A question about Henry Nowak….

[CurlewKate]

Is there any actual evidence to support the suggestion that this completely awful event had anything to do with with “two tier policing” and was a hideous example of appalling policing and in particular, appalling first responding? It is unforgivable that the police didn’t check Nowak properly for injuries. But there was no weapon at the scene and the police were met with 4 people who had called them and were all telling the same story.They made assumptions which they would probably have made regardless of the ethnicity of the people involved. And in 999 cases out of 1000 the assumptions would have been right. The sort of judgement call the police have to make all the time. So it seems to me that it’s not about policy, it’s about incompetence.

From your pp

‘It seems to me highly unlikely that in the heat of that moment, the police officers acted in a way that policy told them to.’

Police do exactly that. There has been plenty of officers saying it’s the case.

So do you think that the police failed HN specifically because he was white? That they made the decisions they made because he was white?

yes

We saw to a certain point of the bodycam footage. That continued but wasn't shown on TV, I suppose. I have no idea what people said to one another in the two minutes, for instance, after the footage which we saw. Would the jury have seen the continuing bodycam footage? I'm assuming they would have but I might be wrong.

As I said the training is adhered to and impacts heavily on police even in the moment.

Many officers have said this. Your assumptions that training and policy is not used in the moment is not correct.

No, not particularly. I think it was because they expected to see a young man who was a bit or a lot drunk and had been involved in a fracas. I doubt if they absolutely believed what Digwa and family were saying, either, but they arrived on the scene with a certain story and they needed to sort out what had really happened. They didn't know when they arrived how near Henry was to dying.

I don't know if they saw it or not but itisnt necessarily relevant to the trial which was about the guilt of his murderer, not the actions of the police. So what is relevant is all the evidence that shows the murderer stabbed him unprovoked and then lied to the police about what had happened.

That doesn’t really answer the question. If HK had been black would he have been given proper first aid?

I understand. Thank you.

It corrects your mistaken assumption.

I’ve seen actual footage of a white person calling the police after being (not racially) attacked by a Muslim person and the Muslim person rolling around on the floor saying they’re injured and need medical care.

They didn’t, they were trying their luck at getting taken away in an ambulance and not a police car, and they failed (I know because the person was fit and well in front of me in court).

Perpetrators of crimes tell all sorts of stories to police. It’s probably not the first time those officers have had someone claim they’ve been stabbed, and it then turn out they haven’t.

What happened is tragic and unacceptable, but it’s totally understandable (even taking race out of it) when you overlay the daily experiences of police officers.

The case is under investigation. I don't think any of us can draw any solid conclusions in either direction until that investigation has been completed.

Race may have been a factor in the police response, or it may not. We will have to wait and see what the investigation concludes.

Quite.

So why start a thread with assumptions

I understand why the OP started the thread. So many people are talking about what happened as if we already know all of the facts. We don't. We need to await the outcome of the investigation.

Exactly, unless to be goady.

The police failed his family when they tried to put out statements painting Henry as the instigator after his death. There is no excuse for that.

So no need for the OP to start yet another thread then.

Quite. Most of us don't need to deny or 'innocently' question what was patently obvious. And if a person does, what is their motive for doing so? Starmer et al do don't they. Funny that.

Exactly, unless to be goady.

I think that was the intention.

Eh it just adds to speculation. And the op is wrong on some stuff.

Did they? I haven’t seen that.

We need to await the outcome of the investigation.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack If we need to await the outcome of the investigation then why are we discussing it all?
The OP’s original post said ‘Is there any actual evidence to support the suggestion that this completely awful event had anything to do with with “two tier policing” and was a hideous example of appalling policing and in particular, appalling first responding?’

Why did you not say to her that she should await the outcome of the investigation before speculating further?

I think we need to keep a genuinely open mind about what happened.

If it turns out that the anti racism guidance/training was genuinely a factor in the police failing to assess the situation properly, then obviously, that will need to be looked at and addressed. But too many people are jumping to conclusions that this was the issue when we don't yet know the facts, and indeed, many are using those assumptions to further a particular political agenda.

What happened to Henry was undeniably awful. But the best way of preventing similar incidents in the future is to seek to understand what actually happened and not to jump to conclusions.

All the other threads that I have seen have been taking as fact that this incident was the direct result of “two tier policing”. There is no evidence to suggest it is.