Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very
small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like Henry Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently didn't
spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On the other hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and his father
claims he told the police this four times. So, they have some serious explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the
scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not
sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of violence. Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to handcuff
him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that seems to have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police action caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here?
If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it led to death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
Even the assailant must be pretty cross about this, as GBH may have been converted into murder through police incompetence.
On 2026-06-02, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very
small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like Henry
Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently didn't
spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On the other
hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and his father
claims he told the police this four times. So, they have some serious
explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the
scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not
sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of violence.
Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to handcuff
him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that seems to
have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police action
caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here?
If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it led to
death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
I doubt someone can be murdered by someone and simultaneously
manslaughtered by someone else...
Even the assailant must be pretty cross about this, as GBH may have been
converted into murder through police incompetence.
Lord Parker in R v Smith [1959]:
If at the time of death the original wound is still an operating
cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said
to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death
is also operating. Only if it can be said that the original wounding
is merely the setting in which another cause operates can it be said
that the death did not result from the wound. Putting it another
way, only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the
original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the
death does not flow from the wound.
So unless the stabbing was trivial and was not remotely life-threatening,
and the police actions were the overwhelming cause of death, the person
who stabbed him is still guilty of murder. I'm sure the defence would
have looked into this possibility, but even with only the facts we have available to us it seems on the face of it to be a very remote chance.
On 2026-06-02, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very
small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like Henry
Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently didn't
spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On the other
hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and his father
claims he told the police this four times. So, they have some serious
explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the
scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not
sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of violence.
Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to handcuff
him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that seems to
have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police action
caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here?
If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it led to
death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
I doubt someone can be murdered by someone and simultaneously
manslaughtered by someone else...
Even the assailant must be pretty cross about this, as GBH may have been
converted into murder through police incompetence.
Lord Parker in R v Smith [1959]:
If at the time of death the original wound is still an operating
cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said
to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death
is also operating. Only if it can be said that the original wounding
is merely the setting in which another cause operates can it be said
that the death did not result from the wound. Putting it another
way, only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the
original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the
death does not flow from the wound.
So unless the stabbing was trivial and was not remotely life-threatening,
and the police actions were the overwhelming cause of death, the person
who stabbed him is still guilty of murder. I'm sure the defence would
have looked into this possibility, but even with only the facts we have available to us it seems on the face of it to be a very remote chance.
On 02/06/2026 20:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-02, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very
small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like Henry >>> Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently didn't
spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On the other >>> hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and his father
claims he told the police this four times.-a So, they have some serious
explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the
scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not
sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of violence. >>> Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to handcuff
him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that seems to >>> have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police action >>> caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here?
If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it led to
death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
I doubt someone can be murdered by someone and simultaneously
manslaughtered by someone else...
According to DCC France, pathologists who gave evidence at trial
concluded that Nowak's injuries were not survivable. Fortunately for the police, I'd say.
On 02/06/2026 20:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-02, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very
small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like Henry >>> Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently didn't
spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On the other >>> hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and his father
claims he told the police this four times. So, they have some serious
explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the
scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not
sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of violence. >>> Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to handcuff
him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that seems to >>> have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police action >>> caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here?
If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it led to
death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
I doubt someone can be murdered by someone and simultaneously
manslaughtered by someone else...
A seriously injured man is handcuffed, with his hands behind him, not in front. That act of handcuffing may have been unlawful. It may have been
one of the reasons Nowak died.
Even the assailant must be pretty cross about this, as GBH may have been >>> converted into murder through police incompetence.
Lord Parker in R v Smith [1959]:
If at the time of death the original wound is still an operating
cause and a substantial cause, then the death can properly be said
to be the result of the wound, albeit that some other cause of death
is also operating. Only if it can be said that the original wounding
is merely the setting in which another cause operates can it be said
that the death did not result from the wound. Putting it another
way, only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the
original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the
death does not flow from the wound.
So unless the stabbing was trivial and was not remotely life-threatening,
and the police actions were the overwhelming cause of death, the person
who stabbed him is still guilty of murder. I'm sure the defence would
have looked into this possibility, but even with only the facts we have
available to us it seems on the face of it to be a very remote chance.
My point was different. If the police had looked after Nowak as a
stabbing victim, he might not have died. In that case, there'd have been
a trial for GBH not murder.
On 02/06/2026 21:40, GB wrote:
On 02/06/2026 20:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-02, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very
small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like
Henry
Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently didn't >>>> spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On the
other
hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and his father
claims he told the police this four times.-a So, they have some serious >>>> explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the >>>> scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not
sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of
violence.
Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to handcuff
him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that
seems to
have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police
action
caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here? >>>> If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it led to >>>> death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
I doubt someone can be murdered by someone and simultaneously
manslaughtered by someone else...
According to DCC France, pathologists who gave evidence at trial
concluded that Nowak's injuries were not survivable. Fortunately for
the police, I'd say.
You can read the judge's sentencing remarks which are relevant and
helpful. The judge evidently felt that the police should not be blamed
for their error. And he has all the evidence whereas the press has
produced sloppy reporting as usual.-a And of course the politicians are falling over themselves to say that the police acted outrageously. Especially Nigel Farage, with his usual claim that there is two tier justice.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Digwa-Final- Sentencing-Remarks.pdf
quotes
The consequent bleeding flowed into his chest cavity. The pathologist, Amanda Jeffrey, found 1200 ml, or over 2 pints, of blood there.
She said that no emergency medical treatment would have permitted access
to the bleeding vein. In simple terms, he would not have survived,
however quickly he received first aid, CPR or expert medical treatment.
You joined your brother in relating these lies to the police. By then
your mother and father were at the scene. Gurpreet explained that no
weapons had been involved or were present. In fact, whilst he was
talking to the call operator, you told your mother to take the murder weapon, sheath and belt away which she did.
Another consequence of those lies is that the attending police officers honestly believed that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting
Henry had committed an offence and arrested him with the consequence he
was handcuffed for about a minute before his condition further
deteriorated and the arresting officer began CPR. The police were given
a convincing but wholly false narrative of the incident. It was dark and Henry was wearing a dark top. The entry damage caused by the knife
through it, would not have been obvious.
Whilst there was visible blood on Henry, it would not have clearly been
seen coming from that wound and the clearly visible facial wound was not life-threatening. Henry was complaining that he had been stabbed and was struggling to breathe but that would not have necessarily told the
officers how serious the situation had become. It is the experience of
the criminal courts that sometimes, someone arrested and handcuffed will feign injury in the hope they may be released. These police officers
were faced with having to make quick decisions in pressurised
circumstances about the best way to act. The genuine shock to the
particular police officer, when he realised that he had been giving
CPR to Henry when he had a serious chest wound tends to show that he was doing his best in a very difficult situation.
On 02/06/2026 22:12, The Todal wrote:
On 02/06/2026 21:40, GB wrote:
On 02/06/2026 20:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-02, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very >>>>> small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like
Henry
Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently
didn't
spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On the
other
hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and his father >>>>> claims he told the police this four times.-a So, they have some serious >>>>> explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the >>>>> scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not >>>>> sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of
violence.
Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to handcuff >>>>> him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that
seems to
have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police
action
caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here? >>>>> If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it
led to
death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
I doubt someone can be murdered by someone and simultaneously
manslaughtered by someone else...
According to DCC France, pathologists who gave evidence at trial
concluded that Nowak's injuries were not survivable. Fortunately for
the police, I'd say.
You can read the judge's sentencing remarks which are relevant and
helpful. The judge evidently felt that the police should not be blamed
for their error. And he has all the evidence whereas the press has
produced sloppy reporting as usual.-a And of course the politicians are
falling over themselves to say that the police acted outrageously.
Especially Nigel Farage, with his usual claim that there is two tier
justice.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Digwa-Final-
Sentencing-Remarks.pdf
quotes
The consequent bleeding flowed into his chest cavity. The pathologist,
Amanda Jeffrey, found 1200 ml, or over 2 pints, of blood there.
She said that no emergency medical treatment would have permitted
access to the bleeding vein. In simple terms, he would not have
survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or expert medical
treatment.
You joined your brother in relating these lies to the police. By then
your mother and father were at the scene. Gurpreet explained that no
weapons had been involved or were present. In fact, whilst he was
talking to the call operator, you told your mother to take the murder
weapon, sheath and belt away which she did.
Another consequence of those lies is that the attending police
officers honestly believed that there were reasonable grounds for
suspecting Henry had committed an offence and arrested him with the
consequence he was handcuffed for about a minute before his condition
further deteriorated and the arresting officer began CPR. The police
were given a convincing but wholly false narrative of the incident. It
was dark and Henry was wearing a dark top. The entry damage caused by
the knife through it, would not have been obvious.
Whilst there was visible blood on Henry, it would not have clearly
been seen coming from that wound and the clearly visible facial wound
was not life-threatening. Henry was complaining that he had been
stabbed and was
struggling to breathe but that would not have necessarily told the
officers how serious the situation had become. It is the experience of
the criminal courts that sometimes, someone arrested and handcuffed
will feign injury in the hope they may be released. These police
officers were faced with having to make quick decisions in pressurised
circumstances about the best way to act. The genuine shock to the
particular police officer, when he realised that he had been giving
CPR to Henry when he had a serious chest wound tends to show that he was
doing his best in a very difficult situation.
Yes, I was clearly wrong, and I should have checked more thoroughly
before commenting.
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is understandable and to some extent justified.-a All because in the dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two-
tier policing.
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people
protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who
either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two-
tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all, indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people
protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who
either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two-
tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to carry. So it's a bit irrelevant.
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry
people protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think
we were in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police
spokesmen who either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us
that the policies and guidelines all need revising - which they
probably don't, at least not as a result of this case - and that
public fury is understandable and to some extent justified. All
because in the dark the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a
minute. Yes, it was in hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display
of police racism or two- tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to
carry.
So it's a bit irrelevant.
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people
protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who
either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two-
tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to carry. So it's a bit irrelevant.
On 03/06/2026 12:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people >>>> protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were >>>> in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who >>>> either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't, >>>> at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified.-a All because in the dark >>>> the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two- >>>> tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'.-a The trouble is, they can of course
be used as offensive weapons.-a It's up to society to judge which is the >>> more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows.-a All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately.-a Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to
carry.
So it's a bit irrelevant.
I am well aware that the knife actually used was larger than that
allowed and was in addition to the other 'more religious' one he
carried.-a Nevertheless, it's clearly very dangerous to allow anyone with
a propensity to stab to carry any sort of knife whatever moral excuse
they come up with.-a And, if they carry one, there's an obvious
temptation to use it.
This is not some Sikh kingdom where their rules and standards dominate ours.-a When in Rome etc.
On 03/06/2026 12:47 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people >>>> protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were >>>> in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who >>>> either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't, >>>> at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two- >>>> tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to carry. >> So it's a bit irrelevant.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the
large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith?
it's clearly very dangerous to allow anyone with a propensity to stab to carry any sort of knife whatever moral excuse they come up with.-a And,
if they carry one, there's an obvious temptation to use it.
On 03/06/2026 12:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people >>>> protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were >>>> in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who >>>> either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't, >>>> at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two- >>>> tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to carry. >> So it's a bit irrelevant.
I am well aware that the knife actually used was larger than that
allowed and was in addition to the other 'more religious' one he
carried. Nevertheless, it's clearly very dangerous to allow anyone with
a propensity to stab to carry any sort of knife whatever moral excuse
they come up with. And, if they carry one, there's an obvious
temptation to use it.
This is not some Sikh kingdom where their rules and standards dominate
ours. When in Rome etc.
On 03/06/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
This is not some Sikh kingdom where their rules and standards dominate
ours. When in Rome etc.
There's quite a bit of variation in how various countries deal with this issue:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#Legality>
On 03/06/2026 12:47 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people >>>> protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were >>>> in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who >>>> either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't, >>>> at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two- >>>> tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to carry. >> So it's a bit irrelevant.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith?
On 3 Jun 2026 at 14:53:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the
large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith?
Your impression is, unfortunately, confused.
And it would be remiss of me to mention the number of people ripped to
pieces by so called "danger dogs" that are definitely and solely
offensive weapons exclusive kept by white non-Sikhs.
On 03/06/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/06/2026 12:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry
people
protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we
were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen >>>>> who
either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't, >>>>> at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified.-a All because in the dark >>>>> the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in >>>>> hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two- >>>>> tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'.-a The trouble is, they can of course >>>> be used as offensive weapons.-a It's up to society to judge which is the >>>> more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows.-a All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately.-a Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to
carry.
So it's a bit irrelevant.
I am well aware that the knife actually used was larger than that
allowed and was in addition to the other 'more religious' one he
carried.-a Nevertheless, it's clearly very dangerous to allow anyone
with a propensity to stab to carry any sort of knife whatever moral
excuse they come up with.-a And, if they carry one, there's an obvious
temptation to use it.
This is not some Sikh kingdom where their rules and standards dominate
ours.-a When in Rome etc.
We must fear all Sikh men because they might be carrying dangerous
knives. Add that to our fear of Muslim men with backpacks. Maybe one day
all the witches will be driven from our land.
On 2026-06-03, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
This is not some Sikh kingdom where their rules and standards dominate
ours. When in Rome etc.
There's quite a bit of variation in how various countries deal with this
issue:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#Legality>
There's a certain irony in Norman's "when in Rome" comment given the
Kirpan has its modern form because the British went and invaded India
where Sikhism originated and it's the British who set rules about it,
and the British Empire is also the reason for a noticeable Sikh
population existing here. It's a bit rich to invade somewhere and
tell them that their country is ours and they are subjects of our
Crown, and then turn around and tell them "our country is not yours".
On 03/06/2026 16:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 14:53:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the
large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith?
Your impression is, unfortunately, confused.
Some explanation might have been useful.
On 3 Jun 2026 at 18:25:40 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 16:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 14:53:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Your impression is, unfortunately, confused.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the >>>> large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith? >>>
Some explanation might have been useful.
Well please provide one then.
On 03/06/2026 18:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-03, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
This is not some Sikh kingdom where their rules and standards
dominate ours. When in Rome etc.
There's quite a bit of variation in how various countries deal with
this issue:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#Legality>
There's a certain irony in Norman's "when in Rome" comment given the
Kirpan has its modern form because the British went and invaded India
where Sikhism originated and it's the British who set rules about it,
and the British Empire is also the reason for a noticeable Sikh
population existing here. It's a bit rich to invade somewhere and tell
them that their country is ours and they are subjects of our Crown, and
then turn around and tell them "our country is not yours".
I think they told us in no uncertain terms some 80-odd years ago that
their country was theirs and they set all the rules, not us.
It's perfectly reasonable for us to act similarly.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 14:53:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 12:47 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people >>>>>> protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were >>>>>> in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who >>>>>> either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't, >>>>>> at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark >>>>>> the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in >>>>>> hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two- >>>>>> tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an >>>>> essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course >>>>> be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the >>>>> more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all, >>>>> indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to carry.
So it's a bit irrelevant.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the
large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith?
Your impression is, unfortunately, confused.
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm long (30 in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws introduced in the 19th century reduced the length of the blade,[3][4][5] and in the modern day,
the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in).
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to be worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its original sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across the body. Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 18:31:23 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/06/2026 18:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-03, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
This is not some Sikh kingdom where their rules and standards
dominate ours. When in Rome etc.
There's quite a bit of variation in how various countries deal with
this issue:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#Legality>
There's a certain irony in Norman's "when in Rome" comment given the
Kirpan has its modern form because the British went and invaded India
where Sikhism originated and it's the British who set rules about it,
and the British Empire is also the reason for a noticeable Sikh
population existing here. It's a bit rich to invade somewhere and tell
them that their country is ours and they are subjects of our Crown, and
then turn around and tell them "our country is not yours".
Yes, it certainly was remiss of Henry Nowak to invade India. He asked
for everything he got.
On 03/06/2026 09:13 PM, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 14:53:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 12:47 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:Your impression is, unfortunately, confused.
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry >>>>>>> people
protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think >>>>>>> we were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police
spokesmen who
either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the >>>>>>> policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably >>>>>>> don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified.-a All because in the >>>>>>> dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it
was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or >>>>>>> two-
tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an >>>>>> essential part of their religion'.-a The trouble is, they can of
course
be used as offensive weapons.-a It's up to society to judge which >>>>>> is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows.-a All matters of public safety should apply to all, >>>>>> indiscriminately.-a Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed
to carry.
So it's a bit irrelevant.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the >>>> large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith? >>>
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious
uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm long
(30
in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws introduced in the
19th
century reduced the length of the blade,[3][4][5] and in the modern day,
the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in).
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to be
worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its original
sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across the body.
Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
On 03/06/2026 22:11, JNugent wrote:
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious
uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm
long (30 in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws introduced in the
19th century reduced the length of the blade,[3][4][5] and in the modern day,
the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in).
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to be worn >>> is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its original >>> sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across the
body.
Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries?
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It cannot
be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely to use it as
an offensive weapon.
How many Sikhs have committed knife crimes? That
must be an important statistic, if it can be found.
If the Nowak case results in a hasty amendment to the law to restrict
the size of knives carried by Sikhs, then I don't suppose there are many
who would oppose that amendment (I certainly wouldn't)
but it would be
rather like banning a breed of dog in the hope of preventing all fatal
dog attacks. Owing more to superstition than to logic.
On 03/06/2026 22:11, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2026 09:13 PM, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 14:53:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 12:47 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:Your impression is, unfortunately, confused.
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry >>>>>>>> people
protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think >>>>>>>> we were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police
spokesmen who
either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the >>>>>>>> policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably >>>>>>>> don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is >>>>>>>> understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the >>>>>>>> dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it >>>>>>>> was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or >>>>>>>> two-
tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an >>>>>>> essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of
course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which >>>>>>> is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all, >>>>>>> indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed
to carry.
So it's a bit irrelevant.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the >>>>> large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith? >>>>
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious
uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm long
(30
in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws introduced in the
19th
century reduced the length of the blade,[3][4][5] and in the modern day, >>> the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in).
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to be
worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its original >>> sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across the body. >>> Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries?
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It cannot
be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely to use it as
an offensive weapon. How many Sikhs have committed knife crimes? That
must be an important statistic, if it can be found.
If the Nowak case results in a hasty amendment to the law to restrict
the size of knives carried by Sikhs, then I don't suppose there are many
who would oppose that amendment (I certainly wouldn't) but it would be
rather like banning a breed of dog in the hope of preventing all fatal
dog attacks. Owing more to superstition than to logic.
The real issue is not the size of the knife but the conduct of the
police officers and whether it represented bias in favour of Sikhs and prejudice against white people. That's the Farage narrative, and it's a blatant attempt to stir up anger towards Sikhs and towards the police in order to increase support for Farage and his candidates. Farage wanted
to see rage from a crowd of people. Rather like Trump on January 6th 2021.
The sentencing remarks make it very clear that the police actions were
at night, when the fatal wound to Nowak was not apparent at first, when
the defendant was lying to police and to emergency services and claiming
that he hadn't hurt Nowak. The police handcuffed Nowak for a minute or
less - did they really need to handcuff a suspect in that situation?
Only experienced police trainers can tell us. Very soon afterwards the officer administered CPR as best he could but the injury was not
survivable. It is unreasonable to blame the police, especially by
alleging that they handcuffed Nowak "instead of" administering CPR. I
don't know what was achieved by making the video public - it does not
tell the full story and it can only make poor old Sir Keir Starmer feel "sick". We must punish those who made our Prime Minister feel sick.
On 03/06/2026 15:52, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2026 14:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 03/06/2026 12:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry
people
protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we >>>>>> were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police
spokesmen who
either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably
don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified.-a All because in the dark >>>>>> the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in >>>>>> hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or >>>>>> two-
tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an >>>>> essential part of their religion'.-a The trouble is, they can of course >>>>> be used as offensive weapons.-a It's up to society to judge which is >>>>> the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows.-a All matters of public safety should apply to all, >>>>> indiscriminately.-a Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to
carry.
So it's a bit irrelevant.
I am well aware that the knife actually used was larger than that
allowed and was in addition to the other 'more religious' one he
carried.-a Nevertheless, it's clearly very dangerous to allow anyone
with a propensity to stab to carry any sort of knife whatever moral
excuse they come up with.-a And, if they carry one, there's an obvious
temptation to use it.
This is not some Sikh kingdom where their rules and standards
dominate ours.-a When in Rome etc.
We must fear all Sikh men because they might be carrying dangerous
knives. Add that to our fear of Muslim men with backpacks. Maybe one
day all the witches will be driven from our land.
We have a law in this country that makes it illegal to carry a bladed article in a public place without good reason or legal authority.-a I
think that is generally regarded as A Good Thing.-a It is absurd that it should be so easily circumvented by anyone who claims it's my religion, innit.-a Religion, in my view, is never a good enough reason to be
allowed to do anything that would otherwise be illegal.
It's high time we stopped pathetically bending over backwards to avoid offending absolutely anyone, and enacted laws that are actually right
for all.
On 03/06/2026 22:11, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2026 09:13 PM, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 14:53:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 12:47 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry >>>>>>>> people
protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think >>>>>>>> we were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police
spokesmen who
either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the >>>>>>>> policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably >>>>>>>> don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is >>>>>>>> understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the >>>>>>>> dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it >>>>>>>> was in
hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism >>>>>>>> or two-
tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it
'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of
course
be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which >>>>>>> is the
more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all, >>>>>>> indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed
to carry.
So it's a bit irrelevant.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that
the
large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that
faith?
Your impression is, unfortunately, confused.
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious
uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm
long (30
in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws introduced in the
19th
century reduced the length of the blade,[3][4][5] and in the modern day, >>> the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in).
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to be
worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its original >>> sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across the
body.
Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries?
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It cannot
be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely to use it as
an offensive weapon. How many Sikhs have committed knife crimes? That
must be an important statistic, if it can be found.
If the Nowak case results in a hasty amendment to the law to restrict
the size of knives carried by Sikhs, then I don't suppose there are many
who would oppose that amendment (I certainly wouldn't) but it would be
rather like banning a breed of dog in the hope of preventing all fatal
dog attacks. Owing more to superstition than to logic.
The real issue is not the size of the knife but the conduct of the
police officers and whether it represented bias in favour of Sikhs and prejudice against white people.
That's the Farage narrative, and it's a
blatant attempt to stir up anger towards Sikhs and towards the police in order to increase support for Farage and his candidates. Farage wanted
to see rage from a crowd of people. Rather like Trump on January 6th 2021.
The sentencing remarks make it very clear that the police actions were
at night, when the fatal wound to Nowak was not apparent at first, when
the defendant was lying to police and to emergency services and claiming
that he hadn't hurt Nowak.
The police handcuffed Nowak for a minute or
less - did they really need to handcuff a suspect in that situation?
Only experienced police trainers can tell us. Very soon afterwards the officer administered CPR as best he could but the injury was not
survivable. It is unreasonable to blame the police, especially by
alleging that they handcuffed Nowak "instead of" administering CPR. I
don't know what was achieved by making the video public - it does not
tell the full story and it can only make poor old Sir Keir Starmer feel "sick". We must punish those who made our Prime Minister feel sick.
On 04/06/2026 13:14, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2026 22:11, JNugent wrote:
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a
blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious
uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm
long (30 in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws
introduced in the 19th century reduced the length of the blade,[3]
[4][5] and in the modern day,
the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in). >>>>
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to
be worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its
original
sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across the
body.
Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries?
Any knife is that's 12 to 30 cm long (see above).
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It
cannot be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely to
use it as an offensive weapon.
On the contrary.-a I think there is a direct correlation between the size
of a knife that is carried and the likelihood of its use.-a Why go big otherwise?
How many Sikhs have committed knife crimes? That must be an important
statistic, if it can be found.
Are you suggesting that they should be a favoured group, unique in the
UK, that is automatically allowed to carry bladed articles?
There is talk of two-tier policing in this case.-a I would suggest that two-tier laws are rather worse, institutional even.
If the Nowak case results in a hasty amendment to the law to restrict
the size of knives carried by Sikhs, then I don't suppose there are
many who would oppose that amendment (I certainly wouldn't)
We have suitable restrictions already in the law which are applied to everyone else.-a Sikhs should be no different.
but it would be rather like banning a breed of dog in the hope of
preventing all fatal dog attacks. Owing more to superstition than to
logic.
I don't think so.-a Certain breeds have a capability that others don't. Certain breeds are more inclined to aggression than others.-a Banning
those is clearly a sensible step to reduce fatal dog attacks.
On 04/06/2026 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries?
I think it has something like a 2" blade. A fatal injury can certainly
be inflicted with a blade of that length (think throats, jugular veins, carotid arteries).
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It cannot
be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely to use it as
an offensive weapon.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 12:47 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people >>>>> protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were >>>>> in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who >>>>> either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't, >>>>> at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark >>>>> the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in >>>>> hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two- >>>>> tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course >>>> be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the >>>> more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to carry. >>> So it's a bit irrelevant.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the
large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith?
The knife some Sikhs carry as one of their 5 Ks is a Kirpan. It is of a particular design.
The knife used in the murder is not of the correct shape. Not even close.
It could be a kitchen knife, although not of Western origin. Other than
the handle, it looks like the knife I keep in my fishing tackle box to
filet fish.
On 04/06/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2026 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries?
I think it has something like a 2" blade. A fatal injury can certainly
be inflicted with a blade of that length (think throats, jugular veins,
carotid arteries).
Knives up to 3" in length are legal in the UK providing they are not
lock knives. I have a "Swiss Army Knife" with a 2.5" blade; in fact,
I've carried a penknife for all my adult life, and very useful it has
been, too.
What I've never understood is why there is /any/ reason for a long knife
to have a point other than to inflict injury. If a chef, for example,
needs a point to start something it could be done with a 1" knife point
and continued with a blade.
On 05/06/2026 08:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2026 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries? >>>I think it has something like a 2" blade. A fatal injury can certainly
be inflicted with a blade of that length (think throats, jugular veins,
carotid arteries).
Knives up to 3" in length are legal in the UK providing they are not
lock knives. I have a "Swiss Army Knife" with a 2.5" blade; in fact,
I've carried a penknife for all my adult life, and very useful it has
been, too.
Why are lock knives banned? They are safer, for the bearer in any case,
so the blade doesn't close on your fingers.
What I've never understood is why there is /any/ reason for a long knife
to have a point other than to inflict injury. If a chef, for example,
needs a point to start something it could be done with a 1" knife point
and continued with a blade.
I've never tried using a "pointless" knife in the kitchen. I might get
used to one I suppose; you can get used to anything. I don't see why I should be infantilised for the sake of a few criminals.
The real issue is not the size of the knife but the conduct of the police officers and whether it represented bias in favour of Sikhs and prejudice against white people. That's the Farage narrative, and it's a blatant attempt to
stir up anger towards Sikhs and towards the police in order to increase support
for Farage and his candidates. Farage wanted to see rage from a crowd of people.
Rather like Trump on January 6th 2021.
On 04/06/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2026 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries?
I think it has something like a 2" blade. A fatal injury can certainly
be inflicted with a blade of that length (think throats, jugular veins,
carotid arteries).
Knives up to 3" in length are legal in the UK providing they are not
lock knives. I have a "Swiss Army Knife" with a 2.5" blade; in fact,
I've carried a penknife for all my adult life, and very useful it has
been, too.
What I've never understood is why there is /any/ reason for a long knife
to have a point other than to inflict injury. If a chef, for example,
needs a point to start something
it could be done with a 1" knife point
and continued with a blade.
Of course, that won't stop slashing injuries, but these tend to be a lot rarer than stabbing injuries. Perhaps if points were removed from knives they'd be a lot more common, but it would be a start in limiting knife injuries.
We've banned a lot of dog breeds. Yet dogs continue to attack people,
usually in their own homes or gardens, and kill or inflict life-changing injuries. What does that tell you about how successful our dog-banning
policy has been?
On 04/06/2026 14:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2026 13:14, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2026 22:11, JNugent wrote:Any knife is that's 12 to 30 cm long (see above).
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a
blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious
uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm
long (30 in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws
introduced in the 19th century reduced the length of the blade,[3]
[4][5] and in the modern day,
the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in). >>>>>
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to
be worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its
original
sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across the >>>>> body.
Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries? >>
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It
cannot be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely to
use it as an offensive weapon.
On the contrary.-a I think there is a direct correlation between the
size of a knife that is carried and the likelihood of its use.-a Why go
big otherwise?
How many Sikhs have committed knife crimes? That must be an important
statistic, if it can be found.
Are you suggesting that they should be a favoured group, unique in the
UK, that is automatically allowed to carry bladed articles?
No, I have never made such a suggestion. Are you suggesting that nobody should ever be permitted to carry a knife in public no matter what
reason they may have? Yes, chef.
There is talk of two-tier policing in this case.-a I would suggest that
two-tier laws are rather worse, institutional even.
If the Nowak case results in a hasty amendment to the law to restrict
the size of knives carried by Sikhs, then I don't suppose there are
many who would oppose that amendment (I certainly wouldn't)
We have suitable restrictions already in the law which are applied to
everyone else.-a Sikhs should be no different.
but it would be rather like banning a breed of dog in the hope of
preventing all fatal dog attacks. Owing more to superstition than to
logic.
I don't think so.-a Certain breeds have a capability that others don't.
Certain breeds are more inclined to aggression than others.-a Banning
those is clearly a sensible step to reduce fatal dog attacks.
We've banned a lot of dog breeds. Yet dogs continue to attack people, usually in their own homes or gardens, and kill or inflict life-changing injuries. What does that tell you about how successful our dog-banning policy has been?
On 04/06/2026 14:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2026 13:14, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2026 22:11, JNugent wrote:Any knife is that's 12 to 30 cm long (see above).
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a
blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious
uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm
long (30 in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws
introduced in the 19th century reduced the length of the blade,[3]
[4][5] and in the modern day,
the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in). >>>>>
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to
be worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its
original
sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across the >>>>> body.
Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries? >>
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It
cannot be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely to
use it as an offensive weapon.
On the contrary.-a I think there is a direct correlation between the
size of a knife that is carried and the likelihood of its use.-a Why go
big otherwise?
How many Sikhs have committed knife crimes? That must be an important
statistic, if it can be found.
Are you suggesting that they should be a favoured group, unique in the
UK, that is automatically allowed to carry bladed articles?
No, I have never made such a suggestion. Are you suggesting that nobody should ever be permitted to carry a knife in public no matter what
reason they may have? Yes, chef.
There is talk of two-tier policing in this case.-a I would suggest that
two-tier laws are rather worse, institutional even.
If the Nowak case results in a hasty amendment to the law to restrict
the size of knives carried by Sikhs, then I don't suppose there are
many who would oppose that amendment (I certainly wouldn't)
We have suitable restrictions already in the law which are applied to
everyone else.-a Sikhs should be no different.
but it would be rather like banning a breed of dog in the hope of
preventing all fatal dog attacks. Owing more to superstition than to
logic.
I don't think so.-a Certain breeds have a capability that others don't.
Certain breeds are more inclined to aggression than others.-a Banning
those is clearly a sensible step to reduce fatal dog attacks.
We've banned a lot of dog breeds. Yet dogs continue to attack people, usually in their own homes or gardens, and kill or inflict life-changing injuries. What does that tell you about how successful our dog-banning policy has been?
On 04/06/2026 13:14, The Todal wrote:
The real issue is not the size of the knife but the conduct of the
police officers and whether it represented bias in favour of Sikhs and
prejudice against white people. That's the Farage narrative, and it's
a blatant attempt to stir up anger towards Sikhs and towards the
police in order to increase support for Farage and his candidates.
Farage wanted to see rage from a crowd of people. Rather like Trump on
January 6th 2021.
I think the rage was being directed at the police, not the Sikh community.
On 04/06/2026 23:52, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2026 14:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2026 13:14, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2026 22:11, JNugent wrote:
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is a
blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious >>>>>> uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm >>>>>> long (30 in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws
introduced in the 19th century reduced the length of the blade,[3] >>>>>> [4][5] and in the modern day,
the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 in). >>>>>>
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword to >>>>>> be worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its
original
sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across
the body.
Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing
injuries?
Any knife is that's 12 to 30 cm long (see above).
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It
cannot be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely
to use it as an offensive weapon.
On the contrary.-a I think there is a direct correlation between the
size of a knife that is carried and the likelihood of its use.-a Why
go big otherwise?
How many Sikhs have committed knife crimes? That must be an
important statistic, if it can be found.
Are you suggesting that they should be a favoured group, unique in
the UK, that is automatically allowed to carry bladed articles?
No, I have never made such a suggestion. Are you suggesting that
nobody should ever be permitted to carry a knife in public no matter
what reason they may have? Yes, chef.
Religion is never a good reason for exclusion from a good law.
There is talk of two-tier policing in this case.-a I would suggest
that two-tier laws are rather worse, institutional even.
If the Nowak case results in a hasty amendment to the law to
restrict the size of knives carried by Sikhs, then I don't suppose
there are many who would oppose that amendment (I certainly wouldn't)
We have suitable restrictions already in the law which are applied to
everyone else.-a Sikhs should be no different.
but it would be rather like banning a breed of dog in the hope of
preventing all fatal dog attacks. Owing more to superstition than to
logic.
I don't think so.-a Certain breeds have a capability that others
don't. Certain breeds are more inclined to aggression than others.
Banning those is clearly a sensible step to reduce fatal dog attacks.
We've banned a lot of dog breeds. Yet dogs continue to attack people,
usually in their own homes or gardens, and kill or inflict life-
changing injuries. What does that tell you about how successful our
dog-banning policy has been?
You can't stop illegal activity by making laws.-a All you can do is
provide a disincentive by punishing those who do.
It is beyond doubt that most incidents of dogs that have killed or
seriously injured someone in the UK have been by dog breeds that have rightly been banned and are therefore illegally owned.-a It's not that
the law is bad, it's just that, as always, some choose to ignore it. Stricter enforcement and more effective deterrence by sentence severity
are the obvious solutions.
On 05/06/2026 08:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2026 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing injuries? >>>I think it has something like a 2" blade. A fatal injury can certainly
be inflicted with a blade of that length (think throats, jugular veins,
carotid arteries).
Knives up to 3" in length are legal in the UK providing they are not
lock knives. I have a "Swiss Army Knife" with a 2.5" blade; in fact,
I've carried a penknife for all my adult life, and very useful it has
been, too.
What I've never understood is why there is /any/ reason for a long knife
to have a point other than to inflict injury. If a chef, for example,
needs a point to start something
... which is a good reason
it could be done with a 1" knife point
and continued with a blade.
So, you wouldn't object if you were, for example, made to reboot your computer for every newsgroup message you want to read?
There are things called convenience and efficiency, and they're good
reasons.
Of course, that won't stop slashing injuries, but these tend to be a lot
rarer than stabbing injuries. Perhaps if points were removed from knives
they'd be a lot more common, but it would be a start in limiting knife
injuries.
Only if you also remove angle grinders.
The criminal classes are very adept, I'm told, at fashioning serious
weapons out of anything to hand. The lack of a point is somewhat
unlikely to prove an insurmountable obstacle.
On 05/06/2026 07:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2026 23:52, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2026 14:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2026 13:14, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2026 22:11, JNugent wrote:
Wikipedia has this:
Quote: The kirpan (Punjabi: a?oa?+a?#a?-a?+a??; pronunciation: [k+-++pa-En]) is
a blade
that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious >>>>>>> uniform,
as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct.[1]
Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm >>>>>>> long (30 in);[2] however, British colonial policies and laws
introduced in the 19th century reduced the length of the blade, >>>>>>> [3] [4][5] and in the modern day,
the kirpan is typically a dagger between 12 and 30 cm long (5rCo12 >>>>>>> in).
According to the Sikh Code of Conduct, "The length of the sword >>>>>>> to be worn
is not prescribed", but must be curved and single edged (as its >>>>>>> original
sword form was),[6] and worn over the right shoulder and across >>>>>>> the body.
Unquote.
HTH
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan>
That is (was) reflected in the sentencing remarks.
It wasn't the slightest bit "confusing".
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing
injuries?
Any knife is that's 12 to 30 cm long (see above).
If so, the size of the knife seems a rather irrelevant factor. It
cannot be said that those who carry a larger knife are more likely
to use it as an offensive weapon.
On the contrary.-a I think there is a direct correlation between the
size of a knife that is carried and the likelihood of its use.-a Why
go big otherwise?
How many Sikhs have committed knife crimes? That must be an
important statistic, if it can be found.
Are you suggesting that they should be a favoured group, unique in
the UK, that is automatically allowed to carry bladed articles?
No, I have never made such a suggestion. Are you suggesting that
nobody should ever be permitted to carry a knife in public no matter
what reason they may have? Yes, chef.
Religion is never a good reason for exclusion from a good law.
It is just as likely that a chef carrying knives will use them to hurt
other people, as it is that a Sikh will do so.
The Yorkshire Ripper carried a ball-peen hammer and used it to attack
and kill his women victims. Would it therefore be appropriate to ban the carrying of ball-peen hammers?
There is talk of two-tier policing in this case.-a I would suggest
that two-tier laws are rather worse, institutional even.
If the Nowak case results in a hasty amendment to the law toWe have suitable restrictions already in the law which are applied
restrict the size of knives carried by Sikhs, then I don't suppose
there are many who would oppose that amendment (I certainly wouldn't) >>>>
to everyone else.-a Sikhs should be no different.
but it would be rather like banning a breed of dog in the hope of
preventing all fatal dog attacks. Owing more to superstition than
to logic.
I don't think so.-a Certain breeds have a capability that others
don't. Certain breeds are more inclined to aggression than others.
Banning those is clearly a sensible step to reduce fatal dog attacks.
We've banned a lot of dog breeds. Yet dogs continue to attack people,
usually in their own homes or gardens, and kill or inflict life-
changing injuries. What does that tell you about how successful our
dog-banning policy has been?
You can't stop illegal activity by making laws.-a All you can do is
provide a disincentive by punishing those who do.
It is beyond doubt that most incidents of dogs that have killed or
seriously injured someone in the UK have been by dog breeds that have
rightly been banned and are therefore illegally owned.-a It's not that
the law is bad, it's just that, as always, some choose to ignore it.
Stricter enforcement and more effective deterrence by sentence
severity are the obvious solutions.
No, it isn't "beyond doubt" at all.
quote
Even assuming that we can reliably identify a dog breed, there is no
strong evidence of a relationship between breed and attacks on humans, either in frequency or severity.
Indeed, for all the fears about the
large, muscular XL Bully, research at the University of Helsinki has
found that smaller dogs are more likely to display aggressive behaviour toward humans.
On 03/06/2026 06:55, GB wrote:
Yes, I was clearly wrong, and I should have checked more thoroughly
before commenting.
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were
in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't,
at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is understandable and to some extent justified.-a All because in the dark
the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two-
tier policing.
On 05/06/2026 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/06/2026 08:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2026 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing
injuries?
I think it has something like a 2" blade. A fatal injury can certainly >>>> be inflicted with a blade of that length (think throats, jugular veins, >>>> carotid arteries).
Knives up to 3" in length are legal in the UK providing they are not
lock knives. I have a "Swiss Army Knife" with a 2.5" blade; in fact,
I've carried a penknife for all my adult life, and very useful it has
been, too.
What I've never understood is why there is /any/ reason for a long knife >>> to have a point other than to inflict injury. If a chef, for example,
needs a point to start something
... which is a good reason
it could be done with a 1" knife point
and continued with a blade.
Why put your reply above my paragraph? You haven't addressed the
argument. All that's required is a 1" point.
How often do you think a
chef pushes a 6" knife all the way into a joint of meat?
So, you wouldn't object if you were, for example, made to reboot your
computer for every newsgroup message you want to read?
That's one of the strangest non-sequiturs I've every read! I repeat -
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It
would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start a cut
and then pick up another knife to continue.
There are things called convenience and efficiency, and they're good
reasons.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter: <https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs- campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the kitchen, simple as that.rCY
Or a circuit judge: <https://www.fightingknifecrime.london/news-posts/the-need-for-safer- knives>
Of course, that won't stop slashing injuries, but these tend to be a lot >>> rarer than stabbing injuries. Perhaps if points were removed from knives >>> they'd be a lot more common, but it would be a start in limiting knife
injuries.
Only if you also remove angle grinders.
If you want to suggest silly comparisons you'd be better off mentioning cordless chainsaws.
The criminal classes are very adept, I'm told, at fashioning serious
weapons out of anything to hand.-a The lack of a point is somewhat
unlikely to prove an insurmountable obstacle.
Then let's not make carrying anything in public criminal - swords,
pikes, maces, even automatic weapons, just in case a criminal decides to make their own version.
Indeed, for all the fears about the
large, muscular XL Bully, research at the University of Helsinki has
found that smaller dogs are more likely to display aggressive behaviour
toward humans.
Maybe they are. Jack Russells, for example, are the nastiest, most vindictive, snappy breed there is in my experience. However, I'd still rather be savaged by one of them than by a pit bull or an XL Bully.
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
On 5 Jun 2026 at 23:08:56 BST, Norman Wells wrote:
Indeed, for all the fears about the
large, muscular XL Bully, research at the University of Helsinki has
found that smaller dogs are more likely to display aggressive behaviour
toward humans.
Maybe they are. Jack Russells, for example, are the nastiest, most
vindictive, snappy breed there is in my experience. However, I'd still
rather be savaged by one of them than by a pit bull or an XL Bully.
Got attacked by a Jack Russell encouraged by its owner - sunk its teeth into the back of my leg. Afternoon in A&E for me.
On 05/06/2026 22:10, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 05/06/2026 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/06/2026 08:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/06/2026 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2026 01:14 PM, The Todal wrote:
Is the smaller knife also capable of inflicting fatal stabbing
injuries?
I think it has something like a 2" blade. A fatal injury can certainly >>>>> be inflicted with a blade of that length (think throats, jugular veins, >>>>> carotid arteries).
Knives up to 3" in length are legal in the UK providing they are not
lock knives. I have a "Swiss Army Knife" with a 2.5" blade; in fact,
I've carried a penknife for all my adult life, and very useful it has
been, too.
What I've never understood is why there is /any/ reason for a long knife >>>> to have a point other than to inflict injury. If a chef, for example,
needs a point to start something
... which is a good reason
it could be done with a 1" knife point
and continued with a blade.
Why put your reply above my paragraph? You haven't addressed the
argument. All that's required is a 1" point.
Which is what all sensible kitchen knives have, integrally.
How often do you think a
chef pushes a 6" knife all the way into a joint of meat?
Not often, but that's not the point (ho, ho!). It's just much more convenient when doing any sort of butchery to have a point on the end of
the blade to start any cut you want to make.
So, you wouldn't object if you were, for example, made to reboot your
computer for every newsgroup message you want to read?
That's one of the strangest non-sequiturs I've every read! I repeat -
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It
would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start a cut
and then pick up another knife to continue.
If you have a theatre nurse with you to pass you whatever you want, it
could work, I guess, but generally people don't and it would be an
absolute pain in the arse to do what you suggest. People would clamour
for knives with points.
There are things called convenience and efficiency, and they're good
reasons.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter:
<https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs-
campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the
kitchen, simple as that.rCY
Except that you've just postulated having to use a 1" pointed knife to
start a cut. As is obvious.
Or a circuit judge:
<https://www.fightingknifecrime.london/news-posts/the-need-for-safer-
knives>
Of course, that won't stop slashing injuries, but these tend to be a lot >>>> rarer than stabbing injuries. Perhaps if points were removed from knives >>>> they'd be a lot more common, but it would be a start in limiting knife >>>> injuries.
Only if you also remove angle grinders.
If you want to suggest silly comparisons you'd be better off mentioning
cordless chainsaws.
No, I wasn't envisaging gangs of feral youths menacingly brandishing
angle grinders (or hedge trimmers) as weapons, merely using them (or something else) very easily to convert the rounded ends of the knives
you suggest into the 'long pointed blades ... individuals carrying
knives for intimidation tend to favour'.
The criminal classes are very adept, I'm told, at fashioning serious
weapons out of anything to hand.-a The lack of a point is somewhat
unlikely to prove an insurmountable obstacle.
Then let's not make carrying anything in public criminal - swords,
pikes, maces, even automatic weapons, just in case a criminal decides to
make their own version.
Now that's a non-sequitur.
Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very
small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like Henry Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently didn't
spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On the other hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and his father
claims he told the police this four times.-a So, they have some serious explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the
scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not
sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of violence. Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to handcuff
him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that seems to have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police action caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here?
If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it led to death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
Even the assailant must be pretty cross about this, as GBH may have been converted into murder through police incompetence.
On 02/06/2026 17:01, GB wrote:
Puncture wounds can lead to severe internal injuries with only a very
small entry wound and very little external bleeding. It looks like
Henry Nowak's wound was one of those cases.
The police who arrested did look for a stab wound, but evidently
didn't spot it. Maybe, that was excusable, especially in the dark. On
the other hand, Nowak is clearly heard to say he'd been stabbed, and
his father claims he told the police this four times.-a So, they have
some serious explaining to do.
However, what seems even harder to understand is how the police at the
scene can justify the use of handcuffs. Nowak was a man who could not
sit up unaided. He didn't represent a flight risk or a risk of
violence. Yet, the police seemed to think it was absolutely routine to
handcuff him. And, they did this with his hands behind his back.
He told police several times that he couldn't breathe, yet that seems
to have been disregarded.
I will be interested in the coroner's views on whether the police
action caused/contributed to Nowak's death.
Would there be a possible case for gross negligence manslaughter here?
If the use of restraint was illegal, and it can be shown that it led
to death, could a charge of manslaughter be made out?
Even the assailant must be pretty cross about this, as GBH may have
been converted into murder through police incompetence.
I see the parallel and don't understand why Derek Chauvin was prosecuted
for murder from someone who was calling out "I can't breathe".
One wonders how George Floyd was able to "call" this while he couldn't breath yet in this instance a claim from the victim Nowak he had been stabbed was similarly ignored.
I guess Kemi Badenoch saying "All lives matter" removes the racist or fascist association from phrase?
It's amazing when a prominent white person says exactly the same thing:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/12/australian- acting-pm-michael-mccormack-all-lives-matter-comment-labelled-beyond- disgusting
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It
would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start a cut
and then pick up another knife to continue.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter: <https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs-campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the kitchen, simple as that.rCY
On 02/06/2026 17:01, GB wrote:
Even the assailant must be pretty cross about this, as GBH may have been
converted into murder through police incompetence.
I see the parallel and don't understand why Derek Chauvin was prosecuted
for murder from someone who was calling out "I can't breathe".
One wonders how George Floyd was able to "call" this while he couldn't breath
yet in this instance a claim from the victim Nowak he had been stabbed
was similarly ignored.
I guess Kemi Badenoch saying "All lives matter" removes the racist or
fascist association from phrase?
On 07/06/2026 01:27, Fredxx wrote:
On 02/06/2026 17:01, GB wrote:
I see the parallel and don't understand why Derek Chauvin was
prosecuted for murder from someone who was calling out "I can't breathe".
The situations could not be more different. The American officers were standing on Floyd's neck in a wholly unnecessary restraint position,
whereas the officers who attended Nowak did not block his breathing or restrain him other than to apply handcuffs for a short period of time,
and that was because his abdominal injury was at that time impossible to
see, and they were justified in reassuring him (mistakenly) that he
wasn't in danger. The officers then applied CPR to try to save Nowak's
life.
In America, black lives matter is all about the readiness of law
enforcement to shoot black people who fail to obey instructions eg to
get out of their car or to lie on the ground, even when those black
people present no danger - or at least, a white person in that situation would be treated with more courtesy and respect.
The situations could not be more different. The American officers were standing on Floyd's neck in a wholly unnecessary restraint position,
whereas the officers who attended Nowak did not block his breathing or restrain him other than to apply handcuffs for a short period of time,
and that was because his abdominal injury was at that time impossible to see, and they were justified in reassuring him (mistakenly) that he
wasn't in danger. The officers then applied CPR to try to save Nowak's
life.
In America, black lives matter is all about the readiness of law
enforcement to shoot black people who fail to obey instructions eg to
get out of their car or to lie on the ground, even when those black
people present no danger - or at least, a white person in that situation would be treated with more courtesy and respect.
One wonders how George Floyd was able to "call" this while he couldn't
breath yet in this instance a claim from the victim Nowak he had been
stabbed was similarly ignored.
I guess Kemi Badenoch saying "All lives matter" removes the racist or
fascist association from phrase?
It's amazing when a prominent white person says exactly the same thing:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/12/australian-
acting-pm-michael-mccormack-all-lives-matter-comment-labelled-beyond-
disgusting
On 07/06/2026 10:03, The Todal wrote:
The situations could not be more different. The American officers were
standing on Floyd's neck in a wholly unnecessary restraint position,
whereas the officers who attended Nowak did not block his breathing or
restrain him other than to apply handcuffs for a short period of time,
and that was because his abdominal injury was at that time impossible to
see, and they were justified in reassuring him (mistakenly) that he
wasn't in danger. The officers then applied CPR to try to save Nowak's
life.
I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that "the officers who
attended Nowak did not block his breathing". Handcuffing someone with
his hands behind his back does impair his breathing. The extent of this depends, amongst other factors, on his position. Prone, as Nowak was, is
bad from this point of view.
Tests show that it is highly unlikely to be a problem with detainees in
good health, calm, not intoxicated, standing upright, etc. It is
entirely possible to have a case where that does not apply, and the
combined effect of the handcuffs leads to death.
In Nowak's case, the pathologists say that the wounds were not
survivable, so it doesn't really matter in his case.
It's worth pointing out that handcuffing with the hands in front carries
far less risk.
--snip
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 22:10:50 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It
would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start a cut
and then pick up another knife to continue.
So you need two knives, one of which you might not already own and thus
have to buy. So it *is* an inconvenience.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter:campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
<https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs-
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the
kitchen, simple as that.rCY
Simple, but clearly false (as you admit above).
routine things that are hard to do with a rounded end blade.
On 07/06/2026 10:03, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 22:10:50 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It
would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start a cut >>> and then pick up another knife to continue.
So you need two knives, one of which you might not already own and thus
have to buy. So it *is* an inconvenience.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter:campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
<https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs-
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the
kitchen, simple as that.rCY
Simple, but clearly false (as you admit above).
Er, no. I just said that if a chef decided they couldn't do without a pointed knife a 1" one would do.
-aI can think of a dozen
routine things that are hard to do with a rounded end blade.
Well, I'm sure it wouldn't take you long to list them, so how about it?
On 07/06/2026 10:03 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2026 01:27, Fredxx wrote:
On 02/06/2026 17:01, GB wrote:
[ ... ]
I see the parallel and don't understand why Derek Chauvin was
prosecuted for murder from someone who was calling out "I can't
breathe".
The situations could not be more different. The American officers were
standing on Floyd's neck in a wholly unnecessary restraint position,
The reports spoke of a knee on the suspect's neck, not a foot. The
officer was obviously down on the ground with the suspect.
whereas the officers who attended Nowak did not block his breathing or
restrain him other than to apply handcuffs for a short period of time,
and that was because his abdominal injury was at that time impossible to
see, and they were justified in reassuring him (mistakenly) that he
wasn't in danger. The officers then applied CPR to try to save Nowak's
life.
In America, black lives matter is all about the readiness of law
enforcement to shoot black people who fail to obey instructions eg to
get out of their car or to lie on the ground, even when those black
people present no danger - or at least, a white person in that situation
would be treated with more courtesy and respect.
That last bit really isn't easy to understand. Surely the system is
easily complied with? I have driven somewhere around 50,000 miles in the
USA and have never been stopped by the police, but if that were to
happen, I would have known the drill:
(a) stay in the car and place the hands upon upper part of the steering wheel, all other occupants (if any) to follow this as closely as possible,
(b) if asked to exit the vehicle, do so immediately.
Why would anyone refuse (other than not wanting to have their person or vehicle searched, I mean)?
It is not as though those procedures have no practical and legal
purpose, is it?
On 07/06/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you refuse to comply with the instructions of a police officer that
does not entitle him to use lethal force. Is that now "easy to
understand"
for you?
On 07/06/2026 10:03, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 22:10:50 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It
would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start a
cut and then pick up another knife to continue.
So you need two knives, one of which you might not already own and thus
have to buy. So it *is* an inconvenience.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter:campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
<https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs-
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the
kitchen, simple as that.rCY
Simple, but clearly false (as you admit above).
Er, no. I just said that if a chef decided they couldn't do without a
pointed knife a 1" one would do.
I can think of a dozen
routine things that are hard to do with a rounded end blade.
Well, I'm sure it wouldn't take you long to list them, so how about it?
On 07/06/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2026 10:03 AM, The Todal wrote:
In America, black lives matter is all about the readiness of law
enforcement to shoot black people who fail to obey instructions eg to
get out of their car or to lie on the ground, even when those black
people present no danger - or at least, a white person in that situation >>> would be treated with more courtesy and respect.
That last bit really isn't easy to understand. Surely the system is
easily complied with? I have driven somewhere around 50,000 miles in the
USA and have never been stopped by the police, but if that were to
happen, I would have known the drill:
(a) stay in the car and place the hands upon upper part of the steering
wheel, all other occupants (if any) to follow this as closely as possible, >>
(b) if asked to exit the vehicle, do so immediately.
Why would anyone refuse (other than not wanting to have their person or
vehicle searched, I mean)?
It is not as though those procedures have no practical and legal
purpose, is it?
If you refuse to comply with the instructions of a police officer that
does not entitle him to use lethal force. Is that now "easy to
understand" for you?
If a person ignores instructions and walks or runs away then unless they genuinely are a threat (having a known history of using weapons, having
a weapon in their possession that day) the duty of the police officer is
to pursue them and if appropriate, arrest them.
And the police in the USA do show more respect to white folks than to Latinos or black folks, perhaps because they assume that black men are capable of superhuman strength and Latinos are likely to be in drugs gangs.
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:45:56 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you refuse to comply with the instructions of a police officer that
does not entitle him to use lethal force. Is that now "easy to
understand"
for you?
Especially as some people (deaf ?) may not be aware they have been instructed.
On 6/8/26 08:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/06/2026 10:03, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 22:10:50 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It
would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start a cut >>>> and then pick up another knife to continue.
So you need two knives, one of which you might not already own and thus
have to buy. So it *is* an inconvenience.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter:campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
<https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs-
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the
kitchen, simple as that.rCY
Simple, but clearly false (as you admit above).
Er, no. I just said that if a chef decided they couldn't do without a
pointed knife a 1" one would do.
-aI can think of a dozen
routine things that are hard to do with a rounded end blade.
Well, I'm sure it wouldn't take you long to list them, so how about it?
It is worth pointing out the dangers of pointed knifes are from accident
as well as deliberate attack.
I would like rounded tip slicing knifes, for myself, but they are hard
to find.
On 2026-06-08, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:45:56 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you refuse to comply with the instructions of a police officer that
does not entitle him to use lethal force. Is that now "easy to
understand"
for you?
Especially as some people (deaf ?) may not be aware they have been
instructed.
That reminds me of the case we discussed here in 2012 where the police tasered a blind man because they thought his white stick was a sword.
They shouted at him to "drop the weapon", but he didn't realise they
were talking to him because he was blind and also didn't have a weapon.
On 2026-06-08, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 10:45:56 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you refuse to comply with the instructions of a police officer that
does not entitle him to use lethal force. Is that now "easy to
understand"
for you?
Especially as some people (deaf ?) may not be aware they have been
instructed.
That reminds me of the case we discussed here in 2012 where the police tasered a blind man because they thought his white stick was a sword.
They shouted at him to "drop the weapon", but he didn't realise they
were talking to him because he was blind and also didn't have a weapon.
On 08/06/2026 08:59, Pancho wrote:
On 6/8/26 08:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/06/2026 10:03, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 22:10:50 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It >>>>> would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start
a cut
and then pick up another knife to continue.
So you need two knives, one of which you might not already own and thus >>>> have to buy. So it *is* an inconvenience.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter:campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
<https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs-
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the >>>>> kitchen, simple as that.rCY
Simple, but clearly false (as you admit above).
Er, no. I just said that if a chef decided they couldn't do without a
pointed knife a 1" one would do.
-a -aI can think of a dozen
routine things that are hard to do with a rounded end blade.
Well, I'm sure it wouldn't take you long to list them, so how about it?
It is worth pointing out the dangers of pointed knifes are from accident
as well as deliberate attack.
I would like rounded tip slicing knifes, for myself, but they are hard
to find.
It would be possible to grind off the point with a stone, but it
wouldn't look too good.-a You could try the Viners "Assure" range, or
others as listed at <https://www.amazon.co.uk/blunt-knife/s?
k=blunt+knife>. There seem to be mainly pointed knives there too, unfortunately.
It's odd that, other than steak knives, knives for use at the dinner
table are always blunt. Why do the steak knives have a point when they
are used only for cutting?
On 07/06/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2026 10:03 AM, The Todal wrote:If you refuse to comply with the instructions of a police officer that
On 07/06/2026 01:27, Fredxx wrote:
On 02/06/2026 17:01, GB wrote:
[ ... ]
I see the parallel and don't understand why Derek Chauvin was
prosecuted for murder from someone who was calling out "I can't
breathe".
The situations could not be more different. The American officers were
standing on Floyd's neck in a wholly unnecessary restraint position,
The reports spoke of a knee on the suspect's neck, not a foot. The
officer was obviously down on the ground with the suspect.
whereas the officers who attended Nowak did not block his breathing or
restrain him other than to apply handcuffs for a short period of time,
and that was because his abdominal injury was at that time impossible to >>> see, and they were justified in reassuring him (mistakenly) that he
wasn't in danger. The officers then applied CPR to try to save Nowak's
life.
In America, black lives matter is all about the readiness of law
enforcement to shoot black people who fail to obey instructions eg to
get out of their car or to lie on the ground, even when those black
people present no danger - or at least, a white person in that situation >>> would be treated with more courtesy and respect.
That last bit really isn't easy to understand. Surely the system is
easily complied with? I have driven somewhere around 50,000 miles in
the USA and have never been stopped by the police, but if that were to
happen, I would have known the drill:
(a) stay in the car and place the hands upon upper part of the
steering wheel, all other occupants (if any) to follow this as closely
as possible,
(b) if asked to exit the vehicle, do so immediately.
Why would anyone refuse (other than not wanting to have their person
or vehicle searched, I mean)?
It is not as though those procedures have no practical and legal
purpose, is it?
does not entitle him to use lethal force. Is that now "easy to
understand" for you?
If a person ignores instructions and walks or runs away then unless they genuinely are a threat (having a known history of using weapons, having
a weapon in their possession that day) the duty of the police officer is
to pursue them and if appropriate, arrest them.
And the police in the USA do show more respect to white folks than to
Latinos or black folks, perhaps because they assume that black men are capable of superhuman strength and Latinos are likely to be in drugs gangs.
On 2026-06-08, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 07/06/2026 12:28, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2026 10:03 AM, The Todal wrote:
In America, black lives matter is all about the readiness of law
enforcement to shoot black people who fail to obey instructions eg to
get out of their car or to lie on the ground, even when those black
people present no danger - or at least, a white person in that situation >>>> would be treated with more courtesy and respect.
That last bit really isn't easy to understand. Surely the system is
easily complied with? I have driven somewhere around 50,000 miles in the >>> USA and have never been stopped by the police, but if that were to
happen, I would have known the drill:
(a) stay in the car and place the hands upon upper part of the steering
wheel, all other occupants (if any) to follow this as closely as possible, >>>
(b) if asked to exit the vehicle, do so immediately.
Why would anyone refuse (other than not wanting to have their person or
vehicle searched, I mean)?
It is not as though those procedures have no practical and legal
purpose, is it?
If you refuse to comply with the instructions of a police officer that
does not entitle him to use lethal force. Is that now "easy to
understand" for you?
If a person ignores instructions and walks or runs away then unless they
genuinely are a threat (having a known history of using weapons, having
a weapon in their possession that day) the duty of the police officer is
to pursue them and if appropriate, arrest them.
And the police in the USA do show more respect to white folks than to
Latinos or black folks, perhaps because they assume that black men are
capable of superhuman strength and Latinos are likely to be in drugs gangs.
JNugent is also completely overlooking the difference between his life,
where he says he has *never* been stopped by the US police while driving,
and that of Black people in the US, some of whom may have experienced
being stopped very frequently.
It's very easy to say you'll obviously comply when such compliance has
been demanded of you, er, never in your entire life. Not so much when
it's constant harassment you experience weekly.
I got stop'n'searched once in Leicester Square. I found it interesting
and amusing and readily complied even though the police had little justification for it, not least because it was a new experience, and
also of course UK police are not armed so it wasn't a frightening
thing to happen. If it had been the fifth time I'd been stopped that
month however then my attitude might have been entirely different.
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of
the investigation/review.
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to have >> committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, so
needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above circumstances, >> handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal procedure
for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough. If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of the investigation/review.
On 09/06/2026 13:13, John wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm >>>> if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to have >>> committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, so
needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above circumstances, >>> handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance when >> pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal procedure
for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough. If it isn't >> (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of the
investigation/review.
"If you believe that the person is likely to use violence or attempt to escape, then you may take action based on what the person says or does without waiting for a physical act of violence from them. This sets a reasonable ground to handcuff with justification."
https://www.college.police.uk/app/stop-and-search/legal/legal-application?highlight=handcuff
"Have you taken the mental health and physical condition of the person into account?"
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm >>>> if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, >>> so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they >>>>> can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm >>>>> if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, >>>> so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's
father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or others,
self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for example
during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not permitted. The individual police officer remains personally accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-by-the-police/
On 08/06/2026 13:10, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 08/06/2026 08:59, Pancho wrote:
On 6/8/26 08:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/06/2026 10:03, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 22:10:50 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
how often does a chef need to push all of a 6" blade into a joint? It >>>>>> would take only a second or two to use a 1" pointed knife to start a cut >>>>>> and then pick up another knife to continue.
So you need two knives, one of which you might not already own and thus >>>>> have to buy. So it *is* an inconvenience.
No doubt, but why not see what a chef has to say on the matter:
<https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-backs- >>>>> campaign-to-cut-knife-crime-with-rounded-tips.aspx>
Short quote: "ThererCOs nothing a rounded end blade canrCOt do in the >>>>>> kitchen, simple as that.rCY
Simple, but clearly false (as you admit above).
Er, no. I just said that if a chef decided they couldn't do without a
pointed knife a 1" one would do.
-a -aI can think of a dozen
routine things that are hard to do with a rounded end blade.
Well, I'm sure it wouldn't take you long to list them, so how about it? >>>>
It is worth pointing out the dangers of pointed knifes are from accident >>> as well as deliberate attack.
I would like rounded tip slicing knifes, for myself, but they are hard
to find.
It would be possible to grind off the point with a stone, but it wouldn't look
too good.-a You could try the Viners "Assure" range, or others as listed at >> <https://www.amazon.co.uk/blunt-knife/s? k=blunt+knife>. There seem to be >> mainly pointed knives there too, unfortunately.
It's odd that, other than steak knives, knives for use at the dinner table are
always blunt. Why do the steak knives have a point when they are used only for
cutting?
Because they are used by adults?
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm >>>> if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, >>> so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they >>>>> can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm >>>>> if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, >>>> so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's
father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed someone.
On 3 Jun 2026 at 14:53:04 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2026 12:47 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Jun 2026 at 11:36:11 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2026 10:37, The Todal wrote:
I don't blame you. Look at the Press this morning. Mobs of angry people >>>>> protesting about favouritism towards Sikhs - you'd almost think we were >>>>> in India at the time of partition. Politicians and police spokesmen who >>>>> either tell us that the police acted wrongly or tell us that the
policies and guidelines all need revising - which they probably don't, >>>>> at least not as a result of this case - and that public fury is
understandable and to some extent justified. All because in the dark >>>>> the dying white lad was handcuffed for about a minute. Yes, it was in >>>>> hindsight a mistake. But it was not a display of police racism or two- >>>>> tier policing.
Sikhs, however, are allowed to carry certain knives because it 'is an
essential part of their religion'. The trouble is, they can of course >>>> be used as offensive weapons. It's up to society to judge which is the >>>> more important.
I know which way I'd lean, which is opposite to the way the law
currently allows. All matters of public safety should apply to all,
indiscriminately. Religion is not an excuse.
But the knife he used was not one of those that Sikhs are allowed to carry. >>> So it's a bit irrelevant.
I was under the impression from reading the sentencing remarks that the
large knife (blade length: 8"?) was not only permitted by the Sikh
religion but a requirement according to certain variants of that faith?
Your impression is, unfortunately, confused.
On 05/06/2026 12:21, kat wrote:
On 04/06/2026 13:14, The Todal wrote:
The real issue is not the size of the knife but the conduct of the police >>> officers and whether it represented bias in favour of Sikhs and prejudice >>> against white people. That's the Farage narrative, and it's a blatant attempt
to stir up anger towards Sikhs and towards the police in order to increase >>> support for Farage and his candidates. Farage wanted to see rage from a crowd
of people. Rather like Trump on January 6th 2021.
I think the rage was being directed at the police, not the Sikh community.
Neither is lawful and acceptable, but certainly the Sikh community is now coming
under attack.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/02/sikh-community-uk-backlash- murder-henry-nowak-vickrum-digwa
why was the lad handcuffed?
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they >>>>>> can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm >>>>>> if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to >>>>> have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, >>>>> so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough. >>>> If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of >>>> the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's >>> father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed someone.
You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and
Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak.
But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried
to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the
primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had occurred.
They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him.
On 09/06/2026 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they >>>>>>> can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm >>>>>>> if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to >>>>>> have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, >>>>>> so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance >>>>> when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough. >>>>> If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of >>>>> the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's >>>> father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed someone.
You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and
Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak.
But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried
to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the
primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had occurred.
They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him.
Okay, I understand your point now.
They arrested Digwa but actually we don't know if they handcuffed him. I don't think that really matters, so long as he was safely in custody.
On 2026-06-10, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they >>>>>>>> can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter". >>>>>>>>
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to >>>>>>> have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance >>>>>> when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal >>>>>> procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough. >>>>>> If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of >>>>>> the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's >>>>> father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest, >>>>> despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that >>>>> he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed someone.
You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and
Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak.
But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried
to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the
primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had occurred.
They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him.
Okay, I understand your point now.
They arrested Digwa but actually we don't know if they handcuffed him. I
don't think that really matters, so long as he was safely in custody.
It was Nowak's father who said in his speech that Digwa was not
handcuffed. I don't believe in this "two tier policing" nonsense,
but it does seem peculiar that the same police who had just felt
it necessary to handcuff someone who was immobile on the ground and
suspected of maybe having hit someone then did *not* feel the need,
moments later, to handcuff someone who they knew was almost certainly
an armed killer.
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because they >>>>>> can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So no harm >>>>>> if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed to >>>>> have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to run away, >>>>> so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough. >>>> If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of >>>> the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's >>> father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the individual
presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or others,
self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for example
during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not permitted. The
individual police officer remains personally accountable for the decision." >>
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-by-the-police/
I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because >>>>>>> they can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So
no harm if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical
"banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to >>>>>> run away, so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance >>>>> when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough. >>>>> If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of >>>>> the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's >>>> father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or
others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for
example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-by-the-police/
I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
On 2026-06-10, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or
others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for
example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-by-the-police/ >>>
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
That your quote is not from the MoJ, but from some random nutter.
On 2026-06-10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
...
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or
others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for
example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-by-the-police/ >>>>
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
That your quote is not from the MoJ, but from some random nutter.
The bit GB quoted is actually a quote from (AFAICT) genuine police
training material found at the link below the quote on the page. But
it would be better to give that as the source:
<https://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/PSM_2020/MOD_08_HANDCUFFING-Redacted.pdf?>
page 3
On 2026-06-10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
...
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or
others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for
example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-by-the-police/ >>>>
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
That your quote is not from the MoJ, but from some random nutter.
The bit GB quoted is actually a quote from (AFAICT) genuine police
training material found at the link below the quote on the page. But
it would be better to give that as the source:
<https://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/PSM_2020/MOD_08_HANDCUFFING-Redacted.pdf?>
page 3
On 10/06/2026 11:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed someone.
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of
"because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So >>>>>>>>> no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter". >>>>>>>>>
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad
believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to >>>>>>>> run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance >>>>>>> when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal >>>>>>> procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair >>>>>>> enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be
part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to
Henry's
father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest, >>>>>> despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that >>>>>> he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird. >>>>>
You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and
Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak.
But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried
to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the
primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had occurred.
They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him.
Okay, I understand your point now.
They arrested Digwa but actually we don't know if they handcuffed him. I >>> don't think that really matters, so long as he was safely in custody.
It was Nowak's father who said in his speech that Digwa was not
handcuffed. I don't believe in this "two tier policing" nonsense,
but it does seem peculiar that the same police who had just felt
it necessary to handcuff someone who was immobile on the ground and
suspected of maybe having hit someone then did *not* feel the need,
moments later, to handcuff someone who they knew was almost certainly
an armed killer.
Given that Digwa had, through his brother, phoned emergency services I
think the police could reasonably believe that he believed himself to be
the victim of a racist attack and that he had used self-defence, and
that having caused the police to come, he was unlikely to flee.
On 2026-06-10, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of
"because they can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un.
So no harm if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as
physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad
believed to> have committed a hate crime, at night, who might
be tempted to run away, so needs to be restrained until he has
been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no
resistance when pulled out from the front of the car. If
handcuffing is normal procedure for someone accused of
committing a crime that's fair enough. If it isn't (and I'm not
aware that it is) then that should be part of the
investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to
Henry's father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed
on arrest, despite the police presumably being pretty certain at
that point that he had just stabbed someone to death. So that
does seem a bit weird.
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or
others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for
example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-
by-the-police/
I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
That your quote is not from the MoJ, but from some random nutter.
On 11:52 10 Jun 2026, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2026-06-10, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of
"because they can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. >>>>>>>>> So no harm if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as
physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad
believed to> have committed a hate crime, at night, who might >>>>>>>> be tempted to run away, so needs to be restrained until he has >>>>>>>> been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no
resistance when pulled out from the front of the car. If
handcuffing is normal procedure for someone accused of
committing a crime that's fair enough. If it isn't (and I'm not >>>>>>> aware that it is) then that should be part of the
investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to
Henry's father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed >>>>>> on arrest, despite the police presumably being pretty certain at
that point that he had just stabbed someone to death. So that
does seem a bit weird.
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or
others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for
example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-
by-the-police/
I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
That your quote is not from the MoJ, but from some random nutter.
The web site referenced by GB proovides a link to its source for the quotation,
which is a College of Policing training module called "Handcuffing
Module Personal Safety". This is the link it provides:
<https://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/PSM_2020/MOD_
08_HANDCUFFING-Redacted.pdf>
In turn, the text of the module (page 4) references ACPO Guidelines on the use of handcuffs.
On 2026-06-10, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-06-10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
...
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or >>>>>> others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for >>>>>> example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-by-the-police/ >>>>>
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
That your quote is not from the MoJ, but from some random nutter.
The bit GB quoted is actually a quote from (AFAICT) genuine police
training material found at the link below the quote on the page. But
it would be better to give that as the source:
<https://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/PSM_2020/MOD_08_HANDCUFFING-Redacted.pdf?>
page 3
That's not the bit GB quoted, which is still shown above and which does
not appear in that PDF.
On 2026-06-10, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of "because >>>>>>>> they can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. So >>>>>>>> no harm if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical
"banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad believed >>>>>>> to> have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to >>>>>>> run away, so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned. >>>>>>>
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no resistance >>>>>> when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal >>>>>> procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair enough. >>>>>> If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be part of >>>>>> the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to Henry's >>>>> father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest, >>>>> despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point that >>>>> he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird.
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or
others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for
example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-by-the-police/ >>>
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
That your quote is not from the MoJ, but from some random nutter.
On 2026-06-10, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:52 10 Jun 2026, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2026-06-10, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of
"because they can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. >>>>>>>>>> So no harm if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as
physical "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad
believed to> have committed a hate crime, at night, who might >>>>>>>>> be tempted to run away, so needs to be restrained until he has >>>>>>>>> been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no
resistance when pulled out from the front of the car. If
handcuffing is normal procedure for someone accused of
committing a crime that's fair enough. If it isn't (and I'm not >>>>>>>> aware that it is) then that should be part of the
investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to >>>>>>> Henry's father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed >>>>>>> on arrest, despite the police presumably being pretty certain at >>>>>>> that point that he had just stabbed someone to death. So that
does seem a bit weird.
It definitely should not be the default. The MOJ says:
"Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the
individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or >>>>>> others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for >>>>>> example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not
permitted. The individual police officer remains personally
accountable for the decision."
https://ministryofinjustice.co.uk/lawful-use-of-handcuffs-
by-the-police/
I think you need to check that URL carefully again...
surely you should make whatever point you have in mind?
That your quote is not from the MoJ, but from some random nutter.
The web site referenced by GB proovides a link to its source for the
quotation,
No it doesn't. You have somehow made the same mistake as Adam,
which is that you are talking about a different quote than the
one GB posted here.
which is a College of Policing training module called "Handcuffing
Module Personal Safety". This is the link it provides:
<https://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/PSM_2020/MOD_
08_HANDCUFFING-Redacted.pdf>
In turn, the text of the module (page 4) references ACPO Guidelines on the >> use of handcuffs.
The majority of that PDF has been "redacted", but fairly hilariously
they've just done it by drawing black boxes over the text, which is
still there and can be cut'n'pasted into Notepad...
On 10/06/2026 11:47, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed someone. >>>>>
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of
"because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a bad'un. >>>>>>>>>> So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter". >>>>>>>>>>
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad
believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted to >>>>>>>>> run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned.
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above
circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no
resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is normal >>>>>>>> procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's fair >>>>>>>> enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should be >>>>>>>> part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according to >>>>>>> Henry's
father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on arrest, >>>>>>> despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that point >>>>>>> that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit weird. >>>>>>
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and
Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak.
But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried
to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the
primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had occurred.
They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him.
Okay, I understand your point now.
They arrested Digwa but actually we don't know if they handcuffed
him. I
don't think that really matters, so long as he was safely in custody.
It was Nowak's father who said in his speech that Digwa was not
handcuffed. I don't believe in this "two tier policing" nonsense,
but it does seem peculiar that the same police who had just felt
it necessary to handcuff someone who was immobile on the ground and
suspected of maybe having hit someone then did *not* feel the need,
moments later, to handcuff someone who they knew was almost certainly
an armed killer.
Given that Digwa had, through his brother, phoned emergency services I
think the police could reasonably believe that he believed himself to
be the victim of a racist attack and that he had used self-defence,
and that having caused the police to come, he was unlikely to flee.
How is stabbing self defence against being called bad names?
On 11/06/2026 11:51, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2026 19:31, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 14:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:47, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of >>>>>>>>>>>>> "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a >>>>>>>>>>>>> bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical "banter". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad >>>>>>>>>>>> believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted >>>>>>>>>>>> to run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above >>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no >>>>>>>>>>> resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is >>>>>>>>>>> normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's >>>>>>>>>>> fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should >>>>>>>>>>> be part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according >>>>>>>>>> to Henry's
father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on >>>>>>>>>> arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that >>>>>>>>>> point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit >>>>>>>>>> weird.
No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed
someone.
You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and >>>>>>>> Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak. >>>>>>>> But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried >>>>>>>> to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the >>>>>>>> primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had occurred. >>>>>>>> They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him. >>>>>>>>
Okay, I understand your point now.
They arrested Digwa but actually we don't know if they handcuffed >>>>>>> him. I
don't think that really matters, so long as he was safely in
custody.
It was Nowak's father who said in his speech that Digwa was not
handcuffed. I don't believe in this "two tier policing" nonsense,
but it does seem peculiar that the same police who had just felt
it necessary to handcuff someone who was immobile on the ground and >>>>>> suspected of maybe having hit someone then did *not* feel the need, >>>>>> moments later, to handcuff someone who they knew was almost certainly >>>>>> an armed killer.
Given that Digwa had, through his brother, phoned emergency
services I think the police could reasonably believe that he
believed himself to be the victim of a racist attack and that he
had used self- defence, and that having caused the police to come,
he was unlikely to flee.
How is stabbing self defence against being called bad names?
I suggest you read the transcript. Digwa alleged that he was attacked
and that Nowak knocked his turban off. Faced with the threat of
violence he retaliated with his knife.-a It was lies of course, but
the fact that a fatal wound was inflicted on Nowak does not prove
that it was not self-defence.
You mean Nowak falsely claimed that it was self defence? Surely that
means that it *wasn't* self defence.
We're discussing what the police reasonably believed at the time they arrived on the scene and had to take actions then and there. Of course
it wasn't actually self-defence but the police don't have supernatural powers which enable them to see the truth and to rewind and watch the
actual assault.
On 6/11/26 12:19, The Todal wrote:
On 11/06/2026 11:51, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2026 19:31, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 14:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:47, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote:
why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad >>>>>>>>>>>>> believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted >>>>>>>>>>>>> to run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above >>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used.
Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no >>>>>>>>>>>> resistance
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is >>>>>>>>>>>> normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's >>>>>>>>>>>> fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should >>>>>>>>>>>> be part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according >>>>>>>>>>> to Henry's
father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on >>>>>>>>>>> arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that >>>>>>>>>>> point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit >>>>>>>>>>> weird.
No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed >>>>>>>>>> someone.
You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and >>>>>>>>> Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak. >>>>>>>>> But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried >>>>>>>>> to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the >>>>>>>>> primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had
occurred.
They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him. >>>>>>>>>
Okay, I understand your point now.
They arrested Digwa but actually we don't know if they
handcuffed him. I
don't think that really matters, so long as he was safely in
custody.
It was Nowak's father who said in his speech that Digwa was not
handcuffed. I don't believe in this "two tier policing" nonsense, >>>>>>> but it does seem peculiar that the same police who had just felt >>>>>>> it necessary to handcuff someone who was immobile on the ground and >>>>>>> suspected of maybe having hit someone then did *not* feel the need, >>>>>>> moments later, to handcuff someone who they knew was almost
certainly
an armed killer.
Given that Digwa had, through his brother, phoned emergency
services I think the police could reasonably believe that he
believed himself to be the victim of a racist attack and that he
had used self- defence, and that having caused the police to come, >>>>>> he was unlikely to flee.
How is stabbing self defence against being called bad names?
I suggest you read the transcript. Digwa alleged that he was
attacked and that Nowak knocked his turban off. Faced with the
threat of violence he retaliated with his knife.-a It was lies of
course, but the fact that a fatal wound was inflicted on Nowak does
not prove that it was not self-defence.
You mean Nowak falsely claimed that it was self defence? Surely that
means that it *wasn't* self defence.
We're discussing what the police reasonably believed at the time they
arrived on the scene and had to take actions then and there. Of course
it wasn't actually self-defence but the police don't have supernatural
powers which enable them to see the truth and to rewind and watch the
actual assault.
These points are all about proportionality, reasonableness. Digwa may
well have been defending himself from Nowak. Nowak was taunting him. However, it is not proportionate to defend yourself from taunts by
stabbing.
Similarly handcuffing a suspect is often a proportionate defensive
mechanism to be used on someone who may kick off. Normally handcuffing
is a relatively mild action, and is hence proportionate against even a remote risk. However, if a handcuffed person dies in front of a police officer he may well review his earlier assessment of how mild
handcuffing someone is, before he handcuffs the next bloke. Surely we
can all see that?
On 11/06/2026 13:31, Pancho wrote:
On 6/11/26 12:19, The Todal wrote:
On 11/06/2026 11:51, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2026 19:31, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 14:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:47, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no >>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad >>>>>>>>>>>>>> believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above >>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's >>>>>>>>>>>>> fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should >>>>>>>>>>>>> be part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according >>>>>>>>>>>> to Henry's
father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on >>>>>>>>>>>> arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that >>>>>>>>>>>> point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit >>>>>>>>>>>> weird.
No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed >>>>>>>>>>> someone.
You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and >>>>>>>>>> Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak. >>>>>>>>>> But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried >>>>>>>>>> to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the >>>>>>>>>> primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had
occurred.
They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him. >>>>>>>>>>
Okay, I understand your point now.
They arrested Digwa but actually we don't know if they
handcuffed him. I
don't think that really matters, so long as he was safely in >>>>>>>>> custody.
It was Nowak's father who said in his speech that Digwa was not >>>>>>>> handcuffed. I don't believe in this "two tier policing" nonsense, >>>>>>>> but it does seem peculiar that the same police who had just felt >>>>>>>> it necessary to handcuff someone who was immobile on the ground and >>>>>>>> suspected of maybe having hit someone then did *not* feel the need, >>>>>>>> moments later, to handcuff someone who they knew was almost
certainly
an armed killer.
Given that Digwa had, through his brother, phoned emergency
services I think the police could reasonably believe that he
believed himself to be the victim of a racist attack and that he >>>>>>> had used self- defence, and that having caused the police to come, >>>>>>> he was unlikely to flee.
How is stabbing self defence against being called bad names?
I suggest you read the transcript. Digwa alleged that he was
attacked and that Nowak knocked his turban off. Faced with the
threat of violence he retaliated with his knife. It was lies of
course, but the fact that a fatal wound was inflicted on Nowak does
not prove that it was not self-defence.
You mean Nowak falsely claimed that it was self defence? Surely that
means that it *wasn't* self defence.
We're discussing what the police reasonably believed at the time they
arrived on the scene and had to take actions then and there. Of course
it wasn't actually self-defence but the police don't have supernatural
powers which enable them to see the truth and to rewind and watch the
actual assault.
These points are all about proportionality, reasonableness. Digwa may
well have been defending himself from Nowak. Nowak was taunting him.
However, it is not proportionate to defend yourself from taunts by
stabbing.
Again, you've misrepresented the story given by Digwa. It wasn't just taunting (according to him) it was a physical assault and knocking his
turban off, a grave insult to a Sikh apparently.
If you are defending yourself from attack there is no expectation that
you should carry out a risk assessment to see if your chosen method of
self defence (using whatever weapon comes to hand) is "proportionate".
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves
had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing)
until after he had been handcuffed.
On 12 Jun 2026 at 13:16:39 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/06/2026 13:31, Pancho wrote:
On 6/11/26 12:19, The Todal wrote:
On 11/06/2026 11:51, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2026 19:31, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 14:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:47, The Todal wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-10, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 13:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2026 11:30, Jethro wrote:Your second paragraph is quite important. Henry showed no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 02:33:11 +0100, John wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why was the lad handcuffed?
You really really really caonnot overstate the power of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "because they
can".
Remember they had been told they were dealing with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad'un. So no harm
if they rough him up a bit ? Think of it as physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "banter".
I don't think it is unreasonable to handcuff a young lad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believed to
have committed a hate crime, at night, who might be tempted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run away,
so needs to be restrained until he has been questioned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But maybe we will eventually be told whether, in the above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances, handcuffs would not normally be used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
when pulled out from the front of the car. If handcuffing is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
procedure for someone accused of committing a crime that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fair enough.
If it isn't (and I'm not aware that it is) then that should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be part of
the investigation/review.
I had assumed handcuffing was the default. However, according >>>>>>>>>>>>> to Henry's
father's statement, Henry's murderer was *not* handcuffed on >>>>>>>>>>>>> arrest,
despite the police presumably being pretty certain at that >>>>>>>>>>>>> point that
he had just stabbed someone to death. So that does seem a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>> weird.
No, the police were not pretty certain that he had stabbed >>>>>>>>>>>> someone.
You're missing the bit where I said "at that point".
When they first arrived they thought that Digwa was the victim and >>>>>>>>>>> Nowak the aggressor. Ok, fine. They arrested and handcuffed Nowak. >>>>>>>>>>> But then they realised that Nowak had been stabbed, and they tried >>>>>>>>>>> to assist him. *At that point*, Digwa surely must have been the >>>>>>>>>>> primary suspect in the deadly stabbing that they knew had >>>>>>>>>>> occurred.
They arrested him for it. But apparently they didn't handcuff him. >>>>>>>>>>>
Okay, I understand your point now.
They arrested Digwa but actually we don't know if they
handcuffed him. I
don't think that really matters, so long as he was safely in >>>>>>>>>> custody.
It was Nowak's father who said in his speech that Digwa was not >>>>>>>>> handcuffed. I don't believe in this "two tier policing" nonsense, >>>>>>>>> but it does seem peculiar that the same police who had just felt >>>>>>>>> it necessary to handcuff someone who was immobile on the ground and >>>>>>>>> suspected of maybe having hit someone then did *not* feel the need, >>>>>>>>> moments later, to handcuff someone who they knew was almost
certainly
an armed killer.
Given that Digwa had, through his brother, phoned emergency
services I think the police could reasonably believe that he
believed himself to be the victim of a racist attack and that he >>>>>>>> had used self- defence, and that having caused the police to come, >>>>>>>> he was unlikely to flee.
How is stabbing self defence against being called bad names?
I suggest you read the transcript. Digwa alleged that he was
attacked and that Nowak knocked his turban off. Faced with the
threat of violence he retaliated with his knife. It was lies of
course, but the fact that a fatal wound was inflicted on Nowak does >>>>>> not prove that it was not self-defence.
You mean Nowak falsely claimed that it was self defence? Surely that >>>>> means that it *wasn't* self defence.
We're discussing what the police reasonably believed at the time they
arrived on the scene and had to take actions then and there. Of course >>>> it wasn't actually self-defence but the police don't have supernatural >>>> powers which enable them to see the truth and to rewind and watch the
actual assault.
These points are all about proportionality, reasonableness. Digwa may
well have been defending himself from Nowak. Nowak was taunting him.
However, it is not proportionate to defend yourself from taunts by
stabbing.
Again, you've misrepresented the story given by Digwa. It wasn't just
taunting (according to him) it was a physical assault and knocking his
turban off, a grave insult to a Sikh apparently.
If you are defending yourself from attack there is no expectation that
you should carry out a risk assessment to see if your chosen method of
self defence (using whatever weapon comes to hand) is "proportionate".
I don't think that is true. There is an expectation that you should not use lethal force unless in fear of your life, and that you should consider running
away as an option. I would have thought that a group such as Sikh men (or armed police) who are permitted to carry lethal weapons would have a particular obligation to know the law on self defence.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves
had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see
that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing)
until after he had been handcuffed.
DidnrCOt Nowak say repeatedly that herCOd been stabbed, the officer handcuffing
him replying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY without any checking up to that point? The injuries only came to light afterwards.
If the police were willing to act on an unsubstantiated claim of a hate crime, then checking Nowak for easily-verifiable stab wounds should have
been a routine priority.
I think I've previously posted this extract from the sentencing remarks,...
but I'll do so once again:
The genuine shock to the particular police officer, when he realised...
that he had been giving CPR to Henry when he had a serious chest wound
On 2026-06-12, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think I've previously posted this extract from the sentencing remarks,...
but I'll do so once again:
The genuine shock to the particular police officer, when he realised...
that he had been giving CPR to Henry when he had a serious chest wound
I guess that means the police officer realised he had been doing
vigorous chest compressions to someone with a large stab wound
in their chest, and said "oh christ fuck me" or something as he
realised he might have just killed someone.
On 12/06/2026 14:32, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves >>> had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see >>> that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing)
until after he had been handcuffed.
DidnrCOt Nowak say repeatedly that herCOd been stabbed, the officer handcuffing
him replying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY without any checking up to that >> point? The injuries only came to light afterwards.
The officer said "I don't think so, mate" because he didn't think so. Normally that would be reassuring, and it also tells us about the
officer's belief at that time.
If the police were willing to act on an unsubstantiated claim of a hate
crime, then checking Nowak for easily-verifiable stab wounds should have
been a routine priority.
To say "easily-verifiable" is to invent a version of events that is inconsistent with the actual facts. The extend of the injury was not
easily verifiable.
I think I've previously posted this extract from the sentencing remarks,
but I'll do so once again:
Another consequence of those lies is that the attending police officers honestly believed that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting
Henry had committed an offence and arrested him with the consequence he
was handcuffed for about a minute before his condition further
deteriorated and the arresting officer began CPR. The police were given
a convincing but wholly false narrative of the incident.
It was dark and Henry was wearing a dark top. The entry damage caused by
the knife through it, would not have been obvious. Whilst there was
visible blood on Henry, it would not have clearly been seen coming from
that wound and the clearly visible facial wound was not
life-threatening. Henry was complaining that he had been stabbed and was struggling to breathe but that would not have necessarily told the
officers how serious the situation had become. It is the experience of
the criminal courts that sometimes, someone arrested and handcuffed will feign injury in the hope they may be released. These police officers
were faced with having to make quick decisions in pressurised
circumstances about the best way to act. The genuine shock to the
particular police officer, when he realised that he had been giving CPR
to Henry when he had a serious chest wound tends to show that he was
doing his best in a very difficult situation.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 14:32, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves >>>> had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see >>>> that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing)
until after he had been handcuffed.
DidnrCOt Nowak say repeatedly that herCOd been stabbed, the officer handcuffing
him replying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY without any checking up to that >>> point? The injuries only came to light afterwards.
The officer said "I don't think so, mate" because he didn't think so.
Normally that would be reassuring, and it also tells us about the
officer's belief at that time.
How about the officer asking the very simple question rCLOK, mate, so where were you stabbed?rCY rather than sarcastically saying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY. On what grounds didnrCOt he think so?
Sounds like two-tier policing.
If the police were willing to act on an unsubstantiated claim of a hate
crime, then checking Nowak for easily-verifiable stab wounds should have >>> been a routine priority.
To say "easily-verifiable" is to invent a version of events that is
inconsistent with the actual facts. The extend of the injury was not
easily verifiable.
Lift his jacket, see blood, itrCOs not rocket science, even police officers can do it.
On 2026-06-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 14:32, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves >>>>> had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see >>>>> that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing) >>>>> until after he had been handcuffed.
DidnrCOt Nowak say repeatedly that herCOd been stabbed, the officer handcuffing
him replying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY without any checking up to that
point? The injuries only came to light afterwards.
The officer said "I don't think so, mate" because he didn't think so.
Normally that would be reassuring, and it also tells us about the
officer's belief at that time.
How about the officer asking the very simple question rCLOK, mate, so where >> were you stabbed?rCY rather than sarcastically saying rCLI donrCOt think so, >> materCY. On what grounds didnrCOt he think so?
Sounds like two-tier policing.
No it doesn't - don't be ridiculous.
If the police were willing to act on an unsubstantiated claim of a hate >>>> crime, then checking Nowak for easily-verifiable stab wounds should have >>>> been a routine priority.
To say "easily-verifiable" is to invent a version of events that is
inconsistent with the actual facts. The extend of the injury was not
easily verifiable.
Lift his jacket, see blood, itrCOs not rocket science, even police officers >> can do it.
Did you not read the judge's remarks that Todal quoted? He could
already see blood on him. He presumably thought it was not his or
was from a trivial injury.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 14:32, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves >>>>>> had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see >>>>>> that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing) >>>>>> until after he had been handcuffed.
DidnrCOt Nowak say repeatedly that herCOd been stabbed, the officer handcuffing
him replying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY without any checking up to that
point? The injuries only came to light afterwards.
The officer said "I don't think so, mate" because he didn't think so.
Normally that would be reassuring, and it also tells us about the
officer's belief at that time.
How about the officer asking the very simple question rCLOK, mate, so where >>> were you stabbed?rCY rather than sarcastically saying rCLI donrCOt think so,
materCY. On what grounds didnrCOt he think so?
Sounds like two-tier policing.
No it doesn't - don't be ridiculous.
So, the police uncritically accept one partyrCOs account, and totally reject (rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY) the otherrCOs in a situation where the latter was
easily verifiable. WhatrCOs not two-tier about that?
If the police were willing to act on an unsubstantiated claim of a hate >>>>> crime, then checking Nowak for easily-verifiable stab wounds should have >>>>> been a routine priority.
To say "easily-verifiable" is to invent a version of events that is
inconsistent with the actual facts. The extend of the injury was not
easily verifiable.
Lift his jacket, see blood, itrCOs not rocket science, even police officers >>> can do it.
Did you not read the judge's remarks that Todal quoted? He could
already see blood on him. He presumably thought it was not his or
was from a trivial injury.
The officer concerned could have easily checked the victim instead of casually dismissing the claim of multiple stabbings by saying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY. The evidence of those stabbings was very easily determinable.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 14:32, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves >>>>>> had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see >>>>>> that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing) >>>>>> until after he had been handcuffed.
DidnrCOt Nowak say repeatedly that herCOd been stabbed, the officer handcuffing
him replying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY without any checking up to that
point? The injuries only came to light afterwards.
The officer said "I don't think so, mate" because he didn't think so. >>>> Normally that would be reassuring, and it also tells us about the
officer's belief at that time.
How about the officer asking the very simple question rCLOK, mate, so where >>> were you stabbed?rCY rather than sarcastically saying rCLI donrCOt think so,
materCY. On what grounds didnrCOt he think so?
Sounds like two-tier policing.
No it doesn't - don't be ridiculous.
So, the police uncritically accept one partyrCOs account, and totally reject (rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY) the otherrCOs
in a situation where the latter was easily verifiable. WhatrCOs not
two-tier about that?
If the police were willing to act on an unsubstantiated claim of a hate >>>>> crime, then checking Nowak for easily-verifiable stab wounds should have >>>>> been a routine priority.
To say "easily-verifiable" is to invent a version of events that is
inconsistent with the actual facts. The extend of the injury was not
easily verifiable.
Lift his jacket, see blood, itrCOs not rocket science, even police officers >>> can do it.
Did you not read the judge's remarks that Todal quoted? He could
already see blood on him. He presumably thought it was not his or
was from a trivial injury.
The officer concerned could have easily checked the victim instead of casually dismissing the claim of multiple stabbings by saying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY. The evidence of those stabbings was very easily determinable.
The officer concerned could have easily checked the victim instead of
casually dismissing the claim of multiple stabbings by saying rCLI donrCOt >> think so, materCY. The evidence of those stabbings was very easily
determinable.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were there at the time. I cannot
contradict the secret evidence that you alone are privy to.
On 13/06/2026 14:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The officer concerned could have easily checked the victim instead of
casually dismissing the claim of multiple stabbings by saying rCLI donrCOt >>> think so, materCY. The evidence of those stabbings was very easily
determinable.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were there at the time. I cannot
contradict the secret evidence that you alone are privy to.
Oh do me a favour. I am not a policeman or a medical expert, but if
someone lying on the ground told me 'I've been stabbed', my reaction
along with the majority of sensible people, would be to ask where and
then check it out. The police involved were clearly either thick as
mince, completely uncaring, or following a script.
On 13/06/2026 08:59, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 14:32, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves
had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see
that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing) >>>>>>> until after he had been handcuffed.
DidnrCOt Nowak say repeatedly that herCOd been stabbed, the officer handcuffing
him replying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY without any checking up to that
point? The injuries only came to light afterwards.
The officer said "I don't think so, mate" because he didn't think so. >>>>> Normally that would be reassuring, and it also tells us about the
officer's belief at that time.
How about the officer asking the very simple question rCLOK, mate, so where
were you stabbed?rCY rather than sarcastically saying rCLI donrCOt think so,
materCY. On what grounds didnrCOt he think so?
Sounds like two-tier policing.
No it doesn't - don't be ridiculous.
So, the police uncritically accept one partyrCOs account, and totally reject >> (rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY) the otherrCOs in a situation where the latter was
easily verifiable. WhatrCOs not two-tier about that?
If the police were willing to act on an unsubstantiated claim of a hate >>>>>> crime, then checking Nowak for easily-verifiable stab wounds should have >>>>>> been a routine priority.
To say "easily-verifiable" is to invent a version of events that is
inconsistent with the actual facts. The extend of the injury was not >>>>> easily verifiable.
Lift his jacket, see blood, itrCOs not rocket science, even police officers
can do it.
Did you not read the judge's remarks that Todal quoted? He could
already see blood on him. He presumably thought it was not his or
was from a trivial injury.
The officer concerned could have easily checked the victim instead of
casually dismissing the claim of multiple stabbings by saying rCLI donrCOt >> think so, materCY. The evidence of those stabbings was very easily
determinable.
So you believe you can reject the opinions of the trial judge who heard
all the evidence and substitute your own opinions based presumably on
your many years of service as a police officer. Or merely based on what Nigel Farage says.
On 13/06/2026 14:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh do me a favour. I am not a policeman or a medical expert, but ifThe officer concerned could have easily checked the victim instead of
casually dismissing the claim of multiple stabbings by saying rCLI donrCOt >>> think so, materCY. The evidence of those stabbings was very easily
determinable.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were there at the time. I cannot
contradict the secret evidence that you alone are privy to.
someone lying on the ground told me 'I've been stabbed', my reaction
along with the majority of sensible people, would be to ask where and
then check it out. The police involved were clearly either thick as
mince, completely uncaring, or following a script.
On 13/06/2026 14:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]Oh do me a favour. I am not a policeman or a medical expert, but if
someone lying on the ground told me 'I've been stabbed', my reaction
along with the majority of sensible people, would be to ask where and
then check it out. The police involved were clearly either thick as
mince, completely uncaring, or following a script.
On 2026-06-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 14:32, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Obviously it would be a very different scenario if the police themselves
had inflicted the fatal wound on Nowak. Instead, they were unable to see
that there was a fatal wound (in the dark and through dark clothing) >>>>>>> until after he had been handcuffed.
DidnrCOt Nowak say repeatedly that herCOd been stabbed, the officer handcuffing
him replying rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY without any checking up to that
point? The injuries only came to light afterwards.
The officer said "I don't think so, mate" because he didn't think so. >>>>> Normally that would be reassuring, and it also tells us about the
officer's belief at that time.
How about the officer asking the very simple question rCLOK, mate, so where
were you stabbed?rCY rather than sarcastically saying rCLI donrCOt think so,
materCY. On what grounds didnrCOt he think so?
Sounds like two-tier policing.
No it doesn't - don't be ridiculous.
So, the police uncritically accept one partyrCOs account, and totally reject >> (rCLI donrCOt think so, materCY) the otherrCOs
As someone else pointed out, the scenario where someone stabs someone
and then (or their brother on their behalf) calls the police to the
scene of the serious crime they have just committed is vanishingly
unlikely. It is not at all surprising that the police took a few
seconds to work out that, this time, the hooves they heard were
zebras not horses.
in a situation where the latter was easily verifiable. WhatrCOs not
two-tier about that?
What's two-tier about it? "Two-tier" doesn't mean "the police
believed someone's story", it implies systemic discrimination.
Ironically, and laughably, it's being employed by people who
are discriminated *in favour of* to complain that they are being discriminated *against*. Those people are then committing serious
crimes such as rioting and incitement to riot - and getting away
with them. Because they are the ones who are on the top tier,
while simultaneously whingeing that they are on the bottom tier.
If the police were willing to act on an unsubstantiated claim of a hate >>>>>> crime, then checking Nowak for easily-verifiable stab wounds should have >>>>>> been a routine priority.
To say "easily-verifiable" is to invent a version of events that is >>>>> inconsistent with the actual facts. The extend of the injury was not >>>>> easily verifiable.
Lift his jacket, see blood, itrCOs not rocket science, even police officers
can do it.
Did you not read the judge's remarks that Todal quoted? He could
already see blood on him. He presumably thought it was not his or
was from a trivial injury.
The officer concerned could have easily checked the victim instead of
casually dismissing the claim of multiple stabbings by saying rCLI donrCOt >> think so, materCY. The evidence of those stabbings was very easily
determinable.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were there at the time. I cannot
contradict the secret evidence that you alone are privy to.
On 13/06/2026 14:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Oh do me a favour. I am not a policeman or a medical expert, but ifThe officer concerned could have easily checked the victim instead of
casually dismissing the claim of multiple stabbings by saying rCLI donrCOt >>> think so, materCY. The evidence of those stabbings was very easily
determinable.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were there at the time. I cannot
contradict the secret evidence that you alone are privy to.
someone lying on the ground told me 'I've been stabbed', my reaction
along with the majority of sensible people, would be to ask where and
then check it out. The police involved were clearly either thick as
mince, completely uncaring, or following a script.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 33:32:36 |
| Calls: | 900 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (12,347K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,210 |