Politics: last chance saloon

By Richard North - June 5, 2026

Many moons ago, I recall angrily dismissing some official report or other, declaring that there was “no evidence” to support its conclusion. My PhD supervisor at the time – a microbiology professor of international renown – rebuked me.

There was evidence, he said. It was extremely poor, he conceded, but it was evidence. Since then, I’ve always taken care to use the phrasing “no good evidence” when doing a hatchet job on thinly supported work, which covers all the bases.

Something similar must apply to Starmer’s assertion on Wednesday in the Commons – in relation to the street protests in Southampton over Henry Nowak’s treatment by the police – that there was “no justification” for more violence and disorder.

Actually, there was justification – probably insufficient to warrant the level of violence directed at the police – but there was some justification. At what point, the justification becomes sufficient is difficult to determine, but in our continually deteriorating relations with government, there may be an event where some violence is entirely justified.

The issue here, of course, is that nebulous thing called the “social contract”. It isn’t written down anywhere, but we all know what it is and what it means. And in one particular respect, where violence is concerned, the deal is that we surrender (or allow to be removed) our right to settle disputes by the use of violence on the understanding that the state will use it on our behalf where it is needed.

However, that bit of the “contract” stands for only as long as the state uses violence wisely, proportionately and when necessary, and applies it in an even manner without, as the phrasing goes – fear or favour.

Where the indications are – as evidenced by the police treatment of Henry Nowak – that the contract is breaking down, with one or more events suggesting a systematic failure – then the grounds for denying the direct use of violence get weaker.

Opinions as to when the point of no return might be reached will vary, but many people think we are close, if we have not already arrived there, but that is a different thing from agreeing that it is tactically advisable. Some might (and do) argue that unfocused violence is counterproductive, suggesting that if we do resort to violence, when it is fully justified, it should be sudden, without warning and overwhelming.

This is possibly why the police are so aggressive – during protests initiated by White Englishmen. Unlike the mindless violence we see on the streets in other “communities”, Whites are slow to anger but, when they erupt, their violence is more focused and politically dangerous. It must be suppressed at all costs.

It also explains why there has been such a sharp reaction to Elon Musk’s support of Nowak – now accused by Starmer of “trying to whip up division”.

The likes of Starmer, though, are part of the political class which, as one commentator observed, spent a decade insisting Britain is structurally racist, turned “hate crime” into a quasi blasphemy law, and trained police to treat hurt feelings as an emergency while real violence waits in the queue.

Now the mask has slipped: the system’s first instinct was to secure the racism narrative, not to save Henry Nowak’s life, our commentator says. Musk isn’t “interfering in our politics” – he’s exposing a hierarchy of victimhood that Starmer built his career on, and which he cannot defend in open debate.

He continues, saying that the establishment fury is focused on Elon Musk, because he made their moral hierarchy legible in one brutally simple comparison: in today’s Britain, an accusation of racism can outweigh a corpse on the pavement.

You can disagree with Musk’s language, but the political class attacking him are the same people who built, funded and enforced this hierarchy – and now want anyone asking questions labelled “far right” and removed from polite conversation.

For the moment though, we have to put up with this deflection, while the establishment gets its ducks in a row, and sets in motion a number of inquiries which, they undoubtedly hope, will serve to bury the issue and exonerate the guilty.

First off the stocks is the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which has not got off to a stellar start, with Engagement Director Derrick Campbell declaring that there is “no evidence” that the officers who arrested Nowak had done anything wrong. Supposedly, the IOPC began reviewing the arrest the day after Nowak died and says that so far there is no evidence that any of them committed misconduct.

Campbell is now back in the frame, with a public statement instructing the public to shut up.

“We are acutely aware of the public interest in this case”, he says, but “We would respectfully ask people to stop speculating on an ongoing live investigation”.

He adds: “This investigation is going to fully establish the circumstances of the case including whether there may be misconduct on the part of any of the officers involved. The ongoing commentary about the evidence and speculation risks prejudicing any potential processes and preventing Henry Nowak’s family getting the answers they deserve”.

Interestingly, Campbell is black. He is well-known for his “prominent leadership roles” in the UK focusing on police conduct, racial equality, and community cohesion. Before he joined the IOPC, he was Chief Executive of Race Equality in Sandwell and Wolverhampton.

His long history as an advocate for race equality has critics questioning whether he is the right person to be the public voice of a supposedly independent inquiry on a race-sensitive issue, not helped by his call to end speculation – seen by some as patronising and dismissive.

However, Campbell does have a small point in that there is also to be an jury inquest (the jury required by law where there is police contact). The jury will be asked to consider whether “any act or omission by police officers” or delay in treatment caused or contributed to the death of Henry Nowak.

Coroner Pegg says the state had a “duty to carry out a public investigation… in which Henry’s family can fully participate”, which they had not been able to do during the trial of his murderer. However, the inquest is not scheduled to be held until 20 September 2027, although Pegg hopes the date might be brought forward.

When it happens, this might give the Nowak family the opportunity to call for what is known as an “Article 2” Inquest. This invokes the Human Rights Act (Right to Life) and legally forces the coroner to look not just at how Henry Nowak died, but the wider circumstances surrounding it – including whether police actions or biases contributed to his death.

While the coroner sets the legal boundaries and sums up the evidence, the final verdict will belong to the jury, but by the time it comes to drawing up its verdict the terrain will be so heavily polluted by controversy that it might have difficulty sorting the wheat from the chaff.

At some time, there may be parliamentary involvement, with the convening of a select committee to examine the issues. This, though, is likely to be downstream, after the formal inquiries have been completed.

By that time, it seems highly likely that there will be another “Henry Nowak” – another innocent slaughtered by an immigrant, or a person of immigrant stock, to join all the rest in what is becoming a routine occurrence.

And, as each of these ghastly events occurs, the temperature will be ratcheted up another notch, taking us ever closer to that point of no return where the state and its agencies have completely lost the confidence of the public and the hard men take over.

To an extent, the government is in the last chance saloon – although I don’t think Starmer will see it that way. His tone-deaf blundering can only make things worse.