FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
16m ago
an absolute no-brainer would be to cancel the religious exemption to the laws forbidding knives.
Reform UK have pledged to do exactly that if they achieve a majority in the next election. Strange that Labour haven't scooped them.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
21m ago
Okay – so if it's not so rare, it shouldn't be difficult for you to find an example which is at least broadly comparable to this one, but with reversed racial dynamics. It doesn't have to be an altercation between two strangers: surely it shouldn't be difficult for you to find an instance in which two male friends of different races (or even two female) got into a fight, the non-white one was clearly more severely injured, but the police arrested him rather than the visibly less injured white party. There must be tens of thousands of hours of publicly available bodycam footage out there, and I'm confident that woke people would be screaming the house down about racial profiling if an event like this had transpired. But despite claiming that Henry Nowak's case isn't especially unique, you can't come up with even one example with the racial dynamics reversed. How strange.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
47m ago
It barely happens in any racial direction!
So, you can't cite an example of the thing I requested? You mean (contrary to what you earlier claimed) this case is unique?
You don't think that one of the most common forms of violence regularly having this exact issue is even "vaguely analogous"?
When I said "vaguely analogous" I was referring to the white aggressor/brown victim component of my request. I would have accepted, for example, an instance in which a white aggressor non-lethally assaulted a brown victim, and the police arrested the brown victim while leaving the white aggressor alone. But it seems you can't even produce one of those.
Yes, cops do that pretty often.
If it's the case that cops arrest the wrong party pretty often, show me one. Show me a case where the cops arrested the wrong person, and that person was non-white while their aggressor was white. Otherwise I don't even know what we're doing here.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
51m ago
I don't see the point in debating the ethics of child labour with an admitted nonce. The inferential distance is just too wide. Best of luck to you.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
59m ago
It's like saying using the word noncey sounds extremely British-prole.
This is literally not even a grammatical sentence. If you're going to go full what-if-the-child-consents-tho, you could at least do me the courtesy of doing so in a semantically accurate fashion.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
1hr ago
Are you trying to claim there's a widespread epidemic of white victims being left lying on the ground while colored attackers are left alone?
No: I asked you for a specific example of the reverse, wherein a brown victim is handcuffed while the white aggressor is left alone. I don't know why you brought up domestic abuse calls, as that doesn't seem remotely relevant to my request.
Of course not! This sort of issue being rather common is exactly why some more experienced and smarter officers and departments started doing dual arrests.
Okay, but again – why are you bringing this up? What does that have to do with this case?
"This man got stabbed, and when the police came they put him in handcuffs without bothering to cuff the man who stabbed him."
"Yeah. Sometimes when responding to domestic abuse calls, police will arrest both parties just to be safe."
That has literally nothing to do with this case. I don't know why you're bringing it up. It's completely irrelevant. We're not talking about police arresting both parties out of an excess of caution. We're talking about the police arresting one person, and it being the wrong one.
In my original comment I gave a whole category of this, domestic abuse victims.
Are there really so many domestic abuse cases in which the aggressor is a white man and the victim a brown man? I had no idea there were so many interracial gay couples.
When police have trouble determining the identity of the primary aggressor, they may also arrest the true abuser along with the victim, in a dual arrest.
Which, you'll notice, is not what happened here. They put the victim in handcuffs despite him clearly being immobile and incapacitated, and didn't put the aggressor in handcuffs, even though he was standing, lucid, talkative and showing no signs of visible injury at all. If they were unsure of how the altercation had gone down and decided to cuff both parties out of an abundance of caution, that would be one thing. Only cuffing the party who clearly poses no threat, claims to have been stabbed and is acting in a manner entirely consistent with that claim, while declining to cuff the other party? Inexcusable, and you know it.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
One last comment before I stop talking about this because it's making me too angry and depressed.
Between this, the Southport stabbings and the grooming gangs, it's becoming increasingly difficult for me not to believe that Enoch Powell was the most prescient English politician of the twentieth century. Nearly sixty years later, it's remarkable how little the progressive script has changed when dealing with conservatives voicing uncomfortable truths about immigration:
The Labour MP Ted Leadbitter said he would refer the speech to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe spoke of a prima facie case against Powell for incitement.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
I remember reading a satire article (which I'm unable to find now) where the title was something like "'What Are You Looking At?!' Says Man Who Has Been Trying to Get Your Attention for the Last Fifteen Minutes".
I routinely encounter ferociously angry and frustrated people like this who are clearly spoiling for a fight and actively looking for any pretext, no matter how feeble, to start a fight with someone smaller than them. My guess is that Nowak said something utterly innocuous that a more level-headed person would have responded to with good humour, but he had the poor fortune to pick the most mentally unstable young man in Southampton.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
2hr ago
Yeah, I'd say that's the least they could do.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
In that part I was referencing the Weinstein scandal for the most part. AFAIK non of those women claimed to be underage when they allegedly had sex with him.
I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing up adult women who claimed to be the victims of sexual misconduct when my post was specifically (and very explicitly) about child actors of both sexes.
McCurdy was around that age during her iCarly career so, I guess it would apply to her too.
The pilot was filmed in January of 2007, when she was fourteen. I have no idea what "scientifically consent" is supposed to mean, but it sounds extremely noncey. California's legal age of consent is eighteen.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
It would involve his community turning on him, condemning and outcasting him.
In fairness, Digwa had already been barred from his local gurdwara at the time the stabbing took place, and in response British Sikh leaders are revisiting their policies around ceremonial blades:
Gurmel Singh, chief executive of the Supreme Sikh Council UK, told The Telegraph that community leaders would meet on Saturday and in coming weeks to “review safeguards” in the religious training of Sikhs and ensure that such an incident was “never repeated”.
Under the faith, Sikhs are permitted to wear a kirpan only if they have been baptised and had the required spiritual training. The curved knife is meant to remain on a Sikh’s body until their death and is cremated with them.
Responding to [Reform UK's] proposals, Mr Singh said: “We extend our deepest condolences to the family of Henry Nowak, who was tragically killed. Our thoughts are with them during this devastating time.
“The Sikh community unequivocally condemns the actions of Vickrum Digwa. His conduct represents a grave breach of our values and code of conduct, and has brought disrepute to a community that stands for service, justice, and peace.
“Wearing the Sikh articles of faith is a sacred responsibility, not a symbol to be misused. Any act that violates the principles of Sikhi will always be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
“Community leaders are meeting to review safeguards and ensure that such isolated incidents are never repeated. We are committed to internal accountability and will be launching a strengthened education campaign on the responsibilities that come with the articles of faith.
“While we reject reactionary political statements that use this tragedy for populism, we fully embrace our own responsibility to act. The Sikh community will not excuse wrongdoing, and we will continue to uphold the integrity of our faith through action, not just words.”
Maybe nothing will come of it and these are just empty statements made under the advice of a lawyer until the case leaves the public imagination. But I've been legitimately impressed by the Sikh community's response, and think they've handled this a lot better than Britain's Muslim community would have done.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
I'm guessing you blank slated it and assumed that Hollywood caused the abuse in the cases you cited, not the parents.
Uhh, no? I literally have no idea where you got that impression. The post begins with a lengthy preamble talking about a child who was horrifically abused by his father, not by Hollywood.
Hollywood didn't do it to either of them.
Jennette McCurdy specifically alleges that Dan Schneider, the creator of iCarly, engaged in some deeply suspect behaviour on-set. She is far from the only child actor who worked with Schneider to make similar claims. I don't know what, specifically, you're claiming Hollywood "didn't do" to McCurdy, but Hollywood did do something to her.
Normal people just get over a sexual encounter they later regretted.
It's meaningless to talk about children "regretting" sexual encounters, because children cannot consent to sex and every sexual act between an adult and a prepubescent child is statutory rape.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
My understanding is that Digwa had two blades on his person, the larger of which he used to kill Nowak, which his mother then removed from the crime scene and brought back to the family home (for which she was convicted). The blade in the photo you linked below is the smaller one which he did not attack Nowak with.
Even if Digwa was openly brandishing the weapons, I can imagine that Nowak might not have noticed. The bodycam footage was filmed in front of a house with a floodlight, but if Nowak and Digwa encountered each other in a dimly-lit street, the weapons on Digwa's person may not have been as obvious. Also consider that Nowak had had a few drinks and was distracted filming a Snapchat video before and during the encounter.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
3hr ago
Some years ago, I wrote an article complaining about an irritating tic wherein progressive journalists will assert "Alice has faced controversy in the past for her problematic opinions" but will refuse to tell the reader what those opinions are, thereby allowing them to draw their own conclusions. I argued that this should always be taken a tacit admission that the problematic opinions in question are ones that the average reader can be assumed to agree with. If there was a smoking gun (e.g. Alice has consistently argued that the Holocaust didn't really happen), the journalist would say that outright. Their reluctance to tell the reader what the opinions in question are illustrates a lack of confidence in their own opinions to win in the marketplace of ideas.
I now think this is a specific example of a general rule: if a political partisan doesn't want to talk about a particular story, it's because they know that it favours their ideological opponents' worldview more than their own.
Andrew Doyle has an article called "Henry Nowak and the politics of deflection" in which he notes that a Spanish newspaper, El País, has published exactly one article about the case, which takes Nigel Farage to task for cynically "weaponising" the case to further his supposedly far-right agenda. (The article doesn't even include a photo of Nowak, but does include a photo of Farage.) The woke gobshite I mentioned a couple of hours ago insists that, because Digwa was arrested, convicted and sentenced to life in prison, therefore there's nothing to see here and anyone who wants to talk about it is a "racist idiot".
The reason this man wants to focus on the fact that Digwa and his mother were convicted is because it's the only aspect of this case which is remotely flattering to the British establishment, and to the progressive worldview more broadly. In every other particular about this case, progressives know they haven't got a leg to stand on, and that it vindicates just about every complaint conservatives have been making for years about immigration, ethnic enclaves, clannishness and two-tier justice. Consider:
- Almost entirely without provocation, a second-generation Indian immigrant stabbed a white Briton to death.
- The only reason he was able to stab his victim is because Britain's notoriously stringent laws against their citizenry carrying weapons of any kind include religious exemptions for Sikhs.
- Rather than realising the gravity of his error and attempting to help his victim, the killer spends the next hour or so filming himself mocking him (which, to my mind, suggests that his primary motivation for murdering Nowak was his own amusement).
- Eventually, the killer realises that he's going to be in big trouble pretty soon, so he calls his brother, tells him what he's done and asks for help. Rather than calling an ambulance and urging the killer to turn himself in, the entire family springs into action to cover up his crime.
- They call the police, cynically appealing to their progressive sensibilities by claiming that the killer was the victim of a racist hate crime.
- Despite presenting no actual evidence that the killer was the victim of any kind of assault (never mind a racially-motivated one), this absurd cover story initially appears to work: the police officers responding to the call, witnessing the stabbing victim lying on the ground, bleeding to death and complaining that he can't breathe, nonetheless attempt to arrest him essentially because a brown person told them to.
- Throughout the entire legal process and even during sentencing, the killer refuses to accept culpablity and continues to insist that his victim was a racist, as if this would justify the killer's conduct even if it was true.
Read down through the numbered list above: there is no element of it which casts the progressive worldview in a positive light. (Even the fact that Digwa and his mother were convicted is far from a slam-dunk: although his father and brother have appeared in court on weapons charges, they really ought to be charged with obstruction of justice or whatever the equivalent crime in the UK is.) In other words, this is an anti-scissor statement: there is no possible way you can spin it that is remotely flattering to the progressive worldview. In this scenario, short of admitting that a stopped clock is right twice a day, the only winning move you can make is to ignore the case altogether and loudly proclaim that anyone who wants to talk about it is either a far-right racist, or "legitimising" complaints made by far-right idiots. Goodthinkers do not Notice™: they ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
5hr ago
I can only assume the knives Digwa was carrying weren't visible on his person when Nowak ran into him. If so, I doubt the possibility even occurred to him that Digwa was armed. I certainly wasn't aware of religious exemptions to the UK's LOICENSE laws prior to this case, and Nowak probably wasn't either.
More cynically, one might say that a lifetime of antiracist education completely compromised Nowak's ability to assess threats in a sensible way. It simply did not occur to him that the scary-looking Indian in religious garb walking around with a scowl on his face (and perhaps visibly carrying ceremonial weapons) might not respond too favourably to playful banter.
At the minimum, they knew Nowak was lying on the ground, immobile and incapacitated, while the man who claimed to have been attacked by him was standing, talkative, lucid and displaying no signs of injury whatsoever (absurdly pointing to a fictitious bruise on his eyelid to bolster his claim to have acted in self-defence). I don't think you need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that a) however the altercation might have transpired, Nowak did not pose an active threat to anyone at the time the police arrived on the scene (so cuffing him was unnecessary); and b) Digwa and his family weren't being entirely truthful in their versions of events.
Police have a bad tendency to trust the first calm person to talk to them, which is Digwa claiming that he got attacked first.
Show me an example of a white Briton (or hell, let's make it easier for you: a white person from anywhere) stabbing a brown man, the police arriving on the scene to find the white aggressor clearly uninjured and the brown man visibly incapacitated, the white man claiming to have been attacked first, and on his word alone, the police handcuffing the visibly incapacitated brown man. If you can show me that, or even something vaguely analogous, I will consider the possibility that there are no real CW aspects to this awful case.
the police approach the scene and find a calm guy who says he got attacked and another guy who is panicking and freaking out
Nowak was not "panicking and freaking out". He was lying on his side, clearly incapacitated, and summoning what little strength he had remaining, he claimed that he'd been stabbed and couldn't breathe. Vickrum's father even told the officers that Nowak kept falling over. I believe the family made up some silly cover story about Nowak attacking Digwa, attempting to flee and cutting himself on a fence. Even if that was how Nowak got injured, it was obvious from the first that he was injured and Digwa wasn't. They should have attempted to render medical care to the clearly injured or incapacitated person. Instead, they put him in cuffs because he allegedly did a racism.
Now this is something I think is always ridiculous. Religious exemptions are a nonsense idea.
Oh, so in other words there are culture war aspects to this story? You changed your tune from one end of the comment to the other.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
6hr ago
I believe the mother has been convicted, but you're absolutely right that the father and brother are also complicit in perverting the course of justice.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
8hr ago
According to Millennial Woes, even the jury weren't shown some of these videos because they were considered too disturbing.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
8hr ago
Another bodycam video I wish I hadn't watched. I can still hear him drunkenly begging the police not to shoot him. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why they didn't just tell him to lie face down and put his hands on his head.
I got into an argument this morning with some woke gobshite who insists there's nothing to see here and is more concerned about a hypothetical far-right backlash against the UK's Sikh community than he is about Henry Nowak and for the love of God will that one Norm Macdonald clip ever stop being relevant.
FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
8hr ago
I made the mistake of watching the bodycam footage yesterday. Just reading about this case made me feel angry and upset enough. Watching the bodycam footage was ten times worse.
The murderer smugly claiming to have been assaulted, pointing to a non-existent bruise on his eyelid as evidence. With his last few breaths, Nowak begging the police for help and insisting that he's been stabbed, only to be calmly told by them that he hasn't been. The police officers' inexplicable insistence on cuffing him in spite of the fact that, even if he hadn't been stabbed, he was clearly incapacitated and posing no active threat. One of the police officers calmly instructing his colleague to get the Digwa family's details, apparently not even considering the possibility that one of them might have stabbed Nowak and that perhaps they ought to be arrested.
I don't know how anyone can look at this case and claim in all seriousness that the UK doesn't have a two-tier justice system.
I fail to understand how the claim "police officers are sometimes unsure of who to arrest in domestic abuse calls" somehow proves your contention that there's nothing remarkable about police officers only arresting a clearly incapacitated man while making zero effort to arrest the man who stabbed him in what was not a domestic abuse situation. They are entirely unrelated claims.
More options
Context Copy link