist violent wanker” = dangerous and not very valuable.
Don’t be like that. Be like Richard Jolly.
Yes, this is it. A load of the Farage lot on X are saying this is all the result of DEI etc. etc. It's not.
As you say, the police have a low opinion of a white guy who they perceive to be a gobby so and so. The others appear very nice and well-mannered. I have no doubt that they feel absolutely awful about it now, but they should be facing criminal charges.
There will be plenty of UK police officers doing the same to someone they mentally class as “black criminal”.
It’s about In Groups and Out Groups.
Allowing people to think by group (and even training them in it) is at the root of it.
Understanding that human instinct and training *against* it, is at the heart of learning to try for real objectivity.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Lumping both cases together as “behaved badly” is ridiculous. In one case, a police officer murdered someone. In the other case, the police didn’t murder anyone.
Amazing how the left go into bat for the police when the victim is someone they don't like.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
What is a complete ban on kirpans? What, exactly, would that mean banning, and how would it be defined ?
I have my ideas, but "complete ban on kirpans" (was it Jenrick who started form that, I think?) is not one of them.
The Kirpan was irrelevant to this case as it was not the murder weapon and not used in the incident. The confusion is in part deliberate by the Digwa's defence and in part deliberate by the twitersphere. That Digwa passed the murder weapon via his brother to his mother (who was convicted of hiding it) shows that he knew that he should not have been carrying it.
While there was blood at the scene, the judges remarks include that the fatal knife wound to the chest was not visible, and because of dark clothing on the victim blood could not be seen. According to the pathologist, this was not a wound that was survivable with any treatment at the scene.
There were 4 wounds. The boy was lying on the ground, unable to move and no threat. He was repeatedly saying he had been stabbed. One of the calls to 999 said he'd been stabbed and mentioned blood.
The police see the man who claims to have been attacked standing up and walking around fine and the man he says is the assailant lying on the ground unable to move. When the attacker says to the police, lies, that Henry has not been stabbed, the police officer's response is to say "I know but we have to check."
It's that " I know" which is so damning. The police made an assumption. They believed the man who claimed to be a victim of a racist attack rather than look at what was in front of their own eyes.
Look at the McPherson report and the assumptions the police made there about a dying black boy and the assumptions the police made here about a dying white boy.
There is a rule in policing and in all good investigations: A B C. Assume Nothing. Believe No-one. Check Everything.
The police did not kill that boy or hasten his death. But his dying moments were made dreadful because of their inhumane response, a response which possibly was influenced by unspoken assumptions or ones trained into them.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Lumping both cases together as “behaved badly” is ridiculous. In one case, a police officer murdered someone. In the other case, the police didn’t murder anyone.
Amazing how the left go into bat for the police when the victim is someone they don't like.
Sorry, what is that meant to mean? Can you explain what you are implying?
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that? None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins. Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.
Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.
1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report 2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report 3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing 4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting
So the reasons he was sacked would be,
1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself 2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence 3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation 4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.
I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.
There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment
If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity
You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone
I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.
I categorically state I was not mistaken and accurately posted Coates and Boultons analysis of one of the 1500 files released today
Even if that is true your post had no such qualifier. Your precise words were “ It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?”. If you’d qualified that by opening with “Sky commentators are suggesting that…” I’d be more forgiving. You didn’t. And I don’t think they did either.
Sorry, once more, for the pile on but there’s so much bullshit around I feel compelled to call it out sometimes.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
Thank you and if it is the same e mail communication then that was Coates and Boultons comment that it exomerates Robbins
However, in no way does this exonerate Robbins. Are you quoting the Sky reporters when you write "exonerate"?
Will it be the address of his Clacton constituency office?
Nigel Farage MP @Nigel_Farage I will deliver an emergency address to the nation at 8am. 🚨
Heh.
I think Mr Farage is beginning to come apart. He's just launched another "look over there" complaint against Hope not Hate to the Charity Commission, which as far as I can see is complaining about the structure that passed muster about 4 months ago in the last enquiry.
He's doesn't seem to like people finding out things about his Jolly Plumber that either he did not find out himself, or chose to try and keep quiet.
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that? None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins. Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.
Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.
1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report 2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report 3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing 4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting
So the reasons he was sacked would be,
1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself 2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence 3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation 4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.
I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.
There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment
If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity
You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone
I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.
I categorically state I was not mistaken and accurately posted Coates and Boultons analysis of one of the 1500 files released today
Even if that is true your post had no such qualifier. Your precise words were “ It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?”. If you’d qualified that by opening with “Sky commentators are suggesting that…” I’d be more forgiving. You didn’t. And I don’t think they did either.
Sorry, once more, for the pile on but there’s so much bullshit around I feel compelled to call it out sometimes.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
Thank you and if it is the same e mail communication then that was Coates and Boultons comment that it exomerates Robbins
However, in no way does this exonerate Robbins. Are you quoting the Sky reporters when you write "exonerate"?
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Lumping both cases together as “behaved badly” is ridiculous. In one case, a police officer murdered someone. In the other case, the police didn’t murder anyone.
You can say how different or how similar the cases are but its irrelevant to the outside effect it has produced.
And that effect is to suggest that Starmer was more interested about a killing in Minnesota than he is about a killing in Hampshire.
This adds to a belief that Starmer is not interested in 'people like us' - note Burnham's slogan 'Vote Andy. For us'.
"Mouth-covering rules: Any player covering their mouth, either with a hand or shirt, while being aggressive towards another player will immediately receive a red card. Players using the method to communicate with their own teammates won't be penalised."
Will it be the address of his Clacton constituency office?
Nigel Farage MP @Nigel_Farage I will deliver an emergency address to the nation at 8am. 🚨
Heh.
I think Mr Farage is beginning to come apart. He's just launched another "look over there" complaint against Hope not Hate to the Charity Commission, which as far as I can see is complaining about the structure that passed muster about 4 months ago in the last enquiry.
He's doesn't seem to like people finding out things about his Jolly Plumber that either he did not find out himself, or chose to try and keep quiet.
So seeing as it’s 9am, has he “addressed the nation”?
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that? None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins. Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.
Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.
1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report 2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report 3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing 4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting
So the reasons he was sacked would be,
1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself 2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence 3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation 4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.
I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.
There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment
If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity
You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone
I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.
I categorically state I was not mistaken and accurately posted Coates and Boultons analysis of one of the 1500 files released today
Even if that is true your post had no such qualifier. Your precise words were “ It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?”. If you’d qualified that by opening with “Sky commentators are suggesting that…” I’d be more forgiving. You didn’t. And I don’t think they did either.
Sorry, once more, for the pile on but there’s so much bullshit around I feel compelled to call it out sometimes.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
Thank you and if it is the same e mail communication then that was Coates and Boultons comment that it exomerates Robbins
However, in no way does this exonerate Robbins. Are you quoting the Sky reporters when you write "exonerate"?
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
What is a complete ban on kirpans? What, exactly, would that mean banning, and how would it be defined ?
I have my ideas, but "complete ban on kirpans" (was it Jenrick who started form that, I think?) is not one of them.
The Kirpan was irrelevant to this case as it was not the murder weapon and not used in the incident. The confusion is in part deliberate by the Digwa's defence and in part deliberate by the twitersphere. That Digwa passed the murder weapon via his brother to his mother (who was convicted of hiding it) shows that he knew that he should not have been carrying it.
While there was blood at the scene, the judges remarks include that the fatal knife wound to the chest was not visible, and because of dark clothing on the victim blood could not be seen. According to the pathologist, this was not a wound that was survivable with any treatment at the scene.
There were 4 wounds. The boy was lying on the ground, unable to move and no threat. He was repeatedly saying he had been stabbed. One of the calls to 999 said he'd been stabbed and mentioned blood.
The police see the man who claims to have been attacked standing up and walking around fine and the man he says is the assailant lying on the ground unable to move. When the attacker says to the police, lies, that Henry has not been stabbed, the police officer's response is to say "I know but we have to check."
It's that " I know" which is so damning. The police made an assumption. They believed the man who claimed to be a victim of a racist attack rather than look at what was in front of their own eyes.
Look at the McPherson report and the assumptions the police made there about a dying black boy and the assumptions the police made here about a dying white boy.
There is a rule in policing and in all good investigations: A B C. Assume Nothing. Believe No-one. Check Everything.
The police did not kill that boy or hasten his death. But his dying moments were made dreadful because of their inhumane response, a response which possibly was influenced by unspoken assumptions or ones trained into them.
According to the judge's remarks (like you I won't watch the video), it was dark, and he was wearing dark clothing, and they realised their error fairly quickly. Other than that slim mitigation, I agree entirely with what you say.
It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones.
Will it be the address of his Clacton constituency office?
Nigel Farage MP @Nigel_Farage I will deliver an emergency address to the nation at 8am. 🚨
Heh.
I think Mr Farage is beginning to come apart. He's just launched another "look over there" complaint against Hope not Hate to the Charity Commission, which as far as I can see is complaining about the structure that passed muster about 4 months ago in the last enquiry.
He's doesn't seem to like people finding out things about his Jolly Plumber that either he did not find out himself, or chose to try and keep quiet.
The 109657th time someone has called Peak Farage.
The thing is, politicians who are good at connecting with the public are able to shake off the things that tarnish the Westminster Central Casting Politician.
Farage, and to a similar extent Boris are far more human in the way they associate with the public. They're naturally warm rather than wonkish. People are therefore much more forgiving. To be human is to err, after all....
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Lumping both cases together as “behaved badly” is ridiculous. In one case, a police officer murdered someone. In the other case, the police didn’t murder anyone.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
What is a complete ban on kirpans? What, exactly, would that mean banning, and how would it be defined ?
I have my ideas, but "complete ban on kirpans" (was it Jenrick who started form that, I think?) is not one of them.
The Kirpan was irrelevant to this case as it was not the murder weapon and not used in the incident. The confusion is in part deliberate by the Digwa's defence and in part deliberate by the twitersphere. That Digwa passed the murder weapon via his brother to his mother (who was convicted of hiding it) shows that he knew that he should not have been carrying it.
While there was blood at the scene, the judges remarks include that the fatal knife wound to the chest was not visible, and because of dark clothing on the victim blood could not be seen. According to the pathologist, this was not a wound that was survivable with any treatment at the scene.
There were 4 wounds. The boy was lying on the ground, unable to move and no threat. He was repeatedly saying he had been stabbed. One of the calls to 999 said he'd been stabbed and mentioned blood.
The police see the man who claims to have been attacked standing up and walking around fine and the man he says is the assailant lying on the ground unable to move. When the attacker says to the police, lies, that Henry has not been stabbed, the police officer's response is to say "I know but we have to check."
It's that " I know" which is so damning. The police made an assumption. They believed the man who claimed to be a victim of a racist attack rather than look at what was in front of their own eyes.
Look at the McPherson report and the assumptions the police made there about a dying black boy and the assumptions the police made here about a dying white boy.
There is a rule in policing and in all good investigations: A B C. Assume Nothing. Believe No-one. Check Everything.
The police did not kill that boy or hasten his death. But his dying moments were made dreadful because of their inhumane response, a response which possibly was influenced by unspoken assumptions or ones trained into them.
It's the putting handcuffs on a person lying on the ground that makes no sense - it's clear that he wasn't going anywhere so WTF was that policeman doing..
It's probably not for the best that the policeman is fired for what happened but I can't see any other conclusion that is fair to Henry's parents...
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that? None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins. Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.
Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.
1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report 2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report 3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing 4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting
So the reasons he was sacked would be,
1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself 2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence 3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation 4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.
I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.
There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment
If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity
You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone
I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.
I categorically state I was not mistaken and accurately posted Coates and Boultons analysis of one of the 1500 files released today
Even if that is true your post had no such qualifier. Your precise words were “ It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?”. If you’d qualified that by opening with “Sky commentators are suggesting that…” I’d be more forgiving. You didn’t. And I don’t think they did either.
Sorry, once more, for the pile on but there’s so much bullshit around I feel compelled to call it out sometimes.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
Thank you and if it is the same e mail communication then that was Coates and Boultons comment that it exomerates Robbins
However, in no way does this exonerate Robbins. Are you quoting the Sky reporters when you write "exonerate"?
Not this again
I took an hour to research the actual sky clip and posted it on here on this thread with the actual e mail they discussed and Adam Boulton's words
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
They already have a compromise. The kirpan must be of a limited length.
Am sensing from the huge quantity of Makerfield FB feed I'm getting that the mood has shifted considerably in the last 24 hours.
The feed is algorithmically designed to grab your attention and enrage you enough to keep watching. The information it contains is not a cross-section of the truth but is skewed by the desires of the advertisers. The phenomenon you observe may be "the truth" but it may be purely an artefact of the algorithm.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
“Two-tier Kier” hasn’t gone away, and the utter lack of interest in cases like this only reinforces such opinions.
Did anyone from the Home Office say anything about the Cenk Uygur story from yesterday, or do we only have his own account? IIRC ministers were all over similar decisions around friends of “Tommy” a few weeks ago.
I suspect that Cenk got caught up by association with his nephew, Hassan Piker, who by all accounts is a total scumbag.
The MAGAsphere in which you seem somewhat immersed is not ‘all accounts’.
It's not just the MAGAsphere. For example, look at the comments under any Facebook post by local papers about almost anything criminal and you'll find angry comments about "TTK".
It's probably only a fairly small subset of the population, but they are very, very angry. It does cut both ways, there are plenty of people angry about Farage too.
If you have a look at some other places - Telegraph comments, Speccie Youtube channel comments (which are quite Restore UK) - TTK is everywhere, along with any number of conspiracy theories.
Bollocks repeated often enough attracts an audience.
I think the more important aspect is that we are swimming in a political swamp that rewards fear and loathing.
Jenrick, Yusuf etc have been spouting various lies * to turn this into a race-baiting issue because they think that race-baiting benefits them politically - which it perhaps does to an extent.
That is the trend that needs to be reversed. When Jenrick or a.n.other deliberately lies it needs to damage, even in his own perception, not reward.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
The difference between Starmer's lack of interest and his posturing obsession about George Floyd seems to have broken thorough.
I've heard this contrast mentioned by three different people during the last few days.
How are they comparable? People have always murdered other people and, sadly, will go on doing so. The point about George Floyd that makes his case different is that he was murdered by law enforcement, exactly the people who are meant to protect us. It was the abuse of state power that made the Floyd case significant. The police made errors in the Nowak case, but they didn’t murder anyone, they didn’t try to murder anyone.
Both cases are about police restraining someone who later died.
No. In the George Floyd case, Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a police officer. He didn’t happen to die later. He didn’t die because of some other reason.
While Floyd was deemed a threat by the Minnesota police who had to be restrained whereas Nowak was already badly wounded and no threat but was still handcuffed by the Hampshire plods.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Lumping both cases together as “behaved badly” is ridiculous. In one case, a police officer murdered someone. In the other case, the police didn’t murder anyone.
They just let him bleed to death...
They did not know at first that he was bleeding. They soon realised their error, but he died before they could do anything about it.
They made a mistake, but they’re not responsible for Nowak’s death. The man responsible for Nowak’s death was Vickrum Digwa, who has rightfully received a life sentence.
Bodycam footage of the arrest of Henry Nowak has been released. It's extremely harrowing to watch.
I don't intend to.
I know it's difficult to assess what's happened in minutes in the aftermath of a fight or assault but when someone is injured, your priority should always be to assist the injured person.
Compare with the assailant in Golders Green who stabbed two people. After the police disarmed him he was treated by the Shomrin volunteers. They had a better understanding of their obligations than professional policemen.
Even if Henry had been the culprit (he wasn't) as an injured boy repeatedly saying he was severely injured, he should have been given medical help. Not be dragged, handcuffed with his hands behind his back which would have caused him further pain if he couldn't breathe and read his rights as he died. It is horrific that those were his last moments.
Any responsible adult, faced with one person who said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ and one who said ‘he was abusive’, should be quickly verifying the stabbing claim first. At a minimum calling an ambulance or doing first aid.
All I would say is that the police have a very difficult job to do. They obviously deal with all kinds of incidents involving claim and counter claim every day. I suppose we will find out what they were told prior to the incident in the fullness of time. Was it inexperienced officers/brainwashing by DEI etc.
The other thing this highlights is the religious exemption for carrying a dangerous weapon. Fraser Nelson has made the point about defending religious liberty, which as a committed Christian presumably means privileges for people like him. With the focus on knife crime, stop and search, is it really feasible to allow a complete exemption for knives held for religious reasons? I'm not sure that will hold in the court of public opinion. Most people's idea of religious liberty is about stopping persecution, forced conversion or discrimination not being able to carry a dangerous weapon about your person.
If Sikh leaders are wise they will be looking at trying to find some kind of compromise that avoids a complete ban.
They already have a compromise. The kirpan must be of a limited length.
Indeed. According to I think the judge, it is SOP not to prosecute if blade length is less than 9".
IMO that won't stand, as this one (whether or not it the killing weapon qualified as a "kirpan") was less than 9".
The "Sgian Dubh in my sock" community seem to work with blunt not-a-blades, and normally 3.5" long. Apparently a bottle opener not a blunt blade is popular and valid, and they are more popular at highland flings.
I'd simply withdraw the exception, and if it is to have a "sharpened blade" it must conform to the general exception to the "bladed" definition of a folding non-locking blade, with a blade under 3" long.
There may be complications around other occasions - eg bayonets of war re-enactors, but that should be navigable.
Will it be the address of his Clacton constituency office?
Nigel Farage MP @Nigel_Farage I will deliver an emergency address to the nation at 8am. 🚨
Heh.
I think Mr Farage is beginning to come apart. He's just launched another "look over there" complaint against Hope not Hate to the Charity Commission, which as far as I can see is complaining about the structure that passed muster about 4 months ago in the last enquiry.
He's doesn't seem to like people finding out things about his Jolly Plumber that either he did not find out himself, or chose to try and keep quiet.
The 109657th time someone has called Peak Farage.
The thing is, politicians who are good at connecting with the public are able to shake off the things that tarnish the Westminster Central Casting Politician.
Farage, and to a similar extent Boris are far more human in the way they associate with the public. They're naturally warm rather than wonkish. People are therefore much more forgiving. To be human is to err, after all....
It’s like people calling the top of the stock market. Eventually they will get it right and, of course, point to the single time they were right to show their Cassandra like abilities
The Mandelson dump has highlighted more about apparent disagreement in parts of Labour than anything new about Mandelson
Glee in some quarters but nothing new.
What's new is social media, electronic communications and the imprint it leaves.
Any Government from the 70s up to a few years ago had the same sort of internal spats, some on the Tory 2010 to 2020 Brexit scism would have been brutal to read... The fact is the shredder was a great friend and the delete button far more likely to delete internal non Web based intranet communications.
The digital imprint is a feature of Ian McEwan's latest novel "What we can know". It is set a hundred years in the future and is about a dinner party in the recent past. As background, Nigeria has succeeded China as the world's policeman and the British Isles are isles. An interesting novel.
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that? None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins. Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.
Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.
1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report 2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report 3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing 4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting
So the reasons he was sacked would be,
1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself 2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence 3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation 4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.
I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.
There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment
If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity
You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone
I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.
I categorically state I was not mistaken and accurately posted Coates and Boultons analysis of one of the 1500 files released today
Even if that is true your post had no such qualifier. Your precise words were “ It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?”. If you’d qualified that by opening with “Sky commentators are suggesting that…” I’d be more forgiving. You didn’t. And I don’t think they did either.
Sorry, once more, for the pile on but there’s so much bullshit around I feel compelled to call it out sometimes.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
Thank you and if it is the same e mail communication then that was Coates and Boultons comment that it exomerates Robbins
However, in no way does this exonerate Robbins. Are you quoting the Sky reporters when you write "exonerate"?
Not this again
I took an hour to research the actual sky clip and posted it on here on this thread with the actual e mail they discussed and Adam Boulton's words
The likening of this case to George Floyd is just more of the usual.
Der der der der ... der da.
"And our next contestant. What's your name and occupation please?"
"The online right. Internet pundit."
"And your specialist subject?"
"Ludicrously false equivalence."
"Ok. Your two minutes on ludicrously false equivalence starts NOW."
That comes across as panicky denial.
You might not think there is any similarity, you might not think its fair that others might think there's a similarity.
But the world can be unfair.
And the imagery isn't good for Starmer.
Not that it matters much as Starmer's already so disliked and heading towards the exit door.
If there's one thing politicians should learn from this is to focus on the relevant, on the local.
This case is awful and the police have questions to answer. Looking to frame it as a George Floyd in reverse or in any way down to Keir Starmer doesn't help at all. It comes across as hyperbolic and agenda-driven. It deserves better analysis than that imo.
Comments
As with Floyd, I suspect that this is as a result of mental categorisation of people as things.
The American policeman saw George Floyd as “black habitual criminal” = dangerous and not very valuable.
The policeman in this case probably thought (due to the statements made by liars) “racist violent wanker” = dangerous and not very valuable.
Don’t be like that. Be like Richard Jolly.
It's probably only a fairly small subset of the population, but they are very, very angry. It does cut both ways, there are plenty of people angry about Farage too.
Some time since I've found a comment about Kemi in the wild mind you!
And over that time how many have gone to Pride, for example. Police cars with rainbow flags on them. It’s only because of the hard work of women’s rights activists this politicisation is ceasing
Luckyguy is quite right.
This is all on his WIki page by the way, not some “MAGAsphere” website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Piker
Yeah, he’s an antisemitic scumbag.
A striking thread for Reform supporters was mistrust in politicians and the ability of government to improve things, including higher levels of dissatisfaction with the NHS and a greater tendency to agree with statements such as: “Politicians talk too much and take too little action.”
They were also more likely to be worried about their own personal circumstances, particularly their finances...But more notable still were attitudes to social issues, with 67% of Reform supporters believing migrants are bad for the economy, and 75% thinking they undermine the UK’s culture, more than double the respective figures of 33% and 35% for the population at large.
Similarly, 88% of Reform backers say equal opportunities for transgender people have “gone too far”, against 48% of the general public. Of Reform supporters, 52% expressed the same view about lesbian, gay and bisexual people and 51% about black and Asian people. Nationally, the figures for these were 27% and 17%.
People who were both authoritarian and dissatisfied were particularly likely to back Reform, with support for the party among this “interaction group” rising to 46%.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/02/reform-uk-support-could-plateau-relies-on-conservative-views-study-finds
You are a foreign influence
He/She/They are buying elections
Take the money out of politics. Full stop.
Would Farage’s bung be better if it came from inside the UK and been declared (as it should have been)? Not much, in my view.
It was not treatable by an ambulance crew.
When he loses Newark at the next general election I will raise a particular glass to the demise of an unprincipled bastard.
Soros is merely the most famous and public about his work.
Not very long ago, making a complaint against a fellow officer who was consider One Of Us would result in the complainant being pushed out of The Farce. Quite often with a disciplinary action or even prosecution against the *complainant*.
Of course Bondezegou is implying it’s racism. It isn’t. It’s the causes he funds like Best for Britain.
Ironic when the right does the funding then it’s a problem to the same people who are sticking up for Soros.
The left have always been good at funding like this. The right are doing it now.
Extremism breeds extremism
It was not a survivable chest wound according to the pathologist but the police on the scene didn't know that and should have called an ambulance.
The religious aspect was very much a smokescreen put ut together by the defence, and not believed by the court. This was actually a much more common case of an angry man, knife crime (note not involving a kirpan) and a fight over a mobile phone.
Quite why any nation co-operates with it is a mystery.
*even if some of the MAGA crowd are rowing back on that.
Twelve parties won seats in March's inconclusive election. The Social Democrats won the most votes but saw their weakest performance since 1903.
Speaking to reporters after meeting King Frederik X, Frederiksen said the deal was reached following long and fraught negotiations, adding that she would present the new cabinet on Wednesday.
The deal gives her a third term as prime minister at a time when US President Donald Trump has said he wants to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark.
With 21.9% of the vote, Frederiksen's party won just 38 seats in the March election – losing 12 and falling well short of the 90 needed to form a majority.
The coalition will consist of Frederiksen's Social Democrats, the Socialist People's Party, the centre-left Radikale Venstre and the centrist Moderates, according to a statement from the palace.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7p3e34x5no
Yusuf’s Facebook comments quoted above are not true, are libellous, and are anti-Semitic.
Sadly I don't think deposing Netanyahu will bring change, the Israeli electorate will elect someone as or more extreme.
The OSF has given money to the media and influential think tanks to support its causes, just as Mayor Bloomberg has to support his causes. So has the Gates foundation. And others.
Still it’s all,Jew hate to point it out with Soros 🙄
Which throws an interesting light on some of the (somewhat) performative prosecutions with respect to Northern Ireland. Some people might be quite keen, in fact, to be able to point out that they were prosecuted.
Soros/The OSF has funded groups and media that supports the agenda he believes in. Nothing illegal with it but it’s a matter of record he has.
It’s not antisemitic because you say so. I doubt most people would,even know he was a Jew. He’s a left,of centre wealthy man using his money to advocate causes he supports just as others do.
Glee in some quarters but nothing new.
What's new is social media, electronic communications and the imprint it leaves.
Any Government from the 70s up to a few years ago had the same sort of internal spats, some on the Tory 2010 to 2020 Brexit scism would have been brutal to read... The fact is the shredder was a great friend and the delete button far more likely to delete internal non Web based intranet communications.
Soros hasn’t funded any mainstream UK media. The OSF did give a big donation to Full Fact, who might be considered media adjacent.
Yusuf describes Soros’s actions in the present tense. What funding by Soros in 2026 or 2025 concerns you or would match Yusuf’s description?
Edit - and that's a problem reform will have until Farage disappears - 5 million reasons why they can't be trusted on infinite repeat...
I think the police officers should be facing a charge of gross negligence manslaughter.
Nigel Farage MP
@Nigel_Farage
I will deliver an emergency address to the nation at 8am. 🚨
It’s like the mural Jeremy Corbyn didn’t see as anti-Semitic. The mural evoked specific anti-Semitic tropes, as Yusuf does here.
As you say, the police have a low opinion of a white guy who they perceive to be a gobby so and so. The others appear very nice and well-mannered. I have no doubt that they feel absolutely awful about it now, but they should be facing criminal charges.
BTW - what was it? That he has given back the £5m bung?
911 killed less than 3,000, by way of comparison.
A 911 is visiting Russia nearly every two days. All at the whim of Putin.
This is all just dancing around a pinhead.
The Minnesota police behaved badly and the Hampshire plods behaved badly.
The connection is police misconduct.
And the external issue which has had an impact is the posturing from Starmer about Floyd compared to his indifference about the Nowak.
Can you give any details of his current involvement in UK politics which merits Yusuf's outburst ?
It’s about In Groups and Out Groups.
Allowing people to think by group (and even training them in it) is at the root of it.
Understanding that human instinct and training *against* it, is at the heart of learning to try for real objectivity.
The police see the man who claims to have been attacked standing up and walking around fine and the man he says is the assailant lying on the ground unable to move. When the attacker says to the police, lies, that Henry has not been stabbed, the police officer's response is to say "I know but we have to check."
It's that " I know" which is so damning. The police made an assumption. They believed the man who claimed to be a victim of a racist attack rather than look at what was in front of their own eyes.
Look at the McPherson report and the assumptions the police made there about a dying black boy and the assumptions the police made here about a dying white boy.
There is a rule in policing and in all good investigations: A B C. Assume Nothing. Believe No-one. Check Everything.
The police did not kill that boy or hasten his death. But his dying moments were made dreadful because of their inhumane response, a response which possibly was influenced by unspoken assumptions or ones trained into them.
Der der der der ... der da.
"And our next contestant. What's your name and occupation please?"
"The online right. Internet pundit."
"And your specialist subject?"
"Ludicrously false equivalence."
"Ok. Your two minutes on ludicrously false equivalence starts NOW."
I think Mr Farage is beginning to come apart. He's just launched another "look over there" complaint against Hope not Hate to the Charity Commission, which as far as I can see is complaining about the structure that passed muster about 4 months ago in the last enquiry.
He's doesn't seem to like people finding out things about his Jolly Plumber that either he did not find out himself, or chose to try and keep quiet.
And that effect is to suggest that Starmer was more interested about a killing in Minnesota than he is about a killing in Hampshire.
This adds to a belief that Starmer is not interested in 'people like us' - note Burnham's slogan 'Vote Andy. For us'.
What is the reason?
Are players now banned from calling each other "mmmmmf mmmmmmf mmmmmmfffff !!!" ?
You might not think there is any similarity, you might not think its fair that others might think there's a similarity.
But the world can be unfair.
And the imagery isn't good for Starmer.
Not that it matters much as Starmer's already so disliked and heading towards the exit door.
If there's one thing politicians should learn from this is to focus on the relevant, on the local.
Other than that slim mitigation, I agree entirely with what you say.
It ought not to be difficult to understand that training to deal with existing prejudices cannot mean replacing them with new ones.
The thing is, politicians who are good at connecting with the public are able to shake off the things that tarnish the Westminster Central Casting Politician.
Farage, and to a similar extent Boris are far more human in the way they associate with the public. They're naturally warm rather than wonkish. People are therefore much more forgiving. To be human is to err, after all....
NEW THREAD
It's probably not for the best that the policeman is fired for what happened but I can't see any other conclusion that is fair to Henry's parents...
I took an hour to research the actual sky clip and posted it on here on this thread with the actual e mail they discussed and Adam Boulton's words
https://www.youtube.com/live/Bak2DEulc0Q?si=bBxZjQY8aT4j6ZCr
Bollocks repeated often enough attracts an audience.
I think the more important aspect is that we are swimming in a political swamp that rewards fear and loathing.
Jenrick, Yusuf etc have been spouting various lies * to turn this into a race-baiting issue because they think that race-baiting benefits them politically - which it perhaps does to an extent.
That is the trend that needs to be reversed. When Jenrick or a.n.other deliberately lies it needs to damage, even in his own perception, not reward.
* eg https://www.facebook.com/reel/851736588004893
They made a mistake, but they’re not responsible for Nowak’s death. The man responsible for Nowak’s death was Vickrum Digwa, who has rightfully received a life sentence.
IMO that won't stand, as this one (whether or not it the killing weapon qualified as a "kirpan") was less than 9".
The "Sgian Dubh in my sock" community seem to work with blunt not-a-blades, and normally 3.5" long. Apparently a bottle opener not a blunt blade is popular and valid, and they are more popular at highland flings.
I'd simply withdraw the exception, and if it is to have a "sharpened blade" it must conform to the general exception to the "bladed" definition of a folding non-locking blade, with a blade under 3" long.
There may be complications around other occasions - eg bayonets of war re-enactors, but that should be navigable.
It is set a hundred years in the future and is about a dinner party in the recent past.
As background, Nigeria has succeeded China as the world's policeman and the British Isles are isles.
An interesting novel.