| "I can't breathe" 07:35 - Jun 2 with 14351 views | BlueSmoke |
The final words of Henry Nowak as he was handcuffed and bleeding out from 5 stab wounds. The footage should worry everyone of us.
Government FORCED to make a statement.
Could be a pivotal moment for this broken country. |  | | |  |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:06 - Jun 2 with 1169 views | BlueSmoke |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:03 - Jun 2 by redrickstuhaart |
Quote the bit that says what you claimed. |
I'm not your PA mate!...
It does NOT mean treating everyone "the same" or being "colour blind". | | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:08 - Jun 2 with 1150 views | DanTheMan |
"utm_source=chatgpt.com"
AI answers all. |  |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:10 - Jun 2 with 1104 views | BlueSmoke |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:08 - Jun 2 by DanTheMan |
"utm_source=chatgpt.com"
AI answers all. |
It found the link didn't it? | | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:10 - Jun 2 with 1092 views | redrickstuhaart |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:06 - Jun 2 by BlueSmoke |
I'm not your PA mate!...
It does NOT mean treating everyone "the same" or being "colour blind". |
In other words, you cannot. Because it is not there.
If you have a shred of integrity, or sense of fairness and decency (fundamental British values in my view) you should make a clear retraction, and apology as well as going to reflect carefully on the divisive dishonest tropes you are actively choosing to propagate, and where you get them from. |  |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:11 - Jun 2 with 1068 views | BlueSmoke |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:10 - Jun 2 by redrickstuhaart |
In other words, you cannot. Because it is not there.
If you have a shred of integrity, or sense of fairness and decency (fundamental British values in my view) you should make a clear retraction, and apology as well as going to reflect carefully on the divisive dishonest tropes you are actively choosing to propagate, and where you get them from. |
I've literally quoted from the document. | | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:12 - Jun 2 with 1063 views | DanTheMan |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:10 - Jun 2 by BlueSmoke |
It found the link didn't it? |
You just threw a link out without answering the actual question, then got frustrated when someone wanted to clarify where in the document it says what you said it says, or I guess whatever ChatGPT told you it says. | |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:13 - Jun 2 with 1023 views | redrickstuhaart |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:11 - Jun 2 by BlueSmoke |
I've literally quoted from the document. |
You literally have not understood the document, or compared it to what you claimed. | |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:14 - Jun 2 with 1013 views | BlueSmoke |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:12 - Jun 2 by DanTheMan |
You just threw a link out without answering the actual question, then got frustrated when someone wanted to clarify where in the document it says what you said it says, or I guess whatever ChatGPT told you it says. |
"It does not mean treating everyone "the same" or being "colour blind"."
It's in the document bud. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| "I can't breathe" on 15:20 - Jun 2 with 959 views | redrickstuhaart |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:14 - Jun 2 by BlueSmoke |
"It does not mean treating everyone "the same" or being "colour blind"."
It's in the document bud. |
"Producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different
ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according
to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with
understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing
harm.
It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial
equality)"
Crucially, you will note the aim of EQUALITY OF OUTCOMES.
It does not say that they should treat the situation differently because of ethnicity does it? It means having awareness of different circumstances and cultures. Nothing about this is remotely relevant to the Nowak case. Nor does it say what you claimed, or what you are understanding by it.
Would you really want the police to simply treat everyone identically without reference to their personal characteristics? [Post edited 2 Jun 15:21]
| |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:24 - Jun 2 with 923 views | chantryblueboy |
| "I can't breathe" on 14:51 - Jun 2 by positivity |
you should apologise if you're spreading lies and disinformation especially if they incite racial hatred.
remember that the shadow hs in question tweeted “Great to see sterling strengthening on the back of the new UK Growth plan” when the truss/kwarteng budget was unveiled. the exact opposite happened. he is not a reliable source.
take a look at bsw72's post for the true picture on police guidelines |
You said earlier that the murder weapon was carried illegally, which is a lie as confirmed by Hampshire Police. I hope you hold yourself to the same standards as you expect here | | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:27 - Jun 2 with 901 views | redrickstuhaart |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:24 - Jun 2 by chantryblueboy |
You said earlier that the murder weapon was carried illegally, which is a lie as confirmed by Hampshire Police. I hope you hold yourself to the same standards as you expect here |
Where have Hampshire police confirmed that please? All the reports I can see make it clear that the murder weapon was a larger Sikh knife, not legal, rather than the Kirpan.
Not that it is a real issue, except for racists trying to stir hatred. | |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:29 - Jun 2 with 888 views | Swansea_Blue |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:14 - Jun 2 by BlueSmoke |
"It does not mean treating everyone "the same" or being "colour blind"."
It's in the document bud. |
I think I understand. You’re against measures brought in to ensure the police comply with their legal obligations under the Equalities Act 2010. You see them as evidence of the ‘two tier’ policing complaint made by Farage. If I’ve got that right?
I don’t think efforts to comply with equality legislation* are themselves discriminatory. They can’t be, otherwise the police would be in breach of the legislation. They can’t treat people differently on the basis of protected characteristics, but they can tailor their approaches of course. For example, they could make special arrangements for a non-English speaking person to be provided with an interpreter. That’s treating them differently to English speaking people, but isn’t discriminating against English speaking people. It’s simply a measure to ensure the non-English speaking person is clear about what they are being told. A lot of the points in that document are of that nature - actions/mitigations that can be taken to ensure there is no discrimination, not to actually discriminate against whites (they can’t do that without breaking the law).
*edited, I said 'equality discrimination' initially which was senseless [Post edited 2 Jun 15:40]
|  |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:31 - Jun 2 with 850 views | lowhouseblue |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:27 - Jun 2 by redrickstuhaart |
Where have Hampshire police confirmed that please? All the reports I can see make it clear that the murder weapon was a larger Sikh knife, not legal, rather than the Kirpan.
Not that it is a real issue, except for racists trying to stir hatred. |
the legal exemption does not restrict the size of the knife as long as it is carried for ceremonial or religious purposes. so up until the point it was used offensively it was legally carried. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:31 - Jun 2 with 866 views | chantryblueboy |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:27 - Jun 2 by redrickstuhaart |
Where have Hampshire police confirmed that please? All the reports I can see make it clear that the murder weapon was a larger Sikh knife, not legal, rather than the Kirpan.
Not that it is a real issue, except for racists trying to stir hatred. |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
PCC Jones said: "At the moment in this country, Vickrum Digwa carrying that knife, it was lawful for him to do that as long as he carried it in a sheath, which he did, as a Sikh gentlemen he is able to carry that knife.
Is it racist to ask people to speak factually about a situation? I just applied the same standards that are expected of individuals on the other side of the argument. I am going to ask you to retract your insinuation that I am a racist too, given I have backed up what I said with evidence. Cheers [Post edited 2 Jun 15:33]
| | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:35 - Jun 2 with 831 views | positivity |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:24 - Jun 2 by chantryblueboy |
You said earlier that the murder weapon was carried illegally, which is a lie as confirmed by Hampshire Police. I hope you hold yourself to the same standards as you expect here |
all the reports and the picture of the bloodied knife posted are of a larger knife, not a kirpan.
how many people have been killed by a kirpan, since the government brought in the exemption in 1988? how many have been killed with (also legal) penknives?
it's a question of criminality, not religion or race. nowak was murdered by a criminal | |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:38 - Jun 2 with 801 views | chantryblueboy |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:35 - Jun 2 by positivity |
all the reports and the picture of the bloodied knife posted are of a larger knife, not a kirpan.
how many people have been killed by a kirpan, since the government brought in the exemption in 1988? how many have been killed with (also legal) penknives?
it's a question of criminality, not religion or race. nowak was murdered by a criminal |
No, in other words - you won’t correct it. Your desire for truth seems to have fallen away pretty quickly | | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:43 - Jun 2 with 754 views | positivity |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:31 - Jun 2 by chantryblueboy |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
PCC Jones said: "At the moment in this country, Vickrum Digwa carrying that knife, it was lawful for him to do that as long as he carried it in a sheath, which he did, as a Sikh gentlemen he is able to carry that knife.
Is it racist to ask people to speak factually about a situation? I just applied the same standards that are expected of individuals on the other side of the argument. I am going to ask you to retract your insinuation that I am a racist too, given I have backed up what I said with evidence. Cheers [Post edited 2 Jun 15:33]
|
the very next sentence in your link, she says that it wasn't a kirpan, (therefore illegal to carry), and wasn't sheathed (therefore an illegal weapon), so she seems confused like a lot of conservatives on this issue! | |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:46 - Jun 2 with 736 views | chantryblueboy |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:43 - Jun 2 by positivity |
the very next sentence in your link, she says that it wasn't a kirpan, (therefore illegal to carry), and wasn't sheathed (therefore an illegal weapon), so she seems confused like a lot of conservatives on this issue! |
That’s completely untrue. It was legal to carry up until the point it was unsheathed. I don’t understand how you think there is any ambiguity in the link that I posted? It literally says ‘it was lawful for him to do that as long as he carried it in a sheath’ - how clear does it have to be for you to admit you made a mistake? | | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:46 - Jun 2 with 731 views | positivity |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:38 - Jun 2 by chantryblueboy |
No, in other words - you won’t correct it. Your desire for truth seems to have fallen away pretty quickly |
it's not truth, a conservative politician has not accurately described the law (ironic as the exemption was brought in by the government in the 1980s)
as all the evidence points towards it being an illegal weapon, if anything the apology should be from you (and maybe her, though she equivocates in the following sentence) | |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:47 - Jun 2 with 720 views | positivity |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:46 - Jun 2 by chantryblueboy |
That’s completely untrue. It was legal to carry up until the point it was unsheathed. I don’t understand how you think there is any ambiguity in the link that I posted? It literally says ‘it was lawful for him to do that as long as he carried it in a sheath’ - how clear does it have to be for you to admit you made a mistake? |
i'd need it to come from a more reputable source than a conservative politician who contradicts herself in the following sentence by saying that it wasn't a kirpan, thus illegal | |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:49 - Jun 2 with 705 views | DJR |
| "I can't breathe" on 10:16 - Jun 2 by chantryblueboy |
PCC Jones said: "At the moment in this country, Vickrum Digwa carrying that knife, it was lawful for him to do that as long as he carried it in a sheath, which he did, as a Sikh gentlemen he is able to carry that knife. |
Stephen Pollard, a prominent member of the Jewish community, takes a different view.
"But as with so much reporting around religious and criminal issues, the entire row is based on a faulty premise. Digwa was carrying a dangerous weapon which was indeed banned. It was not a kirpan and it had no exemption. Digwa claimed it was a kirpan precisely because he was in the habit of keeping and wandering the streets with deadly knives which were banned. It was as much of a lie as his claim that Nowak racially abused him.
The large ceremonial weapons that are sometimes pictured alongside articles about Sikhs – one of which Digwa used to murder Nowak – are already banned on the streets. Digwa was carrying a pesh-kabz, which was used historically by Sikh warriors to pierce armour. It has never been given an exemption to the law, nor would any Sikh want such an exemption.
Digwa wore a genuine, tiny kirpan under his clothes, which remained there throughout his murderous assault. The fact he was a Sikh is entirely irrelevant to what happened as a result of his being on the streets with a 21cm blade. He was breaking the law, as would be anyone else of any or no religion."
A Sikh representative group has also made this argument.
Sadly, there has been an upsurge in hate against Sikhs, and Farage has added oil to the fire.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
"Given the political environment, that rhetoric has made Sikhs really think 'why are we being targeted'," said Singh.
"Because this could happen to any community - an individual could break the law and murder someone but you wouldn't demonise that entire community."
This is why I still maintain the judge was wrong to say the defendant had brought shame on his community.
And I don't recall the judge who sentenced a man who carried out a racially aggravated on a Sikh woman saying the man had brought shame on the white community.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/ [Post edited 2 Jun 15:54]
|  | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:52 - Jun 2 with 657 views | lowhouseblue |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:49 - Jun 2 by DJR |
Stephen Pollard, a prominent member of the Jewish community, takes a different view.
"But as with so much reporting around religious and criminal issues, the entire row is based on a faulty premise. Digwa was carrying a dangerous weapon which was indeed banned. It was not a kirpan and it had no exemption. Digwa claimed it was a kirpan precisely because he was in the habit of keeping and wandering the streets with deadly knives which were banned. It was as much of a lie as his claim that Nowak racially abused him.
The large ceremonial weapons that are sometimes pictured alongside articles about Sikhs – one of which Digwa used to murder Nowak – are already banned on the streets. Digwa was carrying a pesh-kabz, which was used historically by Sikh warriors to pierce armour. It has never been given an exemption to the law, nor would any Sikh want such an exemption.
Digwa wore a genuine, tiny kirpan under his clothes, which remained there throughout his murderous assault. The fact he was a Sikh is entirely irrelevant to what happened as a result of his being on the streets with a 21cm blade. He was breaking the law, as would be anyone else of any or no religion."
A Sikh representative group has also made this argument.
Sadly, there has been an upsurge in hate against Sikhs, and Farage has added oil to the fire.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
"Given the political environment, that rhetoric has made Sikhs really think 'why are we being targeted'," said Singh.
"Because this could happen to any community - an individual could break the law and murder someone but you wouldn't demonise that entire community."
This is why I still maintain the judge was wrong to say the defendant had brought shame on his community.
And I don't recall the judge who sentenced a man who carried out a racially aggravated on a Sikh woman saying the man had brought shame on the white community.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/ [Post edited 2 Jun 15:54]
|
well 30cm kirpans are available online so that's odd.
https://punjabiroots.co.uk/pro | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:54 - Jun 2 with 637 views | chantryblueboy |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:47 - Jun 2 by positivity |
i'd need it to come from a more reputable source than a conservative politician who contradicts herself in the following sentence by saying that it wasn't a kirpan, thus illegal |
Kirpans
Some kirpans fall under the definition of an offensive weapon to which section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies[footnote 19] (although a kirpan which is less than 50cm is not captured by the legislation). It is already a defence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to possess such a sword in public for religious reasons to ensure that a person of Sikh faith can possess a kirpan. It was similarly a defence to the offence under section 141 of the 1988 Act where such conduct was for the purposes of use in religious ceremonies. This defence applies to possession in private, and this section modifies the defence extending it from “religious ceremonies” to “religious reasons”[footnote 20].
Section 47 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 now provides a new defence to the offence of possession in private for Sikhs possessing such swords for the purposes of presenting them to others at a religious ceremony or other ceremonial event and for the recipients, whether they are a Sikh or not, to possess swords that they have been presented with. It also provides a defence for the ancillary acts where they are for that end purpose e.g. the manufacture and sale, act of giving etc. This ensures the act of ceremonial gifting of the Sikh kirpan can occur lawfully.
https://www.gov.uk/government/
I look forward to receiving my apology - there is no limit on the size of a sheathed blade a Sikh may carry for religious reasons [Post edited 2 Jun 15:56]
| | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:56 - Jun 2 with 630 views | PhilTWTD |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:12 - Jun 2 by DanTheMan |
You just threw a link out without answering the actual question, then got frustrated when someone wanted to clarify where in the document it says what you said it says, or I guess whatever ChatGPT told you it says. |
As pointed out by other users, this poster seems to be a troll, posting only on these sorts of issue. Gone. |  | | |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:59 - Jun 2 with 581 views | redrickstuhaart |
| "I can't breathe" on 15:43 - Jun 2 by positivity |
the very next sentence in your link, she says that it wasn't a kirpan, (therefore illegal to carry), and wasn't sheathed (therefore an illegal weapon), so she seems confused like a lot of conservatives on this issue! |
Indeed.
This was not the normal or typical Kirpan.
Though there appears to be a degree of ambiguity in the current laws about that- which could presumably be amended by limiting the length of a permissible Kirpan. The sentencing remarks suggest that the Judge took the view that it might be permissible - but that depends on intent and purpose. He doesn't need to reach a conclusion on that because as soon as it was unsheathed, it ceased to be for religous purposes anyway, and the charges laid were far more severe than simple possession, so that point presumably did not need to be finessed.
That said it was irrelevant in this case. The bloke was obsessed with weapons, and took a much larger one out, and unsheathed it, at which point it was an offensive weapon regardless of religous issues.
Kirpans are not an issue. I would be intrigued to see knife crime per 100 people amongst the Sikh as opposed to other communities. I suspect it is relatively low. [Post edited 2 Jun 16:04]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
