Look back in anger

First published: Watson R (2026) Do look back in anger The New Conservative June

Look back in anger

What can be added to the narrative that has ensued the horrible death of Henry Nowak. Our courageous editor has been on the case since the outset, the Prime Minister has spoken, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken, Nigel Farage has spoken (over booing and jeering) and an endless stream of journalists have filled columns. Is there anything left to say?

Image generated using ChatGPT

Clearly, I think there is or I would not be embarking on this column. Nigel Farage, of all the high-profile commentators, possibly said it best when he referred to two-tier policing (shame on him!) and of the ‘cold rage’ we should feel. However, sadly, Nigel has lost some of his sparkle and his credibility by repeatedly pulling back from the brink of calling out the main problem we face in this country.

Elected on a populist platform of anti-immigration and even toying with the idea of remigration at one point, he then vacillates. He seems to acknowledge a need for some immigration, praises the contribution of our Muslim minority (exactly what that contribution has remained unspecified) and packs the higher echelons of his party with representatives of the ‘religion of peace’ and lockdown, Covid vaccine zealots (getting two for the price of one with the detestable Zia Yousaf). This is just a long-winded way of saying that I no longer trust Nigel Farage and doubt very much that Reform would do other than perpetuate the ‘uniparty’ system we have endured for the past few decades.

Henry Nowak’s father spoke with dignity, did not single out the Sikh community and specifically asked that what had happened to his son should not lead to further division in our society. I hate to sound critical, but that is very much the script whereby such proxy victims as Henry Nowak’s father are expected to speak these days. Can you imagine how long it would have taken for him to be silenced and bundled off to be charged with a hate crime had he called for blood on the streets?

Nobody wants to see blood on the streets or our society divided along racial and ideological grounds such that civil war breaks out. That despite the fact that Kemi Badenoch– a few weeks prior to Henry Nowak’s murder – said she considered this an imminent possibility. But the ‘society should not be divided’, ‘don’t look back in anger’, ‘let’s all come together’ is all part of the default script. These words are always amplified to drown out anyone who wants to point out that, like Houston, ‘we have a problem’.

They become the focus of the chattering class narrative, ‘such dignity’ etc, like a mantra enabling them to meditate on all the wonders of our multicultural society, a distraction from the reality of racialised and religious ghettoes in many city centres and the tinder boxes that is smouldering on many street corners. But Henry’s father was also angry, he pointed out the injustice inherent in the politeness and credibility afforded to the murderer while his son was read his rights and bled to death in a pool of his own white privilege (not Mr Nowak’s words). We too should be angry.

Some commentators, while appearing to express horror, get it so utterly wrong. Like the not unattractive Camilla Cavendish (that’s Baroness Cavendish to you and me) in the Financial Times this weekend. The Noble Baroness said that she didn’t need politicians telling her to be angry (that would be Nigel Farage then?) as she had a son and she could imagine the loss and sadness of Henry Nowak’s family. Well, as it didn’t happen to her, she can’t and what does that matter anyway?

Personalising an issue – as many have done – is just that. It is bringing yourself into the picture, into a situation that has virtually nothing to do with you and it completely sidesteps the main issues. We should not be wondering about ‘what-ifs’; instead we should be outraged not only at the action of the police but at the fact that a person of a darkish hue who had just sunk a knife into the chest of an innocent white boy several times and left him to die could even be aware that calling the incident ‘racist’ would invert the situation and have the immediate aftermath work so much in his favour that his victim is arrested and allowed to die while he gets mollycoddled.

Cavendish did not stop there. She went on to say that the police did not kill Henry Nowak. Well, we don’t know that for sure. That they didn’t stab him is correct and that he may well have died of his wounds anyway is quite likely. But expert opinion offered to Mike Graham on his show the other morning did not support this. A trauma expert said that if the police had acted correctly and called an ambulance immediately on arriving on the scene that Henry Nowak, with the local hospital only a few minutes away, may well have been saved. We’ll never know, nor will Henry Nowak or his family.

Even some commentators on the angry side of the fence point to how the police officers, acting as they were with their heads full of ant-racist rhetoric, could not help acting as they did. This is how they are trained. If that is the case, then how did we get here and how is that even a commonplace? But had none of those police officers an ounce of common sense? Are they really going to be permitted to hide behind a smokescreen of DEI training? If these police officers are not prosecuted, then we can expect other similar incidents.

The whole Henry Nowak incident fills me with incredible anger and incredible sadness. Both of those are reactions to the incident but also to my abiding sense that absolutely nothing will change as a result of this. There has been too much investment in ideological training of our police force, there are just too many DEI consultants out there with large corporations, quangos and governmental organisations in their pockets that nothing short of a revolution will effect change.

If you like it: buy me a coffee