Henry Nowak murder

[hilts]

Yeah, but who is actively encouraging that rage to become public disorder? He's a grifter and an opportunist-and isn't above the law.

You obviously missed the part where I called him a class A ****, anyhow let's all carry on with the due process shite that gets peddled every fucking time and changes nothing, this lad will be forgotten about and another victim will be along soon enough.
And on bluemoon you will have posters deflecting politically. A kid is dead and his last moments alive were surrounded by his killers and heartless incompetent coppers.

Another bandwagon for the right wing to jump onto.

No consideration for the victim, their family, due process, fair trials, the officers involved-just red meat for the Facebook experts who want to play judge and jury.

Petitions to release the footage? Pathetic shite again.

Didn't age well did it? This shit keeps happening. Sometimes to actually change something you need rage and irrational actions because otherwise we just keep ending up here. By waiting you give the authorities precisely what they need.

 

[bert38]

You obviously missed the part where I called him a class A ****, anyhow let's all carry on with the due process shite that gets paddled every fucking time and changes nothing, this lad will be forgotten about and another victim will be along soon enough.
And on bluemoon you will have posters deflecting politically. A kid is dead and his last moments alive were surrounded by his killers and heartless incompetent coppers.



Didn't age well did it? This shit keeps happening. Sometimes to actually change something you need rage and irrational actions because otherwise we just keep ending up here. By waiting you give the authorities precisely what they need.

I stand by everything I put in that post-last night showed exactly what the far right are.

 

[Claytop]

its early-I was being pedantic!

I do think senior management teams across the country have at times impacted negatively how police operate on the frontlines due to their own personal ambition-but that's largely due to my own personal experience and is really a much wider topic where police meets politics-I don't think its actually v relevant here.

The report was a racially aggravated assault? The police responded to that-we know now that that was a tissue of lies intended to mislead the officers that arrived and continued upon their arrival. I don't think it goes wider than that in terms of the officers' decision-making.

What do you think of the Race Action Plan that I've seen is being reviewed this morning?

Has that potentially effected how officers deal with these types of incidents? i.e maybe a subconscious bias to go too far the other way?

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

I stand by everything I put in that post-last night showed exactly what the far right are.

You seem to care more about the politics/ far right than anything else.

Who cares what they think?

 

[hilts]

I stand by everything I put in that post-last night showed exactly what the far right are.

Some are more concerned about dead kids rather than calling out bellends, but there we go. Is using a tragedy to call out the far right any different to the far right using using a tragedy for their own reasons?

As a poster said a lot of you are just two cheeks of the same arse.

 

[Bigga]

I'm only going to offer this one post.
It's not about lies.
It's not about race.

What I've found is, whoever gets their report to the police first is the one they respond to as the wronged party, instead of the police acting neutrally. My sister is going through it, at the moment. Never been on the wrong side of the law, never been in a station or before a court.

She was accused by an aggrieved nutcase and so she was put under caution and has to head to court.

I've also been arresting for attempted murder (which came as surprise to me) when I, genuinely, had no idea what they were talking about.

It's a strange system, which I think needs to be looked at, in how it approaches accusations and needs to assess things on their own merits before decisions are made.

 

[bert38]

What do you think of the Race Action Plan that I've seen is being reviewed this morning?

Has that potentially effected how officers deal with these types of incidents? i.e maybe a subconscious bias to go too far the other way?

Can't comment because I'm not aware of the document.

We did receive unconscious bias training in my time-and yes I think that should play a role in any wider review-we've had them before, Scarman, Macpherson..its possible that one will follow this-especially if public disorder spreads.

 

[hilts]

What do you think of the Race Action Plan that I've seen is being reviewed this morning?

Has that potentially effected how officers deal with these types of incidents? i.e maybe a subconscious bias to go too far the other way?

The BBC have been discussing policing and how these things have been handled, shown the footage, mention carrying knives as part of a religion. Why cant they just keep quiet until the full inquiry is delivered and everyone has moved on. Busy right wing cunts.

The UK - whadd'ya gonna do? Sad face.

Everytime.

 

[bert38]

I'm only going to offer this one post.
It's not about lies.
It's not about race.

What I've found is, whoever gets their report to the police first is the one they respond to as the wronged party, instead of the police acting neutrally. My sister is going through it, at the moment. Never been on the wrong side of the law, never been in a station or before a court.

She was accused by an aggrieved nutcase and so she was put under caution and has to head to court.

I've also been arresting for attempted murder (which came as surprise to me) when I, genuinely, had no idea what they were talking about.

It's a strange system, which I think needs to be looked at, in how it approaches accusations and needs to assess things on their own merits before decisions are made.

I don't think you are wrong-its a very hard balance to strike-it can be whomever gets in first..but I do think if one party is so determined to lie so flagrantly it can add so much confusion.

 

[bert38]

You seem to care more about the politics/ far right than anything else.

Who cares what they think?

You couldn't foresee Farage and co trying to exploit this tragedy for their own benefit?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The policy the police, the govn, the authorities need is equality. Simple word that is so simple to apply.

It's the best way forward in all scenarios.

 

[bert38]

What do you think of the Race Action Plan that I've seen is being reviewed this morning?

Has that potentially effected how officers deal with these types of incidents? i.e maybe a subconscious bias to go too far the other way?

I do think over the decades the office of constable has been eroded so much-the removal of discretion, the strict adherence to policies that are, in part, designed ultimately to lay any fault at the officer themselves and not higher management. You add that to austerity which has caused so much damage to policing that it may not recover in our life times.

Its incredibly complex how you ever go about fixing it-but irrespective of policy and procedure, Henry still gets murdered.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I'm only going to offer this one post.
It's not about lies.
It's not about race.

What I've found is, whoever gets their report to the police first is the one they respond to as the wronged party, instead of the police acting neutrally.

I think you offer a very fair point here.

I'm still of the opinion that the fact the Police were initially told "he took my turban off" is somewhat irrelevant. If they had been told "he punched me", we'd still have the same outcome.

What they were faced with was multiple people, regardless of ethnicity or race, accusing Nowak of being the aggressor and him having injured himself whilst trying to run away.

What they should have done, clearly, is taken more cognisance of what Nowak was telling them about his injuries - any potential criminal aspect should have been bottomed out later. The priority should never have been to get him in cuffs or read him his rights but to ensure his wellbeing given the state which he was in. Did they mistake him for being a drunken/intoxicated assailant? Probably. If they did, is it somewhat understandable given the situation which they were presented with at the time?

We've all got the benefit of hindsight. They were on the spot. They had multiple people telling them that he had been responsible for an assault. In the judge's words, it's very unlikely that the Police would've been able to physically see the extent of the kid's injuries and it's likely very often that a person who's been accused of an offence makes up their own illnesses or injuries in effort to somewhat evade the situation which they find themselves in.

The cretins here are the murderers themselves. I don't think the Police have been heartless nor do I think they've acted any way different because of race. I think they've been grossly misled by several people and placed in a very difficult situation.

That being said, my view is that the application of handcuffs and the reading of rights was totally unnecessary at that particular stage and they should've taken more time to assess his condition.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Just seen some of the footage of last nights bollocks. Some of them will use anything as an excuse to throw bricks and other objects at the police. What a bunch of fucking cunts and I hope they’re identified and get a knock on the door in the coming days.

 

[Blue Note]

Just seen some of the footage of last nights bollocks. Some of them will use anything as an excuse to throw bricks and other objects at the police. What a bunch of fucking cunts and I hope they’re identified and get a knock on the door in the coming days.

When George Floyd died politicians here were encouraging people to get angry. What is the difference in this case do you think?

 

[bert38]

I think you offer a very fair point here.

I'm still of the opinion that the fact the Police were initially told "he took my turban off" is somewhat irrelevant. If they had been told "he punched me", we'd still have the same outcome.

What they were faced with was multiple people, regardless of ethnicity or race, accusing Nowak of being the aggressor and him having injured himself whilst trying to run away.

What they should have done, clearly, is taken more cognisance of what Nowak was telling them about his injuries - any potential criminal aspect should have been bottomed out later. The priority should never have been to get him in cuffs or read him his rights but to ensure his wellbeing given the state which he was in. Did they mistake him for being a drunken/intoxicated assailant? Probably. If they did, is it somewhat understandable given the situation which they were presented with at the time?

We've all got the benefit of hindsight. They were on the spot. They had multiple people telling them that he had been responsible for an assault. In the judge's words, it's very unlikely that the Police would've been able to physically see the extent of the kid's injuries and it's likely very often that a person who's been accused of an offence makes up their own illnesses or injuries in effort to somewhat evade the situation which they find themselves in.

The cretins here are the murderers themselves. I don't think the Police have been heartless nor do I think they've acted any way different because of race. I think they've been grossly misled by several people and placed in a very difficult situation.

That being said, my view is that the application of handcuffs and the reading of rights was totally unnecessary at that particular stage and they should've taken more time to assess his condition.

I think that's very well written-I think its almost certain the officers believed his behaviour was due to intoxication (the male officer says something like 'he's going to be sick) and that led him to the next decision which was to arrest him (which subjectively would have been entirely correct based on the evidence presented ie false accusations) and then he makes the decision to cuff him (the caution has to be given here because he has just arrested him-it may with hindsight sound callous but its simply routine and it with experience just comes out of your mouth).

So that raises 2 questions-it takes another officer to see it differently-and she realises his condition may not be due to intoxication and Henry's rapid deterioration leads them to change to life saving mode-call for ambulance/commence CPR. The question being in terms of discipline-was that appropriate? was the gap of 1-3 minutes appropriate? I'd argue it was-based on the false accusations and mistaken assumption he was intoxicated. I think its entirely reasonable for the officer to form those views. This mistaken belief is even heard when he says dismissively 'of course you have been, mate' -the kind of words you use to a rambling drunk.

The second question is then around medical treatment-legally Officers are experts in being able in court to say somebody is drunk (unsteady on their feet, speech slurred, eyes glazed, breath smelt of alcohol m'lud)-if we assume the above here that leads to a mindset that ignores an alternative. But that then questions how trained officers are in emergency first aid? Typically a 3 days course when you join and a yearly refresher does not make you an expert.

Which the comes back to the handcuffing-which is a subjective decision that has to be documented and evidenced by the officer using that force.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

To put it simply, they heard a allegation of racism and prioritised that over murder.

You could remove the words "of racism" from that sentence and the situation would've been dealt with the same. The fact that the allegations was particular to racism is neither here nor there.

Question. Someone breaks into your house tonight, you call the Police. By the time they arrive, you've chased the housebreaker onto the street and have him pinned down on the ground. You tell the Police what's happened, so does your spouse and so does your neighbour. The housebreaker says he doesn't know what you're talking about and alleges that he's been walking down your street and you've attacked him at random.

What do you want the Police to do in that situation? Tell you that they want to get his side of the story first? Or apprehend him because you and numerous other witness, all of whom appears credible, are telling them what's happened and they've got absolutely no reason to disbelieve you other than false excuses being made by the guy pinned to the ground?

The situation is more than enough to have him arrested on suspicion of burglary or attempted burglary.

The situation with Nowak is very similar. The part I take issue with, as said before, is how quick they are to get the cuffs on and read him his rights given the state he was presenting in.

 

[i kne albert davy]

I think you offer a very fair point here.

I'm still of the opinion that the fact the Police were initially told "he took my turban off" is somewhat irrelevant. If they had been told "he punched me", we'd still have the same outcome.

What they were faced with was multiple people, regardless of ethnicity or race, accusing Nowak of being the aggressor and him having injured himself whilst trying to run away.

What they should have done, clearly, is taken more cognisance of what Nowak was telling them about his injuries - any potential criminal aspect should have been bottomed out later. The priority should never have been to get him in cuffs or read him his rights but to ensure his wellbeing given the state which he was in. Did they mistake him for being a drunken/intoxicated assailant? Probably. If they did, is it somewhat understandable given the situation which they were presented with at the time?

We've all got the benefit of hindsight. They were on the spot. They had multiple people telling them that he had been responsible for an assault. In the judge's words, it's very unlikely that the Police would've been able to physically see the extent of the kid's injuries and it's likely very often that a person who's been accused of an offence makes up their own illnesses or injuries in effort to somewhat evade the situation which they find themselves in.

The cretins here are the murderers themselves. I don't think the Police have been heartless nor do I think they've acted any way different because of race. I think they've been grossly misled by several people and placed in a very difficult situation.

That being said, my view is that the application of handcuffs and the reading of rights was totally unnecessary at that particular stage and they should've taken more time to assess his condition.

Decent summary apart from the judges bollocks very unlikely to see extent of the young boys injuries, no none at all if you don’t bloody look and are intent on handcuffing and arresting a dying young lad.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Can I just make another point on something else, I've got a huge amount of respect for Henry's family and the dignified statement read by his dad. How difficult that must have been to read and it was put across so well.

My heart goes out to them. The killer should never see the light of day again, and nor should his mum for a very long time.

 

[Ban-jani]

When George Floyd died politicians here were encouraging people to get angry. What is the difference in this case do you think?

Those politicians are on their side of the aisle. That’s the only difference.