Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Well you said “politicians” generally. But you’re correct that Starmer said that the anger was “justified and understandable” following the Everard murder so I think the claim of hypocrisy is fair enough.
Fair point. The George Floyd reaction is a better parallel, I think. Sadiq Khan said that the murder of Floyd had "rightly ignited fury" and Starmer said his death should be "the catalyst for change".
Yes he did say that as did many others now pearl clutching over this.
We are ruled by morons across the political divide
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Well you said “politicians” generally. But you’re correct that Starmer said that the anger was “justified and understandable” following the Everard murder so I think the claim of hypocrisy is fair enough.
Fair point. The George Floyd reaction is a better parallel, I think. Sadiq Khan said that the murder of Floyd had "rightly ignited fury" and Starmer said his death should be "the catalyst for change".
I don't particularly want to defend Starmer but "the catalyst for change" seems wholly different to "pure, cold rage", particularly when that is the prefix for a salivating tacit call to arms.
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Was there any rioting after her murder, or was it just that protestors broke covid distancing rules? I thought it was the latter.
It was the latter, but the point remains that the politicians left the police high and dry. The politicians were signalling to the police that there needed to be a zero-tolerance approach to policing COVID rules, but refused to call out the protesters who were breaking the rules.
Surely there is a clear difference between police being attacked and injured and having to deal with a load of women refusing to leave a park?
The police then got dogs abuse for doing their jobs. The politicians should have made it clear to everyone that COVID comes first.
I still don't understand why some people criticising the police is the equivalent of some people violently attacking the police? Please explain.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Charles is good, I agree. I feel more positively about him than I did the previous one.
Charles II was fond of betting. Plus was cool. I liked him
His absolutism, and refusal to listen to Parliament, set in motion the conditions for the Glorious Revolution. (The argument over the Exclusion Bill was also the origins of the Whigs and the Tories.)
He effectively ended his own line.
Not quite. CIII is a direct descendents of James I.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Charles is good, I agree. I feel more positively about him than I did the previous one.
Charles II was fond of betting. Plus was cool. I liked him
His absolutism, and refusal to listen to Parliament, set in motion the conditions for the Glorious Revolution. (The argument over the Exclusion Bill was also the origins of the Whigs and the Tories.)
He effectively ended his own line.
Might have been different if he'd had a legitimate son.
Worth remembering in this debate it was only last year the sentencing council tried to push through clearly discriminatory sentencing guidelines in this non two tier system we live under
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No, because the actions that night in regard to Nowak shouldn't have depended on whether he was a horrible racist or not. I'd contend that the police ought to have employed the same level of scepticism about Diwga's claim as they applied to Nowak's - "I've been stabbed", "I don't think you have, mate". It makes NO difference to how they should approach and handle the scene.
I've not said their actions should depend on whether he was a racist. I am not defending the police officer. I am saying you want to understand the full facts of the situation before concluding a report, and some of the facts of the situation were to be determined by the court case against Digwa.
The police officer's initial reaction was very wrong, but don't we want to understand why it was so wrong? Was it, as some have rushed to conclude, because of anti-racism training? Was it a specific issue with that police officer, around competence or prejudice or impetuousness? Was it because of what the police had been told before arriving? Was it something they saw, or didn't see, at the scene? What they found at the scene will depend on what had actually happened beforehand.
I agree totally with this paragraph apart from the bit in bold "The police officer's initial reaction was very wrong, but don't we want to understand why it was so wrong? Was it, as some have rushed to conclude, because of anti-racism training? Was it a specific issue with that police officer, around competence or prejudice or impetuousness? Was it because of what the police had been told before arriving? Was it something they saw, or didn't see, at the scene? What they found at the scene will depend on what had actually happened beforehand"
What difference does what had happened in law make to what they found when they arrived? When they get there they are confronted with the scene that we have now also seen from the BWV. They are in no position to know who is lying and who isn't. Their actions should be determined by what to do at the scene with an injured person lying on the ground.
We don’t know what exactly they found at the scene. We can see some of that from the BWV, but that’s only going to give us a partial picture. The findings of the court case help flesh that out.
I really don’t see what’s so controversial about the idea that you’d want to hear everything that comes out of the court case before making any final decisions on the IOPC report.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Well you said “politicians” generally. But you’re correct that Starmer said that the anger was “justified and understandable” following the Everard murder so I think the claim of hypocrisy is fair enough.
Fair point. The George Floyd reaction is a better parallel, I think. Sadiq Khan said that the murder of Floyd had "rightly ignited fury" and Starmer said his death should be "the catalyst for change".
I don't particularly want to defend Starmer but "the catalyst for change" seems wholly different to "pure, cold rage", particularly when that is the prefix for a salivating tacit call to arms.
ITV News @itvnews 'Can I start by expressing shock and anger at the death of George Floyd, this has shone a light on racism and hatred experienced by many in the US and beyond.'
Sir Keir Starmer says he's surprised the PM has not said anything about this.
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
What is Talarico's baggage?
I think he is too easy to paint as ultra woke, according to the people I spoke to. He also had a bruising primary against a Black woman candidate that has the potential to hurt him with Black voters if he can't mend fences there. But I would say he has fewer negatives than Paxton, who is unpopular even with other Texas Republicans by all accounts. Sounds like a fascinating contest.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Charles is good, I agree. I feel more positively about him than I did the previous one.
Charles II was fond of betting. Plus was cool. I liked him
His absolutism, and refusal to listen to Parliament, set in motion the conditions for the Glorious Revolution. (The argument over the Exclusion Bill was also the origins of the Whigs and the Tories.)
He effectively ended his own line.
Not quite. CIII is a direct descendents of James I.
Wasn't Diana a (reasonably) direct descendant of Charles II?
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
What is Talarico's baggage?
I think he is too easy to paint as ultra woke, according to the people I spoke to. He also had a bruising primary against a Black woman candidate that has the potential to hurt him with Black voters if he can't mend fences there. But I would say he has fewer negatives than Paxton, who is unpopular even with other Texas Republicans by all accounts. Sounds like a fascinating contest.
Paxton is grotesquely corrupt. It requires an industrial strength peg applied to Republican noses to vote for him. And a sizeable chunk will not.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No, because the actions that night in regard to Nowak shouldn't have depended on whether he was a horrible racist or not. I'd contend that the police ought to have employed the same level of scepticism about Diwga's claim as they applied to Nowak's - "I've been stabbed", "I don't think you have, mate". It makes NO difference to how they should approach and handle the scene.
I've not said their actions should depend on whether he was a racist. I am not defending the police officer. I am saying you want to understand the full facts of the situation before concluding a report, and some of the facts of the situation were to be determined by the court case against Digwa.
The police officer's initial reaction was very wrong, but don't we want to understand why it was so wrong? Was it, as some have rushed to conclude, because of anti-racism training? Was it a specific issue with that police officer, around competence or prejudice or impetuousness? Was it because of what the police had been told before arriving? Was it something they saw, or didn't see, at the scene? What they found at the scene will depend on what had actually happened beforehand.
I agree totally with this paragraph apart from the bit in bold "The police officer's initial reaction was very wrong, but don't we want to understand why it was so wrong? Was it, as some have rushed to conclude, because of anti-racism training? Was it a specific issue with that police officer, around competence or prejudice or impetuousness? Was it because of what the police had been told before arriving? Was it something they saw, or didn't see, at the scene? What they found at the scene will depend on what had actually happened beforehand"
What difference does what had happened in law make to what they found when they arrived? When they get there they are confronted with the scene that we have now also seen from the BWV. They are in no position to know who is lying and who isn't. Their actions should be determined by what to do at the scene with an injured person lying on the ground.
We don’t know what exactly they found at the scene. We can see some of that from the BWV, but that’s only going to give us a partial picture. The findings of the court case help flesh that out.
I really don’t see what’s so controversial about the idea that you’d want to hear everything that comes out of the court case before making any final decisions on the IOPC report.
Because the IOPC investigation isn't about the outcome of the court case it is about whether the police acted properly at the scene. And I would like to think that the bulk of the investigation is finished and they are adding the last details to get the report done and released by friday. Because the country needs it.
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
What is Talarico's baggage?
I think he is too easy to paint as ultra woke, according to the people I spoke to. He also had a bruising primary against a Black woman candidate that has the potential to hurt him with Black voters if he can't mend fences there. But I would say he has fewer negatives than Paxton, who is unpopular even with other Texas Republicans by all accounts. Sounds like a fascinating contest.
Paxton is grotesquely corrupt. It requires an industrial strength peg applied to Republican noses to vote for him. And a sizeable chunk will not.
Yes even the GOP controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach him, and many Republicans in the state Senate wanted to convict too, apparently. Sounds like an absolute turd even by the standards of the Trump-led GOP.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
When King of the unhinged headline Allister Heath is quoted as a sage source, one has to conclude that PB has lost its mind.
If Alister Heath says it it pretty much guarantees that it is rage-baiting tosh.
I am more inclined to believe Sir Andy Cooke, the recently reired Inspector of Constabulary:
"Cooke, who was appointed by the Conservatives and won praise from both main parties, said: “Throughout my five years at the inspectorate, I found no evidence at all to support any claim there was an anti-white bias in operational policing."
I believe as a nation we are approaching a very dangerous crossroads. When a disingenuous hypocrite politician is allowed to promote a totally false narrative, a narrative which far from being called out is propagated by the Daily Telegraph as fact we are heading to a place that we resisted in the 1930s. By the "likes" that the original post got, even the august posters of PB are buying into these lies.
“Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality).” – NPCC
When police forces are being told to do this, and they are, it is clear to all but a complete idiot that two tier policing is a reality. It is not a conspiracy, it is not a 'vibe', it is there in black and white. Police forces are actively being judged by the Government on whether they can produce equal outcomes for ethnic minorities when compared to white people. That means if there is an epidemic of a particular crime amongst an ethnic minority, ignoring it.
I have pointed this out to you, and will continue to do so. By ignoring it, it is now you who is lying.
It does not mean that if there is an epidemic of a particular crime amongst an ethnic minority, ignoring it. You’ve just made that up. A black man walking down the street in the UK is much more likely to be stopped by police than a white man.
No, I have not 'made it up', I am drawing an obvious logical conclusion.
“I will hold police leaders to account for delivering the tangible outcomes that policing has committed to, but I will also support them to achieve the PRAP’s aims.” - that is Dame Diana Johnson responding to the NPCC guidance.
Forces are compelled to produce equality of outcome, and the logical end point of that (unless they are going to go around arresting non ethnic minorities to even the score) that crime or possible crime will go ignored. That is unacceptable, as much for the ethnic minority communities being policed as anyone else.
It’s really quite amazing how you convince yourself that you’re the one being logical and rational when 99% of the time it’s complete and utter dross
A typically pitiable response.
I don't need to 'convince myself' of anything - the advice NOT to deliver colour-blind policing is in the NPCC guidance that is fully endorsed (as I have also shown) by Government. Everyone who says 'We don't have two tier policing' is quite literally ignoring the written guidance on the subject.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
When King of the unhinged headline Allister Heath is quoted as a sage source, one has to conclude that PB has lost its mind.
If Alister Heath says it it pretty much guarantees that it is rage-baiting tosh.
I am more inclined to believe Sir Andy Cooke, the recently reired Inspector of Constabulary:
"Cooke, who was appointed by the Conservatives and won praise from both main parties, said: “Throughout my five years at the inspectorate, I found no evidence at all to support any claim there was an anti-white bias in operational policing."
I believe as a nation we are approaching a very dangerous crossroads. When a disingenuous hypocrite politician is allowed to promote a totally false narrative, a narrative which far from being called out is propagated by the Daily Telegraph as fact we are heading to a place that we resisted in the 1930s. By the "likes" that the original post got, even the august posters of PB are buying into these lies.
“Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality).” – NPCC
When police forces are being told to do this, and they are, it is clear to all but a complete idiot that two tier policing is a reality. It is not a conspiracy, it is not a 'vibe', it is there in black and white. Police forces are actively being judged by the Government on whether they can produce equal outcomes for ethnic minorities when compared to white people. That means if there is an epidemic of a particular crime amongst an ethnic minority, ignoring it.
I have pointed this out to you, and will continue to do so. By ignoring it, it is now you who is lying.
It does not mean that if there is an epidemic of a particular crime amongst an ethnic minority, ignoring it. You’ve just made that up. A black man walking down the street in the UK is much more likely to be stopped by police than a white man.
No, I have not 'made it up', I am drawing an obvious logical conclusion.
“I will hold police leaders to account for delivering the tangible outcomes that policing has committed to, but I will also support them to achieve the PRAP’s aims.” - that is Dame Diana Johnson responding to the NPCC guidance.
Forces are compelled to produce equality of outcome, and the logical end point of that (unless they are going to go around arresting non ethnic minorities to even the score) that crime or possible crime will go ignored. That is unacceptable, as much for the ethnic minority communities being policed as anyone else.
No, it is not the logical conclusion. Equality of policing outcomes does not mean arresting the same proportion of people in every ethnic group regardless of crimes committed. Show me a policy document that says it means that.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
I have read the remarks, which do not fully describe the police actions but confirm that no first aid would have saved Nowak's life, and have not seen the footage. One luxury I afford myself in old age is not watching things that will upset or offend me. However, those who have watched have commented that Nowak's injuries were discovered only after other police officers insisted on following the rules and checking him. If so, then it sounds like the police guidelines were correct but not followed, which is the opposite of what some politicians have suggested. But as I say, I've not checked the footage.
I've watched a lot of US bodycam footage and one of the things you sometimes notice is people getting very argumentative about who the police officer speaks to first. Having watched the Nowak footage I can now see why.
I didn't detect any hit of racial bias in the footage (the police officer didn't really respond to what the killer said about the turban and just asked him to move back) but what is clear is that the police allowed their first assessment of the incident to override what was in front of their eyes. Regardless of whether they could see any evidence of stabbing, it is clear from the footage that something is very wrong with Nowak whereas the killer is absolutely fine. Their priority absolutely should have been to check his medical condition before doing anything else.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procedure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “That guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
I have read the remarks, which do not fully describe the police actions but confirm that no first aid would have saved Nowak's life, and have not seen the footage. One luxury I afford myself in old age is not watching things that will upset or offend me. However, those who have watched have commented that Nowak's injuries were discovered only after other police officers insisted on following the rules and checking him. If so, then it sounds like the police guidelines were correct but not followed, which is the opposite of what some politicians have suggested. But as I say, I've not checked the footage.
I've watched a lot of US bodycam footage and one of the things you sometimes notice is people getting very argumentative about who the police officer speaks to first. Having watched the Nowak footage I can now see why.
I didn't detect any hit of racial bias in the footage (the police officer didn't really respond to what the killer said about the turban and just asked him to move back) but what is clear is that the police allowed their first assessment of the incident to override what was in front of their eyes. Regardless of whether they could see any evidence of stabbing, it is clear from the footage that something is very wrong with Nowak whereas the killer is absolutely fine. Their priority absolutely should have been to check his medical condition before doing anything else.
The one thing I've not worked out yet is why the brother hasn't been charged as an accomplice to the murder, the mother was for hiding the weapon but not the brother?
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “This guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
If they've been trained to ignore - I've life threatening injuries then something has gone wrong. Because no training course should or will be telling them that.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
Quite a few ex-cops are saying handcuffs were unnecessary, but I think it's a point of debate.
What I find odd is, why did the cop feel the need to say anything to Nowak other than explaining what was happening? It can only come back to bite you later.
It's obvious that the police had made up their minds. It almost certainly make any difference to the outcome, but it made his dying moments even worse.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
"...We must also be prepared to examine, carefully and seriously, religious practices or exemptions that permit the carrying of dangerous weapons in public, and other activities that are not conducive to the public good. We also need to examine where the law needs to change..."
One question. Why? Kirpans have been carried by Sikhs in the UK for decades. You would have been in your thirties/forties when that was sorted out. A kirpan was not used in the Nowak murder. Given that there is no reason to ban/further restrict them from the facts of the case, why is she advocating for this?
A line from "The Crown" occurs to me: "Our job is to calm more crises than we create". This is not calming the crisis, now is it?
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “This guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
If they've been trained to ignore - I've life threatening injuries then something has gone wrong. Because no training course should or will be telling them that.
That’s what happens when the DEI Chief Constable says that the worst thing that can ever happen to the police is to be accused of racism.
Murders, rapes, robberies, fraud, all secondary considerations when compared to racism.
"Allister Heath Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)
MLK would be 100% behind critical race theory and measures taken to reduce racism in the police. The attempt to claim MLK’s vision by Heath would be disgusting if it wasn’t so ludicrous.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “This guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
If they've been trained to ignore - I've life threatening injuries then something has gone wrong. Because no training course should or will be telling them that.
That’s what happens when the DEI Chief Constable says that the worst thing that can ever happen to the police is to be accused of racism.
Murders, rapes, robberies, fraud, all secondary considerations when compared to racism.
Until a white person dies under your watch and your job disappears on day 1 of the disciplinary...
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Was there any rioting after her murder, or was it just that protestors broke covid distancing rules? I thought it was the latter.
It was the latter, but the point remains that the politicians left the police high and dry. The politicians were signalling to the police that there needed to be a zero-tolerance approach to policing COVID rules, but refused to call out the protesters who were breaking the rules.
Surely there is a clear difference between police being attacked and injured and having to deal with a load of women refusing to leave a park?
The police then got dogs abuse for doing their jobs. The politicians should have made it clear to everyone that COVID comes first.
The politicians should have listened to the advice repeatedly given at SAGE that heavy-handed policing was unnecessary and counter-productive.
Sainsbury has stopped selling brown eggs because white ones have a lower carbon footprint. They must have been talking to the moron that is Ed Miliband. Well they can fuck right off. I'll shop elsewhere or get some from my neighbour.
As it happens, I think white eggs look better but now I've read that I'm annoyed. I don't like to be preached out or my food choices influenced by others.
Sainsbury's went full Woke a while ago - and they seem to have trained all their checkout staff to go full American now, and strike up conversation with you about your day - so I now avoid it.
It's as low as Asda, and not far off Iceland levels.
Not much evidence of that in East Ham High Street. Too busy trying to help people with the self service checkouts.
That para looks like a conflation of "woke" with "things I do not like".
On the heggs, that feels to me like a tyranny of the averages, where it is a small enough difference to find hens with brown eggs that have a lower carbon footprint.
It's a dilemma for Restore UK - do they now have to prioritise the brown over the white?
My neighbour-with-hens up the road, where my eggs occasionally comes from, has a hen that lays blue tinted eggs.
I wonder what they make of that?
Fun fact - the colour of hens' eggs is genetically linked to the colour of their earlobes.
Waitrose have sold white eggs for years. They are no better and no worse than brown eggs. The predominance of brown eggs is simply because people in the 70s thought they must be better for you, like brown bread.
Being perceived as a premium item, though, is it not slightly more likely that the nutrition and living conditions of the brown egg hens is on average higher than that of the white ?
Breed of hen determines the colour. Smaller hens tend to lay white (And slightly smaller) eggs so it's as much a cost saving by Sainsburys as anything else...
It isn't the breed of hen which determines the colour of the egg, it is down to the strain of the breed. For the twentieth century brown eggs have been preferred in the UK and white eggs in the US and so the hens have been bought and bred accordingly.
As for the carbon footprint, clearly if you stick 12 hens in a cage and give them minimum light they will have a lower carbon foot print that hens allowed to roam freely which need to be managed. The hens which can stand that will be from US strains and so will lay white eggs. What comes around goes around but hens which are allowed to roam freely will be bound to have a higher carbon footprint. Sure cages aren't allowed now thank goodness, but if they were then Ed could reduce the carbon footprint even further. Someone needs to ask him if he craves a return to battery hens ?
No point in asking him a question. His answer will be as moronic as he is.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “This guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
If they've been trained to ignore - I've life threatening injuries then something has gone wrong. Because no training course should or will be telling them that.
That’s what happens when the DEI Chief Constable says that the worst thing that can ever happen to the police is to be accused of racism.
Murders, rapes, robberies, fraud, all secondary considerations when compared to racism.
The problem comes when you train people not to think.
I hope that policeman can never sleep properly again.
That's mean. Given the time of night and the darkness of the victim's clothing, the stab wound was not immediately obvious. Plus the gap between handcuffing him and realising the stabbing claim was correct was around a minute. If you had been in that situation would you have done better?
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No, because the actions that night in regard to Nowak shouldn't have depended on whether he was a horrible racist or not. I'd contend that the police ought to have employed the same level of scepticism about Diwga's claim as they applied to Nowak's - "I've been stabbed", "I don't think you have, mate". It makes NO difference to how they should approach and handle the scene.
I've not said their actions should depend on whether he was a racist. I am not defending the police officer. I am saying you want to understand the full facts of the situation before concluding a report, and some of the facts of the situation were to be determined by the court case against Digwa.
The police officer's initial reaction was very wrong, but don't we want to understand why it was so wrong? Was it, as some have rushed to conclude, because of anti-racism training? Was it a specific issue with that police officer, around competence or prejudice or impetuousness? Was it because of what the police had been told before arriving? Was it something they saw, or didn't see, at the scene? What they found at the scene will depend on what had actually happened beforehand.
I agree totally with this paragraph apart from the bit in bold "The police officer's initial reaction was very wrong, but don't we want to understand why it was so wrong? Was it, as some have rushed to conclude, because of anti-racism training? Was it a specific issue with that police officer, around competence or prejudice or impetuousness? Was it because of what the police had been told before arriving? Was it something they saw, or didn't see, at the scene? What they found at the scene will depend on what had actually happened beforehand"
What difference does what had happened in law make to what they found when they arrived? When they get there they are confronted with the scene that we have now also seen from the BWV. They are in no position to know who is lying and who isn't. Their actions should be determined by what to do at the scene with an injured person lying on the ground.
We don’t know what exactly they found at the scene. We can see some of that from the BWV, but that’s only going to give us a partial picture. The findings of the court case help flesh that out.
I really don’t see what’s so controversial about the idea that you’d want to hear everything that comes out of the court case before making any final decisions on the IOPC report.
Because the IOPC investigation isn't about the outcome of the court case it is about whether the police acted properly at the scene. And I would like to think that the bulk of the investigation is finished and they are adding the last details to get the report done and released by friday. Because the country needs it.
Maybe the country would be in a better place if people learnt some patience rather than rushing to re-write policy or riot before there has been time to understand what has happened.
I hope that policeman can never sleep properly again.
That's mean. Given the time of night and the darkness of the victim's clothing, the stab wound was not immediately obvious. Plus the gap between handcuffing him and realising the stabbing claim was correct was around a minute. If you had been in that situation would you have done better?
"Allister Heath Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)
MLK would be 100% behind critical race theory and measures taken to reduce racism in the police. The attempt to claim MLK’s vision by Heath would be disgusting if it wasn’t so ludicrous.
Every insecure white guy has that MLK quote tattooed on their taint in Comic Sans.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
It's quite a high bar, though, as handcuffing is an act of force, and must be justified. The presumption, in the case of someone not resisting arrest, but just lying on the ground, would be quite strongly against it.
It's not 100% certain that they were in the wrong, since we don't know the entire chain of events, but it does seem at least fairly likely.
Racism against non-white people has been ingrained in society and institutions for a long time. Have attempts to address this sometimes led to overcorrective behaviour? Doubtless they have. But the idea we have created a pervasive anti-white racism that can be viewed in the same light as the problem we are trying to combat is a nonsense. All it really shows, believing that, is a lack of appreciation for the scale and nature and importance of the underlying issue - the fight for racial equality.
"...We must also be prepared to examine, carefully and seriously, religious practices or exemptions that permit the carrying of dangerous weapons in public, and other activities that are not conducive to the public good. We also need to examine where the law needs to change..."
One question. Why? Kirpans have been carried by Sikhs in the UK for decades. You would have been in your thirties/forties when that was sorted out. A kirpan was not used in the Nowak murder. Given that there is no reason to ban/further restrict them from the facts of the case, why is she advocating for this?
A line from "The Crown" occurs to me: "Our job is to calm more crises than we create". This is not calming the crisis, now is it?
Why do they get special permission to carry knives, it is mental. I can get lifted with a pocket knife but they can swan about with knives and claim it is religion , utter bollox
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
It's quite a high bar, though, as handcuffing is an act of force, and must be justified. The presumption, in the case of someone not resisting arrest, but just lying on the ground, would be quite strongly against it.
If someone is not resisting and lying on the ground, would it not be common sense to check for injuries? Or else why would they be lying on the ground?
I hope that policeman can never sleep properly again.
That's mean. Given the time of night and the darkness of the victim's clothing, the stab wound was not immediately obvious. Plus the gap between handcuffing him and realising the stabbing claim was correct was around a minute. If you had been in that situation would you have done better?
Might have actually checked it out instead of dismissing him, he was saying repeatedly I cannot breathe etc , does not take must to put cannot breathe and stabbed to make you think perhaps I should check rather than dash for the handcuffs. No way it could ever be justified in any way.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
It's quite a high bar, though, as handcuffing is an act of force, and must be justified. The presumption, in the case of someone not resisting arrest, but just lying on the ground, would be quite strongly against it.
If someone is not resisting and lying on the ground, would it not be common sense to check for injuries? Or else why would they be lying on the ground?
That is also protocol, and certainly so if they are claiming injury.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blisteringly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We'll all be relieved when Burnham takes over, then ?
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procedure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “That guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
You’re right.
Isn’t this akin to @Malmesbury theory of NUK10 and the process state.
"...We must also be prepared to examine, carefully and seriously, religious practices or exemptions that permit the carrying of dangerous weapons in public, and other activities that are not conducive to the public good. We also need to examine where the law needs to change..."
One question. Why? Kirpans have been carried by Sikhs in the UK for decades. You would have been in your thirties/forties when that was sorted out. A kirpan was not used in the Nowak murder. Given that there is no reason to ban/further restrict them from the facts of the case, why is she advocating for this?
A line from "The Crown" occurs to me: "Our job is to calm more crises than we create". This is not calming the crisis, now is it?
The fact that the murderer routinely carried around knives with impunity is absolutely relevant to the case.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We can’t know what Starmer would’ve done had he been PM. We do know that Johnson got it very wrong on multiple occasions, including repeatedly delaying lockdown decisions in a manner that meant the lockdowns had to go on for longer, and which led to more cases.
"Allister Heath Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)
"Allister Heath Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)
MLK would be 100% behind critical race theory and measures taken to reduce racism in the police. The attempt to claim MLK’s vision by Heath would be disgusting if it wasn’t so ludicrous.
How can you possibly know that?
For what it's worth, I don't think he would be. Critical race theory was very far from the vision he espoused.
Racism against non-white people has been ingrained in society and institutions for a long time. Have attempts to address this sometimes led to overcorrective behaviour? Doubtless they have. But the idea we have created a pervasive anti-white racism that can be viewed in the same light as the problem we are trying to combat is a nonsense. All it really shows, believing that, is a lack of appreciation for the scale and nature and importance of the underlying issue - the fight for racial equality.
Racism against non-white people has been ingrained in society and institutions for a long time. Have attempts to address this sometimes led to overcorrective behaviour? Doubtless they have. But the idea we have created a pervasive anti-white racism that can be viewed in the same light as the problem we are trying to combat is a nonsense. All it really shows, believing that, is a lack of appreciation for the scale and nature and importance of the underlying issue - the fight for racial equality.
The pendulum has now swung too far the other way.
Martin Luther King was right, that we should see people as people and not see race everywhere.
The UK's policing watchdog has urged people to stop speculating about the murder of Henry Nowak.
"We would respectfully ask people to stop speculating on an ongoing live investigation.
"This investigation is going to fully establish the circumstances of the case, including whether there may be misconduct on the part of any of the officers involved.
"The ongoing commentary about the evidence and speculation risks prejudicing any potential processes and preventing Henry Nowak's family getting the answers they deserve."
I hope that policeman can never sleep properly again.
That's mean. Given the time of night and the darkness of the victim's clothing, the stab wound was not immediately obvious. Plus the gap between handcuffing him and realising the stabbing claim was correct was around a minute. If you had been in that situation would you have done better?
I certainly wouldn't have been stupid enough to have expressed an opinion when on video. Now, is that all they're guilty of? Perhaps, but their lack of curiosity was all on display.
"...We must also be prepared to examine, carefully and seriously, religious practices or exemptions that permit the carrying of dangerous weapons in public, and other activities that are not conducive to the public good. We also need to examine where the law needs to change..."
One question. Why? Kirpans have been carried by Sikhs in the UK for decades. You would have been in your thirties/forties when that was sorted out. A kirpan was not used in the Nowak murder. Given that there is no reason to ban/further restrict them from the facts of the case, why is she advocating for this?
A line from "The Crown" occurs to me: "Our job is to calm more crises than we create". This is not calming the crisis, now is it?
Why do they get special permission to carry knives, it is mental. I can get lifted with a pocket knife but they can swan about with knives and claim it is religion , utter bollox
Get your kilt on and you can wear your stabby stabby with pride.
And have people get upset (on your behalf) if it’s not a real stabby stabby.
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
Racism against non-white people has been ingrained in society and institutions for a long time. Have attempts to address this sometimes led to overcorrective behaviour? Doubtless they have. But the idea we have created a pervasive anti-white racism that can be viewed in the same light as the problem we are trying to combat is a nonsense. All it really shows, believing that, is a lack of appreciation for the scale and nature and importance of the underlying issue - the fight for racial equality.
The view from millionaires row.
A more sensible starting point would that this a death in police custody.
A lot of progress has been made with reducing such. How can we reduce it further?
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Well you said “politicians” generally. But you’re correct that Starmer said that the anger was “justified and understandable” following the Everard murder so I think the claim of hypocrisy is fair enough.
Fair point. The George Floyd reaction is a better parallel, I think. Sadiq Khan said that the murder of Floyd had "rightly ignited fury" and Starmer said his death should be "the catalyst for change".
I don't particularly want to defend Starmer but "the catalyst for change" seems wholly different to "pure, cold rage", particularly when that is the prefix for a salivating tacit call to arms.
ITV News @itvnews 'Can I start by expressing shock and anger at the death of George Floyd, this has shone a light on racism and hatred experienced by many in the US and beyond.'
Sir Keir Starmer says he's surprised the PM has not said anything about this.
I still can't work out why you can't discern a difference.
The Conservatives seem to be falling in line with the Government over the Nowak case. Conservative MP Simon Hoare is on PM criticising Musk and indirectly Farage over the Nowak case. No hypocrisy there.
Although Lady Brook is arguing like mad that Hoare is wrong.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “This guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
If they've been trained to ignore - I've life threatening injuries then something has gone wrong. Because no training course should or will be telling them that.
I can't believe any police procedure would prioritise an accusation of racism over giving help to someone who had received a fatal injury. He said he had been stabbed and couldn't breathe. An MOP said he had blood in his mouth and couldn't stand. There was a complete failure to investigate the circumstances. It was a complete fuck up. What led to it hopefully the IOPC enquiry will find out.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We can’t know what Starmer would’ve done had he been PM. We do know that Johnson got it very wrong on multiple occasions, including repeatedly delaying lockdown decisions in a manner that meant the lockdowns had to go on for longer, and which led to more cases.
We can't know what he might have done, had he been prime minister, however we can judge him on what he actually did as leader of the opposition.
I don’t think Johnson covered himself in glory over Covid, and one can definitely question his judgment at various points, but I think he largely did (in terms of policy) what he the thought was in the national interest. SKS's behavior as leader of the opposition had no obvious principle other than taking whatever course of action gave him partisan political advantage.
It's the same thing as has haunted SKS's tenure as PM. Very few of his decisions have been about what is good for the country, they have all been about what buys him time with the PLP.
"...We must also be prepared to examine, carefully and seriously, religious practices or exemptions that permit the carrying of dangerous weapons in public, and other activities that are not conducive to the public good. We also need to examine where the law needs to change..."
One question. Why? Kirpans have been carried by Sikhs in the UK for decades. You would have been in your thirties/forties when that was sorted out. A kirpan was not used in the Nowak murder. Given that there is no reason to ban/further restrict them from the facts of the case, why is she advocating for this?
A line from "The Crown" occurs to me: "Our job is to calm more crises than we create". This is not calming the crisis, now is it?
The fact that the murderer routinely carried around knives with impunity is absolutely relevant to the case.
Per the murderer's grandmother:
"Describing Digwa as a 'difficult boy', she also defended his mother who covered up for him by hiding the knife he used to kill Henry, saying she did what any mum would do to protect her son.
...
She explained that her family come from a particularly martial Sikh sect that prides itself on being skilled in the use of swords, knives and other weapons while proclaiming themselves to be the 'commandos' of the faith - but said that Digwa had abused this heritage.
Mrs Kaur went on: 'These weapons are not meant to be used on the innocent, so something has gone wrong. He's done a very bad thing - there's no argument over that.' "
Digwa, 23, regularly participated in combat sessions with an array of arms as a member of the Nihangs, an ancient order of Sikhism that was formed around 500 years ago to protect the religion and its gurdwaras (places of worship) at a time when they were under attack from Muslim rulers in India.
The Nihangs became known for their bravery and ruthlessness on the battlefield and expertise with weapons such as swords, knives, spears and iron chains, earning a fearsome reputation for being the 'army of Sikhism'.
Mrs Kaur went on: 'Most of the men in this family are Nihangs and so is Vickrum. As a Nihang, Vickrum was devoted to that way of life. It meant everything to him.
'It's an important part of our faith and it's something that I'm proud of, that there are Nihangs in this family. They were formed to protect Sikhism, that's why weapons are so important to them.'
She added again: 'But these weapons are not meant to be used on the innocent.
'What also makes me sad is that our whole community is now being targeted with all this talk of banning kirpans.
'Despite being a Nihang, Vickrum has also been a difficult boy but that's not unusual for children who are born in Britain.'
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I don't really feel that, I have to say, but I know many do and not just on the right as you demonstrate. The monarchy's prospects depends a great deal on William, I think. It needs to be unifying and popular to survive. The idea of using it to butter up capricious autocratic US presidents will hopefully die with this one.
I think you're going to continue to be disappointed.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We'll all be relieved when Burnham takes over, then ?
There are lots of reasons* to think a Burnham premiership will crash and burn very similarly to SKS, but to be fair to him, his behaviour over Covid was far better.
*the fact he's a blank canvas with no known policies other than painting busses yellow suggests he's unlikely to survive contact with reality for very long.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We can’t know what Starmer would’ve done had he been PM.
But you very much know exactly what Martin Luther King would have done, despite dying 50 years earlier.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procedure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “That guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
Don't let a lack of evidence about both what actually happened and police training get in the way of a strongly held prejudice. The judge made clear in his sentencing remarks that the police had no reason to suspect initially Nowak had been stabbed. Once they did, moments later, it was too late.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We can’t know what Starmer would’ve done had he been PM.
But you very much know exactly what Martin Luther King would have done, despite dying 50 years earlier.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We'll all be relieved when Burnham takes over, then ?
There are lots of reasons* to think a Burnham premiership will crash and burn very similarly to SKS, but to be fair to him, his behaviour over Covid was far better.
*the fact he's a blank canvas with no known policies other than painting busses yellow suggests he's unlikely to survive contact with reality for very long.
Burnham’s flagship homelessness policy is Housing First: giving rough sleepers a permanent home immediately, with wraparound support, rather than making housing conditional on sobriety or other criteria.
Since Greater Manchester’s pilot launched in 2019, more than 450 people have been housed, with an 88% tenancy sustainment rate. Rough sleeping in the city has fallen by more than 57% since 2017, bucking the national trend.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procedure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “That guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
Don't let a lack of evidence about both what actually happened and police training get in the way of a strongly held prejudice. The judge made clear in his sentencing remarks that the police had no reason to suspect initially Nowak had been stabbed. Once they did, moments later, it was too late.
No reason other than him actually saying "I've been stabbed." Come on.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We'll all be relieved when Burnham takes over, then ?
There are lots of reasons* to think a Burnham premiership will crash and burn very similarly to SKS, but to be fair to him, his behaviour over Covid was far better.
*the fact he's a blank canvas with no known policies other than painting busses yellow suggests he's unlikely to survive contact with reality for very long.
I think a lot of people hope that better presentation skills and not looking like a startled bunny when something happens would be a good start
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We can’t know what Starmer would’ve done had he been PM. We do know that Johnson got it very wrong on multiple occasions, including repeatedly delaying lockdown decisions in a manner that meant the lockdowns had to go on for longer, and which led to more cases.
We can't know what he might have done, had he been prime minister, however we can judge him on what he actually did as leader of the opposition.
I don’t think Johnson covered himself in glory over Covid, and one can definitely question his judgment at various points, but I think he largely did (in terms of policy) what he the thought was in the national interest. SKS's behavior as leader of the opposition had no obvious principle other than taking whatever course of action gave him partisan political advantage.
It's the same thing as has haunted SKS's tenure as PM. Very few of his decisions have been about what is good for the country, they have all been about what buys him time with the PLP.
Starmer as LOTO backed Johnson until the point of which No 10 became a wine emporium and piss up Den and The Tories embellished themselves with billions of pounds worth of utterly corrupt and some clearly criminal deals.
The full fall out of Covid Inquiry is yet to fully come, when that ties most of the Opposition Front Bench to that corruption and criminality as guilt by association at the very least, then the great denier will be up to her neck in shit and that might just be the time Labour calls a snap election
Racism against non-white people has been ingrained in society and institutions for a long time. Have attempts to address this sometimes led to overcorrective behaviour? Doubtless they have. But the idea we have created a pervasive anti-white racism that can be viewed in the same light as the problem we are trying to combat is a nonsense. All it really shows, believing that, is a lack of appreciation for the scale and nature and importance of the underlying issue - the fight for racial equality.
The view from millionaires row.
A more sensible starting point would that this a death in police custody.
A lot of progress has been made with reducing such. How can we reduce it further?
Not arrest anybody? Certainly the views of some Green Party members who want to abolish prisons...
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procedure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “That guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
Don't let a lack of evidence about both what actually happened and police training get in the way of a strongly held prejudice. The judge made clear in his sentencing remarks that the police had no reason to suspect initially Nowak had been stabbed. Once they did, moments later, it was too late.
No reason other than him actually saying "I've been stabbed." Come on.
Apparently feigning injury is a deception used by suspects. Unfortunately in this instance it was genuine. I hope the lying sack of shit that stabbed Henry Nowak spends his entire life inside. His lying sack of shit brother needs a lengthy sentence too.
Racism against non-white people has been ingrained in society and institutions for a long time. Have attempts to address this sometimes led to overcorrective behaviour? Doubtless they have. But the idea we have created a pervasive anti-white racism that can be viewed in the same light as the problem we are trying to combat is a nonsense. All it really shows, believing that, is a lack of appreciation for the scale and nature and importance of the underlying issue - the fight for racial equality.
The pendulum has now swung too far the other way.
Martin Luther King was right, that we should see people as people and not see race everywhere.
Hardly a pendulum. That would imply a white person in England now suffers similar levels of discrimination to a black person before all this civil rights malarky kicked off. I'll do you the service of not ascribing that absurd view to you and assume you're simply expressing the admirable sentiment that skin colour should not impact how a person is treated.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procedure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “That guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
Don't let a lack of evidence about both what actually happened and police training get in the way of a strongly held prejudice. The judge made clear in his sentencing remarks that the police had no reason to suspect initially Nowak had been stabbed. Once they did, moments later, it was too late.
Why did the officer dismiss Nowak's complaint immediately ? Why did the policeman then say "SHOW ME (Where he had been stabbed)" as Nowak was being cuffed ? Why did the police officer use "mate" in a condescending tone and not be respectful using either "Sir" or at least not taking that tone ? Why was Nowak cuffed then dragged before being checked over ?
You're making all sorts of excuses for them and it's pathetic.
Racism against non-white people has been ingrained in society and institutions for a long time. Have attempts to address this sometimes led to overcorrective behaviour? Doubtless they have. But the idea we have created a pervasive anti-white racism that can be viewed in the same light as the problem we are trying to combat is a nonsense. All it really shows, believing that, is a lack of appreciation for the scale and nature and importance of the underlying issue - the fight for racial equality.
The view from millionaires row.
A more sensible starting point would that this a death in police custody.
A lot of progress has been made with reducing such. How can we reduce it further?
Not arrest anybody? Certainly the views of some Green Party members who want to abolish prisons...
The progress that has been made has been (largely) about better assessing the medical situation of suspects and detainees. And getting prompt medical attention to those who need it.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We'll all be relieved when Burnham takes over, then ?
There are lots of reasons* to think a Burnham premiership will crash and burn very similarly to SKS, but to be fair to him, his behaviour over Covid was far better.
*the fact he's a blank canvas with no known policies other than painting busses yellow suggests he's unlikely to survive contact with reality for very long.
I don't think the voters will invest much hope in Burnham. A somewhat askance skepticism at best.
Labour MPs more so. If he disappoints, they probably just have to make the best of a bad job and support him up until the election. Meanwhile, spend the time looking for a job outside Westminster.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
I would expect any review into police procedure to focus on this. But I wouldn't rush to assume existing police procedure wasn't followed, on the basis if someone is perceived to be a potential threat you handcuff first to mitigate the threat, investigate, then release if there is no threat. As far as I know this happened in rapid order with Nowak but tragically he was already dying.
The police procedure was completely followed, which is the problem.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “That guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
Don't let a lack of evidence about both what actually happened and police training get in the way of a strongly held prejudice. The judge made clear in his sentencing remarks that the police had no reason to suspect initially Nowak had been stabbed. Once they did, moments later, it was too late.
No reason other than him actually saying "I've been stabbed." Come on.
Apparently feigning injury is a deception used by suspects. Unfortunately in this instance it was genuine. I hope the lying sack of shit that stabbed Henry Nowak spends his entire life inside. His lying sack of shit brother needs a lengthy sentence too.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We can’t know what Starmer would’ve done had he been PM. We do know that Johnson got it very wrong on multiple occasions, including repeatedly delaying lockdown decisions in a manner that meant the lockdowns had to go on for longer, and which led to more cases.
We can't know what he might have done, had he been prime minister, however we can judge him on what he actually did as leader of the opposition.
I don’t think Johnson covered himself in glory over Covid, and one can definitely question his judgment at various points, but I think he largely did (in terms of policy) what he the thought was in the national interest. SKS's behavior as leader of the opposition had no obvious principle other than taking whatever course of action gave him partisan political advantage.
It's the same thing as has haunted SKS's tenure as PM. Very few of his decisions have been about what is good for the country, they have all been about what buys him time with the PLP.
Starmer as LOTO backed Johnson until the point of which No 10 became a wine emporium and piss up Den and The Tories embellished themselves with billions of pounds worth of utterly corrupt and some clearly criminal deals.
The full fall out of Covid Inquiry is yet to fully come, when that ties most of the Opposition Front Bench to that corruption and criminality as guilt by association at the very least, then the great denier will be up to her neck in shit and that might just be the time Labour calls a snap election
Some people's memories are very odd. I remember the PPE shortages and at the time the opposition was screaming that "something must be done", and publicly waving around lists of potential PPE suppliers with some very curious names on them (didn't one of Labour's suggested suppliers turn out to actually run a chip shop or something similar?).
As for calling a snap election when the Covid enquiry ponies up it's latest heap of odure to dump on various Tory heads, you seem to have forgotten that the main opposition party Labour face outside the Commons is Reform, who are likely to emerge completely untainted.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
Not necessarily longer isolation or more spending, no. At various points, Johnson left measures late. Had the same measures been taken earlier, when case numbers were lower, those measures would not have needed to be in place for as long. Prevaricating and delaying led to longer lockdowns and more cases. Starmer’s approach may have meant that less total time in lockdown was needed and fewer cases, and thus lower costs overall. (I mean, it’s a hypothetical. It’s hard to tell exactly what would have happened.)
I think you're defending the indefensible here. Who can forget SKS's stupid politicking over "the Johnson variant" for example. Or the fuss he kicked up about single dose jabbing people when it was blistingly obviously the best way to deploy our limited resources.
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
We'll all be relieved when Burnham takes over, then ?
There are lots of reasons* to think a Burnham premiership will crash and burn very similarly to SKS, but to be fair to him, his behaviour over Covid was far better.
*the fact he's a blank canvas with no known policies other than painting busses yellow suggests he's unlikely to survive contact with reality for very long.
I don't think the voters will invest much hope in Burnham. A somewhat askance skepticism at best.
Labour MPs more so. If he disappoints, they probably just have to make the best of a bad job and support him up until the election. Meanwhile, spend the time looking for a job outside Westminster.
Because of the MPs to votes ratio from 2024 there are an awful lot of Labour MPs that would in previous years be looking for sub postmaster vacancies come 2029 even if Burnham generates a revival.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
I have read the remarks, which do not fully describe the police actions but confirm that no first aid would have saved Nowak's life, and have not seen the footage. One luxury I afford myself in old age is not watching things that will upset or offend me. However, those who have watched have commented that Nowak's injuries were discovered only after other police officers insisted on following the rules and checking him. If so, then it sounds like the police guidelines were correct but not followed, which is the opposite of what some politicians have suggested. But as I say, I've not checked the footage.
I've watched a lot of US bodycam footage and one of the things you sometimes notice is people getting very argumentative about who the police officer speaks to first. Having watched the Nowak footage I can now see why.
I didn't detect any hit of racial bias in the footage (the police officer didn't really respond to what the killer said about the turban and just asked him to move back) but what is clear is that the police allowed their first assessment of the incident to override what was in front of their eyes. Regardless of whether they could see any evidence of stabbing, it is clear from the footage that something is very wrong with Nowak whereas the killer is absolutely fine. Their priority absolutely should have been to check his medical condition before doing anything else.
The one thing I've not worked out yet is why the brother hasn't been charged as an accomplice to the murder, the mother was for hiding the weapon but not the brother?
tbh I dislike the modern trend for charging family members with assisting offenders. It used to be taken as read that a villain's wife or mother would support him rather than call the police.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I don't really feel that, I have to say, but I know many do and not just on the right as you demonstrate. The monarchy's prospects depends a great deal on William, I think. It needs to be unifying and popular to survive. The idea of using it to butter up capricious autocratic US presidents will hopefully die with this one.
I think you're going to continue to be disappointed.
Probably. But abolishing the monarchy isn't a biggie for me. As I say, I'd vote that way but I'm not gagging for a vote to happen. There are other fish to fry.
Comments
We are ruled by morons across the political divide
They doubled down on criticism too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8vjd3n3dzo
The story about his mother is great.
I really don’t see what’s so controversial about the idea that you’d want to hear everything that comes out of the court case before making any final decisions on the IOPC report.
https://x.com/itvnews/status/1268137425232068613
ITV News
@itvnews
'Can I start by expressing shock and anger at the death of George Floyd, this has shone a light on racism and hatred experienced by many in the US and beyond.'
Sir Keir Starmer says he's surprised the PM has not said anything about this.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/god-non-binary-texas-dem-nominee-talaricos-past-remarks-abortion-race-gender-draw-scrutiny
What do you love, other than friends and family?
“Trans children”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002vlwl/masterchef-series-22-episode-17
I don't need to 'convince myself' of anything - the advice NOT to deliver colour-blind policing is in the NPCC guidance that is fully endorsed (as I have also shown) by Government. Everyone who says 'We don't have two tier policing' is quite literally ignoring the written guidance on the subject.
I didn't detect any hit of racial bias in the footage (the police officer didn't really respond to what the killer said about the turban and just asked him to move back) but what is clear is that the police allowed their first assessment of the incident to override what was in front of their eyes. Regardless of whether they could see any evidence of stabbing, it is clear from the footage that something is very wrong with Nowak whereas the killer is absolutely fine. Their priority absolutely should have been to check his medical condition before doing anything else.
One guy said “I’ve been stabbed”, the other guy said “That guy was racist”, and the police prioritised the second complaint over the first, as they were trained to do.
What I find odd is, why did the cop feel the need to say anything to Nowak other than explaining what was happening? It can only come back to bite you later.
It's obvious that the police had made up their minds. It almost certainly make any difference to the outcome, but it made his dying moments even worse.
A fragment of that text is as follows:
"...We must also be prepared to examine, carefully and seriously, religious practices or exemptions that permit the carrying of dangerous weapons in public, and other activities that are not conducive to the public good. We also need to examine where the law needs to change..."
One question. Why? Kirpans have been carried by Sikhs in the UK for decades. You would have been in your thirties/forties when that was sorted out. A kirpan was not used in the Nowak murder. Given that there is no reason to ban/further restrict them from the facts of the case, why is she advocating for this?
A line from "The Crown" occurs to me: "Our job is to calm more crises than we create". This is not calming the crisis, now is it?
Murders, rapes, robberies, fraud, all secondary considerations when compared to racism.
I hope that policeman can never sleep properly again.
Discretion is seen asa dirty word.
https://youtu.be/LQIRD57lls8?si=x20nk6vQMJvwS-FW&t=65 - is one vision of the future. I suppose.
The presumption, in the case of someone not resisting arrest, but just lying on the ground, would be quite strongly against it.
It's not 100% certain that they were in the wrong, since we don't know the entire chain of events, but it does seem at least fairly likely.
Or else why would they be lying on the ground?
Very few UK politicians came out of Covid well. Starmer demonstrated quite clearly why he was completely unsuitable to be anywhere near the levers of power, with a particularly nasty combination of authoritarianism and a partisan willingness act completely against the national interest for party political gain.
Isn’t this akin to @Malmesbury theory of NUK10 and the process state.
For what it's worth, I don't think he would be. Critical race theory was very far from the vision he espoused.
Martin Luther King was right, that we should see people as people and not see race everywhere.
Hope he gets a better knock in the second innings.
He is a quality batsman. Leaving the backwater of Northants for Durham has made him.
The UK's policing watchdog has urged people to stop speculating about the murder of Henry Nowak.
"We would respectfully ask people to stop speculating on an ongoing live investigation.
"This investigation is going to fully establish the circumstances of the case, including whether there may be misconduct on the part of any of the officers involved.
"The ongoing commentary about the evidence and speculation risks prejudicing any potential processes and preventing Henry Nowak's family getting the answers they deserve."
And have people get upset (on your behalf) if it’s not a real stabby stabby.
A lot of progress has been made with reducing such. How can we reduce it further?
The Conservatives seem to be falling in line with the Government over the Nowak case. Conservative MP Simon Hoare is on PM criticising Musk and indirectly Farage over the Nowak case. No hypocrisy there.
Although Lady Brook is arguing like mad that Hoare is wrong.
I don’t think Johnson covered himself in glory over Covid, and one can definitely question his judgment at various points, but I think he largely did (in terms of policy) what he the thought was in the national interest. SKS's behavior as leader of the opposition had no obvious principle other than taking whatever course of action gave him partisan political advantage.
It's the same thing as has haunted SKS's tenure as PM. Very few of his decisions have been about what is good for the country, they have all been about what buys him time with the PLP.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15872225/Grandmother-Henry-Nowak-killer-speaks-difficult-boy.html
*the fact he's a blank canvas with no known policies other than painting busses yellow suggests he's unlikely to survive contact with reality for very long.
Buyers remorse.
Since Greater Manchester’s pilot launched in 2019, more than 450 people have been housed, with an 88% tenancy sustainment rate. Rough sleeping in the city has fallen by more than 57% since 2017, bucking the national trend.
The full fall out of Covid Inquiry is yet to fully come, when that ties most of the Opposition Front Bench to that corruption and criminality as guilt by association at the very least, then the great denier will be up to her neck in shit and that might just be the time Labour calls a snap election
@TiceRichard
Sainsbury’s Net Stupid Zero madness:
Brown eggs banned in store’s
White eggs allowed as lower carbon footprint
Seriously?
Two tier eggs now
Tony
@TonyB_1997
·
4h
I would have assumed you would celebrate white eggs getting prioritised over brown.
Why did the policeman then say "SHOW ME (Where he had been stabbed)" as Nowak was being cuffed ?
Why did the police officer use "mate" in a condescending tone and not be respectful using either "Sir" or at least not taking that tone ?
Why was Nowak cuffed then dragged before being checked over ?
You're making all sorts of excuses for them and it's pathetic.
Labour MPs more so. If he disappoints, they probably just have to make the best of a bad job and support him up until the election. Meanwhile, spend the time looking for a job outside Westminster.
I doubt Nowak would have resisted being checked..
As for calling a snap election when the Covid enquiry ponies up it's latest heap of odure to dump on various Tory heads, you seem to have forgotten that the main opposition party Labour face outside the Commons is Reform, who are likely to emerge completely untainted.