If you send a friend an email, they may add you to their address book and set a reminder for your birthday while they're at it. They don't need your permission to do that, so why would a device acting on their behalf?

On the other hand, if a customer of mine asks for the data I have on them, do I have to send them my Personal Knowledge Graph facts about them? That's less obvious, and I'd lean towards Apple's helpful database being a liability even if it's local.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01650...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

That much follows as sure as night follows day. I'm reminded of the riots after the police killing of Mark Duggan [1]. Those who understood themselves to be on the receiving end of policed mistreatment latched on to it, using it as an excuse to loot and start fires, regardless of the fact that Duggan was lawfully killed on his way back from purchasing an illegal firearm - a weapon that he, ironically, intended to use to kill another black man.

There's an outside chance you're correct that the police's treatment of Nowak was simply incompetence, but paired with the explicit policy to treat racial groups differently to one another, that is not how it will be perceived. Add to that the fact that his murderer falsely accused him of racism to obscure the fact he'd just fatally stabbed the man, and the racial dynamic is undeniable.

That dynamic concretely exists. It exists on paper, in the mind of Nowak's killer, and in the minds of those protesting. The question then is how to defuse it. If you think immigration/diversity are positives (and I agree that they can be, with some caveats), my suggestion would be that you should be as against the IPCC's notion of "racial equity" as I am, even if only because the current situation was bound to happen regardless of any p=0.01 direct line between the IPCC document and this particular incident.

In other words: even if you were right, it would barely matter. Mark Duggan has rarely been brought up as an example of injustice since the facts of the case were fully elucidated, but that IPCC document, and others like it [2], will be an endless source of grief.

> It's wrong to use this as an example of why immigration is bad for society.

The top comment mentioned "two-tier justice" and we have argued from there. You are the only person to even use the words "immigration" or "diversity" until now.

I would like to think that we can have immigration and diversity without an IPCC that says police shouldn't treat people equally, or a sentencing council that thinks provision of PSRs should be based on ethnicity, or vetting panels that that allow ineligible applicants to join the police force.

Am I wrong? Let me know and I'll update my opinions accordingly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Mark_Duggan

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gn9zqkp9o

You're saying that allegations of two-tier policing are far-right disinformation. In fact, it is official policy, and the IPCC document leaves no room for interpretation on this.

Another user brought up Jean Charles de Menezes, a man killed in the wake of the 7/7 London bombings after being misidentified as a terror threat that should not be allowed on the tube. Ironically, that operation was overseen by a woman who went on to become the Met Police Commissioner, setting diversity targets that led to [1] (quoting Wikipedia):

> In January 2026, a Met Police review revealed that in an attempt to meet the diversity targets set by Dick, senior figures in the force had allowed recruitment standards to fall. More than 100 applicants who initially failed vetting procedures were later allowed to join after their cases were referred to a special panel set up to scrutinise rejected applications from ethnic minority candidates. Several of these went on to commit criminal offences or misconduct, including violence, sex attacks and drug use.

The rot is very deep at this point, and it's far too late to pretend it isn't happening. Your efforts would be better spent on arguing why the policies you support are a good thing.

The UK is already seeing a right-wing resurgence with the simultaneous collapse of Labour and the Conservatives, and rise of Reform and Restore. If the left fails to justify these policies to the masses, they'll be doing more for the far right than anyone on this forum could ever dream of.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/08/met-hired-child-...

> In January 2026, a Met Police review revealed that in an attempt to meet the diversity targets set by Dick, senior figures in the force had allowed recruitment standards to fall. More than 100 applicants who initially failed vetting procedures were later allowed to join after their cases were referred to a special panel set up to scrutinise rejected applications from ethnic minority candidates. Several of these went on to commit criminal offences or misconduct, including violence, sex attacks and drug use.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/08/met-hired-child-...

> Our commitment to racial equity [...] does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality).

is currently under review as a result [3].

[1] https://theconversation.com/police-to-review-anti-racism-gui...

[2] https://www.npcc.police.uk/our-work/police-race-action-plan/...

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c392gj41pgpo

The others he listed didn't stop voluntarily - their empires either collapsed or found themselves at the mercy of another that likely also practiced slavery. As he said, slavery was the default. The UK itself was getting raided by Barbary pirates just 200 years before the Slavery Abolition Act.

Unlike the Romans or the Mongols, the UK made a choice to stop, and they did so, at massive cost, because their values changed. They actual made actual progress, and thus are hated by many calling themselves progressives.

https://fffff.at/rip/

Putting words in someone's mouth to defend that dreck sounds ridiculous, yes.

Everyone doesn't get drafted at once. It stands to reason that drafting women would mean fewer men were needed.

"We'll get around to it when some arbitrary measure is met, we promise"

This is the same thing you're criticising - using one injustice to justify another.