The fact that you are unable to answer this question about China where it is often unclear why certain people are being targeted should demonstrate how big the gap is. For example, when Xi's first corruption crackdown happened, it turned out that it was being orchestrated in part by someone in their 90s who had left front-line politics twenty years ago (and much of why that happened is unclear, we are only just learning about things that happened in Chinese politics multiple decades ago so it will be a while before we know...we do know that Xi was then able to make unilateral sweeping changes to his own role shortly after that broke every convention of the last 5 decades)...it is difficult to compare this to anything that happens in any other political system. In China, you find out someone has been executed for reasons that are obviously not explicit months after it has happened.

It is genuinely quite difficult to compare to anything else. 6 people meet in a room, they have almost all the power, and maybe you will read about what they might have said 4 decades later in a book...that will never be published in China.

What is modern China has only existed for 100 years or so. When the country collapsed there were ethnic divisions that were erased after the country was unified.

The hallmark of successful ethnic cleansing is people claiming that there were never any wars, that things were always this way. The same is true of Kaliningrad, the most German city, centuries of history as a leading nation within Germany and the HRE, now a completely Russian city. It is only in the West that you see any narrative around division, in places like China or Russia history is erased (and how could it be any other way, the cornerstone of Chinese politics is one nation, one people...there is no political value in this narrative in Western countries).

I am always completely baffled by these comments that not only get basic facts wrong but appear unable to conceive of a situation where the everything is subordinate to the state.

There is no negotiation, there is no due process, you give access to everything before you start or you can't operate.

The police issued a statement on Twitter, this was covered extensively...I am thinking that you are the type of person who is resistent to evidence that counters your opinion that you have just stopped being able to process information, you just loop through your feelings. In addition, it has also leaked that the statement they issued was dialled down significantly and the original line was to blame Nowak for being stabbed...again, this is because their policing policy was to accept any accusations of racism in full.

If you just read stuff properly, you would know all this and wouldn't find yourself backed into a corner arguing against all forms of reality.

Do you understand how odd this looks to someone who doesn't have these barriers in their mind? It is like someone saying they dislike ice cream and then using that as the basis for concluding they dislike pizza. If politics didn't exist, this would make no sense at all.

https://www.hampshire.police.uk/police-forces/hampshire-cons... - this is a policy document from the police force, this is in the process of being reviewed because the police force involved reviewed the incident in question when it happened and said that the handling met their standards of policing in full (I don't think you understand that you are arguing with phantoms here, the police force has now acknowledged that their policy was wrong and led them to initially say that the incident was handled correctly...afaik, no-one apart from politicians is making the argument you are making, and the policing minister has also said that policy is likely wrong...not that the minister has control over this).

https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/our... - this is a policy document from NPCC which is one of the many quangos that influences local force policy. There are actually quangos that just provide policy guidance on ethnic minority policy, you should look into these as they also provide extensive training to police forces on the specific situation that occurred and how to handle it (again, this is why the police force initially said that the incident was handled correctly, the key point was the accusation of racism and this is what the police said initially when they reviewed the incidence).

I would also repeat: the reason why I did not include these links is because you do not understand basic aspects of how policing works in the UK. I have answered your question about why a medical check was not performed...yes, that was fully explained (perhaps you see my issue with the way you come across, you come across as someone who has put effort into being misinformed). I have no idea what Elon Musk has to do with policing policy in the UK...that you would bring up this "Emmanuel Goldstein"-esque character unprompted comes across as very bizarre to someone who is unaware of whatever political game is occurring. It is very simple: the police should do their job correctly and treat everyone equally. That is it.

After the event, this police force confirmed they had reviewed behaviour and everything was in line with policy. I am not sure what more evidence you need other than the police force saying that what happened was in line with policy.

Bear in mind, the above plan has been edited since the events took place but every police force in the UK has similar policies and has done since the Lawrence case. In addition to policies that govern disciplinary actions, police officers in the UK undergo continuous training which often involves substantial work on dealing with ethnic minorities.

One of the other posters appears not to understand how policing in the UK works but police policies are taken very seriously and are used by management to effectuate behaviour of officers (i.e. are the basis for promotions/disciplinaries). There is no real direct control from central government either, there are quangos but they are largely unaccountable to elected officials.

The Lawrence case in the UK led to a massive structural and cultural shift in policing across the UK, not just the Met. This involved both changes to guidance and changes in how police officers are trained. You can look into this in your own time because there are multiple bodies that are involved in this but the result is that people who the police interacts with have to be treated differently based upon their race.

Also, I can only assume that you are unaware of how police actually do their job. Police officers in the UK (again, I can only assume that you are not from the UK or are someone who lives here but has almost no connection with the society for some reason) go through extensive training to effectuate policy. People who run police forces don't just go: have it lads, go wild. There is extensive training that governs how the police are allowed to behave and that is enforced, ultimately, through sanctions that can result in the police officer losing their job. These aren't abstruse documents that central government creates either, these are created by individual police forces (often with reference to guidance from central government, though this is mostly indirect rather than legal) that are part of continuous training to carry out the job. And, again, one of those things is that police officers are required to treat people they interact with differently based upon their race.

In this case, your description of what happened is also not correct. The police did not deny anyone medical treatment because they did not know that the person had been stabbed. The reason they did not know was because someone who was not white told them that the person was a racist, and policy for every police force in the UK is to believe this. When Nowak said they had been stabbed, the response of the officer was "don't think you have mate" which was conditional on being told by someone who was not white that Nowak was a racist. This behaviour is in line with expectations as Hampshire and Isle of Wight police force confirmed after the fact publicly and on multiple occasions. The reason why is that is policy to take accusations of racial discrimination extremely seriously and arrest immediately, which is what the police did. You may also like to listen to the 999 call where the handler coaches a murderer to invent a specific racial slur, this is also inline with policy which suggests accepting all of this at face value...can you see the contrast with how Nowak's claims were handled?

I would also suggest that you possibly jumped to conclusions about what other people think based upon your personal opinions rather than actual fact. To be clear: you are saying things that indicate no knowledge of how police in the UK actually operate...but you are 100% sure that some evil people are manipulating this event for their own ends. Be clear: this isn't about fact for you (you don't seem to know any) but your own feelings. Other people care about the police doing their job correctly, that is all that matters.

WSJ and Bloomberg took a lot of the top markets/companies people almost a decade ago now (Andrea Felstead was one, genuinely someone who knew UK retail very well). The majority of the remaining columnists either worked in politics or are politics-adjacent. There is almost no detailed finance market coverage. The UK companies stuff was spun out into the Shares magazine 20 years ago.

The FT reflects British society, nothing could be more grubby than becoming involved in commerce. Many of the people who moved up and out go into political journalism because that is high status (i.e. Peston). The FT also has a nasty habit of creating special jobs for people if they are high status enough (Kuper is one, Keynes is the new one, there are many more). The FT is a basically unreformed backwater that is a bit like it was 80s, nothing has really changed. I know a few people who work there in undemanding roles (every couple of weeks attending an expenses paid dinner with a celebrity) and got their job through nepotism. It isn't like anywhere else in UK business or even journalism because of the corporate subscription revenue, the editor is able to run it like a fief.

To give specific examples: Chris Giles is somewhat notorious for being a complete hack. If you are somewhat familiar with how news is made, you should be able to read his stories and work out exactly what conversations led to that story being written. In many cases it is Giles talking to someone adjacent to or in politics. Martin Wolf is a complete dinosaur, if he writes a column you can predict exactly what his take will be because he hasn't had a new idea since 1990. JBM is probably the only journalist who actually writes interesting things, these things however often seem to be conflicted with his personal interests/conversations with civil servants. Stuart Kirk...how does he have a column? Barely worked in markets, somehow the markets guy. Shrimsley, politics guy. Cavendish, worked for Cameron. Beattie, basically a Martin Wolf-lite. Pilita Clark, Lidl Kellaway. It goes on and on. Ineffectual posh people with the most anodyne, pro-establishment positions boring everyone to death with their thoughts.

Exceptions: Lucy Kellaway, long gone now but she was very good (nothing to do with business or finance though, more social commentary). Janen Ganesh, also good (again, social commentary). In actual business or finance...nothing interesting. John Lee was quite interesting. MSW was somewhat interesting but also said catastrophically incorrect things often...but she was good for marketing if you started a fund and actually was primarily a fund management journalist (although at the FT she often strayed into politics).

Also, a special mention for Lionel Barber...admitted to leaking stories to traders in a documentary, there are multiple laws against this in the UK, never charged, never investigated. A lot of what changed with the paper happened because of Barber and his opinions on things like Brexit where he interpreted the role of the FT as being a political activist first. Same thing has happened at the Economist when Micklethwait left, the lure of politics and being culturally relevant is too strong.

Lex is also useless. They had some decent people there writing on niche topics. But after the incident with Barber/Wirecard, there has been a big change in how that part of the world works. Many years ago, you would call up someone from Lex to leak a fake M&A rumour and (if you gave them something real later) they would "leak" it (this was confirmed publicly in the Operation Tabernula trial, this is why many papers have pulled back completely on any market-adjacent coverage...afaik, Mark Kleinman is basically the only person trying to do this stuff anymore and it is a million miles from what it once was).

You have misunderstood my point entirely.

Being non-white does not mean they are able to do their job better. That is a racist belief.

The police in this case were white. But they were acting on policies which require them to treat non-white members of the public differently. It is nothing to do with diversity. Unless you are a racist, diversity is not an end in itself. No-one is making self-important statements about changing society. They just want the police to do their job correctly. If someone is stabbed, they shouldn't arrest them because their policy dictates that non-whites are rarely suspects in crimes.

The peak of luxury beliefs is to believe that people performing vital jobs that may involve life or death should perform that job in a way to achieve abstract social goals in order to make individuals feel better about "society".

i love commenting on this stuff to get an insight into the mindset of people who support this...strident ignorance.

If you believe that what happened to George Floyd was bad, you would also believe that what happened to Nowak was bad. Saying that being appalled by police brutality towards a white person is "racism" misunderstands what people are saying complextely.

You are arguing with phantoms in your head.

The problem that people have is that whilst America was ripping itself apart with riots, British politicians were enthusiastically supporting this. Starmer made a statement saying he stood with the rioters. The same thing happened in the UK, there was a brief riot, and Starmer has taken the complete opposite position...and today, actually complained about people in other countries "stoking up division" (this is something that is getting said every few days).

The UK has policing policies and laws which favour some groups in society, this event was the outcome of that. When this happened in the US, the same politicians were outraged, appalled, disgusted. When this happened in the UK, no issues with policing at all. The problem that people have is that this is obviously contradictatory...again, if you start from the basis that people should be treated equally (which many people in the UK do not).

If they were not white, you would still have to claim there is discrimination? Or do you believe that non whites are inherently better at policing? Unclear. Also, in the UK there has been central directives to discriminate in favour of ethnic minorities for nearly three decades, discrimination is part of policing policy, there is an extensive body of training given to police to effectuate that (and that extends beyond policing into the court system).

Ironically, I also can't read most of the screenshots because all sharing sites are blocked in the UK because of the threat image sharing represents to the social order.

But the EU started out as an industry group, the ECSC, to limit competition in coal and steel (with the helpful side effect of making German industrialists who did very well under Hitler even more rich).

If there is any founding principle of the EU, it is that competition should be limited because the view of people who founded the EU was that economic competition caused WW1/2 (a very generous interpretation of Germany's role in events but one that was used because there were a lot of wealthy Germans who wanted to use the EU to limit trade...btw, the situation today is beyond their wildest dreams, it is has made a small handful of German billionaires very wealthy for no effort).