Henry Nowak - just watched the video for the first time

[EvangelicalAboutButteredToast]

I don’t understand how the officers could not tell he had been stabbed. He repeatedly says he can’t breathe and when he says he has been stabbed, they say, ‘I don’t think so mate.’ When he says it again they ask where and he says his face, they then roll him over so they can look at his face, and the video ends with the officer saying the handcuffed victim was likely going to be sick.

i completely understand the officers went there having been told a lie and you see the perpetrator on the video retelling the lie and claiming he’d been a victim of a racist assault, i just can’t understand how the officers didn’t recognise the guy on the floor was dying.

I just wonder why Stephen Lawrence's family weren't expected to ignore the racism of his murder in favour of a more general "they're just bad boys".

Because the police allowed those bad boys to get away with murder, for a long time and in some cases probably forever.

No. She told another poster to stop apologising for the people like this killer being allowed into this country.

The guy is and always has been British. Then she says one Sikh doing this is too many… implying all Sikhs are a problem and should go. She wasn’t talking about stabbings until after I called out her racism.

I mean I am glad to see the broader public finally taking issue with poor policing due to police assumptions as to victim / perpetrator likelihood and inconsistency in policing (often race / ethnicity based)

Black Britons have been sounding that alarm for decades so good to see everybody else finally catch up.

You’re all over the place with this one.

Murders happen because people carry them illegally but it’s ok for some religious people to carry them because that’s legal?

Legalise them all then. Then there’d be no one carrying illegal knives. Just bad people who use them and good people who don’t.

No wasting of police time looking for people carrying offensive weapons, we just wait and see if they’re bad guys and respond AFTER they’ve killed someone.

Haha I mean everybody, including Scots

Because there has been no evidence provided that’s the case?

That’s the police’s fear of accusations of racism. It didn’t work well enough for him to get away with it ( if he was idiotic enough to think it would). I agree the sentence could have been harsher, would have sent a message out not only about murder but about crying racism when it’s not warranted.

You complained about people being allowed into this country whilst talking about this case.

It was a British man who did this. What has it got to do with immigration? What has it got to do with Sikh people living in this country (and loads are British).

This is not an immigration issue. But you started trying to make it one.

I interpret that sort of comment a bit differently: I think when there seems to be an agreement among those who traditionally hold power in our society over something that revolts ordinary people, and when those ordinary people are constantly told that only the far right believe this or care about it, then at some point that becomes counterproductive. Instead of refusing to support something because "it's far right to think that", some people will begin to think "Well then, I must be far right, because that's what I think".

And IMO there's a significant risk that the government and media dismissing the racist aspect to Henry Nowak's death could be one of those issues.

She was referring to religions coming from other countries with values and customs that are illegal here for people to do without that religious protection.

I can think of other examples.

That poster said “outlaw Sikhs carrying knives and there won’t be anymore deaths by blades”

Do you think that is true? If we outlaw Sikhs carrying knives today, is that the end of knife crime? That’s literally the only thing I was replying to.

I’m not sure what your point is? Perpetrators also lie to people around them - friends, family - and sometimes perpetrators friends and family know the truth and lie on their behalf. This isn’t novel or unreported. In all the cases I mentioned there were famously others around the perpetrator who lied.

No.
I don’t think it’s true but I assumed it was some kind of typo or clumsy wording.

Nope, sorry!
There is a law prohibiting carrying knives - there should be no exceptions.

One rule for all.

Knives are dangerous whether symbolic or not - as this case proves!

Sorry I don't know what you're saying? There's no evidence that the police assumed that the white boy on the ground had carried out a racist attack? I mean we know they thought that - they handcuffed him and not his attacker.

Or no evidence that the police the Stephen Lawrence case assumed that the black boy on the ground had been attacked by other black boys and not by the white boys nearby?

Again, we do know that. In both cases, they saw what their prejudices led to expect.

Even after Henry died Vickrum was never handcuffed. Not even at police station. The difference in treatment is jaw dropping.

What are your thoughts on what the PM has said?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g81y540y1t

Handcuff the one you think might have said offensive words.

But don’t handcuff the one you know has murdered someone.

Beggars belief

@Bringemout . Thank you for your reply and giving the correct name for the group which carries that extra big blade -Nihangs. If being part of that group allowed him to legally carry that larger blade (and I’m not sure it did), I think it is more than an internal religious matter. The repercussions extended into the life and death of another person. Well, history is always interesting. I had a weekend away at a place which was originally a hospital for the ‘Teutonic Knights’ in the Middle Ages, and it was very interesting. Seemingly, even today there are organisation/s which claim to be the modern version/inheritors of the TK’s. I think it ends up being little more than a sort of equivalent of the Rotary Club or Lions.

That doesn’t really change things in modern civil society though. I doubt someone could claim they should be afforded an exemption to wander around in daily life kitted (outside of ceremonial) with a sword based on some history. It used to be if you graduated from Trinity College Dublin, you were given the right to wear a sword around the premises. Now, I imagine that is well neutered, and the police would be called quick pronto if you claimed you had a historical right. If being attacked, or nearly being wiped out in the past is a factor, I suspect many people, especially with Yazidi, European Jews, and Armenian background could make a case too. Blinkin’ heck, those of Scottish clearance backgrounds could be making a case for carrying the Claymore (which was banned). Never mind the piddling sgian dubh. You didn’t expand on the historical background of Sikhism and the carrying of knives, so I can’t be sure if that is what you meant.

I am wondering why you included the ‘But the whole “dem forrin barbarians” chat is just completely off when it comes to the sikh community and its general conduct.’

Especially since I never alluded to any such thing, and I don’t think any particular religion is the issue. I said there are both decent people and rotten apples in every grouping. None with only saints, or only sinners. The issue is that any grouping is given a religious exemption from a law that is applied to the rest of society. Not just within the confines of a religious premises with a ceremonial function, but in schools, offices, trains etc. I simply never knew any grouping in the UK was uniquely given an exemption from knife laws, simply based on religion. With no other basis, whatsoever. I think if someone didn’t know that, and the first introduction to it is in light of the brutal stabbing of HK, I think it is shocking when it is revealed he was given what amounts to special permission to be carrying these knives around the place. He is a prime example that no grouping contains only saints, irrespective of their religion.

I am genuinely wondering how broad this privilege is. Will he be carrying a knife around the prison? Will he be carrying knives when he is released after serving a sentence for stabbing someone to death? Is his brother still carrying? And if so, is this being allowed for these two when it wouldn’t be for others who have committed similar crimes? Now, it may well be that once you have committed murder by stabbing, your special right to carry knives around is withdrawn.

If a propensity/ statistics for violent crime is the deciding factor for who are deemed most safe to be given the right to carry a knife in public spaces, I suspect my age and sex demographic will probably be lower than any group that contains men.

I

Nope. All I want it is for it to be illegal for ANYONE to carry a knife, and for exceptions/excuses not to be made as the norm for race or religion. I would also like the evidence/words of white people to be given equal weight to those of other races/religions so that kids like Henry Nowak don’t die in the name of not having a voice in the country of their birth.

People are not usually handcuffed inside the police station.

I told them they were wrong. You decided that meant I want to legalise all knives. No. I want tougher sentencing, I want police to actually do something when there are knives in schools (I live in Scotland where the police won’t get involved in anything like that in schools because policy is that it’s a family and teacher issue), I want actual real sentences for carrying knives without legitimate reason rather than confiscating and a slap in the wrists, I want awareness, more lessons in schools etc etc.

But I’m not stupid so I wouldn’t say something as stupid as “make Sikh blades illegal and there will never be another death by a blade.”

But the argument for carrying a knife on religious grounds is that it isn't the same as carrying a knife for random reasons. So if even the family, not just the knife man, respond in exactly the same way as any other thug's family, by conspiring to hide the knife and lie about what happened, then what happened to their supposed religion? It doesn't mean all that much to them.

Why 2028?

And what is it that you want ? Hurty words to carry more weight than fatal physical assault ?