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?

Calling out your demonstrably false claims is not the same as ‘being comfortable with remarks about groups based on their nationality or ethnic background’. What a reach!

This thread is about Tommy Robinson not Nigel Farage btw, there are lots of more relevant threads about him you can contribute to.

Do you honestly not understand that when a public figure, or anyone else, makes sweeping generalisations about a group of people it includes everyone in that group? So when someone talks about Eastern Europeans they mean all Eastern Europeans, including Henry Nowak's relatives. As I said, you'd have to be pretty comfortable with referring to people like that to not see the problem.

ETA I think your defence of TR's remarks also indicate that you are more than comfortable with generalisations about groups of people.

I’ve explained that already if you look back.

Why not say ‘black and brown people’ or ‘non-whites’

Why do you think he should lump all ‘black and brown’ people together or call them ‘non white’ on this topic? He’s talking about criminals, two tier policing and the very specific groups that benefit.

Do you realise how extremely racist that would be ? Yet you were the one who said it, and not TR.

Honestly your desperation to pretend he doesn’t have an agenda is laughable.

His ‘agenda’ is calling out two tier policing, grooming gangs and general issues caused by certain types of immigration. I haven’t claimed he hasn’t got an agenda, your desperation to stop people from discussing it is the worrying issue here.

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't get past your opening paragraph!

I think people should stop discussing both immigration and grooming gangs in this situation, yes.

Neither of them are relevant. There were no immigrants involved (certainly none first generation), and the Sikh murderer has exactly zero to do with Muslim grooming gangs.

Involving either of those two things is just twisting the narrative to suit an agenda, that you at least accept he does have.

Yet here you are making racist suggestions on language that would make TR blush.

In that case you understand how some of us feel when we read your posts.

He’s talking about criminals, two tier policing and the very specific groups that benefit.
Do you realise how extremely racist that would be ? Yet you were the one who said it, and not TR.

Your argument is now that the alleged beneficiaries of two-tier policing are just Pakistani-Muslims? Or is that TR’s argument? You said he was responding to a problem that is . “literally written into the guidance”. Is the guidance only about the treatment of Pakistani Muslims?

I’m going to need to see evidence and an explanation of that accusation.

I wonder what ‘certain types of immigration’ are.

Ah the pack mentality. The echo chamber that you want to keep like that. Somebody disagreeing with you means I'm a Reform bot, have changed my name etc. Why don't you try playing the man and not the ball @shakeoffyourchains. Get a grip and try seeing people exist that don't have to have a hate for everything you do and see everything your way. Personal attacks are against community guidelines as you well know. Didn't you have one of my posts deleted? Obviously I meant play the ball and not the man.

I mean, you can’t discuss two tier policing without acknowledging that a key driver of the policies is immigration of people of colour, and many with specific religious practices incompatible with our society and laws. If there weren’t poc/specific religions immigrating to this country (at some point) you wouldn’t have the second tier for the different treatment by police in this context.

But I guess that’s your aim isn’t it. Do you work for Kier Starmer by any chance?

Try reading your post at 12.21 if you’ve forgotten

BackToLurk · Today 12:21
Well let’s say we accept your rather bizarre defence. The guidance you’re referring to is about ‘race’ in general isn’t it? So the question still remains, why did TR use Pakistani Muslims’. Why not say ‘black and brown people’ or ‘non-whites’ or whatever term TR uses. Honestly your desperation to pretend he doesn’t have an agenda is laughable.

Oh dear. Do you understand what an example is? Did you want him to lift the country of origin and religion of all cards he knows debut? It might have made his speech a bit long and far less impactful.

Did you miss the bit where you made an utterly racist suggestion? Are you just glossing over that bit or are you going to acknowledge it? I shared it for you just now as a reminder.

I’m not @Shakeoffyourchains

Keep up!

I know that. I was addressing both of you at the same time. Is that OK? I think that's fairly obvious as I put a tag in my post.

*list all cases he knows about 🙄

my stupid autocorrect is getting above itself.

You argued that he brought Pakistani Muslims into a protest about the policing around the death of Henry Nowak because of a problem “literally written into the guidance”. Your explanation. The arguments around that guidance are that they prioritise people who are not white over people who are white. I suggested some terms that TR might have chosen to use to highlight that. That he might of used in order to show that.

You asked "Why do you think he should lump all ‘black and brown’ people together or call them ‘non white’ on this topic?". The criticism of the guidance, as I understand it, is precisely that it does 'lump all' people together according to the colour of their skin. That is, supposedly, the problem. That people who are white (regardless of whether or not they are criminals) are treated less favourably than people who are not white (again regardless of any criminality on their behalf). Therefore if TR is in fact criticising two-tier policing on those grounds then it would be perfectly logical for him to lump them all together.

Of course it is not an anomaly for TR to shoehorn Pakistani Muslims, to the exclusion of any other group, into every conversation. It's absolutely standard. Though why he's concerned with people who aren't British nationals in relation to the killing of one British man by another is quite the conundrum.

You argued that he brought Pakistani Muslims into a protest about the policing around the death of Henry Nowak because of a problem “literally written into the guidance”. Your explanation.

Yes, to evidence some very well documented issues with this guidance - I hope we can all agree that the cases specifically involving Pakistani Muslim men are particularly egregious. There are obviously other cases involving people from other countries of origin and religions (like Digwa) but if you are trying to illustrate how widespread the problem is, the many cases of repeated rapes of thousands of white girls over many years, many of which remain uninvestigated or prosecuted to this day because of who the perpetrators are is a glaring example of two tier policing.

The issue with using your suggestion of non specific, generalised language like ‘black and brown people’ or ‘non white’ is, as we agree, lumping everyone in together. That would usually and understandably be called out as racist language, especially if TR made such an unnecessarily wide generalisation when talking about criminal activity and police behaviour. Everyone would be yelling ‘not all black, brown, non white people you racist’ like they do on here frequently.

Also I think some organisations would have a serious issue with your suggestion of calling people ‘non white’ - it’s like the trans activists calling women ‘non men’.

TR was referencing very specific, very well evidenced examples to demonstrate the issues with the guidance and two tier policing where the main problem is not ‘lumping people in together’ as you suggest but treating people differently based on the colour of their skin or religion.

Imo, your suggestion that TR should have used more generalised language which unnecessarily lumps brown and black people (you might have forgotten about the religious aspect) in together and also refers to them as ‘non white’ is actually more racist than the very specific language he did use.

An interesting development that I didn’t see coming.