BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[BoldonLad]

The 999 call was from the murderer's brother I think (it was reported) and was 20 minutes, all the while stating it was a racially aggrevated attack. The police were therefore expecting the deceased to have been the aggressor, not the victim.

A terrible occurance, and made worse by the lies and deceit of the perpetrator.

And made worse by Fagash politicising it, when the family had expressly asked for that not to happen. Mind you, Starmer's comments blaming the officers haven't helped either.

Why would they be expecting the deceased to be the aggressor?

 

[First Aspect]

That's a better response. There are some topics I'm happy to wade in on without knowing the facts, or even suspicions, given that this is the internet. This is not one.

I'm fine with speculating that the PCC will have some criticism of the policing. Hampshire police have already apologised, which is a clue that they think there probably is an issue.

And the footage shows someone on the ground and in distress, not running or posing any threat or being in any way aggressive. You can literally see blood on a white t-shirt. It's not an adrenalin inducing chase, from what we can see (which is a potentially significant caveat).

All of which is context that is absent from the FT article.

So I don't think it is unreasonable to at least speculate as to whether there the step of saying, "Hello hello, what's going on 'ere then?" might have been missed.

I also wonder, without being definitive, whether the PCC will be concerned that's failure to assess a stabbing had occured, while not being material to the victim's survival, might have exposed other people to the risk of being stabbed.

 

[briantrumpet]

I'm fine with speculating that the PCC will have some criticism of the policing. Hampshire police have already apologised, which is a clue that they think there probably is an issue.

And the footage shows someone on the ground and in distress, not running or posing any threat or being in any way aggressive. You can literally see blood on a white t-shirt. It's not an adrenalin inducing chase, from what we can see (which is a potentially significant caveat).

All of which is context that is absent from the FT article.

So I don't think it is unreasonable to at least speculate as to whether there the step of saying, "Hello hello, what's going on 'ere then?" might have been missed.

I also wonder, without being definitive, whether the PCC will be concerned that's failure to assess a stabbing had occured, while not being material to the victim's survival, might have exposed other people to the risk of being stabbed.

That's a shitload of speculation based on very partial evidence and no experience. You're breaking your rule again.

 

[Pross]

Why would they be expecting the deceased to be the aggressor?

He was at the other person's house and they were the ones who called the police.

 

[First Aspect]

That's a shitload of speculation based on very partial evidence and no experience. You're breaking your rule again.

It's my rule and I'll break it if I want to. And selectively and arbitrarily enforce it.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Why would they be expecting the deceased to be the aggressor?

Because the murderer's brother called 999, asked for the police and claimed Henry had been racially abusive towards them. The call lasted 20 minutes, presumably the 999 answerer remained on the line until the police arrived on the scene. All that time, the message being given was it was a racially motivate attack by Henry.

 

[briantrumpet]

It's my rule and I'll break it if I want to. And selectively and arbitrarily enforce it.

As a hypocritical member of the Thread Police Squad, I approve this message.

 

[briantrumpet]

Because the murderer's brother called 999, asked for the police and claimed Henry had been racially abusive towards them. The call lasted 20 minutes, presumably the 999 answerer remained on the line until the police arrived on the scene. All that time, the message being given was it was a racially motivate attack by Henry.

Quite.

 

[Pblakeney]

Quite.

View attachment 15520

None of that explains why the "suspect" was prone on the ground.

 

[PurplePenguin]

None of that explains why the "suspect" was prone on the ground.

I assumed they thought he was drunk.

 

[Dorset Boy]

I assumed they thought he was drunk.

Or thought he had been hit hard in an act of self defence by what turned out to be the murderer.

 

[Psamathe]

On the basis of the facts at hand, either it should have been both or neither of them, surely? I suspect the PCC will come to a conclusion somewhat along those lines, but not be overly critical of how they handled the actual medical emergency.

In the footage it's pretty clear. A man is telling them he has been assaulted. A family has found another man on the floor, one shoe missing as if he has been trying to escape from the scene of the crime.


Because you don't normally immediately arrest the victim of a crime. The Police have been told that Digwa is the victim, and Digwa reinforces this. Henry isn't conscious enough to get them to look at where his worst stab wound is, he only mentions his face. It's possible that someone more medically trained would have spotted that there must be a reason that he is collapsed and motionless.

In a general context, what is the purpose of arresting at they scene anyway. Or only arrest if the suspect needs apprehending. If they are not running away and are prepared to go with Police to the Police Station, take then in, ask questions and then arrest them if those answers (or lack of answers) require arrest.

I wonder if there is too much rush to arrest somebody that checking and investigating circumstances slips to a lower priority.

In this case, from what I've seen in this case the victim very clearly wasn't showing and indications of intent to run away so why the rush to arrest? No suggestion of fighting back at anybody so why handcuff?

(I claim minimal knowledge of Police procedure and legal aspects, just questions as to what purpose is server).

 

[Psamathe]

I worry about the impact of the politician interventions making any changes just daft.

Politicians talking about "Everybody being treated the same" which is complete madness. Do they think a person in a wheelchair should be dragged from their wheelchair, propped against a wall for a "Stop & Search"? Do they think a blind person should be given a printed document to read and sign? People need to be treated appropriately for who they are and it's maybe outcomes that should be "the same" (probably not the best word to describe what I'm trying to say here).

But if they want everybody treated the same, do they also think that should apply to knife carrying laws or are "religious exemptions" still to be allowed (recognising that this murder was not using a kirpan). I've never quite understood why a God would require believers to carry a knife.

 

[icowden]

But if they want everybody treated the same, do they also think that should apply to knife carrying laws or are "religious exemptions" still to be allowed (recognising that this murder was not using a kirpan). I've never quite understood why a God would require believers to carry a knife.

In Sikhism there isn't really the concept of a God as a magic cloud being. The idea of God is the universal oneness of creation and the sole reality which all things are part of. As a faith it isn't about sacrifice to go to a nice place, or not sinning so you don't go to a bad place.
The final Guru decreed that the Kirpan should be a mandatory article of faith so that Sikhs can defend the needy and defend righteousness and the freedom of expression. In modern times the Kirpan is a small ceremonial knife and is unsharpened - it's a symbol decreed by an ancient prophet, not a requirement of "God" per se.