Henry Nowak…….an absolute tragedy.

Because the man died while he was in police' hold.
Because on religious grounds, the Sikh man was legally allowed (to all intents and purposes) to be carrying a knife...

twaddle

Sago

Cossy

Sago I do see your point, but very sadly almost every day some terrible incident takes places, injuries, fatigues, miscarriages of justice, do you expect our PM to comment publicly on them all?

Besides which, he may well have privately commented, though again I would expect comments from our govt AFTER the investigation?

Why did he respond then to the death of a criminal in America?

Even people who are criminals don't deserve to be killed illegally.

I don’t disagree, just stating the fact.

Sago

Cossy

Sago I do see your point, but very sadly almost every day some terrible incident takes places, injuries, fatigues, miscarriages of justice, do you expect our PM to comment publicly on them all?

Besides which, he may well have privately commented, though again I would expect comments from our govt AFTER the investigation?

Why did he respond then to the death of a criminal in America?

Sago- what "death of a criminal in America" are you referring to? What did Streamer respond? How does that particular death in America and Starmer's response to that death relate to the murder of Henry Nowak?

MissAdventure

Because the man died while he was in police' hold.
Because on religious grounds, the Sikh man was legally allowed (to all intents and purposes) to be carrying a knife...

I just had a quick Google regarding Sikhs carrying a kirkpan, it’s perfectly legal for a baptised Sikh with no limit on its size 🤷‍♀️

I thought he had 2 knives.

Why should Starmer comment on this particular murder?

Because the treatment of the murder victim, who was dying, was particularly shocking, and unless there is a spontaneous public outcry little is done apart from apologies and the meaningless' lessons will be learned.'
There is no legal protocol for PM comments just human compassion, which seems to be lacking.
Digwa has been found guilty, sentence not yet passed.

LemonJam

eazybee

I was surprised to hear Starmer comment about the case, and possible review of the sentences of the two juvenile rapists; I thought it may well have been sub judice.
He chooses to comment on some events and not others and his lack of comment on this murder and the victim's treatment by the police is a subject of national interest and also some concern.

"sub judice' literally means "under a judge" in Latin. It means a case is currently under judicial consideration and has not yet been decided by the court.

The Crown Court judge's decision in relation to the rapes of 2 young girls was made public and the rapists were convicted but a custodial sentence was not handed down by the judge. the Crown Court judgement has therefore concluded and is no longer 'sub judice".

That none custodial sentence caused a national outcry last week and one of the girls appeared anonymously with her mother on lK show on Sunday- it was harrowing to listen to about her.

However I understand the lower Crown Court Judge's conviction and direction has been referred to the higher Court of Appeal, to be reviewed by the Attorney General which Starmer said is right to do.

There is no national outcry regarding Nowak's murder conviction as it is not yet known, the mater is sill sub judice. There is national interest in the case but the full facts are not et known regarding any police misconduct handling concerns as . the IOPC investigation has not yet concluded. The Judge's sentence for Digwa is still sub judice in the Crown Court therefore it would be remiss of Starmer to comment on that and remiss to comment on the IOPC investigation until it has concluded. .

Re your last paragraph lemonjam
In fact the case is no longer sub judice. On May 28, 2026, a jury at Southampton Crown Court found the defendant, Vickrum Digwa, guilty of murdering 18-year-old Henry Nowak.Since the trial has concluded with a conviction, the matter is no longer sub judice, which means there are no longer legal restrictions preventing public reporting or discussion of the case.

This appears to be a classic example of “two-tier policing.” Handcuffing an injured — and ultimately dying — man because he may have said some “hurtful words” seems deeply questionable, particularly reports suggest he did not, beyond allegedly saying, “you are a bad man.”

There has also been an excessive emphasis on diversity training within policing. Some former detectives and policing experts have argued that this can leave officers feeling as though they are “walking on eggshells,” potentially affecting their judgement in high-pressure situations.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary should comment on this horrific murder and the apparent lack of judgement shown by the officers involved. Many people feel that, had the circumstances been reversed, there would have been immediate and widespread condemnation from politicians, along with accusations of racism.

Sago

Cossy

Sago I do see your point, but very sadly almost every day some terrible incident takes places, injuries, fatigues, miscarriages of justice, do you expect our PM to comment publicly on them all?

Besides which, he may well have privately commented, though again I would expect comments from our govt AFTER the investigation?

Why did he respond then to the death of a criminal in America?

You beat me to it. Starmer should concentrate on his own country and his own people, never mind for convicted criminals in other countries.

Primrose53

Sago

Cossy

Sago I do see your point, but very sadly almost every day some terrible incident takes places, injuries, fatigues, miscarriages of justice, do you expect our PM to comment publicly on them all?

Besides which, he may well have privately commented, though again I would expect comments from our govt AFTER the investigation?

Why did he respond then to the death of a criminal in America?

You beat me to it. Starmer should concentrate on his own country and his own people, never mind for convicted criminals in other countries.

Exactly this!

“Sago

Cossy
Sago I do see your point, but very sadly almost every day some terrible incident takes places, injuries, fatigues, miscarriages of justice, do you expect our PM to comment publicly on them all?

Besides which, he may well have privately commented, though again I would expect comments from our govt AFTER the investigation?
Why did he respond then to the death of a criminal in America?“

Do you mean George Floyd’s 2020, when he was NOT PM?

I don’t know? Why don’t you ask him?

This isnt about Starmer or any other MP in any party.

It’s about a vile, evil thug, lying to the police and causing the death of an innocent next young man. He consistently lied to the police, as did his brother, when the police arrived Henry was in the floor, in the dark and initially the police didn’t look properly at him.

The inquest did show that even if the police had administered first aid immediately, instead of hand cuffing him, the internal damage was so awful he probably would have died anyway.

I agree that the whole sorry story should never have happened, the perp was wrong, the police reaction was wrong.

bookwormbabe

Haven't heard a squeak from Starmer about it, predictably.

What could he say?
Reiterate that in the UK it is illegal to carry knives?
I’ve read about religious reasons so maybe he could mention that he would be looking into that?
Unlikely though.

This is a terrible tragedy for Henry and his family. So very sad. There is only one evil person here and it is not the police. Imagine the confusion when coming on this scene and having the perpetrator shouting lies at them whilst the victim is saying little (owing to his injuries). The stabbing injuries may not have been obvious initially. It can't be easy making sense of it under dark and chaotic conditions. So wrong that the law allows for him to carry a weapon. It needs to be rectified asap.

Silvergirl

This is a terrible tragedy for Henry and his family. So very sad. There is only one evil person here and it is not the police. Imagine the confusion when coming on this scene and having the perpetrator shouting lies at them whilst the victim is saying little (owing to his injuries). The stabbing injuries may not have been obvious initially. It can't be easy making sense of it under dark and chaotic conditions. So wrong that the law allows for him to carry a weapon. It needs to be rectified asap.

Every murder is a tragedy for the family of the murdered. I'm a little puzzled about why this one is being highlighted.

sundowngirl

This appears to be a classic example of “two-tier policing.” Handcuffing an injured — and ultimately dying — man because he may have said some “hurtful words” seems deeply questionable, particularly reports suggest he did not, beyond allegedly saying, “you are a bad man.”

There has also been an excessive emphasis on diversity training within policing. Some former detectives and policing experts have argued that this can leave officers feeling as though they are “walking on eggshells,” potentially affecting their judgement in high-pressure situations.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary should comment on this horrific murder and the apparent lack of judgement shown by the officers involved. Many people feel that, had the circumstances been reversed, there would have been immediate and widespread condemnation from politicians, along with accusations of racism.

Should the Prime Minister and Home Secretary comment on every murder?

What do you mean by "reversed"? It seems some people are determined to mention the "race" element. Why is that?

The sentence is yet to be passed, the police inquiry has not concluded!

This case isn’t about Starmer in any way, shape or form and constant debates about what he should or shouldn’t do, or did or didn’t say about George Floyd back in 2020, when he wasn’t PM, are, at this point in time, utterly irrelevant.

If you feel so strongly about him not commenting, as some of you have stated several times on this thread, why don’t you write to your MP, pointing out what a terrible man Starmer is.

In the meantime, I’ll wait for the sentencing, then the inquiry and then I’ll make up my mind about whether Starmer should or should not have commented.

sub judice exists until sentencing

"(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are
concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases
dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the
mandatory post-trial review."

Source HoC Library The sub judice rule

Many crimes receive particular public attention, George Floyd, Sarah Everard, the two sisters Bibaa and Nicole, I think it is perfectly clear why this is gaining attention, the fact that there was a claim of racism, the ussue around the knife, etc.

Because all this emphasis on diversity training, the police seem to automatically believe claims of racism.

This was in response to Twaddle

sundowngirl

Because all this emphasis on diversity training, the police seem to automatically believe claims of racism.

I expect some people are very willing to believe that. It suits their agenda, after all .

Galaxy

Many crimes receive particular public attention, George Floyd, Sarah Everard, the two sisters Bibaa and Nicole, I think it is perfectly clear why this is gaining attention, the fact that there was a claim of racism, the ussue around the knife, etc.

I understand that and this is a particularly horrifying case and the police reaction was wrong, BUT they acted initially based on intel which was a big fat lie.

I do think they acted wrongly.

The police have training very specific to holding, force used and time someone is held down. (As far as I know)
Someone saying they are unable to breath may well be a cue to loosen the hold I'd think.
Particularly in light of another case, and in light of the fact thay csrtain groups will be possibly seeking vengeance.