Straight from the horses mouth.

https://www.npcc.police.uk/our-work/police-race-action-plan/police-anti-racism-commitment/

Equality of outcome versus treating people equally. Or "the same".

It does not mean racial equality.

It does not mean colour blind.

2 tier policing. Officially.

I think were drifting off Topic i started a diff thread on two tier policing. So should the Police officers who turned up on this case be suspended until the outcome of any Enquiry is heard.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by BarraMarra

12 hours ago, bannork said:

Starmer criticising Farage for exploiting the death of Henry, particularly when the family asked no one to do that

Starmer making political capital by accusing Farage of making political capital 🙄

The UK and Canada or even USA are blindly allowing these extremist religions to enter and evolve in their countries. Many whom are wanted in India for subversive or criminal activities. Same context in Europe, with different ethic groups or extremist groupes from the East or even from Ukraine, that mix behind all the asylum seekers or illegals amongst whom some have hostile intentions towards the west.

On 6/2/2026 at 9:50 AM, Patong2021 said:

They also have stated that fly tipping in nature preserves, farmer fields and parks is not specific to certain cultures

In farmers' fields, I worry most about cow tipping.

This is cruelty at its most dastardly.

Sounds like a mix-up, to me.

In the heat of the moment, the wound may have been almost invisible.

Those kinds of knives developed in places like India and Pakistan are just so deadly.

Then, if one wields one of those knives with 20-meters of fabric wrapped around one's cranium, the effects can be ....

Downright terrifying.

As I was always told when I was young, a HOMOGENEOUS Society is a HAPPY Society.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by GammaGlobulin

Some troll posts and replies of an offensive nature have been removed.

A low value post has been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

England like Canada are foolishly allowing all the Sikhs in their country and allowing them to pursue their subversive activities. Not to mention that the Sikhs have very powerful congregations worldwide that often dictate their own desiderata to the local politicans in power.

On 6/2/2026 at 5:27 AM, BarraMarra said:

To any member who think out Policing is justified watch the body cam footage. This poor lad was stabbed in the face yet the police cuffed him and read him his rights as though he was the aggressor while the Murderer stood watching accusing a dying boy of racism, his mother even turned up and took the weapon away she should also be charged with aiding and abeting a crime. I think one of the female officers left the force so not to face any trials of the officers who dealt with this incident. Even after the court sentance the murders family shouted racist insults at jury members once the murdering family member was sent down. The murderer was even took to the police canteen and asked what food he could choose. If it was a white man arrested he would have been banged up immediatly and put before a magistrate the next morning not offered a choice of a meal.

Would you like to apologise for your errors in this comment? You said a day or so ago you will always admit your mistakes and apologise.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by youreavinalaff

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Farage is indeed an opportunist and increasingly a tool of the deep state to maintain the status quo. I dont trust him.

I see no evidence of racism though. He's absolutely packed Reform with minorities.

Do you have any evidence of this racism or are just throwing around the usual baseless slurs that leftists use when they've run out of arguments?

A quick search of Farage's past throws up countless evidence of his racism.

3 hours ago, Sigmund said:

The UK and Canada or even USA are blindly allowing these extremist religions to enter and evolve in their countries. Many whom are wanted in India for subversive or criminal activities. Same context in Europe, with different ethic groups or extremist groupes from the East or even from Ukraine, that mix behind all the asylum seekers or illegals amongst whom some have hostile intentions towards the west.

The Sikhs rarely have problems in the UK. A Sikh taxi driver once complained to me about Muslims moving into a street and then complaining about a pub a few doors down.

A low value post and a reply has been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

6 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

In farmers' fields, I worry most about cow tipping.

This is cruelty at its most dastardly.

Sounds like a mix-up, to me.

In the heat of the moment, the wound may have been almost invisible.

Those kinds of knives developed in places like India and Pakistan are just so deadly.

Then, if one wields one of those knives with 20-meters of fabric wrapped around one's cranium, the effects can be ....

Downright terrifying.

As I was always told when I was young, a HOMOGENEOUS Society is a HAPPY Society.

I have noticed a "question mark" symbol in response to my comment, signifying lack of clarity.

Therefore, please let me clarify my comment so there is zero semantic confusion.

The meaning is clear:

Diagnostic Assessment: The textual ambiguity prompting the question mark stems from an abrupt rhetorical shift and the use of absurdist non sequiturs. The author initiates with a pun (conflating "fly tipping," or illegal waste dumping, with the prank of "cow tipping") and rapidly escalates into hyperbolic satire. By introducing culturally specific weaponry and exaggerated ethnic tropes, the text mocks the original commenter's implicit xenophobia regarding "certain cultures." The concluding capitalized maxim is structurally and functionally ironic.

Clarified Revision: To eliminate ambiguity while preserving the original irony and satirical escalation, the logical connective tissue between the sentences must be fortified.

In response to the assertion that 'fly tipping' is not culturally specific: my primary concern in agricultural zones remains the insidious practice of cow tipping. A truly dastardly act of cruelty.

However, the original focus on 'certain cultures' seems to conflate standard rural vandalism with imported malice. It reads like a paranoid mix-up. In such fevered imaginations, a minor infraction in a field rapidly escalates to an invisible stab wound.

Suddenly, one is forced to envision the deadly blades traditional to India or Pakistan. Factor in a hypothetical agricultural assailant wielding such a knife while encumbered by twenty meters of cranial fabric, and this fabricated scenario becomes downright terrifying.

Therefore, to protect our pastures from these imaginary threats, one must sarcastically conclude with that old, misguided adage: a perfectly HOMOGENEOUS society is undeniably a HAPPY society.

The revision explicitly links the absurd imagery to the original author's premise, thereby resolving the semantic confusion.

Anytime I get a comment, due to lack of clarity, or perceived lack of clarity, then I will do my best to provide further provide a clearer revision.

11 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I have noticed a "question mark" symbol in response to my comment, signifying lack of clarity.

Therefore, please let me clarify my comment so there is zero semantic confusion.

The meaning is clear:

Diagnostic Assessment: The textual ambiguity prompting the question mark stems from an abrupt rhetorical shift and the use of absurdist non sequiturs. The author initiates with a pun (conflating "fly tipping," or illegal waste dumping, with the prank of "cow tipping") and rapidly escalates into hyperbolic satire. By introducing culturally specific weaponry and exaggerated ethnic tropes, the text mocks the original commenter's implicit xenophobia regarding "certain cultures." The concluding capitalized maxim is structurally and functionally ironic.

Clarified Revision: To eliminate ambiguity while preserving the original irony and satirical escalation, the logical connective tissue between the sentences must be fortified.

The revision explicitly links the absurd imagery to the original author's premise, thereby resolving the semantic confusion.

Anytime I get a comment, due to lack of clarity, or perceived lack of clarity, then I will do my best to provide further provide a clearer revision.

This makes the second Question Mark Symbol I noticed.

However, there is really nothing unclear.

If readers would read, then all would become clear.

In point of fact, let me offer up here an explanation of why one reader, maybe two readers, might not have been able to grasp the clarity of my comment.

There was nothing wrong with the comment, and was an excellent response to an earlier good comment.

However, I am writing in English here, and so this might be troublesome for a few.

Let's analyse these comments further in this way:

The second 'question mark' symbol indicates a reaction to contextual dissonance, not semantic ambiguity. Standard internet forums operate on colloquial discourse norms. The insertion of a formal, academic 'Diagnostic Assessment' and a structured 'Clarified Revision' violates the expected linguistic register of the platform. The audience is reacting to the highly unusual, clinical format of the explanation rather than failing to understand the underlying text.

Furthermore, the initial satire required the reader to connect Patong2021's non-sequitur regarding "fly tipping" (Image 2) back to the original topic headline regarding a Sikh assailant (Image 1) using the imagery of turbans and regional knives (Image 3). This is a significant inferential leap. Providing a meta-analysis of the joke only compounded the cognitive load for the forum users.

Future interventions in this environment require abandoning meta-analytical frameworks. To resolve confusion in a standard forum, the underlying premise must be stated using direct, unadorned prose.

Should a tertiary clarification be necessary, utilize a localized, colloquial translation of the core argument:

"To be clear: I am mocking Patong2021. The original post is about a tragic murder involving a Sikh man. Patong2021 ignored the murder to complain about immigrants and littering ('fly tipping'). I used exaggerated stereotypes about knives and turbans to highlight the absurdity of turning a murder thread into a complaint about rural vandalism."

If irony and satire are to be banned from TV, or this particular Topic, just because one or two readers cannot keep up, then....

What are we to do?

Dumb Down the Entire Forum, or the Entire Topic?

Edited June 4Jun 4 by GammaGlobulin

Really, I fail to see what is unclear about this comment, yet the comment is marked UNCLEAR.

Why is this?

Therefore, since there is at least one reader who finds this comment "UNCLEAR", let us try to clarify things so there is not further confusion.....

an analysis of the target text reveals that the "question mark" reaction stems from a structural logical fallacy rather than semantic obscurity.

The author of the comment (bannork) attempts to refute the quoted premise (Sigmund), which alleges that Western nations are importing "extremist religions" and subversives from India. The author's counter-argument suffers from the following structural flaws:

1. Anecdotal Fallacy: The author asserts a broad sociological claim ("The Sikhs rarely have problems in the UK") but attempts to substantiate it with a singular, unverified personal anecdote ("A Sikh taxi driver once complained to me...").

2. Non Sequitur: The anecdote provided does not logically support the initial claim. A Sikh individual complaining about a distinct minority group (Muslims) regarding a localized zoning or cultural grievance (a pub) offers no evidentiary value regarding the Sikh community's general integration or lack of extremist activity. It introduces an irrelevant inter-minority conflict that distracts from the primary thesis.

The cognitive dissonance generated by connecting a broad demographic assertion to an unrelated, subjective anecdote is the likely catalyst for the user confusion.

Here is one possible resolution....

To establish clarity and logical coherence, the comment must discard anecdotal deflection and directly address the quoted premise using objective framing.

Clarified Revision:

The assertion that Western nations are broadly importing extremism mischaracterizes specific demographic realities. For example, Sikh populations established in the UK demonstrate high levels of societal integration and economic participation. Conflating isolated extremist factions with entire ethno-religious populations is an inaccurate representation of UK demographics.

This revision eliminates the logical disconnect by replacing the irrelevant anecdote with a direct, categorical refutation of the quoted text.

Normally, such detailed clarification should not be required.

However, obviously, the Question-Mark comment shows that at least one reader here is unable to understand and grasp the meaning of the obvious.

Hopefully, this more detailed clarification will be helpful.

Fresh figures have intensified scrutiny of Hampshire Police as the force faces accusations of anti-white bias following the handling of the murder of teenager Henry Nowak.

The controversy comes as new data shows officers are more than five times more likely to stop and search a black person than a white person, a disparity higher than the national average and one that has widened in recent years.

A Murder Case That Sparked a National Row

The debate erupted after 18-year-old Henry Nowak was fatally stabbed in Southampton in December.

When officers arrived, they treated the wounded teenager as a suspect rather than a victim after his attacker, Vickrum Digwa, allegedly claimed he had been racially abused. Despite telling police he had been stabbed and was struggling to breathe, Nowak was handcuffed and arrested at the scene.

The case has since fuelled allegations of "two-tier policing" and prompted comparisons with some of the most controversial failures in modern British policing.

Stop-and-Search Figures Add Fuel to the Fire

Official data shows Hampshire officers were 5.1 times more likely to stop and search a black person than a white person during the latest reporting year.

The figure exceeds the England and Wales average of 3.8 and marks an increase from previous years. Police carried out around 15,000 stop-and-searches, with roughly 60 per cent resulting in no further action or advice.

Critics argue the statistics raise questions about racial disproportionality. Police leaders nationally continue to defend stop and search as a key crime-fighting tool while pledging to reduce disparities.

Competing Claims Over Bias

The case has become a flashpoint in the wider debate over fairness in the criminal justice system.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has compared the failures in the Nowak case to those surrounding the murder of Stephen Lawrence. However, Lawrence's friend Duwayne Brooks rejected claims of anti-white racism, arguing the case reflected poor policing rather than racial favouritism.

Pressure Builds as Investigations Continue

The Independent Office for Police Conduct is continuing its investigation and is due to update Nowak's family this month.

So far, the watchdog says it has found no indication of criminal or disciplinary offences by officers, though it stresses that assessment remains under review. A jury inquest next year will examine the circumstances surrounding Nowak's death and the police response that has left Hampshire Police facing some of the most intense scrutiny in its history.

Nowak murder: Police accused of ‘anti-white bias’ five times more likely to stop black people

15 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

A quick search of Farage's past throws up countless evidence of his racism.

Yet you can't point to even one.

Fascinating.

54 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yet you can't point to even one.

Fascinating.

So, his apology for racism while at school doesn't count?

2 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

So, his apology for racism while at school doesn't count?

Jonny thinks that comes under "playground banter".

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

So, his apology for racism while at school doesn't count?

How long ago was it Brewster Christ stop clutching at Straws im 68 but when i was at School we called blacks gollywogs does that men i was a racist all my life.

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

So, his apology for racism while at school doesn't count?

It would if it happened.

Unfortunately you made it up.

Try providing a real example.

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It would if it happened.

Unfortunately you made it up.

Try providing a real example.

Said without one iota of introspection, let alone a blush.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Said without one iota of introspection, let alone a blush.

I was replying to brewster not you.

Oh, wait a minute 😃😀😀

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I was replying to brewster not you.

Oh, wait a minute 😃😀😀

Oh, wait a minute….

You were posting in an open forum.

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh, wait a minute….

You were posting in an open forum.

Yes.

Under a single username.

21 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

A quick search of Farage's past throws up countless evidence of his racism.

What is your problem with in group preference aka racism?

Thais clearly look after their own before faramg.
Only whites aren;t allowed to prefer their own.
As others have pointed out farang is derogatory term and farangs, if not paying for everything, come after Thai soi dogs in the pecking order.

So why shouldn't whites also be allowed to prefer their own?

It looks like youre the victim of cultural marxist indoctrination - if not, please try to explain yourself.
Or is it just what they call 'virtue signalling' ?

Edited June 5Jun 5 by Tourist2

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

How long ago was it Brewster Christ stop clutching at Straws im 68 but when i was at School we called blacks gollywogs does that men i was a racist all my life.

It probably does. My old man was from Shacklewell, and never called people by that name, and he was 15 years older than you. Neither did his mates. Of course there were people who used such language, but most didn't. Aged 68, means you were at school in the early to mid-70s, a bit ahead of me. I never heard such language, except from the tough kids who ended up ne'er do wells.

At what point in your youth did you realise that the use of the term was wrong? And what was it that caused that Damascene conversion?

14 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Really, I fail to see what is unclear about this comment, yet the comment is marked UNCLEAR.

Why is this?

Therefore, since there is at least one reader who finds this comment "UNCLEAR", let us try to clarify things so there is not further confusion.....

an analysis of the target text reveals that the "question mark" reaction stems from a structural logical fallacy rather than semantic obscurity.

The author of the comment (bannork) attempts to refute the quoted premise (Sigmund), which alleges that Western nations are importing "extremist religions" and subversives from India. The author's counter-argument suffers from the following structural flaws:

1. Anecdotal Fallacy: The author asserts a broad sociological claim ("The Sikhs rarely have problems in the UK") but attempts to substantiate it with a singular, unverified personal anecdote ("A Sikh taxi driver once complained to me...").

2. Non Sequitur: The anecdote provided does not logically support the initial claim. A Sikh individual complaining about a distinct minority group (Muslims) regarding a localized zoning or cultural grievance (a pub) offers no evidentiary value regarding the Sikh community's general integration or lack of extremist activity. It introduces an irrelevant inter-minority conflict that distracts from the primary thesis.

The cognitive dissonance generated by connecting a broad demographic assertion to an unrelated, subjective anecdote is the likely catalyst for the user confusion.

Here is one possible resolution....

To establish clarity and logical coherence, the comment must discard anecdotal deflection and directly address the quoted premise using objective framing.

Clarified Revision:

This revision eliminates the logical disconnect by replacing the irrelevant anecdote with a direct, categorical refutation of the quoted text.

Normally, such detailed clarification should not be required.

However, obviously, the Question-Mark comment shows that at least one reader here is unable to understand and grasp the meaning of the obvious.

Hopefully, this more detailed clarification will be helpful.

Good use of AI, but you forgot to remove the tags.

Thats only one of the terms around the early 70s there were a lot worse Alf Garnet used the best terms whicjh were accepted at the time. What does Damascene mean ?

14 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

It probably does. My old man was from Shacklewell, and never called people by that name, and he was 15 years older than you. Neither did his mates. Of course there were people who used such language, but most didn't. Aged 68, means you were at school in the early to mid-70s, a bit ahead of me. I never heard such language, except from the tough kids who ended up ne'er do wells.

At what point in your youth did you realise that the use of the term was wrong? And what was it that caused that Damascene conversion?

Why the gnashing of teeth over in group preference?
It's just a word.

Stereotypes exist for a reason and if some people don't like other groups theres likely a reason.
Maybe not a valid reason but people should be allowed free choice.

Often names called are linked to behaviours rather than skin colour as Chris Rock famously pointed out.

Or does him saying this make him racist too???:

19 hours ago, bannork said:

The Sikhs rarely have problems in the UK. A Sikh taxi driver once complained to me about Muslims moving into a street and then complaining about a pub a few doors down.

I was at the Angel last sunday. Fantastic atmosphere, all kinds of cultures, and religions. But all North Londoners, at least for the day, most of the day singing in unison. That Louis Dunford song got belted out more than a few times. So did the Tottenham Haters ditty and Allez Allez Alllez Arsenal.

The "problems" people describe are exaggerated, magnified. At individual levels, people get along with their neighbours. In Leicester, substantial Hindu and Muslim populations. But a ton of pubs. Some people seem to revel in finding the division, while ignoring the unity. Often, I think, to excuse their own failings in life, which they blame on others.

Ronnie Reagan, in his final speech as President, about the Americans, the French and the Japanese, while well meaning, was wrong.

The irony is that Henry Nowak was both a British and Polish citizen. It was perfectly ok for him to honour the traditions of his father's country. In the Nowak household no doubt they would have enjoyed a Sunday Roast, but also Pierogi, Bigos and Borscht. Its ok for Anglo-Poles to retain a dual identity?

Part of the resulting debate is about Police training, part of it is about knife laws, but a larger portion, on the forums, is about Sikhs' differences, and how being different is unacceptable, even primitive.

Yes, there can be a debate about police training, but not about a return to 1960s normalities, which some want. The Hampshire Police stop and search statistics suggest contradictions. For those who don't know Hampshire, Hampshire is one of the least deprived areas of England (though obviously, there is Portsmouth and Southampton). It is 93% white, versus 80$ nationally. A significant portion of the minority population are Kukri wielding Nepalese, mostly around Aldershot, for obvious reasons.

Knife laws? By all means. End all defences for religious and ceremonial reasons. But think about the net impact of that. The Sealed Knot society will never be the same again. Various dignitaries will be stripped of traditional attire for England's oldest ceremonies, such as the Lord Lieutenant, Beefeaters. Veterans would no longer be allowed to mark the deaths of their comrades in the same way as before. So there will be a cost, but its for others to judge that's a cost worth paying for making a crime, according to Parliament, that's "practically non-existent" to non-existent. While we are at it, we should examine the case for the continued sale of milk shakes on a take away basis. Nigel Farage, when struck with a milkshake, described it as "frightening".

We banned conkers on the basis that someone could get hurt. So I assume there is full support to the end of that playground death match?