Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

News

Henry Nowak - just watched the video for the first time

1000 replies

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · Yesterday 06:57

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
Allisnotlost1 · Yesterday 18:38

Emilesgran · Yesterday 18:28

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.

I take your point, but again I’d say ‘own it’. If you share beliefs espoused by particular politicians, left or right, stand by them. Don’t pretend you’ve been backed into it.

I don’t think it’s either right or left to think there’s a racist aspect to the murder of Henry Nowak. I do think it’s a specialty of the right at the moment to frame it as such, because it speaks to a demographic that feels ignored and impoverished. Some of that demographic is indeed badly off, but by no means all.

Emilesgran · Yesterday 18:38

Cailleach1 · Yesterday 18:33

@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

Indeed. By that logic we older women can all be allowed to carry submachine guns!

Although it might be wise to make an exception for menopausal women - once that's done, you should be good to go.

Bringemout · Yesterday 18:39

I do think there is an issue with policing and the point about all people being equal before the law is completely reasonable.

We then have to have a conversation about banning Scottish ones, swiss army knives, pen knives kirpans etc. ofcourse something like 50% of stabbings are actually done with a kitchen knife so I’m not sure banning all of the others will actually make a difference to knife crime. I think the other stabbings are an assortment of things like machetes, zombie knives etc.

ThreadGuardDog · Yesterday 18:40

Allisnotlost1 · Yesterday 18:33

People are not usually handcuffed inside the police station.

No, they’re usually handcuffed at the scene of a potential crime - ya know, with someone telling the police they’ve been stabbed and actual witnesses backing it up ? Unless ethnicity. Then the perpetrators somehow are afforded the benefit of the doubt.

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · Yesterday 18:40

SnappyQuoter · Yesterday 18:34

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.”

You stated that it is irrelevant whether knives are illegal because they’ll be used regardless by those who want to.

I expanded on that point

godmum56 · Yesterday 18:41

Allisnotlost1 · Yesterday 18:30

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.

that brother said that HE had been attacked. He was video'd saying his eye was swollen and that HE had been attacked. That's not believing the lies of a brother.

ScaredButUnavoidable · Yesterday 18:41

The video is so upsetting.

Whose house are they at though?

And why is the murderer still there? In most cases they tend to flee after murdering someone, not call the police and hang around until they arrive. Wasn’t he worried that Henry would tell the police what had happened and then be arrested? What was the aim? It doesn’t make sense.

But anyway,

It’s just awful. Poor Henry must have been so confused and terrified by what was happening. It’s heartbreaking and my thoughts are with his family. I can’t even imagine how they have coped with all of this, both when it happened but having to face it being all across the media again now. It’s just tragic.

JHound · Yesterday 18:43

Emilesgran · Yesterday 18:31

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.

Oh you were talking about the police inaction. I thought you meant the motivation of the murder.

Ndd1356387 · Yesterday 18:43

NameChangeMay2026 · Yesterday 17:09

I totally agree with this. The guy murdered Henry because he's an evil, despicable, murdering twat, not because he is Sikh.

Fully agree. But then we are all generally good. And yet we all have to go through security checks at the airport. Despite the fact we are all generally good. But we cannot carry 150ml liquid on a flight. I get that and appreciate it and respect it. Sikhs now must respect that they all cannot carry knives. Surely ?

SnappyQuoter · Yesterday 18:44

ThreadGuardDog · Yesterday 18:37

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

Do you understand the history of Sikhs coming to this country?

We invaded them. The anglo-Sikh wars. The British east India company invaded them, and won, dethroned their Maharaja and exiled him back to Britain. Thats what started Sikhs settling here. Then in the 50s, we brought loads over to fill labour shortages. And Sikhs integrated, and become solid parts of our communities. They don’t have a history of violence, religious or otherwise, they don’t have gangs running around or cause racial tensions or try to impose their own religious laws. Sikhs have literally never been an issue in Britain - and we attacked them and brought them here.

Sikhs are not illegal immigrants. They don’t “come over here and take over our laws” or whatever you think they are doing.

This crime is not a “letting people into the country” issue.

PumpkinsAndCoconuts · Yesterday 18:44

Bringemout · Yesterday 18:39

I do think there is an issue with policing and the point about all people being equal before the law is completely reasonable.

We then have to have a conversation about banning Scottish ones, swiss army knives, pen knives kirpans etc. ofcourse something like 50% of stabbings are actually done with a kitchen knife so I’m not sure banning all of the others will actually make a difference to knife crime. I think the other stabbings are an assortment of things like machetes, zombie knives etc.

I do think there is an issue with policing and the point about all people being equal before the law is completely reasonable.

I don’t think this is an issue with all Sikhs in general. Sikhs are (afaik) one of the most successful and well-integrated communities in the UK. And there is - luckily - no mass epidemic of stabbings perpetuated by Sikhs.

but this is definitely a policing issue! absolutely disgraceful and horrific behaviour by the police officers involved.

That poor young man. I can’t imagine what his family must be going through… His father‘s speech was very moving.

Occasionalsnaccident · Yesterday 18:45

I haven’t RTFT but it’s quite chilling how calm the family are whilst they presumably all know how serious his injuries were, even if they didn’t know they were fatal.

JHound · Yesterday 18:46

Pange79 · Yesterday 18:31

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

Are people typically handcuffed at the police station?

mandajane81 · Yesterday 18:46

Glowingup · Yesterday 08:49

I have seen the video. You might also want to read the sentencing remarks which said that the police were fed a false but convincing story at the scene and the judge noted that it is very common for people to pretend they are injured when arrested so the police actions have to be viewed in this context. There was no criticism of the police in the sentencing by the judge, who will have viewed all the evidence in the trial.

The judge who had said that the jurors should consider a manslaughter charge, of course there was no criticism from him as he didn't belive Henry had been murdered

ItsPickleRick · Yesterday 18:46

SammyScrounge · Yesterday 18:08

There should be one and the same.law for all of us -.no exceptions not even for religion -.and then.nobody will be murdered with a blade.

Completely agree.

Guns weren’t a problem before Dunblane. Something isn’t a problem until it is, usually after something horrific like this.

I have the utmost respect for Sikh’s; they are some of the kindest, most generous people I’ve ever met but religion is not above the law. Nobody should be able to carry a blade in public.

There is a knife crime epidemic, thousands of teenagers are being killed. Safety has to come first.

SnappyQuoter · Yesterday 18:46

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · Yesterday 18:40

You stated that it is irrelevant whether knives are illegal because they’ll be used regardless by those who want to.

I expanded on that point

No, I said that the knife crime epidemic we have is being done using illegally carried knives; in response to that poster saying that if we outlaw Sikh knives as well then there will be no more deaths by blades. I was point out how very wrong they are, and how much more work knife crime takes than just making them illegal.

You just wanted to attacked anything I said instead of looking at the bloody context of my reply.

PumpkinsAndCoconuts · Yesterday 18:47

JHound · Yesterday 18:46

Are people typically handcuffed at the police station?

That depends on the people involved, the general situation etc. Some people are. Many people are not.

JHound · Yesterday 18:47

PumpkinsAndCoconuts · Yesterday 18:44

I do think there is an issue with policing and the point about all people being equal before the law is completely reasonable.

I don’t think this is an issue with all Sikhs in general. Sikhs are (afaik) one of the most successful and well-integrated communities in the UK. And there is - luckily - no mass epidemic of stabbings perpetuated by Sikhs.

but this is definitely a policing issue! absolutely disgraceful and horrific behaviour by the police officers involved.

That poor young man. I can’t imagine what his family must be going through… His father‘s speech was very moving.

I don’t think this is an issue with all Sikhs in general. Sikhs are (afaik) one of the most successful and well-integrated communities in the UK. And there is - luckily - no mass epidemic of stabbings perpetuated by Sikhs.

I think it’s this kind of widespread which led to the police acting as they did imo.

ThreadGuardDog · Yesterday 18:48

SnappyQuoter · Yesterday 18:44

Do you understand the history of Sikhs coming to this country?

We invaded them. The anglo-Sikh wars. The British east India company invaded them, and won, dethroned their Maharaja and exiled him back to Britain. Thats what started Sikhs settling here. Then in the 50s, we brought loads over to fill labour shortages. And Sikhs integrated, and become solid parts of our communities. They don’t have a history of violence, religious or otherwise, they don’t have gangs running around or cause racial tensions or try to impose their own religious laws. Sikhs have literally never been an issue in Britain - and we attacked them and brought them here.

Sikhs are not illegal immigrants. They don’t “come over here and take over our laws” or whatever you think they are doing.

This crime is not a “letting people into the country” issue.

I understand everything you’re saying. It still doesn’t make me a racist. I don’t care what your race or religion is, or whether you are born in this country or not. My point is that we’ve now got to a situation in the UK where the word of a dying white person is disregarded for the word of the ethnic person who attacked them. The second that happens, it changes everything.

PistachioTiramisu · Yesterday 18:48

I don't often get emotional about this sort of incident, but the video has absolutely shocked and saddened me immensely. That poor boy who had done nothing wrong was treated abominably and the perpetrator gloating over the scene was just disgusting. It led me to wonder why there is so much violence in this country now - when I was younger I cannot remember people carrying knives being normal, but these Sikh people are allowed to do so - why? ANYBODY carrying a knife should be stopped and searched - I don't care if their religion says they are allowed to.

JHound · Yesterday 18:48

mandajane81 · Yesterday 18:46

The judge who had said that the jurors should consider a manslaughter charge, of course there was no criticism from him as he didn't belive Henry had been murdered

He said they could consider it not that he did not believe it was murder.

Bringemout · Yesterday 18:49

Cailleach1 · Yesterday 18:33

@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

I apologise, I didn’t mean you specifically in the foreigner comment, it is the tone generally of some posters.

Elsewhere I have already made the point that the sikh community may need to reflect on what would be reasonable and accommodate the wider community and a conversation about alignment of the religious exemption with what is already legal may be a sensible path forward. The reason it was shocking is because people never really noticed that baptised sikhs can carry kirpans because sikhs generally don’t stab people despite the religious exemption. It is fine for the law to change in response to a change of circumstances or facts on the ground.

I won’t go over what I said as it’s in this thread somewhere. At no point have I ever argued that sikhs should be able to carry large swords in public, in fact I said school children should not be able to carry them at all.

I think there is a debate that needs to be had given there was a loss of life.

DaringQuoter · Yesterday 18:50

Glowingup · Yesterday 08:39

No that’s unfair and overblowing it. You have no evidence of that, just the same that people claim the police will just randomly shoot at black people, also because of racism. They were told a load of lies at the scene about what happened and responded in a way that in hindsight was wrong. Because they were lied to. How were they meant to immediately know what happened?

Not immediately but surely check if he was indeed wounded before handcuffing him!

JHound · Yesterday 18:50

ThreadGuardDog · Yesterday 18:48

I understand everything you’re saying. It still doesn’t make me a racist. I don’t care what your race or religion is, or whether you are born in this country or not. My point is that we’ve now got to a situation in the UK where the word of a dying white person is disregarded for the word of the ethnic person who attacked them. The second that happens, it changes everything.

We aren’t at that point though. If Digwa was black rather than Sikh the outcome would be different. It appears the police were fed a convincing story and given who fed it to them, they believed it.

Paperbackwrither · Yesterday 18:50

ThreadGuardDog · Yesterday 18:48

I understand everything you’re saying. It still doesn’t make me a racist. I don’t care what your race or religion is, or whether you are born in this country or not. My point is that we’ve now got to a situation in the UK where the word of a dying white person is disregarded for the word of the ethnic person who attacked them. The second that happens, it changes everything.

That is not the fault of the larger Sikh community. It's the fault of the police and the evil perpetrator/ family.
Sikhs are as British as you are.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread