Townhall⁠84%

British Police Don't Want You to Watch This Footage of Their Mistake ⁠90%

By Joseph Chalfant⁠97%

7/3/2026, 7:00:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 60.8% saturation with 177 hits. Analysis detected 962 faulty-reasoning hits from 291 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠90% (2,183 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.00% of the article peer group.

Footage spread online over the extended weekend of British authorities arresting the victim of an assault while letting the perpetrators walk in a scene reminiscent of the murder of Henry Nowak. 
The footage shows a crowd of people tackling and then striking the head of an Englishman. 
Moments after the attack, the Englishman gets to his feet in order to defend himself, where he is then slammed into a wall by a female officer. 
The Englishman then struck the female officer. 
Birmingham police have announced that only a single individual has been arrested and charged during the altercation, the Englishman. 
The group of men who committed the assault were allowed to walk free. 
“The incident has been reviewed, and we have no concerns over the officer's actions and we are satisfied that they were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances,” Birmingham Police continued in a statement before demanding that footage of the incident remain hidden. 
The incident has brought the shocking murder of Henry Nowak, a young Englishman who had been stabbed by Vickrum Digwa, back under the spotlight. 
When police arrived on the scene and discovered a collapsed and denying Nowak, authorities ignored his pleas for help and claimed that he was lying about having been stabbed. 
Nowak died moments later. 
The latest incident has sparked mass outrage online, as onlookers believe that a two-tier justice system exists to the detriment of native Britons. 
Editor's Note: It’s America’s 250th birthday! 
Help Townhall celebrate the greatest nation in history by honoring its past, defending its present, and preserving its future with reporting you can trust. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code AMERICA250 to receive 74% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.4%Joseph Chalfant: 7.4%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias14.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.0%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%Joseph Chalfant: 5.0%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic18.9%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.5%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Joseph Chalfant: 20.7%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Joseph Chalfant: 4.9%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 46.7%Joseph Chalfant: 23.1%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias46.7%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.2%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Joseph Chalfant: 2.1%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error19.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.9%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 4.3%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.3%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.0%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Joseph Chalfant: 2.4%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 7.6%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.8%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.0%Joseph Chalfant: 6.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority21.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.0%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 2.3%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.4%Joseph Chalfant: 14.3%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization12.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.2%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.9%Joseph Chalfant: 1.7%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon7.9%This article: 20.6%Joseph Chalfant: 19.5%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion20.6%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 3.3%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.3%Joseph Chalfant: 5.1%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.4%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.2%Joseph Chalfant: 1.4%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal16.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 60.8%Joseph Chalfant: 3.6%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)60.8%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.3%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 1.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.4%Joseph Chalfant: 3.5%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote14.4%This article: 14.4%Joseph Chalfant: 3.1%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection14.4%This article: 4.1%Joseph Chalfant: 29.1%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 8.2%Joseph Chalfant: 6.6%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination8.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Chalfant: 25.6%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Joseph Chalfant: 7.2%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.1%

291 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech216writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageBirmingham police • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBirmingham Police • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall VIP • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Birmingham Police

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words56% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Birmingham Police: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Birmingham Police: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.9 ptsWriter: 13.9%Birmingham Police: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Birmingham Police: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Birmingham Police: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.