The columns of our newspapers and our feeds on social media have been filled with the debate about the political issues raised by the tragic murder of Southampton student Henry Nowak. Nowak was stabbed five times by Vickrum Digwa in December 2025, and Digwa was convicted this week. The case has raised emotive issues—but before reflecting on those, we need to pause to remember his family, their loss, and the terrible way that knife crime both takes and breaks lives.
Before you read on, please pause to pray for Henry Nowak’s family in their loss, and in the reminder of that loss again this week.
But we do indeed need to reflect on the issues that this murder and trial has raised, not least to understand the political issues around it. Dom Helda Camara, the South American Catholic bishop, once said ‘When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.’ In other words, good understanding is actually part of exercising compassion.
The pertinent events are as follows. There was some sort of altercation between Digwa and Nowak in Belmont Road in the Portswood area of Southampton, which is not far from the university (I lived in St Mary’s, slightly further away, when doing my MSc at the university). In the course of the altercation, Digwa stabbed Nowak five times in the face and chest with an eight-inch blade, which he held illegally (this was nothing to do with the small symbolic kirpan that Sikhs are allowed by law to carry).
As Nowak lay dying, Digwa’s brother, Gurpreet Digwa, called the police on 999. Reports of the call and subsequent court proceedings state that Gurpreet told the operator that he and his brother had been the victims of a racial attack. According to Hampshire Police, the caller reported an assault on Vickrum Digwa, but did not disclose that Henry Nowak had been stabbed and denied that weapons had been used. He claimed that they had been victims of a racist assault.
We’re Sikhs, and we wear turbans, and he has attacked my brother.
The police arrived believing they were responding to an assault rather than a stabbing. (I thought I read somewhere that another person had made a 999 call, reporting a stabbing, but cannot now find that.) Vickrum Digwa himself then spoke to police officers at the scene, repeating allegations that Henry Nowak had racially abused and assaulted him. (Those claims were rejected by the jury when it convicted him of murder.)
You can watch what then happened because the body cam footage of one of the officers has been published. Be warned: it is deeply traumatic to watch. I found it very upsetting.
Nowak is on the ground, immobile, behind a car. The police have to pull him out from behind the car in order to handcuff him. As they do so, he manages to say ‘I’ve been stabbed.’ After a cursory glance, the police officer replies ‘I don’t think you have mate.’ At the same time, Digwa tries to show the police a supposed bruise above his eye as evidence of his claim of assault.
Soon afterwards, the police realise that there is a problem with Nowak; they unhandcuff him, and give CPR, but Nowak dies soon afterwards.
Even from the short video, I found what was going on quite shocking. Why would the police handcuff someone who was on the ground, clearly in distress, and posing no threat? You might argue that, on occasion, the police have to make split-second decisions, and in the heat of the moment, they can get it wrong. But there was no urgency here; this was not in the middle of an ongoing dispute.
I asked a former police officer friend for his view, and he commented:
When I was in, no way you handcuff anyone until
1) they have been arrested (because you’ve established the facts & it needs to happen to deprive someone of their liberty is not to be taken lightly)
2 ) they are then posing a threat to you themselves or others & you can’t otherwise restrain them
This is the result of bad training and (it appears) presumption of who was the victim and who was the perpetrator.
And other (former) police offers have commented online (in a police-interest group):
I served as police officer for some years the inexcusable action here was to cuff the person without first checking properly for knife wounds, whether victim as in this case or offender they should gave checked for his injuries, there appeared to be enough officers in attendance.
“Any application of handcuffs must be strictly lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Officers must have objective grounds to believe the person will escape, harm themselves, or harm others. Handcuffing cannot be used as a matter of routine”
I’m ex police. I do struggle with the fact that, regardless of what was being said by people at the scene, the first thing would have been checking the welfare of the man on the ground, taking personal safety into consideration, but establishing his condition would be a priority. He may have been faking illness or drunk, but in checking that, it would have revealed his injuries, which would then have turned the tables on the accuser, and although it would probably not have saved Henrys life, it would have diminished the immense grief and stress that this case has brought.
One also cited what I think is a police training manual:
Legal Justification
The Law: Handcuffing is legally considered a form of assault unless it is justified. Officers rely on powers like Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to justify the force.Reasonable Grounds: An officer must have an objective basis for handcuffing. This usually requires proof of a real risk of violence or escape, or the need to prevent the destruction of evidence.
An additional layer of the puzzle is this: Digwa was known to the police, since he had been arrested in 2023 on suspicion of stealing a cache of illegal knives. The question arises, why did the police here act so far out of line with not only police training but also basic common sense? And what role did the claim of a racist attack play in this scenario?
Commentator Konstantin Kisin believes he knows the answer:
The answer, if you’re willing to look at it honestly, is this: a new form of racism. A bureaucratic racism. An actually institutionalised racism. A racism so thoroughly laundered through the language of progress and inclusion that the people enforcing it genuinely believe they are on the right side of history.
What else do you call a system in which a dying teenager’s word counts for less than his killer’s because of the colour of their skin?
The reason that he says that is because of the Police Anti-Racism Commitment that they put in place, partly in response to the McPherson report of 1999 following the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, but more recently in response to the Black Lives Matter campaign following the killing of George Floyd in the States.
The key part of the document says this:
Our commitment to racial equity means
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).
I had an interesting discussion about this online with a friend who is a suffragan bishop. He had posted that he supported Keir Starmer’s rebuke to Nigel Farage about making this a political issue. The curious thing here is that Starmer was indeed himself making it a political issue in rebuking Farage! And Starmer had no hesitation in making political capital after George Floyd’s death, posting pictures of himself ‘taking the knee’ with other Labour leaders. What was also interesting is that this bishop had posted on the politics of this without actually doing the homework to understand the issue. When I commented that all Farage was doing was pointing out the problem with police policy, which creates a ‘two-tier’ system for dealing with different ethnic groups, he asked me for the evidence, and I posted the quotation above from the PARC.
In the further discussion, the question arose as to what this statement (read in context) actually means. The bishop concerned claimed it simply meant taking cultural context into account. But that is clearly not the case.
For one, the comment is explicit: we will not treat all people the same, regardless of ethnicity (‘race’). We will actually treat people differently on the basis of their ethnicity. That is what Farage means by ‘two-tier policing’ and the police document is quite explicit about that. This is why the police have now said explicitly that this policy document must be changed.
And it goes further in explaining what that means. They seek to produce ‘equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups’ and this is expanded with a subheading lower down the document.
Our commitment calls for overall improvements in policing outcomes alongside an end to racial disparities in those outcomes, however seemingly impossible both may be…
- The likelihood of people being criminalised by the police
One of the features of our criminal justice system is that different ethnic groups are convicted of crimes at different rates—I was struck by the fact that the initial BBC report on the conviction of Digwa actually mentioned this differential upfront as part of their report. The goal of the police anti-racism policy here is explicitly to see few people from ethnic minorities convicted—by means of differential treatment of the groups.
I read this policy out to a friend who is an experienced barrister, and he had two responses. First, he had never heard of this—and indeed, the document has not been publicised widely at all. Secondly, he said that this was, in all likelihood, illegal, since it displaces the core principle of law that all are treated with equality, not with ‘equity’. Equality means that the same process is applied to all; equity means that you adjust the processes you apply in order to create the same outcome.
In other words, the goal here is not that different groups should be policed so that the crime rates are equal, but the justice process should be adjusted so conviction rates become equal. What is remarkable is that this approach very nearly led to a proposal to introduce different sentencing guidelines for different ethnic groups—until Shabana Mahmoud stepped in to block it.
So where has this approach come from? Allister Heath calls this ‘anti-white racism’, and connects it directly with the ideology of Critical Race Theory. He first notes that it is a direct contradiction of the famous dictum of Martin Luther King:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
The PARC specifically rejects this by saying that they will not be ‘colour blind’.
Labour and Tories alike were adopting the nostrums of critical race theory (CRT), a far-Left, anti-white, post-modern ideology incompatible with Western civilisation.
Often dubbed “wokery”, CRT rejects the existence of objective reality (racism is in the eye of the beholder), of rationalism (evidence and proof are not required), of universalism (race is essentialised) and of any possibility of progress.
Western societies are deemed racist by definition, hotbeds of power imbalances and exploitation, even if nobody is actually racist. Intent is irrelevant: non-white minorities are inevitably oppressed by the white majority (which also includes Jews and other “white-adjacent” groups). The “power dynamics” are rigged.
King is viewed as a victim of Marxist false consciousness, a useful idiot for the “white supremacist” camp (anybody that disagrees with wokery), a traitor even. His colour-blind ideal is dismissed as a tool to perpetuate “systemic inequity”. Any “disparate impact” from any policy – such as laws against shoplifting – on different racial groups is deemed proof of discrimination. All differential outcomes are bad.
CRT rejects equality for “equity”, which must be imposed through re-education and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes.
The result? Instead of arguing that race should be irrelevant, our companies, schools and police have become more race conscious. We were told that real justice required differential treatment. Rather than requiring immigrants to join British society, the UK’s deficiencies were highlighted. Instead of promoting on merit, there was a push for “reverse” discrimination.
What is fascinating here is to trace not only the language of rejecting being ‘colour blind’ but also the language of ‘institutional racism’ back to this ideology.
But while well-intentioned, correct about prejudice within the police and useful in many ways, Macpherson made two fatal concessions to CRT that continue to plague policing today.
It described the police not as infected by a racist culture, which it was, but as “institutionally racist”, a woke technical term coined by Stokely Carmichael (aka, Kwame Ture) and Charles Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation. The term implies acceptance of CRT’s nonsense, including that racism against whites is impossible; Carmichael was a rabid anti-Semite (“The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist,” he said) and a racial separatist.
The second error was to adopt the view that a racist incident was “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. Yes, this meant police could no longer ignore prejudice, but that wasn’t the right way of achieving such a necessary change.
You can see the direct impact of this in the Digwa-Nowak case: the behaviour of the police here appears to have been completely framed by their absolute belief in the claim of Digwa, because he has mention the R word.
Lord Tony Sewell, who was appointed chair of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, makes the link quite directly:
What was clear in the Henry Nowak tragedy was that the word “racism” was simply ringing in the ears of the officers. No one appeared to assess the situation with any kind of objectivity, for fear of appearing racist or colluding with racism.
How has this mindset entered the police force? Well, a pamphlet published last year offers a clue. It purports to examine systemic racism within the Metropolitan Police Service and was commissioned by the Met itself from the consultancy HR Wired.
Entitled “30 Patterns of Harm: a Structural Review of Systemic Racism within the London Metropolitan Police Service”, the aim of the report was to highlight and challenge alleged anti-black racism within the police force. Its tone is divisive: it views policing only in the context of white supremacy.
This text is just one amid many in recent years that see “whiteness” as inherently problematic – a consequence of the sinister ideas of critical race theory (CRT) imported from America.
As Kisin comments:
I want to be precise here, because precision matters. I am not saying that the officers who attended the scene that night are bad people, or that they set out to let Henry Nowak die. I believe, in fact, the opposite: that they were following the spirit of their training, and of the culture that had been built around them, in good faith, over years. The problem is not the individuals. The problem is the system that produced them — a system that taught them, in effect, that an allegation of racism is a trump card that overrides normal investigative procedure, normal medical common sense, and normal human judgement.
And this has been painfully evident in other prominent cases, involving both the police and the social services.
Mental health professionals decided not to detain the Nottingham triple killer Valdo Calocane despite a violent incident in 2020, after they considered research that addressed the over-representation of young black men in custody, a public inquiry has been told.
The same disaster was true about the suicide bomber who detonated his home-made rucksack bomb, packed with thousands of nuts and bolts, murdering 22 bystanders and injuring hundreds more at an Ariana Grande concert.
A security guard had a “bad feeling” when he saw Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi but did not approach him for fear of being branded a racist, a public inquiry has heard.
And it applied in the Rochdale grooming gangs scandal.
Sara Rowbotham was an NHS sexual health coordinator in Rochdale. Between 2005 and 2011 she filed 181 detailed referrals to Greater Manchester Police and social services. Each one named victims. Each one described systematic rape and trafficking of girls as young as 11. Each one went nowhere. She was not ignored because the evidence was weak. She was ignored because the evidence was inconvenient. Authorities labelled her not credible. Her team was dismissed. The official reason given for inaction was community cohesion.
And the same has been true in education.
Axel Rudakubana’s head teacher was accused of racially stereotyping him by pointing out the risk he posed, and the risk assessment was then watered down. Rudakubana went on to stab and kill three young girls.
And here is another from social services—the murder of Sara Sharif, which might have been prevented:
Sara Sharif was murdered by her father and stepmother after a professional who may have “feared causing offence” failed to question why she was wearing a hijab that hid her injuries, a damning review has found. The report, commissioned by the Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership, found that “race was a bar to reporting possible child abuse” and “professionals never explored how [her Pakistani heritage] impacted on Sara”.
Racist anti-racism has distorted judgement and, tragically, cost lives.
What does all this have to do with the Church of England? Two brief things.
First, wouldn’t be wonderful if we could speak convincingly into all this, without having a political axe to ground—but offering the good news that all humanity is created in the image of God, and the central hope of the gospel is that God shows no partiality? The problem is that we cannot, with credibility, because we have not lived this out. Instead of being able to speak to this, we are hamstrung—because we have walked down exactly the same path as the police have done, only not as effectively.
I remember where I was sitting in General Synod when Justin Welby stood up and claimed (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever) that the Church was ‘institutionally racist’. Instead of drawing on the good news of God’s impartial love for all, he decided to buy into this racist anti-racism of CRT just as the police have done. The only saving grace here is that no-one is likely to die as a result.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly on this blog, the Church’s approach to issues of race is simply going to exacerbate the problems, increase frustration, and continue to create divisions. Even now, we have dioceses spending money that is not needed and is not based on evidence. And it all sprang from a report, From Lament to Action, which includes absurd quotas, poorly researched proposals, and makes the extraordinary claim that the ‘theological foundations of the Church of England’ are racist.
Until we get our own house in order, then as a Church we are going to have little to say to the crisis of racist anti-racism in our culture. And we appear to be a long way off even beginning to do that.
For further theological and practical resources in this area, do read my posts on:
A theological and practical critique of Black Theology
Ethnic and cultural diversity in the early church
Why ‘From Lament to Action’ is a disaster for the Church of England
Why God’s impartiality could be seen as the heart of the gospel
Why spending on racial justice offices is a damaging waste of money
What makes for Black Success in Britain today?
See also other articles here by John Root
(Dear reader, I had intended to write something of quite a different shape, exploring the issues in the Church of England more fully—and also noting that racial discrimination is a serious issue, but that racist anti-racism is completely the wrong way to address this. But I have found I needed to take more time to explore the details of the case. I look forward to intelligent, objective, and respectful debate in the comments…!)
Buy me a Coffee
You neglect to point out that the police HAVE been found, repeatedly, to be institutionally racist. This sad incident is an inevitable attempt to correct that, however ineptly applied in this case. And your implicit support for Farage, who does not intend a careful dialogue but to inflame his far-right base, is beneath you. I enjoy most of your blogs but this insight into your thinking worries me…
Thanks for commenting Frank. Two things.
First, the language of ‘institutionally racist’ is part of CRT. That has been demonstrated beyond doubt. What has been demonstrated is that the police have hah a deep culture which is racially biased. We must distinguish between fact and ideology.
Secondly, I show ‘implicit support’ for Nigel Farage because I point out that he has said something which is true? Really? If Farage says ‘the sky is blue’ do I have to disagree with him to make clear I don’t support him?
And do you know how many Anglicans vote Reform…?
Yes, and shame on them, Ian. Christian support for populists like Farage and Trump is a stain on the contemporary church.
Frank, which of Farage’s or rather Reform’s policies do you take issue with?
“institutional racism” predates CRT. I think in another comment you suggest that Macpherson borrowed it from CRT. It’s perhaps better to say that both CRT and Macpherson borrowed it. Using the term does not in itself equal the ideology. Terms such as systemic, structural or institutional racism seem to be as good as any to describe “a deep culture which is racially biased.” We might as Christians simply call it idolatry I guess. And if we recognise the deep seated nature of that, we can also recognise that attempts to correct that do not create an institutional racism in the opposite direction. We can do that whilst still questioning the wisdom of some measures. It seems that affirmative actions have at times alienated officers rather than winning hearts and minds. I think that has been particularly so when it has made it impossible for people who want to join the police finding it impossible because they don’t meet a quota. This however isn’t really relevant to the Henry Nowak case.
“Far Right” Reform is a long way to the left of the mainstream Conservatism that held sway for two decades not long ago. Knee-jerk pigeon-holing (and thereby dismissing) people and groups is just what the suffragan bishop in the article did.
Exactly
The police should treat everyone equally in line with Christian principles as Kemi Badenoch said and as the article implies. Farage’s words though that people should respond with ‘pure cold rage’ was not the response expected of a potential future PM
Yes, I thought Kemi Badenoch’s was the best comment on this made by a politician. Don’t make political hay, but do let’s ditch this racist anti-racism.
Agreed
Farage has 10000s of positions. Is what you are saying that every single one of them should be opposed? For example – if he believes in gradated taxation, should we oppose that? It is difficult to understand your point. Is your point that we should be tribal and therefore pretend that we disagree with every single thing a person says, even when they are saying things that are obvious and that everyone agrees with? Surely that would be lying on our part?
Having policed the inner city areas of London for 30 years from the mid 1980s, I can confidently say that the problem is that modern policing is ignoring Robert Peel’s thoughts on the matter. Consent is not achieved by doing the popular thing but by being seen to consistently do the right thing. The police have spent the last 20 years trying to be popular with certain vociferous sections of society, rather than doing the right thing for all sections of society.
Thanks Charlie. I think you have put your finger on it.
The first thing to say is that the murder of Stephen Lawrence brought to the surface a racist culture in the (Met) Police that had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, the massive over-reaction, driven by Marxist politics, has led to where we are now.
The author eloquently and clearly demonstrates the triumph of equity over equality, and he also shows how the church (in common with all Establishment powers) buys into London elite values.
It frustrates me that my diocese (Liverpool) is financially shattered but is still able to employ various racism awareness staff and provide racism awareness training and events in a region where racial tolerance and cohesion is well-understood and lived out.
I think Nigel Farage’s choice of words was deliberately inflammatory and unhelpful, but the bishop’s dismissal of him, and support for Keir Starmer, was not thought-out (as demonstrated by the author) but a knee-jerk reaction to both Starmer and Farage that is all too common amongst the clergy elite. In this respect, this article highlights the broader problem we have with our church leaders – one that is depressingly familiar for regular readers of this site.
The news on BBC Tv yesterday evening had the most detailed description of what happened that had been published on mainstream media that I’d come across, including body cam footage. It was indeed disturbing.
I’ ll withhold from commenting further, even though I have experience of both prosecuting and defending criminal cases, as the article sets out the law. The full facts are not known.
However, CRT is but one outworking, expression of Critical Theory, the Frankfurt school, Marcuse et al, which has been embraced and applied in revisionist teaching and activism in the CoE, and other denominatations, let alone acedemia and politics, the PPE, triad.
Critical theory is not a theory at all. It is an excuse for political advocacy of a particular sort, and is called a theory because it came out of university humanities faculties. Don’t dignify it with the term.
I think it is interesting that some senior Labour figures are starting to see this. Watching BBC Question time last night, l was surprised to hear Andy Burnham agreeing with much of the sentiments in this article.
The performance of the Green Party woman trying to gloss over the anti-semitic comments of her colleagues was contemptible.
Being white in the country is becoming a liability.
……….and the more that white people feel oppressed and discriminated against – especially those who don’t have the platform or intellect to speak out for themselves – the more likely we are to end up with the far-right government that Frank Hinds (above) articulates – one that goes way beyond Reform and possibly even democracy itself.
Agreed.
Yes – this is the big danger
Yes. This was a thoughtful article and I agree that the problem David Sherman outlines is the danger the country now faces.
as a white person I can honestly say I dont feel like Im becoming a liability or being discriminated against because I am white.
Much nonsense is being talked.
Your lofty disdain is reprehensible, given the appalling circumstances of the death of young white man
Im reflecting my own experience. Sorry if that doesnt fit with your mindset.
Well, good for you.
So the fact that, as a white man, police training manuals can note that you “have no protected characteristics” does not even slightly concern you?
Or that your son has no chance of obtaining a training post at the BBC or many other state establishments?
Or that a senior left-wing commentator can, without any shame or rebuke, openly air her fervent wish that you and all others like you “would just disappear”?
Two of my sons have been turned down for careers (in the police and teaching) because at the time they applied only non-whites and females were being accepted.
strange, a young graduate relative of mine got a good post with the BBC straight out of university. And yes, he’s white.
and he’s been promoted since.
“An actually institutionalised racism.”
Hold on. Let’s be clear about the implications of such a conclusion.
Since the MacPherson Report, many people argued that institutional racism is a myth. For example: https://www.spiked-online.com/2017/09/11/lammy-review-the-myth-of-institutional-racism/
Now, the tragic death of a young white man somehow reverses the principled opposition to the term.
If that’s the case, it would be ludicrous to believe that institutional racism only ceases to be a myth when white people are its victims.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can indeed have it both ways. It possible to say… “institutional racism targeted at black people does not exist in the police… AND… institutional racism targeted at white people does exist in the police.” Both of those statements can be logically true and rationally held at the same time.
I spent 22 years working as a police officer in Metropolitan Police. I can say with absolutely certainty that however bad the problem is believed to be, it is significantly worse. I could list so many examples of open and widespread discrimination that it would take me all week to write it all down. The issue is particularly egregious when it comes to white males. I have a special interest in this… because I am one, and so are both my children. I have seen open days where white men were excluded, internships where white men were excluded, mentoring schemes where white men were excluded, promotion coaching where white men were excluded. In 2023 the Commissioner approached the Home secretary to ask for a dispensation to stop recruiting white people in order to achieve diversity targets. When I challenged this I was told that I needed to go on a ‘diversity course.’ I saw internal communications recommending that police officers be encouraged to read books such as ‘White Fragility’ and ‘Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race.’ The Met has a large Orwellian department “The Diversity Directorate” whose sole aim seemed to be to propagandise the force. I worked in an office where a female Commander had a sign on her desk that read, “On the first day God created man. On the second day he had a better idea.” She had a mug on her desk that said, “I’m not doing anything for a man today.” A complaint was made.. do you think the sign or the mug were taken down or removed? Of course not. There they stayed, and may well still be there. That is the culture in the Met.
I would seriously recommend you do three things after reading this. One: Go and watch the apology Alexis Boon gave to the family of the convicted drug drug dealer and would-be assassin Mark Duggan after he was shot. Two: Watch the apology Alexis Boon gave to the family of the completely innocent Henry Nowak. Three: spend some honest time reflecting on the difference between the two apologies. Then you might gain some proper insight into how deep the problem is, and how ideologically captured some of our police leaders actually are.
I’d also recommend digging out Channel 4’s The Met: Policing London — Series 1, Episode 5 (“In the Line of Fire”). In it you will see the Gold Group meeting that was convened during the inquest into Mark Duggan’s fatal shooting. You will see the look of absolute horror mixed with fear and blind panic on the faces of all the senior officers as they learn that the firearms officer has been cleared.
There are serious problems with policing and we must never be afraid to point them out. After the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the police underwent root and branch reform. It was necessary. Now it is time for more root and branch reform. Everyone, regardless of background or identity, needs to support it.
Wow. Thank you for this powerful perspective Kevin.
Agreed!
You’re now using “institutional racism” in a way that directly contradicts the position you defended earlier.
If the concept is “CRT’s nonsense” when applied to minorities, then it can’t suddenly become a valid analytical category when the alleged victims are white. Either institutional racism is a coherent structural concept that applies universally, or it isn’t a valid concept at all.
What you’ve described in your examples, such as discriminatory schemes, biased leadership, inconsistent standards, may well be unfair or unlawful. But that is not the same thing as institutional racism in the Macpherson sense, which refers to systemic processes that produce racialised disadvantage regardless of intent.
If you want to argue that the Met is structurally biased against white men, then you need to apply the same evidentiary standard you demanded when rejecting claims of institutional racism against minorities.
Otherwise, the term is being redefined on the fly depending on who the victim is. That’s just self-serving self-contradiction.
David, when McPherson used the term ‘institutional racism’, he was borrowing ideological language from critical race theory.
There was no actual institutional statement which said ‘You must treat people differently according to their ‘race’ (ethnicity).’ What there was was a rotten and deep-seated bias in behaviour amongst many police officers which result in unfair treatment of some ethnic minorities—a culture leading to differential treatment. McPherson borrowed ideological language to describe that.
What we *now* have is an actual statement, from the centre of the institution, that different racial (that is, ethnic) groups *should* be treated differently *on the basis of their race (ethnicity)*.
I think it is a fair description—not an ideological one—to call that ‘institutional racism’.
If you now want to define institutional racism strictly as “an explicit directive to treat racial groups differently”, that’s fine. however, that isn’t the definition you relied on when dismissing Macpherson. Back then, the argument was that the whole concept was ideological, not that the evidence didn’t meet a written‑policy threshold.
You can’t reject the category as CRT when it’s applied to minorities, then treat it as a neutral descriptive term when a later policy affects white people. Either the concept is valid and race‑neutral, or it isn’t.
That’s the specific inconsistency that I’m pointing out.
Ah this is the quote – the term predates CRT, both borrowed from the original term. The problem here is that you are assuming that differential treatment is “racist”. There are two errors here. First, that equality of outcomes is about something that there is competition over. If I set things up so that everyone finishes a race at the same time then I’m ensuring that kind of equality of outcome. However, if equality of outcome is ensuring that all receive justice then that’s nothing to do with competition. A parent will differentiate what they feed their children. A teacher will differentiate. In fact, that’s been the big point, if you want boys to close the grading gap then you will have to treat them differently to girls. If you want me as someone with a visual impairment to be included fully in sung worship then you might want to check if I need different provision of words and so on.
Kevin Park’s account of his own experience spells out what I have been sensing for a long time: the corruption of the morale of British policing by a deliberate effort to marginalise and drive out white Christian heterosexual men and to encourage the recruitment and promotion of more blacks, Asians, Muslims and lesbians.
This has been a longtime aim of the left – I recall their attacks on the police in the 1980s, when the police were seen as the agents of the right and Margaret Thatcher.
Once Labour were in power, the police went out of their way to promote Pride, and the zenith of political interference was their failure to deal with grooming gangs, and their Stasi-like behaviour during Covid.
However, while there are now plenty of Asian cops, my impression is that efforts to recruit more black British have not succeeded as much.
In other words, the police have become the playthings of the politicians, and the public has been hurt.
David,
This is really not the moment to be defending non white racial grievance politics.
A young white man has been murdered and left to die in handcuffs because he was white.
Those who deliberately or inadvertently promulgate CRT need to fall silent for a time as matter of basic human decency.
Perhaps we all do.
John,
Read Kevin Park’s shocking account of relentless racism against white men. Are you seriously suggesting he needs to be silent.
Please, John, raise your comments to the level of events.
Peter,
My comment was in support of coherence. It is incoherent to describe the Police Anti-Racism Commitment as “actually institutionalised racism”, and simultaneously denouncing the term, institutionalised racism, as ‘CRT’s nonsense’.
David,
Your analysis is with merit. You have simply mangled what has been said to produce a false claim of incoherence.
It is perfectly obvious what is being claimed and it is entirely coherent.
Peter,
Your assertions are forthright. But they just beg the question, rather than provide a reasoned argument.
David,
You constantly produce elaborate “critical” analysis of the statements of others and then appear to think you have set the frame for the discussion which follows.
David, you entirely miss the point on key matters. It is no good insisting you are not satisfied with the semantic calibre of the responses and that is the issue.
Anti white racism is a feature of public and sometimes private life in this country. That is the issue.
Please stop talking past it
You’re doing it again: shifting the topic rather than engaging with the argument.
I’m not “setting the frame”; I’m pointing out a basic logical point you keep sidestepping. You can’t dismiss institutional racism as an ideological CRT construct when it’s applied to minorities, and then treat it as a neutral descriptive category when you think it applies to white people. That’s an inconsistency in your use of the term, not a semantic quibble.
Whether anti‑white racism exists is a separate question. I haven’t denied it. I’ve simply noted that definitions are being swapped depending on the predetermined conclusion.
If you want to discuss anti‑white racism, the do that. But no-one, mid‑conversation, should be able to co-opt the self-same term that they previously denounced and then dismiss my calling out of that verbal legerdemain as “missing the point”.
I’m afraid that’s how David frequently operates: he gets fixated on his own understanding of some secondary point and then fails repeatedly to interact with the central issue, so he tries to play a ‘gotcha’ game instead.
He was like this in the discussion on ‘Reparations’ when he ignored all the historical points raised by historians about the (non-)involvement of the Church Commissioners in slavery and got lost in some weeds about Israel and the Nazis and ‘the impossibility of reparations’ – showing that he wasn’t following the discussion.
The same thing is happening here, where he can’t interact with the very real facts that Kevin Parks has set forth.
David,
What on earth are you talking about. You have made up an elaborate line of argument that is not only incomprehensible but completely irrelevant.
Nobody has “co-opted” or “denounced” anything. Please do not now take us on some magical mystery tour round your analysis of grammar and vocabulary.
For goodness sake, give it a rest. A young white man has been murdered in handcuffs because he was white. Show some decency.
You’re both doing the same thing: attacking my motives so you don’t have to engage with the argument.
Pointing out a category error isn’t a “gotcha game”; it’s basic reasoning. Kevin Parks’ stories are still anecdotal: individual experiences, however sincerely reported.
Anecdotal doesn’t mean “false”; it means “not sufficient to establish an institutional pattern.”
Repeating them in chorus doesn’t change their evidential status.
By contrast, the systemic failures I cited (multiple officers, at multiple levels, repeatedly departing from their own procedures in racially patterned ways) are institutional. That’s the difference you keep refusing to acknowledge.
And no, I’m not going to be shamed into silence because a white victim is involved.
After decades of Black people dying in custody, the sudden demand that I “show some decency” by abandoning analytical clarity is not a moral argument. It’s an emotional guilt-trip.
If you want to discuss the murder, fine.
But don’t pretend that your contempt for me for being precise somehow turns anecdote into system or inconsistency into coherence.
was it because he was white or because of incompetent individual police officers? I couldnt watch the whole video, too awful. But I found it very odd that they didnt take immediate action when they heard him say ‘Ive been stabbed’.
Given the initial 999 call which brought the police to the scene was an alleged racist attack by a white person, I can understand some confusion. But still.
2. On anecdote vs pattern
Peter,
He was handcuffed and arrested on suspicion of racism on the basis of a lie told by non white people.
Are you suggesting the police would have arrested a non white person accused by another non white person of racism ?
It was because he was white – stop obfuscating
He was arrested not for a report of racism but because of a report of physical assault.
Your argument is with Konstantin Kisin and Stuff’s 2017 article, not this blog.
But an actual *written police policy* that says ‘Believe the claims of a minority racial or religious member before a white British person and give them priority in action’ is in fact the very definition of *institutionalised racism. The *institution is explicitly saying; ‘Prefer this race over another.’
The criticism of the judgment of the Macpherson report was that it was not based on any actual policy or directive but its impression of the existing *practices of the police, which it claimed were biased against black people. In other words, how people behave, not what they formerly profess.
And this is where the stupidity of using statistics so often comes into play. If more young black males proportionately are in prison in Britain for knife crime than young black Jewish men, what does that prove? That the police are turning a blind eye to the knife crime epidemic among British Jews? Er, I don’t think so.
Critical thinking, David.
Well, if the term, institutional racism, refers only to formal written policy, then you’ve just conceded that Macpherson was right to use it because the Met did have written policies and operational norms that produced racially disparate outcomes long before anyone coined “DEI”. You can’t retroactively redefine the term to shore up your preferred narrative.
If, on the other hand, you reject Macpherson because you believe institutional racism must be demonstrated through formal directives, then, while that definition would imply that the Met was not institutionally racist against black people, it would also imply that anecdotal examples of exclusionary schemes, biased leadership, and ideological culture do not meet your own threshold for “institutional racism”. They may be discriminatory, but they are not structural in the sense you now require.
You can’t have a definition that expands when the victim is white and contracts when the victim is not.
As for your statistical aside: nobody serious claims that disproportionality alone proves institutional racism. Macpherson didn’t. The Lammy Review didn’t. The Sewell Report didn’t. That’s a straw man, and a tired one.
So the choice is simple. Either institutional racism is a valid analytic category, in which case it applies universally and consistently; or it’s a meaningless CRT invention, in which case you don’t get to resurrect it when it becomes rhetorically convenient.
Critical thinking indeed, James
David,
You constantly show an unerring instinct for getting the wrong end of the stick and then holding on to it tenaciously.
Which written Met policies produced “racially disparate outcomes”? Arresting people carrying knives or drugs? Arresting people involved in fights or shoplifting?
If you have an interaction with the police, it can usually only mean two things: either you’re a criminal or a victim of crime. Where do you expect the police to spend their time – at Sunday school picnics or Notting Hill Carnaval?
And what does ‘racially disparate outcomes’ mean? Not enough Jews and Chinese arrested as per their percentage in the country?
What does ‘operational norms’ mean?
If hundreds of mainly black teenage girls go on a shoplifting rampage through stores in Clapham Junction – as they did recently – and the police arrest a dozen who turn out to be black, is that ‘racially disparate’ because there were no white or Asian arrests?
If the majority of young males in London are black or South Asian or immigrant – and they are – are you at all surprised that they are the ones who are mainly arrested for drug offences, robberies, rape and other offences against the person?
Look at the prison population of England and Wales and you will see straight away that Jews and Chinese are “under-represented”. Why is that? Because, by and large, their young men are *not committing violent crimes and robberies.
Your second paragraph is confused and mistaken. Kevin Parks’ details about the Met are true and consistent with what has happened across the country and you have not grasped what he was saying. It isn’t anecdotal at all.
David Shepherd writes:
“As for your statistical aside: nobody serious claims that disproportionality alone proves institutional racism.”
Oh yes, they do. You hear it all the time from journalists ‘on a mission’: ‘If you’re black, you’re twice as likely to be stopped by the police’ is the one I heard most recently.
The misuse of statistics is the No. 1 tool the racial grievance lobby reaches for – and few people on TV have the nous to challenge this propaganda. But voices on the internet do.
You’ve gone off on a tangent. None of your examples about crime patterns or arrest rates relate to the thrust of my argument.
You rejected institutional racism as an ideological CRT construct when it was applied to minorities. Now you’re treating it as a neutral, descriptive category when a later policy disadvantages white people. That’s the inconsistency.
If you want to define institutional racism strictly as “an explicit directive to treat racial groups differently,” then do that…but that definition applies universally.
That also mean that an explicit directive to treat employees differently based on disability type (e.g., HR policy stating: “workplace adjustments will be provided only for physical disabilities”) would fall foul of your amended definition. According to the threshold of a formal directive, that policy would be institutional discrimination against the able-bodied and mentally impaired.
“Institutional” doesn’t become meaningful only when the affected group is white, and meaningless when the affected group is not.
That’s the specific point I’m making, and you haven’t addressed it.
(BTW, in referring to examples as anecdotal, I’m not declaring them to be false. I’m merely indicating that those observed experiences may not amount institutional racism, if the latter must be demonstrated through formal directives).
‘You rejected institutional racism as an ideological CRT construct when it was applied to minorities. Now you’re treating it as a neutral, descriptive category when a later policy disadvantages white people. That’s the inconsistency.’
No, it is a construct when it is not actually true, and there is no stated institutional commitment to racial discrimination.
Now there is.
(Seeing as you’ve returned to your penchant for not addressing me directly in a reply)
James Thomson writes:
“Oh yes, they do. You hear it all the time from journalists ‘on a mission’: ‘If you’re black, you’re twice as likely to be stopped by the police’ is the one I heard most recently.”
That’s a red herring. While some commentators misuse disproportionality as if it were self‑evident proof of institutional racism, that has nothing to do with my argument about the definition of institutional racism itself.
That argument cannot be logically extrapolated to imply that I’m denying that journalists sometimes misuse statistics.
David:
You did not tell me what you meant by “racial disparity outcomes” or “operational norms”.
What does “racial disparity outcomes” mean with respect to policing?
What “operational norms” are you referring to?
Clarify what these vague officialese terms mean and we can maybe dialogue.
Ian,
That’s a post‑facto justification, rather than a rebuttal.
You never offered a principled definition of institutional racism before. Instead, you dismissed the entire category as an ideological CRT construct.
Only now, after a 2025 policy appears to fit the term, are you retro‑engineering a definition that conveniently rescues your earlier position.
You’re not applying a stable criterion. You’re changing the meaning of the term after the fact to make the conclusion come out the way you want.
That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out.
David, not at all. (Note that it is not me that has said this; it is Kisin). He is deploying the point ironically.
There was no institutional racism in 1999; though there was racism. The term comes directly from the ideology of CRT, as demonstrated.
Ironically, now there is in fact an institutional commitment to racist practice.
Do you think that is a good thing?
David:
I am still waiting for you to tell me what you mean by ‘racial disparity outcomes’ and ‘operational norms’ with reference to the Met.
What do you mean by these expressions?
Ian:
Er, no. That’s a revision to the history of your own position.
Your previous position wasn’t: “when it isn’t actually true, institutional racism amounts to a CRT construct.”
You said the category itself was ideological; that Macpherson imported it from CRT and that it had no descriptive value. At that time. you offered no alternative definition of the term, no criterion, no threshold. The concept was rejected wholesale.
Only now (after a 2025 policy appears to befit the rhetorical impact of term) are you retrofitting a definition that conveniently rescues your earlier dismissal. That’s post‑facto justification.
Whether the new policy is good or bad is a separate question.
My point is simply that you can’t deny the validity of a category in principle and then resurrect it when it suits your conclusion.
James,
You’re still confusing two different categories. Kevin Parks’ stories are by definition anecdotal, i.e., individual experiences, however sincerely reported.
Anecdotal doesn’t mean “false”; it means “not sufficient to establish the complete institutional pattern.” Repeating them more loudly doesn’t change their evidential status.
The reason that so many people are calling for an inquiry is to collate enough objective evidence to establish the complete pattern.
By contrast, the MacPherson Inquiry did show systemic bias: multiple officers, at multiple levels, repeatedly departing from their own procedures in racially biased ways. The “written policy” is the officially authorised scope for discretion resulting in consistent disadvantage to ethnic minorities, which is exactly what systemic means.
In a 2020 Psephizo post, I described how that officially authorised discretion can be exercised in a way that contradicts official policies on racial equality (https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/is-there-systemic-racism-in-britain-two-views-ii/).
I wrote:
“Contrary to standard police procedure and without any evidence, investigating officers on the scene assumed that Duwayne Brooks (Stephen Lawrence’s best friend and eyewitness to his horrific murder) had been in a fight with the victim. So, instead of treating him as a primary victim, the inspector completely dismissed his eye-witness description of one of the attackers.”
“Contrary to standard police procedure, at least five officers discounted statements by several informants and refused to follow up leads because they simply refused to accept that Lawrence’s murder could be racially motivated. Furthermore, the police liaison officers who were assigned to the family spent more time questioning visitors about why they needed to be at the family home than providing support to Stephen Lawrence’s bereaved parents.”
“A Detective Superintendent relied completely on police gossip as the basis for officially reporting that the Lawrence family were preventing the police from targeting suspects.”
I concluded: “While some of this bias arises from unconsciously harbouring negative racial stereotypes, there are three key hallmarks of this pervasive lack of critical scrutiny that allows bias to perpetuate:
It may result from normative deference to official authority, e.g. chain of command;
It is not necessarily confined to a specific race; and
It is not necessarily intentional.
That’s what I meant when I wrote: “the Met did have written policies and operational norms that produced racially disparate outcomes long before anyone coined “DEI”.
So no. I haven’t “got the wrong end of the stick.”
You can’t conflate anecdote with system as if they are the same thing. They aren’t.
For the fourth time of asking, David fails to tell us what he means by “racial disparity outcomes” and “operational norms”.
(I am not interested in getting into the weeds about the Macpherson report, as I have no opinion about it either way. I only want to know what David means by these expressions.)
James,
You’ve already been given clear definitions, and you’re now pretending not to understand them because it’s easier than engaging with the argument.
“Racially disparate outcomes” means outcomes in which one racial group is consistently disadvantaged relative to others, even when the formal rules are race‑neutral.
“Operational norms” means the actual patterns of behaviour produced by officers’ discretionary decisions, especially when those decisions repeatedly depart from official procedure in racially patterned ways.
The Lawrence case provides multiple documented examples of both.
Kevin Parks’ stories, by contrast, are individual experiences, which is why they are anecdotal.
If you want to disagree, fine. But repeatedly asking for definitions you’ve already been given isn’t a serious engagement; it’s just a ‘straw man’ way to avoid engaging with what I’ve written.
I’ll ignore your next
David,
I have gone back over the entire exchange and find that not once did you explain what you meant by “disparate racial outcomes’ (not “racially disparate outcomes” as you later revised it) or “operational norms”. Now you have finally said it means ‘treating people differently depending on their race’ and ‘not always following police procedures’.
To which I say; Eschew obfuscation.
As Peter H has said elsewhere on this thread, you set up what you think is a “critical” understanding of an issue, criticise other people’s terminology based on your own semantic quibble – and worst of all, completely miss the main point of what we are actually discussing, the policy and actions of British police toward white people in 2026 in the light of the murder of Henry Nowak. As you showed in your comments on Queen Anne’s Bounty and ‘Reparations’, you have an unerring instinct for getting the wrong end of the stick.
You have said nothing useful at all on the actual issue at hand – you have only tried to dismiss what Kevin Parks and other police have said as ‘anecdotal” when a clear pattern is now emerging of national police policy.
When I worked for the Met, a book list was published by the Diversity Directorate. It was a list of books that officers were encouraged to read. It was a who’s who of Marxists. One of the books on the list was Ibram X Kendi’s, “How to be an Anti-Racist.” Let’s hear from the horses mouth what that means in practice. On page 19 of his book we read:
“The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Police officers were being told to read this. Senior officers were reading it. We are now living downstream of it. You can split hairs over what we call this targeted racial and sexual discrimination. You can debate whether it is institutional or not institutional. You can debate whether it’s CRT or not CRT. What you can’t do, is say it isn’t happening, because it is, across all of our police forces.
Did you know that since January 2021 the Met operates a ‘Buddy scheme’ where new officers receive mentoring. It is not available to white males. Did you know that the Met has an annual diversity and inclusion awards ceremony where these schemes are incentivised and senior officers rewarded for them? Did you know the Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes said, and I quote… “I’ve been made a more determined ally by reading ‘Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race.'” Do you know that the police has internal forums where police officers and staff can debate these issues. One police officer said of recruitment into the Met – “We do not need more white males – clear from the data.” Not only is this obvious racism allowed to stand, it is cheerfully embraced at the highest levels. I have first hand experience of it and a mountain of evidence for it’s existence.
A male friend of mine was an Inspector. He went to hand in his application for Chief inspector. There was a room with about 30 female inspector’s in it listening to a female Commander. He asked what the meeting was. The answer? The female inspectors were being coached on how to pass the promotion board. Men were excluded.
I had a privately educated black officer who wanted to be a detective. He was given a Detective Superintendent as a mentor to support him through the process. I had a working class white officer on the same team who wanted to be a detective. He received no support. I could go on and on and on with this…
This does not mean that black people aren’t discriminated against in the police. I’m sure they are. But it is certainly the case that white males in the police are singled out for unfair treatment, and that this is embedded into the very system itself.
You’re now just misrepresenting what I’ve said.
1. On definitions
I didn’t “finally” define anything; I’ve been describing the distinction all along:
Racially disparate outcomes: where one racial group is consistently disadvantaged relative to others, even under formally race‑neutral rules.
•
Operational norms: the actual patterns of discretionary behaviour on the ground, especially when officers repeatedly apply accepted scope for discretion to depart from official procedures in racially biased ways.
That’s exactly what the Lawrence case showed in detail. You say you’re “not interested” in Macpherson, which is convenient, because it’s the clearest worked example of what I mean.
1. On anecdote vs pattern
Calling Parks’ accounts anecdotal is not a dismissal; it’s a category description. Individual testimonies, however sincere, are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish a national institutional pattern.
That’s precisely why people are calling for an inquiry: to move from anecdote to evidence.
You keep insisting there is already a “clear pattern of national police policy” while simultaneously refusing to engage with the one major public inquiry that actually documented such a pattern in the past. That’s not consistency; that’s cherry-picking.
If you want to talk seriously about “policy and actions of British police toward white people in 2026”, then you need more than outrage and repetition.
You need to join calls for an inquiry that would provide the same standard of evidence you’re so keen to ignore when it cuts the other way.
Again you have failed entirely to engage with the subject of this thread, the death of Henry Nowak in police custody because he was white. You seem to be living in 1993 and have no awareness of how things have changed. The Macpherson report was about police NOT keeping their own rules of impartiality, leading to anti-black racism. The Nowak case is about police KEEPING their new pro-minority prefrence rules, leading to anti-white racism. For some reason you can’t understand this point and kep obfuscating.
You fail to see that Nowak died *precisely because the police DID follow their new “operational norms” – to respond quickly to allegations of victimhood by a non-white person and to arrest and handcuff a young white man with no evidence at all, only an allegation from a Sikh man who, if they had checked their computer, would have seen at once was convicted in 2023 of knife offenses.
The Nowak incident is actually much worse than the police failures over Stephen Lawrence. In the Lawrence case, police malfeasance after a murder resulted in guilty men escaping punishment. In the Nowak case, policem following actual policy, punished an innocent man and may have prevented him from receiving life-saving treatment.
And again you have failed to grasp what Kevin Parks and others have said about how DEI and CRT ideas have permeated British policing – the Met, Hampshire, N Yorks, everywhere- and led to this crisis.
You are living in the 1990s, David, and that’s why you keep getting the wrong end of the stick (as you did over “reparations”).
James,
I think you are being too charitable to David Shepherd. It is clear to me he knows perfectly well we are not living in the 1990s.
He thinks rage in the face of the contempt with which white men are treated is just too bad. He believes white men need to just suck it up and accept it as their due.
He views us with contempt – it is that simple
James,
Let’s cut through all your ad homs that never got moderated.
Since you genuinely believe these examples already amount to more than anecdote, here is my direct question to you:
Do you think an independent inquiry is necessary?
If yes, then you’re conceding that we don’t yet have the full evidential picture and need systematic investigation. That’s exactly my point.
If no, then you’re asserting a national institutional pattern on the basis of amassed individual testimonies that have not been fully scrutinised for objective evidential significance, which is precisely why I’ve called them anecdotal.
So which is it?
You can’t have it both ways.
Either you accept the need for proper evidential scrutiny, or you admit you’re treating personal accounts as sufficient proof of a national policy.
Which is it?
David, arguing that ‘institutional racism’ is a myth is not the same as arguing that ‘racism is a myth.’
Ian,
Oh, I agree. And if the statement only went as far as saying: “The answer, if you’re willing to look at it honestly, is this: a new form of racism. A bureaucratic racism”, then I would not have taken issue with it.
Instead, the statement mentions “an actually institutionalised racism”.
It doesn’t make sense to have sought to discredit the notion of institutionalised racism (that systemic processes produce racialised disadvantage regardless of intent), only to affirm its reality for white people alone.
The difference is whether the institution states that it intends to treats people differently on the basis of their race.
It didn’t before.
Since this policy in 2025, it has.
That’s the different. That is what turns an ideological term into a description. I don’t think it is that complicated. But it is deeply ironic.
The issue isn’t whether racism can be expressed through explicit written policy. Of course, it can.
The issue is that you rejected the entire category of institutional racism as an ideological fiction when it was applied to minorities. The argument was not, “There is no written policy,” but “The whole concept is a CRT‑derived myth with no descriptive value.”
You can’t now rehabilitate the term simply because a 2025 policy disadvantages white people.
If you want to define institutional racism narrowly as “an institution formally stating it will treat racial groups differently”, then fine. But rhat definition applies universally.
It doesn’t suddenly become meaningful only when the policy disadvantages white Britons. And it also means that all the earlier claims about the term being incoherent, ideological, or analytically useless were mistaken.
That’s the inconsistency I’m highlighting. So, either reject the concept entirely, or accept that it is a race‑neutral analytic category.
What you can’t do is discredit it when it’s inconvenient and resurrect it when it’s rhetorically useful.
We have had too many examples of racism in the police force (the investigation into the Charing Cross police station is but the latest example) to believe it is not a serious problem. But what lies behind the problem? Merely individuals – a few ‘bad apples’? Or a wider (‘systemic’?) problem where racism is tolerated (thus police officers freely circulating pictures of the two black women who had been murdered on Barnhill, Wembley) so that it is an unchecked element in the overall approach – the ‘culture’ – of the police force.
The evidence is that the latter is the case. So training is necessary. But I think it is the case that the mistake with the police (as with the Church of England) is that the approach has been bureaucratic – setting targets, quotas, equal outcomes; rather than personal and relational – challenging attitudes, listening closely to minorities, rigorous self-examination, as well as recognising that as white people we have a heritage marked by the most gross racial injustice.
(I plan to cover this topic more in my blog ‘Out of Many, One People’ this coming Tuesday.)
I look forward to reading it. Thanks.
John:
You blame bureaucratic issues, but the deeper problem, I submit, has been the politicisation of policing by Labour since the Blair government in 1997 and the continuation of that by Cameron and May. The Labour Left were for a long time focussed on changing the composition of the police force, which they denounced as typically ‘white Christian boys from the shires’. Recruitment standards and specification were changed to increase the number of women and ethnic and religious minorities. The result is there are more Asian and Muslim cops (the brother of the Manchester Airport hooligans is a suspended policeman), many of the white cops I see are now tattooed with ear piercings, and politically-minded lesbians have been promoted to Chief Constable in several places – but I don’t think there has been much of an increase in black police numbers – while the Sarah Everard catastrophe showed that misogynistic attitudes are still very present. The incident you complain about sounds as if it has as much to do with misogyny as racism. Add to this the fact that today’s police are just ruder and more aggressive than their predecessors. This is the bitter fruit of Blair and Cameron.
In other words, the quality of the police force has deteriorated and ambitious senior cops are looking to please their political masters instead of following the Peelean principles of equality, impartiality and service. And good manners.
God forbid we should have police who are tattooed or lesbians. Do you realise how utterly unchristian you sound?
I used to think this blog was an ethically conservative echo chamber but I confess I’m surprised that Ian, who I would have placed as ‘soft left’ at one time, now attracts all the ultra right, Great Replacement Theory throng.
Penelope,
That is a bit rude
Yes. It is. But no more robust than some of the flak I’ve received from commenting here. I think some comments are outrageous, but I haven’t accused anyone of not being a Christian.
Penelope,
I agree with you.
Penelope,
You have accused on this blog Tommy Robinson of not being a Christian although he has said he is a new Christian and has called himself a sinner on a stage in front of several thousand secular persons.
Tattoos are repulsive and so are body piercings. They stink of nihilism. Police are people we should look up to. They should not look like scruffy over-weight robocops strutting about the high street, displaying their handcuffs and tasers, like paramilitaries from a dystopian film or some third world hellhole.
Sir Robert Peele’s idea was that the British Police should be admirable and polite civilians protecting other civilians. They used to call the public ‘sir’ or ‘madam’. Now some of them are loutish bullies – as we saw in covid days.
There have always been lesbian cops but some have made it an issue of declaring it to the world. Cressida Dick wasn’t appointed because she was the best the Met had. Remember Jean de Menezes.
I have pierced ears. My niece,who is currently visiting, has some very pretty tattoos. You find them repulsive. That’s merely your view.
I agree that coppers now look like paramilitaries, but that has nothing to do with systemic racism.
And yes, Cressida Dick was a disaster. But because she was inept. Not because she is a lesbian.
Women should have pierced ears if they want to wear ear rings. Piercing other parts of the face or body is horrible and a health risk.
No police officer should wear ear rings.
Tattoos are a disfigurement of the body and the curent fashion is going to leave a lot of people unhappy as their bodies age.
Cressida Dick was a diversity pick.
Again, James, those are your views.
I don’t know why you are horrified by piercings and tattoos. I wouldn’t pierce any part of my body (apart from my ears) or, probably, have a tattoo. But I regard that as my decision, like not drinking. I don’t want to compel others – especially those we consider as models (rightly or wrongly) – to confirm to my choices. I rather think naval Royals used to be tattooed as was the custom.
This is probably one of the most sensible responses to this issue I’ve read on this thread so far. Thanks, John.
I guess the question is how would you tackle racism within the ranks relationally in an organic manner?
Please can we have no more nonsense about Reform being a Far Right party.
I am not a reform supporter, to be clear, but this is a moment when facts matter.
Reform is in a number of important respects collectivist which is likely to be why it has so much support amongst former labour voters.
Christians are perfectly entitled to vote for Reform if they wish to do so. The assertion that Christians should “hang their heads in shame” if they do so is reprehensible.
The person making this claim needs to stop confusing what they think with what God thinks
Far Right is a relative term.
Its designation shifts from age to age.
It is also a shibboleth, designed to shut down conversation.
For these several reasons, those who use the term are clearly less intelligent or more devious or both.
And to cap it all, the right-left spectrum does not make sense, since people do not have opinions about all policies all at once, but separate opinions about separate policies.
To make things even worse, that means that speaking of left and right is unthinking tribalism, and therefore has no place in the public debate.
I do however call people who buy into the package deal idea (i.e. tribal people) ‘left’ or ‘right’.
What is called ‘the Far Right’ today was called ‘the Centre’ or ‘the Centre-left’ in the 1960s. It really means that ‘the Left’ has moved further left, not so much into classical socialist economic positions in a post-industrial world (the nationalisation of production and distribution) but into neo-Marxist identity politics (racial, sexual, gender), information control (censorship, ‘hate speech’, monitoring the movement and expenditure of citizens) and the ever-expansion of the state budget and powers. The Left is also marked by preference for immigration, for sexual minorities and Islam, along with antisemitism. A fairly incoherent mix.
Many of Reform’s policies are closer to Old Labour and working class patriotism.
If people use such terms without acknowledging how relative and moveable they are (as well as, often, how nonsensical, because of their nature as package deals), then they are probably game-players not proper debaters.
James,
I agree with you
Reform want preferential tax treatment for NHS workers, a re-organised national curriculum, an expanded national house building plan. Maybe these are good ideas, maybe not – but they are the policies of Atlee not Churchill !
Farage also wants a more insurance based healthcare system, a patriotic curriculum and expanded house building was something Macmillan pushed
Like it or not, we will have to work more towards an insurance based health system. The NHS is not sustainable as it stands.
On the contrary. The Labour Party of today are somewhere to the right of the Tories led by Ted Heath. As the late Tony Benn so aptly observed.
Sexual, racial and gender identity were not obsessions of the Tories in 1970.
Tony Benn was consistently wrong on most things (including Christianity).
Or as Harold Wilson said of him, ‘He immatures with age.’
James
Identity politics are not the preserve of the left. Though a truly left wing party might not be as horrifically transphobic as the current Labour government.
Tony Benn was a prophet. This doesn’t mean that he was always right. And nor was darlin’ Harold. But he was prophetic.
Viscount Stansgate was a false prophet, Penny – ignorant about economics, about communism, and about Christianity. And a teetotaler. One should never trust teetotallers,
Burnham if he wins the by election and becomes PM will almost certainly send Labour back left again. Burnham has a tax and spend agenda and would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson
A prophet is without honour …
I don’t drink alcohol!!
Simon
I don’t think Burnham is particularly left wing. He has some very centrist policies. I think it’s the shifting of the old Overton window. Oh for a politician of the calibre of Wilson!
Burnham wants to renationalise most utilities, restore the 50% additional rate of income tax, create a new land tax and impose a social care levy. He would probably be the most leftwing UK PM we have had since Harold Wilson. Though yes Churchill was great but very much a one off and even he was not as great a domestic PM as he was war leader
Wilson was very much a high tax, high spend PM, hence many of our brightest and best moved abroad to the US, Switzerland or Singapore etc when he was in power
Given Tony Benn died in 2014, he could hardly be describing the Labour Party of today and was rather describing the Tony Blair era. Even then it was intentional rhetoric that skirted over the nuances of a Ted Heath led conservative Party that started out with a manifesto that they rowed back on. The Conservatives under Ted Heath of course included Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph
The “Left” today is actually Fascist.
With added Islam.
Moslem leaders actively supported the NSDAPs Final Solution, and still do.
The marchers supporting Hamas are supporting an organisation which, along with the Iranian mullahs and the other groups they support, has the explicit aim of murdering all the Jews in order to hasten the return of the Twelfth Imam.
That simply isn’t the case at all James. Incredible hyperbole. There has been a consistent understanding of who the far right are.
Far Right is not a relative term. I’m not convinced either that it is a particular shibboleth, though any term can be used in such a way. In the 1970s, 80s and 90s , we knew who the Far Right were, they were the National Front and BNP. Tommy Robinson, a former BNP member founded the English Defence League. We knew them to be far right too. Now, people who claim to be Christians join Tommy Robinson on his marches and claim that the meaning of far right has shifted because it is applied to their joining with the far right. We might also note that right wing politicians have long distinguished the far right from themselves. The recognised it as a different type of politics. Ir’s one that is rooted in conspiracy theories and ethno-cultural nationalism. We may choose to use words like fascism and national socialism to describe the ideology.
Christians are perfectly entitled to vote for whom they wish, but if they believe that the limited company run by Farage represents Christian values, I would suggest that they need some serious catechesis.
Fair point, Penelope.
Of course, exactly the same comment could and should be applied to every other political party
Re-education camps, don’t you mean?
Wrongthink is a perennial problem, it appears.
Next time The Party will get in right.
No. I mean catechesis. The teaching of Christian doctrine and hermeneutics, and engagement with Christian social teaching.
I’m not a member of any political party and I don’t always vote, but I don’t think any of them claims to be a church (maybe the Greens do – they are certainly a religious cult). But I imagine it would be difficult to be a real Christian in most British political parties – as one Christian said recently about the hounding he got from Libdem aparatchiks. Most of these parties insist on Christians checking their faith at the door but they are quite cool with Islam – although Labour has been losing that demographic recently.
Most white Labour and Libdem MPs appear to be atheists – what kind of catechesis do you think thry need, Penny?
I suspect there are probably quite a few churchgoing Christians in Reform. Kent County Council now begins its meetings with the Lord’s Prayer. And the national anthem, which is actually a prayer for the monarch. So Christians should be happy about that. I wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury has written to commend them for recognising the Christian constitution of this nation.
You see I try very hard to respond to your comments as if they were serious and then you say something silly like the Green Party is a religious cult. I am really not concerned with the ethics of atheists. I am much more concerned that Christians can be so ignorant of the gospel that they think voting Reform is in line with Christian teaching and precepts. It is also concerning that Christianity is being used as a cover (some might say a Trojan horse) for making ultra right wing politics (US style) look respectable to the UK media. There’s a lot of money and influence flowing that way. And if you want to see evil, look at Peter Thiel and Elon Musk rather than at your Muslim neighbour.
No, I’m perfectly serious in saying the Green Party is a religious cult. It’s a mystical farrago of nonsense about nature and human beings, similar to first century Gnosticism. It’s incoherent – but so was Valentinianism.
Why are not concerned about the ethics of atheists? Most of the politicians in this country are atheists. Are you not concerned about their souls, and what they are doing to this country? Have you no love for the lost, as our Lord showed? Do you pray that Starmer and Badenoch will find faith in Christ? I do, but not as often as I should.
Or are you a universalist and think all will be saved regardless?
Elon Musk and Peter Thiel need Jesus as well – and so does the atheist George Soros and the rich heroes of the left. Are you praying for them?
I pray for them. But not because they’re atheists. Only God knows their eternal fate.
I believe you once said you had an impressive collection of wines Penelope?
I do. My husband and friends still drink. I love wine. But I no longer drink alcohol.
Name me a party that does.
Reform at least is not completely anti-christian like the Greens or LibDems.
Labour is not exactly anti, provided its Moslem claque is not offended.
Reform, which is not a political party, has policies which are completely antithetical to the Gospel.
Penny, which ones?
Ian
Read their Manifesto.
Watch them on Question Time, Kuenssberg, and Sky News
You might want to check out Tim Farron’s podcast – “A Mucky Business”?
Whilst exploring the concept of this phrase “speaking truth to power” I wondered, though it originated in Quakerism in the mid 20th Century, is it biblical or just a social construct?
My initial conclusions after brief exploration is Yes and No
Yet it seemed to lead me to the prophetic voice spoken often from people at the margins [shepherds, vine dressers or
Fishermen and carpenters] urging people at margins and centres to return to God’s views of the various situations[ spiritual,cultural and political];with a voice of uncommon power and authority just as people remarked on of Jesus.
How do we recover the prophetic “voice”? Is it perhaps coveting the best gifts and ministries as Paul exhorts?
Is it through a study of the prophetic voices and burdens
a looking for and desiring of the old paths as per Jeremiah
Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
Jer 18:15 Because my people hath forgotten me, they have burned incense to vanity, and they have caused them to stumble in their ways from the ancient paths, to walk in paths, in a way not cast up;
Consider these verses using the excellent tool @
https://thetreasuryofscriptureknowledge.com/TSK/Jeremiah/18/15 [or 6/16 as the case may be]
One interesting paper I found that could be developed further towards prophetic ministry and sensibilities’
“The Christian Roots of Speaking Truth to Power
The Voice from the Margins with the Power to Bring Change”
@ https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/mandate-mystique-margins Shalom.
Anyone pleading “let’s not politicize this” is deeply unserious. The reason a dying boy was so shabbily treated by the State is because everything has been politicized through the racial grievance lens. That distorted lens has become necessary as it has become clear that “equality” does not result in a desired utopia of every race/ethnicity being completely equal in all respects. We tried torturing statistics that contradicted the utopia and when that didn’t work, we tried to ignore them. But that didn’t work either because the reality of lived experience cannot be ignored. Hence, “equity”, DEI/CRT, to ram the failed utopian vision (or if you prefer, false consciousness) down our throats – through politics.
When a State promotes the immigration of population groups which are not only culturally very different from the homogeneous host society but also relatively poor and dependent on the State, the results will always be disruptive and frequently violent.
This has been a fact throughout human history, and it was absurd to imagine that somehow Britain could go against the grain.
Trying to shame people by denouncing them as ‘racists’ works with the middle classes but has less impact on the poor white working class who have the most to lose under this dispensation. The perception that the police also are against them because of their skin colour only deepens their sense of alienation.
Kevin Park’s commentary on life for white working class men in the Met is absolutely shocking.
I am, at the same time, absolutely astounded by David Shepherd’s insouciance.
Is there anything at all that could happen to white people that would give him pause for thought or cause him to engage in a degree of self-reflection ?
It is remarkable to witness the grace and patience shown to him, though of course that is the right response to his provocations.
The one thing I dislike on this site is when someone gets hold of a stick and won’t go. I then have to tediously skip past twenty or thirty claims and counter-claims before getting to something interesting.
Dave,
I hope and trust that we are of one mind is saying that the issue that matters is anti white racism in the public life of this country and in particular the discrimination faced by white men
Absolutely. I wrote about that (twice!) further up the thread. My comment was an addendum to yours, not a contradiction.
My main point here was a more general one about irritating posters. However, it’s great that Ian allows free rein to those he disagrees with (and who maybe annoy him like they do me), rather than sanitise our discussions.
He was referring to a particular term that was previously dismissed as nonsense, but which now is being endorsed by the same people who dismissed it. I think he has a point.
Nevertheless the sort of practices the ex-policeman here has reported are shocking and imo should cease immediately. Personally I would have challenged even the rather trivial mug the female officer had on her desk, as she was supposed to be leading by example. It was clearly a sexist message which no man would have gotten away with about females. Equality means equality.
Peter Parker ….. except that the same term now has a completely different meaning. Before, equality was clearly stated in all the guidelines and ‘institutional racism’ was the term used by some people to mean that the guidelines were ignored or seen as a bit of a joke (the Stephen Lawrence case showed that these people had a very good point). In this setting, the term ‘institutional racism’ has a completely different meaning and is being used correctly – the guidelines themselves, expressed in official documents (albeit secret) state that people *should* get different treatment depending purely on their racial/ethnic background. Two completely different concepts – the first involving a good rule book, but with corrupt people in charge treating the rule book as a joke – the second framing a blatantly racist handbook. Extremely disingenuous and dishonest to conflate the two.
Jock,
I think that is basically correct. David Shepherd misunderstood the quote from Konstantin Kisin about “actual institutional racism” and went off on a tangent, accusing critics of the Hampshire Police as having contradictory ideas. He completely missed the point of the actual discussion, which is whether the wrongful arrest, handcuffing and failure to summon emergency help for Henry Nowak was due to actual written policy of the Hampshire Police – which it certainly looks like it was.
Whether or not “institutional racism” (in the sense of “racist practices that conflict with written policy”) actually existed in the Met in the 1990s was *never the subject we were talking about here. It has been about the *actual documents and practices* of the Hampshire Police in 2025 – a topic that completely escaped David’s attention. He had nothing at all to say about this because, again, he got the wrong end of the stick.
Kevin Parks’ piece on ‘Respect for race and diversity’ as a ‘mandatory competency’ for promotion in the police (June 5 at 10.27 pm below) is another substantial piece on how the ‘anti-racist’ ideology has permeated the police in the last couple of decades and created the very climate of alienation of white police, not to mention the public.
It is a very good illustration of how institutions actually function when the CRT ideology starts sweeping through its corridors and police ambitious for promotion start trying to please their political masters in an arms race. Not being in the police, this was a revelation to me – but it now makes perfect sense of all the public statements we have heard over the years and why the British police were KNEELING before angry mobs when a black American died when arrested in America in 2020. Looking back at it now, I see this was the equivalent of a North Korean weeping at Kim Jong-un’s funeral.
1.Is there anyone here who is seeking to justify what took place, through root and immediate cause and effect? 2.Who is bowing the knee and to what or whom?
3. Is the criminal justice system, just?
One instance is recalled where Crown Court police officer witness complained to me that the system wasn’t fair. (The Police and Criminal Evidence Act had recently been brought in) Fairness is not the measure; justice according to the law is.
Not the most important point, but there’s no set limit on the length of a Kirpan.
As you say, not the most important point in a discussion about the killing of a young man and his appalling treatment at the hands of the police, because he was white
Is it coz he is white?
Yes.
David,
You assert above that Kevin Park’s reports are anecdotal because they are just specific incidents, rather than evidence accumulated across a system.
You will, I am sure, be equally happy to observe that the death of George Floyd was “anecdotal” and that it should have been understood as such.
Perhaps you would be good enough to confirm that
In the CoE safeguarding training we had to do the social ggrrraacceeesss thing which is basically anti-racism bias/identity politics. I told the trainer that it seemed to me that it was in fact increasing safeguarding risk as people will use the labels and their assumptions will lead to incorrect conclusions rather than actually listening to each individual.
It seems to me that this tragic event is evidence of my statement.
Maybe as a response to this the church of England might consider pulling it from the training.
Jon,
There is a fat chance of that happening any time soon.
The most likely next step is that racial justice awareness training will be made compulsory for everybody who does any job at all in the church
Followed by the appointment of Racial Justice Officers in every parish and Diocesan Racial Justice Leads (£60k pa), to be paid for by amalgamating more parishes.
James,
We already have a Diocesan Racial Justice Lead. That particular future has already arrived for us
Actually funded by the Church of England National Justice Fund, funded by the Church Commissioners. Though yes more could be put into Parishes too by the Commissioners
Anecdotal. I find that word and categorisation is often misused, when in reality what amounts to a witness statement including evidence that could be traced, corroborated, is classed and dismissed as merely unreliable. subjective ancedotal.
Maybe, there is confirmation bias at work when some statements are seen as mere anecdotal, and can be dismissed as unreliable, serving their own purpose but others are not, depending on the cohort from which it came.
David Shepherd characterised Kevin Park’s comments as “anecdotal” but Kevin gave at least ten examples of anti-white police attitudes in the Met and other commentators here have given comparsble examples from other police forces, so the pattern is much larger and morepervasive than David is suggesting. I have heard similar things in the county I live in.
The publication of details from the secret Hampshire police manual is clear evidence there of anti-white discrimination. All police forces should be required to publish their policies. Knowing how ACPO works, I strongly suspect there are similar instructions throughout the country.
Thank you James! And in defence of the charge of ‘anecdotal’….. what isn’t widely know is that under Blair (Tony and Sir Ian) a corrosive system was introduced into the Met, and doubtless every other force.
In order to apply for promotion to any rank, or apply for any post, including lateral development, a police officer must demonstrate a number of competencies (none of which incidentally involve solving crime!). One of the competencies is “Respect for race and diversity.” This is known as a ‘mandatory competency.’ What that means is that an applicant may score poorly in one or two of the competencies and still make the grade… but if an applicant scores poorly in a mandatory competency then they automatically fail. “Respect for race and diversity” is therefore THE most important competency, and must be given the greatest attention by any police officer who wishes to advance his or her career.
At first sight, “Respect for race and diversity” seems a noble pursuit. Who wouldn’t want that? But the reality of this policy being on the books for over a quarter of a century is somewhat different. Think about how many applications are being considered in the police at any one time. How many internal moves… promotions… detective courses… driving… firearms.. dogs… community policing… counter terrorism… the list is endless. Every single one of those applicants must provide evidence of “Respect for race and diversity” equivalent to their rank, or they will fail their application.
For constables, Sergeants and perhaps Inspectors, the damage of this system is limited. But for senior officers it is quite a different matter. How exactly does a Superintendent applying for promotion to Chief Superintendent demonstrate “Respect for race and diversity”?? How do they do it when 20 other Superintendents are also applying for the same promotion, and also have to demonstrate that competency? Due to their rank their evidence must be strategic. They need to evidence “Respect for race and diversity” that has had an impact across the whole of the Metropolitan Police. That is quite a challenge!
Think about even higher ranks. Do you want to be the Deputy Assistant Commissioner? Then you need to demonstrate “Respect for race and diversity” that has had an impact at the national level. How on earth is that possible?? What this does, is to create an arms race amongst senior officers who are all vying for a limited number of spots at the top table. We may look on with horror at how some officers behave, but I’m afraid to say that the system incentivises this behaviour, and criticising the system would mean…. you guessed it… an automatic fail of a mandatory competency. This is why the system is so loudly and vociferously defended. If anyone even so much as gently challenges some of these shibboleths, then it is in the interest of every senior officer to come down on them, and come down on them hard. It’s excellent evidence for “Respect for race and diversity.”
I really do invite people to think about what evidence they could use that demonstrated “Respect for race and diversity” that impacted the whole of the Metropolitan police. Think of one idea… now ditch it and think of another, because that’s already been used… now another… and another… and another. Think of 25 years of ideas that have already been used. Now think of something new. Only then will you understand the pressures on senior officers, and the incentives that motivate their thinking.
Change this competency to, “How have you reduced crime in your area” and see the entire culture of the police change overnight. It’s literally that simple.
Kevin, are you sure you understand what competency-based assessment is about?
Bruce, he was in the police for decades.
What do you think it means?
thus speaks a lawyer, and perfectly correct. How much of medical science, for example, was initially based on anecdotal evidence? A lot.
I consider the individual most responsible to be the Chief Constable of Hampshire and I call for him to resign or failing that be sacked.
A slight digression, but has anyone watched the recent Stephen Nolan series on the PSNI? He went out on various calls with them. It certainly showed what the police have to put up with on a daily basis. Sometimes I thought individual officers were a little too aggressive and made the situation worse, but then difficult to judge given the circumstances. The only racist incident to my memory was a white man shouting racist abuse at a non-white man in the street. The culprit was I think just given a ticking off/warning. Until relatively recently discrimination in NI was typically on religious grounds, but in recent years seems to be more and more based on race. Yet another ‘us and them’ mindset.
Id recommend the series (probably on Iplayer).
Indeed, it was and is Peter. The list of instructions that come with medication is some evidence, as is the Yellow Card scheme.
From my experience, many moons ago,before body cams the police act on who is first to make the complaint, in offences against the person, especially when the violence is taking place, or recent when weighing any evidence at the time is almost impossible in the heat of the moment. Has a crime been committed and who by is not an easy call to make in those circumstances, even more so in affray and riot.
Who would join the police force? Not me. Maybe our comfortable keyboards need to be informed by a dose of reality.
Thanks Ian. 2 comments (paraphrased) from CS Lewis came to my mind as i thought about how can we talk about tragedies and injustices like this without further stirring up division (wether racial, religious or whatever).
CS Lewis on the inner ring – people who quietly get on with their craft will, in the long run, be responsible for the respect that their craft deserves.
CS Lewis on Why I am not a pacifist – the art of life consists of tackling each immediate evil as best we can, and not theorising how we can end all evils by some scheme or policy we’ve invented.
These conclusions seem to be in line with the faith that it will be the weak things of the world which will shame the strong. Things like being kind, not feeding our own personal prejudices, overlooking insults, saying sorry and offering forgiveness.
I’d be really grateful for Christian leaders who know when the time is right to whip up my passions for justice, and when and how to help me take a deep breath, understand the immediate evil in front of me, and give real insight to tackle that evil as I confront it in my life. (ie, I want more than just “get angry and sign this petition!”) And if I could hear a political leader who could help us rise above our divisions, rather than excite and exploit our divisions, I’d vote for them.
Ahh, a cool fresh breeze from the Spirit.
AH Politic and polarisation, party spirit, carnal spirit, the joyless spirit of the age.
What on earth is the church exhorting us too?
Pilate washed his hands of the politics of it all, but was overcome by political blackmail.
Injustice, yes and Jesus was “a man of sorrows” but He Overcame,, He was raised again. He was anointed Ps 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Ps 30:11 Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing: thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness;
John 16:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, “That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
2 Cor 6:10 As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich;…..
What is our “distinction”? is it commensurate with the failed state [of Israel]?
28:46 And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.
28:47 Because thou serve not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;
28:48 Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.[?]
Or is it aligned with that great political saga of Esther”?
8:16 The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour …in all their houses.
8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whither-soever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.
Perhaps consider the prophetic Mordecai.? Shalom.
Ah, No, More and better Education will do it ! Oh those darned Academics again.
Kevin Parks has explained above (June 5 at 10.27 pm) that applicants for promotion in the police force have to demonstrate ‘Respect for Race and Diversity’.
This is a ‘Mandatory Competence’, so if you can’t demonstrate it, you won’t be promoted.
As Kevin indicates, this rule sets off an arms race among applicants for promotion, as each seeks to prove ‘I am holier than thou’.
Looking back at the BLM demonstrations and riots in England in 2020, I recall that a number of police officers ‘took the knee’ in front of the baying mobs – the same performative piety for the cameras that many Labour MPs did outside Parliament and Keir Starmer did in his office.
In the light of what Kevin has explained, it now seems to me that these police were doing what tearful North Koreans do at the funeral of their Dear Leader.
So it seems that you also, James, do not understand what competency-based assessment is about.
Bruce:
Your superior sounding question on June 6 at 5.21 am was to Kevin Parks, not me. You were suggesting that you know better than Kevin, a police officer for decades, doesn’t know how the British police operate, that you know better than he what a Competency based assessment for police seeking promotion is about.
Well, maybe you do. Perhaps you have sat for years on boards appointing superintendents and assistant commissioners. Perhaps you wrote the policy. But somehow I doubt it.
This case involving a Christian PCSO sacked for questioning Islam – then winning his case – shows how the North Yorkshire Police function – along the same lines as CRT:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/christian-police-officer-loses-job-for-questioning-islam-in-diversity-training-session/ar-AA24Y2xc?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=6a23f8631be14f689747447456e5bfb4
David,
In response to your comment of 10.39 pm last night.
Please can you articulate an affirmation of the following:
1. You recognise that you do not know and cannot know what it is like to live as a white man in today’s Britain.
2. You accept that you should therefore listen to and learn from people who have that lived experience.
3. You understand the rage that is felt by white people regarding the appalling death of Henry Nowak in handcuffs as his mouth filled with blood for no reason other than the colour of his skin.
4. You are committed to change those of your own attitudes and actions which may have contributed to the current culture of animosity towards white people and white men in particular.
No qualifications, no obfuscation. Just accept the facts above
If you are interested in justice and injustice and you want a real fizz
Consider this remarkable account of how two young women
“turned Tehran upside down”
Captive in Iran: A Remarkable True Story of Hope and Triumph Amid the Horror of Tehran’s Brutal Evin Prison, by Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadehis
Sentenced to Death: An Iranian Christian’s Remarkable Story
.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/sentenced-to-death-an-iranian-christians-remarkable-story-2/ {TEXT VERSION}
OR Video version @ Sentenced to Death – C.S. Lewis Institute.org/imprisoned.
Along with the horrors of solitary confinement in Iran’s most brutal prison she shares her impressions of the parlous state of American churches today, it is the account of a purpose driven life with God. Enjoy, Shalom++
The Resurrection Life and Power of Christ that overcomes injustice.
Having read through the comments, what struck me most was how few people were actually discussing the same thing.
At least five different conversations were happening at once.
-Did the police fail Henry Nowak?
-Why did they fail him?
-Did anti-racism ideology contribute to that failure?
-Does institutional racism exist?
-What does any of this mean politically?
The result was that people often stopped examining the event itself and began defending identities, ideologies, tribes, and prior commitments.
One of the things I have increasingly noticed is how quickly our deepest commitments can hijack our capacity to see. We stop asking, “What is true?” and begin asking, “Which side does this support?”
Some commenters brought genuine experience, evidence and reflection. Others seemed unable to resist the gravitational pull of politics, where every tragedy must immediately become proof of something already believed.
The most interesting exchange was probably around the phrase “institutional racism”. David Shepherd kept pressing what is, in fairness, a legitimate question about consistency. But he became so focused on the definition that he seemed unable to engage the larger issue that had prompted the discussion in the first place. Others, meanwhile, rushed to conclusions that went beyond what the evidence could actually sustain.
What fascinated me was that both sides were, in different ways, demonstrating the same thing. The tendency to place a framework over reality and then interpret everything through it.
For me, the strongest concern raised in the whole discussion was not that racism against white people is now worse than racism against minorities, nor that all anti-racism efforts are misguided.
It was something much simpler. If institutions begin treating people differently according to race in pursuit of preferred outcomes, then they have abandoned impartiality.
That should concern everyone. It really should.
Equally, if we reject concepts when they challenge our tribe but revive them when they support our tribe, that should concern us too. Which is why Pete Alston’s comment stood out as a breath of fresh air.
While others argued about politics, definitions, parties, and tribes, he quietly asked a different question.
How do Christians talk about injustice without simply becoming another faction in the culture war?
Drawing on C. S. Lewis, he reminded us that the art of life is often found not in grand theories for fixing everything, but in faithfully confronting the evil immediately before us.
That seems to me much closer to Christian wisdom. Many comments were asking, “Who is to blame?” Pete was asking, “What kind of people should we become?”
That is usually the better question.
Thanks for those great observations. I think you have put your finger on the heart of the matter:
‘If institutions begin treating people differently according to race in pursuit of preferred outcomes, then they have abandoned impartiality.’
My aim in this piece was to pose exactly that question. I don’t know if I have succeeded…
…but my concern is also that your question: ‘How do Christians talk about injustice without simply becoming another faction in the culture war?’ now cannot be answered by the C of E since so many have take one side, despite the damage it is doing.
As someone originally from Southport, with friends and family still there, and a loose church connection to someone affected by the Southport killings, I was distressed by Nigel Farage’s reaction to this latest murder. We saw weeks of unrest fomented by much unhelpful and provocative stirring online by people with large followings. In NE England tensions were high for a time, a climate of fear fed, damage to businesses and communities was done, while others pontificated unhelpfully from the leafy suburbs.
Surely, as Christians, we have to consider the impact of our words, the tongue being able to bring blessing and cursing. The influence of a prominent political voice on our country, especially those who are easily enraged, should not be to foster that rage. That is why I found the messages of Kemi Badenoch and Keir Starmer far more responsible than those of the leader of Reform, and respectful of those immediately impacted, the family. The family’s suffering should not be added to by the inflammatory choices of politicians.
Thanks. I entirely agree.
But should that prevent us from addressing the cause of the failings that led to the terrible deaths of those three girls?
Not at all, (& apologies, I appear to have double posted and don’t know how to delete). The heart and tone behind words matter, and anyone in leadership would be wise to measure their choice of language according to their audience. What welcome will it receive from the bereaved (who had already expressed their wishes)? The bereaved, and the Southport community, suffered far more because of careless, irresponsible use of social media. Then it spread, stoked by intemperate and often ill-informed comments by people with a big following.
I was therefore relieved that the vast majority of politicians were, for a brief moment, able to give balanced responses which sought to calm community tensions while acknowledging the problems which were apparent. Most of my teaching career among 11-18s was in a deprived part of the NE. The impact of just one person on the easily influenced, the “herd”reaction, especially out of the classroom, was not infrequent.
You are promoting your political views.
Politicians have to speak the truth. It is their job
(Btw I do ask commenters to use real names please.)
Jason,
You offer an interesting analysis. However, you do somewhat misrepresent the debate.
A young white man has died in terrible circumstances because he was white and the police – one of the most powerful group of people in the country – have been revealed to have a policy of discriminating against white people.
Obfuscation and implications of ambiguity are very well, but there are times when something terrible comes to light. This is one of them.
Evil must be named for what it is, Jason. This is not a moment for a seminar on christian sensibilities.
Peter H – I am in agreement with you on this post, also on the whole of this thread and the line you have taken throughout. The word ‘sanctimony’ springs to mind (instead of ‘seminar on christian sensibilities’).
But all the contributions, from you and John Thomson, very good as they are, could appear on any blog about politics and society, Christian or not (i.e. the comments you are making are the comments that any sensible level headed person would make, professing Christian or not, in face of the outrage that we see explicitly set before us – which is that equality in the eyes of the law / police has been well and truly abandoned – our treatment in the eyes of the law / the police is heavily dependent on our race/ethnic background – and the death of the victim was actually a logical consequence of police following the official guidelines).
I think that, as Christians, we have a major adjustment to make in our thinking. We’re living for Christ in a pagan world – and we now see the manifestation of the forces of Satan in the written guidelines that the police were following when they treated the victim so abominably. Of course, those responsible for formulating the written documentation and those who agreed to follow the guidelines are guilty of their own sin, but the whole business and how it has permeated society has the finger of Satan on it – and we have to learn how to live for Christ in circumstances that many of us never thought we would see in our own lifetimes.
Hi Jock,
You make a very point. I did not mean to deprecate the Christian ethics and you are entirely right in your analysis
In an article today in The Times newspaper, by Fraser Nelson it was pointed out that:
1. The 999 transcript shows that the police were ‘called out not to a woolly accusation of racism, but an assault where an injured assailant was being held captive.’
2. The cuffing was horrific.
3. ‘But the Judge said Nowak was ‘hancuffed by about a minute’ before the arresting officer tried to save his life.
4. ‘ That wasn’t shown in the leaked bodycam footage.
5. ‘In any case the Judge said that Nowak could not have survived his wounds however quickly he received first aid.
6. ‘The careful erasure of such context allows the story to be transformed into one about anti- white racism’.
Geoff,
That is simply not true. The 999 call records the operator recording a precise allegation of racism to the extent it includes the following exchange:
Caller – “He called my brother a “p…”
Operator – “that is what I needed to hear. A car is on its way”
It is grossly irresponsible for you to misrepresent the facts in such an incredibly serious tragedy
Peter H,
I have quoted from a Fraser Nelson article today in the Times Newspaper, as you will have read.
Have you got the full transcript of the 999 call? That you can publish here, bearing in mind that court proceedings are tribunals of public record.
Fraser Nelson is a hack who has spun a story with an edge to get an audience.
I do not have to provide you with evidence from the trial
Don’t repeat self interested rubbish churned out by hacks in the middle of a discussion about the racist assault on a young white man because he was white
As someone originally from Southport, with friends and family still there, and a loose church connection to someone affected by the Southport killings, I was distressed by Nigel Farage’s reaction to this latest murder. We saw weeks of unrest fomented by much unhelpful and provocative stirring online by people with large followings. In NE England tensions were high for a time, a climate of fear fed, damage to businesses and communities was done, while others pontificated unhelpfully from the leafy suburbs.
Surely, as Christians, we have to consider the impact of our words, the tongue being able to bring blessing and cursing. The influence of a prominent political voice on our country, especially those who are easily enraged, should not be to foster that rage. That is why I found the messages of Kemi Badenoch and Keir Starmer far more responsible than those of the leader of Reform, and respectful of those immediately impacted, the family. The family’s suffering should not be added to by the inflammatory choices of politicians.
VK
Stop attempting to make Farage the issue. He is not the issue.
This is the wrong time and place to be promoting your personal politics
Peter H,
See above, for my response to your allegation of my irresponsible posting of part of an article of the Times newspaper today.
I am too long in the tooth and with significant experience of Crown and Magistrates criminal Courts proceedings to know that court reporting by journalist is not an accurate summation of the full proceedings.
How much more do with social media.
Nelson says in the piece.
“The 999 transcript shows that the police were called out not to a woolly accusation of racism but an assault”
That is literally the exact opposite of what the murder’s brother says on the call. It is available on the bbc website. You can hear the man’s words. He says his brother has been subjected to a racist attack.
Nelson’s article is pure invention.
So you don’t have a full Court transcript? Maybe you should come back when you do. And maybe, just maybe the Times journalist was more thorough in looking into it than the BBC has been.
Are you interested in the whole truth of the matter? If so the full transcript of the whole trial would help, it is suggested.
Geoff
Perhaps you should listen to the actual words spoken by the actual people.
Stop manufacturing the notion it is all more complicated than is being claimed.
It is not more complicated. We all know what happened.
Peter H,
First, according to yo, I have made an irresposible comment, having quoted a newspaper article, which you appear to have misread as mine.
And now you are making spurious comments that the journalists invented it, which verges on liable with out any corroborative evidence.
I am interested in the truth, based on full disclosure of evidence. Simple. And I am not here to defend Fraser Nelson. Take it up with him, asking for his sources on which the article is based.
There is one aspect that no one here has mentioned, which was reported on BBC TV news a number of days ago, with something of a slightly extended article. The news was led by Sophie Raworh, but I don’t know who the journalist was.
It was reported that Henry Nowak had said something which was not racist to the murderer, which of itself could have resulted in the attack, without their being any element of racism. On the part of either them.
I was astonished to hear it, not knowing how it would be known what was said by the
victim to his attacker, but more than that, why would Henry Nowak said anything at all.
(I have found the article here, and the reporter is Stuart Rust, dated June 6:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvpv2xylgeo )
But that criminals should lie to the police and thereafter is not surprising at all.
Farage is very much the issue. He invites violence with his very partial cold rage.
He is a corrupt, racist grifter who has besmirched politics.
Where is the evidence he is racist?
What a very silly question. The man was avidly anti Semitic as a school boy.
The 2016 Breaking Point poster more recently.
Fomenting riots to attack migrant hostels.
Urging calm not cold rage when Sarah Everard was murdered by a white man.
Penelope,
The brutal contempt with which an innocent white man was treated by the police is the issue.
You are seeking to politicise his death by using it as an opportunity to attack Farage.
I have no interest in defending Farage. However, I repeat, he is not the issue.
The issue is white racist contempt for Henry Nowak
I am certainly not politicising his death. Farage has form for fomenting racist riots. He is beneath contempt.
Penelope,
Why will you not acknowledge the issue ?
Please confirm that you are deeply concerned about the appalling treatment of white men in this country.
The evidence is in front of you.
A voice of sanity in this fearful place.
Injustice is the spirit of all ages,it was so in the case of Christ
Injustice amongst the religious is as the spirit of Judas, a betrayal of Christ.
Christians should not be so surprised.
The book comes to a close with “He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.” Revelation 22:11 The day of the Lord will deal with all injustice.
But in another article in the same newspaper, by Matt Dathan, Home Affairs Editor
‘ Muslims could be treated differently by police from other religious groups because of the Government’s introduction of an official definition of anti Muslims hostility, disclosures from forces have revealed …
‘Some forces were pressing ahead with the definition, while others were reviewing how it would affect operational guidance, community, engagement, neighbourhood policing, professional standards and equality and diversity policies…
‘The government’s definition includes, ‘discrimination on the basis of being Muslim or perceived to be Muslim’ and negative characterisation as a collective group with the intention to encourage hatred against Muslims…
‘This week the NPCC said it wouldv review guidance advising officers to treat ethnic minorities differently…
‘Freedom of Information responses from 28 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales reveal a wide discrepancy in the way they intend to respond ….
‘Some had no plans to adopt it, while others were awaiting national guidance from the College of Policing, the NPCC or the government…
‘West Yorkshire indicated they’d adopt the definition, had undertaken a review after how it would be implemented and its impact on operational policing…
‘… the governments former advisor on political violence and extremism said, the murder of Henry Nowak ‘point to a need…that fear and uncertainty can get in the way of commonsense policies, including putting the brakes on this definition.
‘ The Government said, ‘We are categorical that the police must apply the law equally, regardless of ethnicity or background.’
Google AI question: Define race.
Answer:
Race is a social construct used to categorize humans into distinct groups based on shared physical traits, ancestry, and perceived social qualities. While historically treated as a biological fact, modern science confirms that there is no genetic basis for race. …
The concept emerged during the 17th century, largely as a tool to justify colonization, slavery, and social hierarchies based on physical differences like skin color or facial features. …
While they are often used interchangeably, race and ethnicity refer to different aspects of identity.
Race: Typically assigned by society based largely on visible, physical characteristics (such as being Black, White, or Asian). Ethnicity: Refers to cultural background and lived heritage. This includes shared language, nationality, religious traditions, and ancestry.
Does that mean there is a white race, a black race and an Asian race? Is race just a matter of skin colour? Are Asians all the same race? Asian is a geographical term – do they, unlike ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’ not have a skin colour? What happens to an Asian’s race when he leaves Asia?
In any case, these are very broad categories. Gone are the days when one might distinguish an Aryan race, say.
Is ethnicity really about shared language, nationality, religious traditions, and ancestry? Many ‘whites’ living in England have little sense of nationality, no knowledge of who their ancestors were beyond their great-grandparents, and no religion.
Is Islam a race, or an ethnicity? Is Sikhism? No, they are religions.
Is a Jew a white person, even though his or her skin may be quite dark? Is there such a thing as the Jewish race if, as Google says, there is no genetic basis for race?
Is denial of racial identity a form of racism if this or that person insists that he belongs to a particular race?
Vickrum Digwa is a Briton by nationality. But nationality these days seems to be just a question of what passport you hold – hence we use the adjective, ‘British’, rather than the noun. I presume that he is of Pakistani ancestry and that many would categorise him as Asian. Few, I think, would speak of a Pakistani ‘race’, and I doubt whether Pakistanis themselves see themselves as belonging to a Pakistani ‘race’. Islam tends to replace nationality – one is a Muslim first, a Briton or Pakistani second. I don’t know about Sikhism; perhaps the same. In the Western world generally, especially among the young, the concept of nationality has become very bleached. They will commonly think of themselves as cosmopolitan, or as white, black etc as a subset of a nation.
What is ‘racism’?
Steven,
Henry Nowak could easily answer your question, “what is racism ? “
Tragically he is not here to do so because he was murdered under appalling circumstances because he was white.
Your analysis is an exercise in sophistry.
Bruce Symons above (June 6 at 5.21 am) says (or strongly implies) that Kevin Parks doesn’t know what ‘competency based assessment’ for people seeking promotion in the police force means.
I imagined that Kevin, as a police officer of decades’ standing should know, but apparently not, so I have asked Bruce to explain what the expression actually means.
Over to you, Bruce.
James, I suspect you can google ‘competency based assessment’ as well as anybody can. If you look carefully you will see that I didn’t say anything about ‘knowing’ what CBA is but rather ‘understanding’ it. You talk about ‘arms race’ and ‘holier-than-thou’ strategies to ‘passing’ a CBA. Perhaps you could explain how these work in a competent CBA.
Bruce,
I used “know” and “understand” as synonyms in my comment. Not worth a quibble here,
You sounded a bit superior in your question to Kevin (at 5.21 am, June 5), a long time police officer who knows the police and its processes from within. His description of what is involved in demonstrating a ‘competency’looks pretty full to me.
You said; “Are you sure you understand what competency based assessment is about?”
Why do you imagine he doesn’t? Where do you find errors or deficiencies in Kevin’s understanding?
Do you understand better than he?
(I have asked you this question at least twice but you have avoided answering.)
Peter H,
See my reply to you above, today @5:57 pm
It contains a link to a BBC report which includes, what Henry Nowak did and said, which I ‘ve not come across elsewhere. Based on this, the attack and murder could be explained without race or skin colour being factor, but I don’t know the details of of the rest of the trial, nor the Judge’s summing-up of the evidence. Did the court conclude that race or skin colour of themselves were factors in determining the mens rea, criminal intent of the murderer. ?
Geoff,
You have entirely missed the point. Nobody has at any point suggested it was a racist murder.
It is the police response that was racist
This piece is far nearer the truth that the blog
https://app.prospectmagazine.co.uk/story/73749/content.html
And a number of the comments are simply shameful.
This platform is becoming as bad as GB news for promoting racism and fascism.
Excuse me? ‘Promoting racism and fascism’??
Please note that I am responsible for the article; I am not responsible for any comments here, and none of them need reflect my views at all.
Can you stick to commenting on the article itself please?
And can you follow the basic requirement of using your full name?
What would you reply to Kevin Parks above?
Kemi Badenoch @7h has posted IMV, a very measured response to the murder of Henry Nowak that gets to the core of what is wrong with the policing system and what needs to be done.
See (about 7 hours ago)
https://www.facebook.com/kemibadenoch?locale=en_GB
Best statement I have read from any major politician so far.
Full statement copied in below.
People are right to be angry about the murder of Henry Nowak. But rage is not a strategy. People like JD Vance will blame migration. Others social media, knives, racism or the police. There will be recrimination and finger-pointing, with too many people forcing the facts to fit what they want to believe. There is a lot to be angry about, but the job of a politician is not to tell people to be angry, but to offer solutions.
People need us to fix what has gone wrong.
I have my own view of what has gone wrong. Some will disagree. But this much should be beyond dispute: if police training or guidance encourages officers to treat people differently because of race, then public trust cannot survive. This is why I have asked the Prime Minister for a rapid independent review. Whether we hail from the left or right, we must all examine our own biases in this case. However, this does not mean we should kick uncomfortable questions into the long grass.
I don’t want to blame the police officers. It’s clear the situation was confusing not least because the murderer pretended he was a victim. But why were they so easily convinced?�
How was it possible that the police officers heard two accusations, one of racism and the other of stabbing, and it was the racism they appeared most attuned to?��I believe the issue is the training they are given. Well-meaning, but totally wrong-headed, lacking in common sense and, possibly illegal. Common sense is disappearing because people have replaced thinking with box-ticking. The police have been given mixed signals by government, legal guidance, training and leadership.�
Officers are also juggling race action plans, political pressure and activist expectations. The problem is not institutional racism towards blacks or whites but institutional incompetence. I have sympathy for frontline officers. I am horrified by the protests where front-line police are attacked. They get a lot of flack and face unnecessary investigations even when they do the right thing to protect the public, such as using stop and search to find deadly weapons, using force to detain a potential killer, or high-speed chases of dangerous criminals. These unfair investigations need to stop. They hold officers back or make them too risk-averse.
I have far less sympathy for policing’s senior leaders, who have allowed these ill-advised frameworks to take hold in the force. It is the police chiefs, operationally independent from government, who must take responsibility for letting that happen. ��
Common sense is, of course, subjective. You can’t write common sense down in a policy manual, it is about judgement. And judgement only works when people are trusted to use it and held accountable when they do not.��It is almost impossible to apply common-sense these days. Public bodies are pressured into bad frameworks by modish progressives who are so open-minded their brains have fallen out. Public institutions have become frightened of getting race wrong. So they have outsourced moral judgement to activist consultants and “community leaders” who often do not represent the public and have no business writing or auditing policing frameworks. Organisations like the Independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board which audits the police race action plan is run by people who believe in defunding the police. It should be scrapped.
Community leaders should not have a veto over policing. We saw where that led in Birmingham, with the ban on the fans of Israeli football team Maccabi Tel Aviv. There have also been frequent decisions not to arrest people calling for destruction of Jews, because advice on religious sensitivities encourages police to explain the words away rather than confront what they’re saying.
Just as politicians, businesses, public and cultural institutions outsourced judgement on biological sex to organisations like Stonewall operating outside the law, they have done the same on race and religion in our public bodies.
Sometimes the activism is internal. Should the National Association of Muslim Police or the National Black Police Association be influencing policy? Should identity-based staff networks still exist in Modern Britain? Would we feel comfortable if there was a White Police Association? These are uncomfortable questions we must ask.
The Conservative answer rests on three principles that distinguish us from every other party:
The first is Universalism. This means every citizen must be treated as an individual person, not as part of a group. The Equality Act states this clearly, yet guidance supposedly based on the Act pretends protected characteristics of race or religion or sexuality that apply to everyone all actually just for minority groups. Equality under the law means: one law, one standard, one set of expectations.
The second principle is that differences in outcome are not proof of discrimination. We have to examine facts and evidence before ideology. If public bodies diagnose everything as racism or sexism, they can’t solve the real problem. That is why the Macpherson principle needs re-examination. It states that a racist incident is racist if it is perceived as racist by the victim or any other person. This may have made sense in a different context long ago. Today, it risks turning accusation into fact. An accusation of racism should never outrank an accusation of violence as we saw in Henry’s case.
The third principle is that we rebuild trust in failing institutions rather than undermine them to punish failure. We must hold institutions to account without casually destroying them. Our aim is to restore public trust in policing by making sure forces act fairly, competently and under rules that work for everyone.
�In March, I gave a speech explaining that the Conservative party will remove identity politics from all public bodies. This will require many changes. Police leaders cannot hide behind operational independence while adopting contested political frameworks.
There will be the inevitable cries of: “You had 14 years. Why didn’t you do this in government?” In fact I did. I produced serious reports, substantial supporting evidence and easily useable guidance. Letters were written to all public bodies.
The result was a mixed-bag. Embattled organisations who needed our support implemented the actions. Others simply stalled and waited for a Labour government they knew would indulge the leftist ideals of identity politics. The police pointed to the Mcpherson report and told me I was wrong, that disparities in outcomes proved they must be institutionally racist.
Academics and, left-wing politicians were the most vitriolic. Labour MPs shared attacks calling me “the black face of white supremacy”. I have spent my political career fighting against identity politics on the left when it came from Labour, Lib Dems, SNP. I will do exactly the same against identity politics when it comes from ReformUK.
Britain must reject tribal politics from both left and right. The Black Lives Matter movement did not improve trust. It made institutions more frightened, more racialised and more divided.
Now we are seeing the flip-side: A White Lives Matter born of the same racial grievance. We will not defeat identity politics by building a mirror-image version of it.�There is a silent majority across every community who want order, fairness, common sense and one law for everyone. That is the country we can be again.
I met Henry Nowak’s family last week. They want his tragic death to have a positive legacy, a country brought together rather than pulled apart, and trust in the police rebuilt. That will only happen if we take ideology out of policing, restore equal treatment, and give good officers the confidence to use their judgement.
Henry’s family do not want his name used to spread hatred. His legacy should be a country that refuses to be divided, refuses to be intimidated by bad ideas, and has the courage to restore common sense where it has been lost. That is how we rebuild trust. That is how we honour Henry. The country owes him much more than outrage.
Thanks Chris,
I for one, am not on Facebook.
Geoff, that is why he has posted the whole comment.
I thought her comments were the best from a politician.
Geoff,
You have lost the plot. If I think an article put into the public domain contains conclusions that are the invention of the author, it is preposterous to insinuate that is libel.
Peter, please use first and surname. It is too confusing to have all the ‘Peters’ here.
This is not the end of the natter, refers to futher investations into police conduct, evidence of what happened beyond the criminal case, cause and effect.
Geoff,
You owe me an apology. You really do.
Nelson’s article is an opinion piece and he sets out an eye wateringly provocative opinion at that. He asserts that the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people who support the prevailing narrative about Henry do not care about the truth.
That is a really really serious slur to make by a person in a position of power against huge numbers of ordinary people who have no voice. That is evidently fine by you.
You want to threaten an ordinary person with legal action because they have the affrontry to forget their place and contradict Nelson’s outrageous slur.
You should be ashamed of yourself
If you reread Geoff’s comments, he is not threatening you with legal action or any other action. Correct me if I am wrong Geoff.
You are correct Peter. You read it well, thanks. I am not threatening anyone. To read that Fraser Nelson has written an invention, from what I have abstracted from the Times article, that purports to be fact, lowers Nelson as a journalist in my estimation, more so if it was to underpin a political critique, burden of the article.
I certainly did not take what what quoted as fiction and if it is it is egregiously appalling.
Truth and evidence matter. And I’m not here make a political party point in this matter, only seeking to weigh any evidence that may be available in poor Henry Novak’s murder. And the question of police culpability at individual and organisational level, will likely gather pace, (for now) which is a political, philosophical, ethical, and ultimately criminal justice system matter.
Geoff.
You insinuated libel. That is a really serious matter in public discourse
You should be mature enough to accept that was an egregious error on your part which should be withdrawn and you should apologise.
Your obstinacy does you no credit
Geoff
Nelson’s piece is an opinion piece. It is not a factual report.
I am mystified by your obstinacy. Your insinuation of libel was egregious and should be withdrawn
Peter, please use your name.
This exchange is becoming seriously unhelpful.
Ian,
I understand and respect your policy of asking people to use their full names.
The problem is people like Geoff who fling round wild and reckless allegations of libel – which he has yet to withdraw and for which give me an apology.
I’m not publishing my name when such fools are at work
Then use a pseudonym. And I don’t welcome the calling of other people here ‘fools’. See Matt 5.22.
Ian,
I really really do not appreciate the insinuation of libel. It is a coercive attempt to silence me.
I am disappointed you fail to see that
Harry,
So Alan Rusbridger does not like Farage.
Who would have guessed ?
And this blog is a seedbed for facism and racism – seriously ?
I wish people would stop presenting their own sanctimonious cant as lofty comment
What Bruce Symons said to Kevin Parks (June 6 at 5.21 am):
“Kevin, are you sure you understand what competency-based assessment is about?”
Bruce is implying he understands police promotion procedures better than a long-standing police officer.
Let Bruce enlighten Kevin (and the rest of us) with his superior understanding.
James, as you show, my question to Kevin was about ‘competency-based assessment’. As a long-standing teacher am I not ‘allowed’ to comment on a statement about assessment?
By the way, James, if we _are_ talking about assessment, then distinguishing ‘know’ and ‘understand’ is _far_ from a ‘quibble’ and they are _not_ synonyms.
Bruce,
You implied you knew better than Kevin did about his own world of work and how they evaluate police officers. I’m pretty sure you don’t. ‘Assessment’ in this case simply means making a judgment about a person’s ability and achievement. I am very sure Kevin understands this. But you never interacted with him, only cast aspersions. Not good.
Plenty of people here are long standing teachers. Some of us have taught degree courses. It’s a good principle to stick to one’s lane.
‘Know about’ and ‘understand’ are frequently synonyms in orfinary speech. Not worth a quibble.
Did you actually have any ideas on the actual topic of this thread, how the Hampshire police handled the murder of Henry Nowak?
‘Some of us have taught degree courses.’ (James)
Yes, James, some of us have!
Bruce,
you cast aspersions on Kevin Parks’ knowledge and experience, and then entirely failed to substantiate your remarks. You didn’t apologise to him.
That is unworthy of Christian debate. You added nothing to the discussion about the police handling of the murder of Henry Nowak.
I can’t be bothered to respond to you any more.
I have already explained, in a response to Peter Parker, if PH has read it carefully and with understanding, an explanation which is not reckless, even though PH doesn’t accept it
Fact, truth and evidence are important. Even, or especially, when forming an opinion.
Henry Nowak died with his mouth full of blood having been arrested and handcuffed by racist police because he was a white man.
It is an absolute outrage. I make no apology for my relentless efforts to insist that the facts of this monstrous tragedy must be the last word.
Those who seek to obfuscate and confuse the matter should hang their heads in shame. A young man ending his life in such terrible circumstances – stop and think about it before printing or posting more nonsense
Re your citation of an experienced barrister: 1. In what field of law do they practice? Is it criminal law or Human Rights Law? What is their specific experience in relation to equality law? 2. I’m sure that they will have advised you that there isn’t a single piece of legislation defining equality v equity. So 3. Was their opinion a legal opinion based on statute or case law? Or was it their personal opinion factoring in their own philosophical presuppositions?
Dave,
Can you say to whom you are addressing your question.
I assume it’s to Ian as he refers to it in a paragraph in his post.
Hi Dave. My friend is a barrister who has been involved in some high profile employment and human rights law.
It was a conversation, not a fee-paid consultation.
Why do you ask, and with what qualifications?
Perhaps this particular post might have been closed down some while
ago,It was engendering strife and far from edifying. Did it serve ministry at all ?
This thread increasingly resembles a phase of play in American Football, i.e. mass 2-man wrestling.
I ask people to abide by the comments policy.
I don’t have time to police all the comments (no pun intended).
No, I don’t think you have, mate.
It is a horrible and distressing experience posting on this site and that is not intended as an insult to Ian Paul.
He writes and publishes excellent articles on this site and he must deplore the sight of the awful acrimony and confusion in response.
The quoting of nonsense from witless journalists. The endless Farage Derangement Syndrome. It’s awful.
Tragically, Henry has no voice and witness to his tragedy must surely be heard and be the last word
I wonder if you are aware of who penned the worst instances of acrimony on this page?
‘Don’t repeat self interested rubbish … Your obstinacy does you no credit … sanctimonious cant … It is an absolute outrage. Those who seek to obfuscate and confuse the matter should hang their heads in shame. … Your analysis is an exercise in sophistry. … You should be ashamed of yourself.’
Racism is considered one of the worst sins a person can be guilty of, but it is not mentioned in Scripture at all. Indeed it was God divided the peoples, allotting them their own lands, languages and ancestries. If the term has any meaning, it is covered by Luke 6:31.
Self-righteousness is condemned in the strongest terms. So is intemperate speech, for ‘the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness … a restless evil, full of deadly poison’.
Assuming that we would like people to be civil to us, we must all try to be civil in our comments, however strongly we feel, and try not to judge.
Unfortunately, loud voices will discourage some wise and peaceable readers of the blog from saying anything.
Steven,
If anybody had been willing to focus on the murder of a teenager who died in handcuffs at the hands of a brutal, racist police force, it would have been no loss to me to play no part in this discussion.
If you have no sense of outrage and anger in the face treatment of Henry Nowak, then I pity you.
Spare me your sanctimonious cant
Yes, I get fed up with some of the frankly puerile exchanges of insults.
I have a clear comments policy, and I wish you would all pay attention to it.
Ian,
For what it is worth, I am grateful to you for the courage and clarity of your article which is the basis of this thread.
The video of Henry’s last moments is one of the most distressing images I have ever witnessed. It moves me and affects me to a degree that is beyond description .
I did recommend a good soak in the letter of St.James
some while ago might be beneficial. If not the whole
perhaps a good scrub with chapters 1,3 & 4
Or a swift application of James Ch. 1:20 and Ch. 3 : 11 – 13
Shalom.