There’s a nasty case going on in the UK at the moment. A guy called Henry Novak was arrested by police. Then handcuffed. The chap had actually been stabbed, and he subsequently died at the scene. He was the victim, not the perpetrator.

The incident happened in a city called Southampton, only twenty miles away from me. I used to live there, before I moved out here.

But beyond that, I can’t claim to have any special knowledge. From listening to the radio this morning, though, I appear to be in the minority!

I’m hearing that US vice-president J D Vance got involved overnight, making comments to the effect, “this is what happens when you don’t get a grip on immigration”. The comments seem particularly ill-judged, since both Novak, and the guy who stabbed him, were British. The closest we get to immigration is that the guy who did the stabbing happened to be a Sikh, but it still seems slightly dumb to confuse a religion with a nationality. Especially for someone so talented as a vice president of the USA.

But Vance was only responding to the storm within the UK itself. Politicians on most sides, including our Prime Minister, have seized on the fact that the Novak family did not want this issue to be politicised. This argument was used particularly to attack Vance and far-right UK politician, Nigel Farage. A few days ago, Farage stood up and said things like “people are angry” and in particular, made reference to two-tier policing. That when they arrive on the scene, police make a snap decision, perpetrator or victim, rather than being open-minded and treating everyone equally.

I don’t often have sympathy for Farage, but on this occasion, I do. For a start, Farage was speaking in our parliament, where he was heckled, other politicians wanting him to shut up rather than to express his view. That seems wrong to me, especially in a parliament. Surely the whole point is to hear different views?

Second, a small point, but Farage was correct to say that people were angry. When the event came to light, there were protests, which included violence, in Southampton. That sounds to me like anger.

I’m less comfortable with his allegation of two-tier policing. But it doesn’t seem implausible that when a member of a minority makes a complaint (which is what happened here), the police would arrive at the scene and would see their role, at least superficially, as to protect the minority.

I mean, I’d hope that they would then go on to take a balanced view of the situation, build a fuller picture and ultimately police it in an impartial manner. But equally, we expect institutions like the police to be perfect, but we’re often disappointed. And when a Prime Minister says, “there is no bias” – that sounds more like wishful thinking than a reflection of reality.

Lastly, the Novaks. The issue here is that somebody in a position of authority jumped to a premature, incorrect conclusion. And that somebody else died following this. And that, maybe taking time to reach the correct conclusion in the first place would have helped? I mean, in this particular case, maybe not. But it couldn’t have harmed. And it would have avoided all this backlash.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for anybody (politician or not) to want the “person in authority” to reach the correct conclusion. That did not happen in the Henry Novak case – that’s a simple fact, because Henry Novak was initially arrested, not the guy who did the stabbing. Maybe there was a human reason for that? But maybe there was an institutional element? And maybe, therefore, the police’s approach can be improved?

I sympathise with the family’s loss, but I don’t think it’s valid to use their grief as a reason to shut down the wider debate.