The Guardian headline reads: Most people arrested during Henry Nowak protests had been reported for domestic abuse.

Vickrum Digwa, a Sikh man, murdered Henry Nowak, a White man, in Southampton. Some people in the UK believe the police’s behavior shows an anti-White bias among the British cops. As with any controversial issue, people used their right to peaceful assembly to make their position on the matter known. Thirty-seven people were arrested due to their violent behavior.

Unsurprisingly many of the people arrested also have a history of violent behavior. It makes sense to me that people who have had trouble in the past controlling their violent impulses might again lose control of themselves and behave badly. The Guardian article even admits as much “two out of every five arrested for participating in riots in 2024 had been the subject of a domestic abuse report before their involvement, with one in five subsequently being reported for domestic abuse.”

The phrase “participating in riots in 2024” is both interesting and vague. Does the Guardian mean only anti-immigrant rioters or all rioters? They don’t clarify who they mean by rioters. It could mean any violent behavior — say the anger from the losing fans of a football team. Although I don’t advise the Guardian doing this, a better use of their time (although not great) might be to compare the rioters from different groups say anti-Israel demonstrations, losing football fans and anti-immigrant demonstrations and stack them up against each other.

I am betting that past violent arrests might match up significantly for each group. But how is this helpful? The Guardian article leaves me with the impression that people who are concerned about Henry Nowak are actually prone to violence while providing absolutely no evidence about the rest of the crowd and thus pointless.

People prone to past violent behavior are more likely act violently when given an opportunity to do so again. This says nothing, though, about all the people who didn’t get arrested — which is a much better measurement of the character of the people who attended the demonstration.

So what was the point of this screaming headline? What an utter waste of time. The Guardian sent out reporters to find out the obvious — people with a violent past continue to behave badly? So what?

It is a surreptitious way of painting all of the Henry Nowak demonstrators as violent instead of the few who were actually arrested for violence. There is a difference which the Guardian failed utterly to point out.

The Right Wing Echo Chamber are using the Henry Nowak murder as evidence that DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) is not only bad, but it also is deadly. For those who don’t know about the Henry Nowak case here is a brief rundown of the events. Vickrum Digwa, a Sikh man living in Southhampton UK, stabbed Henry Nowak, an 18 year old university student. Digwa’s brother called police and told them that Nowak had attacked his brother for racially motivated reasons. When police arrived they handcuffed Nowak who repeatedly told them he was wounded. An ambulance was called but unfortunately to late to save Nowak.

The key discussion going on is that the police were so infected by DEI training that they allowed a White man to die because they believed the Sikh man over the White man thus causing the police to mistreat Nowak and, for this, DEI is responsible for Nowak’s death.

It is depressing that rabble rousers are using this unfortunate incident as a call to action. The facts don’t support their contention.

Digwa’s family made the first contact with the police. They claimed that Nowak had made racists comments before attacking Digwa. The police were looking for a violent man. When the Police arrived, Digwa and his family was able to tell their story first. Thinking they had a potentially violent person, they handcuffed Nowak. This is a common police practice. Police handcuff dead people, particularly if the person is suspected of a violent crime. This is for the protection of the police. A wounded person can still be violent.

Once the police learned more about Nowak’s wounds, his handcuffs were removed and his wounds attended to. Unfortunately, all this came to late for Nowak who died at the scene. The media accounts make this time lapse seem like a long time. It wasn’t. From the police handcuffing Nowak to the police administering first aid, took somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 minutes.

How DEI killed Nowak though somehow eludes me. The cops weren’t saying we have to believe the Digwa’s because they are Sikhs and ignore the wounded screams of Nowak because he was White. The police were acting on the information that the Digwa’s first provided and when they saw Nowak’s condition, they changed their tack.

It it makes no sense, as Konstantin Kisin does in the above linked article, to compare it to the George Floyd murder in Minneapolis. Floyd was arrested by cops who then used holds that were known to be dangerous when applied and have subsequently been banned. The cop’s actions were responsible for Floyd’s eventual death.

Lets be clear — the police were in no way involved in the murder of Nowak. Digwa stabbed Nowak. Digwa then lied to the police about Nowak’s and failed to inform the cops he had stabbed Nowak. As the police learned more, they released Nowak and worked to save his life. Digwa lies are the problem here and not DEI. The police had to traverse this chaotic situation and the Digwa family’s misinformation and rather quickly came to the right conclusion.

We live with imperfect systems. They will always be imperfect. Every time terrible things like this happen, they should be investigated and any information that can improve police procedures should be made. These are reasonable actions in the face of this or any tragedy. On the other hand, Farage is taking advantage of this tragedy to make dubious claims about the mistreatment of the Whites which is both dangerous and unwise. Sowing discord is apt to create even more discord and division which, I am afraid, is the actual reason Farage has latched onto this particular case.