To be totally APPALLED by how Robinson referred to Henry Nowak in his “speech” in Southampton on Tuesday?

[Whereismyjoiedevivre]

I’ve just seen a clip of this in a Guardian article on the main agitators in Southampton on Tuesday.
TR refers to Henry Nowak in this way: “White privilege?! Does Henry swear word beginning with F Nowak look as if he had white privilege when he was lying on the floor?”
He then smirks as he looks down, clearly proud of himself for delivering such an eloquent speech [sarcasm].
I’m beyond disgusted by how the name of this beautiful young man, who has lost his life in the most brutal way, was used in such a disrespectful way in order to rouse a rabble and boost TR’s ego.
AIBU to say that over the last two days TR, NF and their ilk are really showing us who they are and what motivates them?

I was making a direct response to what you said, if you can't take it maybe you should go elsewhere?

Like Zach Polanski and his boob stuff you mean? I keep having to check I am on the right thread.

No I am happy here thanks.

If you seriously cannot grasp that Yaxley-Lennon specifically referred to Muslims in a speech about Henry Nowak, which had absolutely nothing to do with Muslims, because he deliberately sought to incite hate against them, there really is no hope for you.

They certainly are missing something.

Nope. That's not what he said. He is not 'clearly talking about multiple examples'.

Although are you now claiming there has been '2-tier policing' for 20 years. Maybe you'll have more success than the previous poster in finding links to these cases of race gangs of Pakistani Muslims beating up a white guy and when the police turn up they jump on the white guy. It's surprising that the likes of Nigel Farage haven't acted more quickly. Mind you, as someone else pointed out, maybe Nige was too busy accusing Henry Nowak's relatives of eating swans.

You chose a very poor example though, didn't you? The behaviour of a politician in the 1960s who died 20 years ago is entirely irrelevant to the behaviour of living politicians today.
You were presumably trying to argue that Reform are judged more harshly for their words than other politicians. To do this you would need to compare like with like. For example showing an example of Andy Burnham posting vile sexism on line or of Keir Starmer rabble rousing, and not being criticised for it.
This would of course be nigh on impossible, given neither AB or KS have done these things. And anything they have said or done that could possibly be used against them is indeed thrown under the spotlight.
And not just them either. We have this week learned that even in the absence of material, Reform will happily invent their own. They have taken the words of KB, shamelessly misrepresenting her so she appears to be a black woman saying only black lives matter, a trick from the gutter, when she said no such thing.
At least people here are picking up on things here that actually have been said, not lying that people have said things they haven't.

Like any form of hate speech against women or sexually derogatory/offensive language. If Zach has used derogatory terms against women in order to belittle, offend or ridicule them, then yes he should be resigning. Has he?

Nice but of prejudice on plain display here. Can you hear yourself? I note that you’ve been posting frequently in working hours. Perhaps best to take your hypocritical prejudice and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine

I'm confused. When it comes to racial bias against black people, it's said that things haven't changed. Yet I choose a wrong example with Profumo because it's from years ago so no longer relevant? Have all men in power suddenly stopped having mistresses? Do you know what everyone of them get up to behind closed doors. Who would imagine the amount of scrambling that would have gone on with Henry's murder. Did you expect people just to shut up so the heat would all go away. I've helped the OP derail her own thread enough, as have you.

They were all over on the should Farage be locked up thread. No wonder this thread wasn't going the way the OP wanted.

Ok, well maybe try growing up and putting your big-boy pants on then? If you ask someone a question and they respond, telling them to go away when you don't like the answer is pathetic and childish.

Exactly @LuckyHazelFox, they never learn do they. That ok, let them crack on insulting and condescending to the increasing masses that disagree, we all know how well that approach ends.

For my part, I couldn’t give a stuff about the words used. That’s a complete straw man and a distraction tactic from the awful point we now find ourselves as the police handcuffed and arrested the poor dying lad as he bled to death. That it the problem, not swearing FFS.

I just wanted to add: I know nothing about Henry’s identity and his family but his surname cannot be more Polish - it’s the most common surname in Oland. While Robinson gets ok with Poles*, it cannot be said about Farage.
Ten years ago Farage wanted UK without poles but he declared that Indians are properly British. Today family with clear Polish heritage is us but Indians are the scum. I don’t want to discuss politics etc., but whatever you think, whatever your stance on race relations in the UK please just remember what a weasel Farage is.

*that doesn’t mean his other takes are not problematic.

Indeed. If neither Farage or Robinson had said anything, it would have been left to our pitiful weak MP to address what certainly is two tier policing and he's had a big hand in it. I've seen every bit of deflection going on but only to be expected when the victim is white.

Well that would be nice. Apparently we haven’t even got a law that bars a man convicted and imprisoned for terrorism and causing the kidnap of a British citizen to barter for his unlawful release but it turns out we need one.

What are you confused about exactly? Things have changed a great deal since the 1960s in both in our attitudes to racism and sexism.
We have legislation that has forced changes to behaviour, and if behaviour changes then often attitudes follow.
This is how society has moved from public executions being a spectator sport, to a place where many don't believe in the death penalty at all. How we've gone from shows like 'love thy neighbour' being family fun, to racism and homophobic no longer a joke amongst decent people.
Basic human nature doesn't change, but what we see as socially acceptable, clearly does.
There is still a long way to go in the fight against racism and sexism, and how we eradicate these things is obviously a point of disagreement.

Yes, he’s talking about two tier policing and the many examples he’s found of that. It turns out that many of the known examples are in a certain group. Are you upset that he took the focus off Sikhs - presumably because there are fewer examples in that religion?

That is what I meant by ‘substance of what he was saying’?

Not boy pants, girl pants. so nice bit of fishing there. You're not the first poster to presume I'm not a woman because I'm not obsessed with misogyny. I didn't tell you to go away - childish language - I advised you to not derail the thread. I'm not arguing all morning about a totally irrelevant deflection tactic. Good day.

🥱

Are you one of those women that pops up on MN with really low standards when it comes to men? Is that why a prospective MP who engages in rank misogyny is just met with a "Oh well that's just normal men innit?"? Raise your bar.

Do you understand what he means by ‘two tier policing’ and providing relevant examples?

Are you really desperate to focus on how two tier policing works with Sikhs only? Why would that be?

I don’t need you to have hope for me thanks all the same. 👍

The substance is that TR has to pivot back to "Pakistani Muslims" whatever the occasion. That is all he cares about. He's just a bog-standard bigot.

TR made it about Pakistani Muslims.

An intentional conflation, continued by the acolytes here.

Ah sorry, girl-pants. Are they starched bloomers by any chance?