English Premier League Hired Foreign Spies To Take Down Outspoken Football Fan - Gareth Icke Tonight
|
Time
Text
Our next guest joins us from the northeast of England.
Harry Miller is a former police officer and is the CEO of Fair Cop, a group set up to fight back against the growing trend of police involvement in people's right to express their opinions freely.
Harry, thanks so much for joining us.
You were a police officer previously and now you're attempting, I guess, to hold them to account.
What inspired you to start Fair Cop?
Well, let's just get one thing straight.
I was a police officer a long, long time ago, for about five minutes, 500 years ago.
Right, okay.
I'm from a family of police officers.
And because of that, I think, I've had a natural bent towards the law.
I've remained current when it comes to criminal law.
I understand the principles of justice.
I understand the principles of habeas corpus and the principle that we are all innocent until we are proven guilty.
I also understand the definition of a crime, which is mens re plus actus re, a smiley to defence.
Put simply, that means guilty mind plus guilty action with no explanation.
So, when in 2019, a police officer from my former force, Humberside, I came to my place of work at the time I was running a large port dock company, a heavy plant machinery company, and told me that my workplace was dangerous for trans people on the basis of the views that I'd expressed on Twitter.
After I'd stopped falling about laughing at him, I then asked him, as a former police officer would do, have I committed a crime?
And he said, no, no crime.
I said, well, what have I done then?
He said, well, you retweeted the limerick.
I said, well, how is me retweeting somebody else's limerick a crime?
He said, ah, without our intervention, it could become a crime.
And I'm like, okay, this sounds absolutely bonkers.
So I said, let's just get this straight.
I haven't committed a crime.
He said, no.
And I said, why are you here?
He said, I'm here to check your thinking.
You've got to be kidding me, right?
I said, no crime, but you're here to check my thinking.
He said, yeah.
I said, you do realise that 1984 is a dystopian novel and not a police how-to manual?
The reference entirely passed him by.
Well, that's how I came to police attention in 2019, because I thought this is absolute nonsense.
How can we have a situation where you are not committing a crime on the basis of expressing a perfectly lawful opinion on Twitter?
The police can come round to your place of work, have a word with you, tell you that they are going to trespass.
What?...that ends in genocide.
That was the argument.
It's based on a thing called the Allport Scale, which was published by a psychologist in America in 1953, I think it was, that was looking back at the historical causes of the genocide, the Second World War, and all the rest of it.
Well, you know, it's a great...
I'm sure it's a very, very good book.
But you can't take a 1950s work that was looking back in history and apply it in this way and say that...
Everybody that expresses a view which is slightly contentious is basically Hitler on the way to committing genocide and the only thing we can do to stop it is go around and have their thinking checked and make sure that they don't express anything like that ever again on Twitter and that is the only way to keep the world safe.
This is how crazy it was.
I instinctively knew it was crazy.
Philosophically, I knew it was crazy.
And in terms of...
Our own jurisprudence.
I knew it was crazy.
And so I challenged the police, Humberside Police.
They said that they were following national guidance set out by the College of Policing, in other words, governments.
So I challenged the government as well.
We went to the High Court and we went to the Court of Appeal.
And eventually I won and got the hate crime guidance overturned.
Unfortunately, it's come back in another guise.
It's a little bit like herpes.
You think you've got rid of it, but the bloody thing just keeps coming back and back and back.
And this is what non-crime hate incidents are.
The so-called non-crime indicators that without the police intervening, without them putting you on a naughty list, you are allowed to carry on and commit horrendous crimes.
It's absolutely crazy.
So little did we know that if the police had intervened when Pol Pot was retweeting limericks, we wouldn't have had...
Do you know what I mean?
Wow. I remember one particular case, which I know you're attached to, of a lady, and people watching this certainly from the United Kingdom will be aware of this, a lady that was banned from attending Newcastle United football club matches for about three years, I think.
The ban was, you know...
Pushed by the Premier League because she said some stuff on social media critical of the transgender movement or so it was claimed.
Can you tell us about that?
Because that one is truly extraordinary as well.
Yeah, yeah.
So this is Lindsay Smith.
Lindsay is a lesbian woman, a lovely, lovely lass from Newcastle.
She's a lifelong Newcastle United fan.
She absolutely loves the team.
It's the centre of her world.
She's also a lesbian, as I say, and she's very concerned about men in dresses encroaching on women's rights, etc.
So on her Twitter account, she said that she was LGB, not LGBT, and she said that trans women are men, which they are.
As a result of this, the police came round and threatened her with arrest.
So she went into the police station voluntarily.
Fortunately, she had the presence of mind, based on advice given by Fair Cop, to record the interview.
And the interview is quite astonishing.
They said simply...
Do you think anybody could have been upset by your tweeting?
What do you mean by you are LGB, not LGBT?
I mean, can you imagine that?
The police were trying to force upon a lesbian an identity which included men in dresses.
They said that she had committed the crime of malicious communications by saying that she was LGB and not LGBT.
We knew that this was absolute nonsense.
We knew that she could not have possibly committed a crime because the crime they accused her of committing was the Malicious Communications Act.
Well, the thing about malicious communications is this.
It happens when person A, Lindsay, sends to person B something very offensive.
Well, there was no person B. She didn't send it to anybody.
So there could not have been a crime.
It's absolutely impossible.
There could not have been a crime.
So what the police did, they simply said, well, what would a victim feel like if she had sent it to somebody?
In other words, they made up, they posited, they hypothesized a victim and went on the basis of that.
I said, this is a little bit like a murder squad, lacking a murder.
And so what they do is they simply draw an outline of a body on the pavement and said, that's what a murdered person looks like.
Go and hunt the bastards.
That's precisely what it was.
That sounds like a great idea,
Banner. The Premier League and Newcastle United, they got a Singaporean spy agency to monitor Lindsay.
A foreign spy agency monitoring a lesbian because she'd asserted her lesbianism and refused to assert her trans rights.
Can you believe that?
This is how crazy it is.
Now, the other astonishing thing about the Lindsay Smith case is that we put in a complaint.
And I'd said, I imagine that it was more than one dumb officer engaged in this.
Well, the investigation took a year, and guess what?
14 different officers were engaged in deciding that Lindsay Smith was a criminal.
This included a superintendent.
Two inspectors, including a detective chief inspector, a number of sergeants, a so-called quality control unit, they all decided that Lindsay Smith saying I am LGB, not LGBT, was a criminal offence.
There was no victim.
It's extraordinary.
It's extraordinary.
The fact that you can identify as whatever you want now, I thought that was the rule.
So I can identify as a cat if I want, but I can't identify as LGB because I get banned for three years.
Now, as I understand it, this Singaporean spy agency, so as you say, a foreign spy agency has been employed by the Premier League, they were taking photos and documenting where she lived and where she walked her dog.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
It's just...
It's like something out of a really shitty John le Carré book.
It's like this could not possibly happen.
And yet it is happening.
It has happened.
We've got the evidence.
Absolutely. There's no denying it's happening.
We got this information by putting subject access requests into the Premier League, Newcastle United and Northumbria Police.
And they gave us the information and it absolutely blew our minds.
So the position that we're in now...
Is that we are chasing down Northumbria Police for a full and frank apology from the Chief Constable.
We're asking the Chief Constable to intervene with St James' Park, Newcastle United, and say, look, we're terribly sorry, we got this very, very wrong.
You will be doing us all a massive favour if you could not only let Lindsay back in the ground, but, you know, we'll pay for a seat for the next three years, trying to do the right thing.
If she's not going to do that, if the Chief Constable is not going to do that, then we'll keep campaigning and we're looking to take her, the Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine, to the High Court to judicial review because it's entirely wrong,
Gareth, that a Chief Constable, a police force, in 2023, 2024, 2025, can go after a lesbian because her lesbianism...doesn't embrace men in dresses.
It's absolutely outrageous, and we will not let the Chief Constable off the hook.
Last month, I went with Lindsay and I handcuffed myself to the flagpole, and what we did was we invited the Chief Constable to come down and simply hold up a sign that said, this Chief Constable guarantees the right to say trans women are men.
Without fear of arrest.
That's all we wanted to do and she absolutely refused to do it.
On April the 1st this year, I went up to Northumbria dressed in a full-on jester costume and handcuffed myself to the police headquarters again and invited the Chief Constable once again to come on down and guarantee that no other lesbian is ever going to be arrested for saying trans women are men.
Again, the Chief Constable declined.
So we will continue our campaign throughout the summer and however long it takes, because we cannot allow chief constables to act like this.
Absolutely not.
It's one of those stories, though.
You know when you talk about spy agencies and being banned for three years for saying something online or whatever?
If you said that to someone in a pub, even today, I bet, if I said that to someone in a pub, they'd go, no, no way.
They wouldn't do that.
It's like, dude, they've done that.
It's extraordinary.
And the other part of it that I think is...
Yes, if someone says something, then they can have this happen to them.
And of course, she's got someone like yourself and Fair Cop fighting for her, which is, of course, fantastic.
But do you think this kind of stuff is actually frightening people into saying stuff?
So people might want to express an opinion, but they look at how mad things are getting and just think, oh, it's not worth it.
And so they end up censoring themselves.
That's exactly it.
And the judicial term for it is the chilling effect.
It's the chilling effect on free speech.
Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, you know, whether you like the convention or not, it guarantees our right to express ourselves, lawful expression, without any interference from the state.
So when the state get into the habit of sending police forces around to check your thinking, where they collude with other agencies like...
Singaporean spy agency in Newcastle United to get you banned from one of the great theatres of life.
Of course, the natural response to that is to check your own thinking, to self-centre and go, do I really need to say this?
Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut because the price of saying it is too high.
Well, that's entirely wrong.
That is entirely wrong.
And it leads us down a...
political route that is more akin to the weird Marxism of Chairman Mao.
We have a situation now where teachers and children are reporting on other children who express views which the state considers to be not sound.
Last year I was called to help a family in the north-east of England because there, I think he was about 13-year-old, slightly autistic little boy, had done a little TikTok video where he'd said that he was gay not queer.
And the school reported him for saying this.
A few weeks later, he did a little video of himself in his own garden.
With a wooden crossbow bought from English Heritage, a child's crossbow that fired foam arrows.
It's a child's toy.
He did a little TikTok video of him doing that.
Two weeks later, Prevent, the anti-terrorist unit and the police arrived at his house because A, he was engaged in dodgy ideology and B, he showed an unhealthy interest in weapons.
My goodness me.
But Prevent couldn't stop Southport happening despite it being reported to them several times.
They tried after the event.
Another story, following the Southport riots, I was called up by a 19-year-old charity worker, an absolutely lovely, lovely young girl.
Prevent had knocked on her door and said, were you involved in the Southport riots?
She said, absolutely not.
They said, did you encourage it?
And she said, absolutely not.
And then they said, Do you have any sympathy at all with any of the concerns of the Southport rioters?
And she said, well, you know, maybe.
I've shared some of their concerns.
And then they said, who do you vote for?
And what are your politics?
Okay. So she said, well, we're a conservative family.
And she said, we noticed that there's religion iconography in your house.
She lives with her parents.
They're Catholics.
And they said, you know, Again, does this suggest something dodgy about your politics?
Anyway, they then saw that there was a replica samurai sword owned by her father pinned up on the wall, so they confiscated that.
And then they identified, or wrongly identified, an Anglo-Saxon helmet on the shelf and said, why would you have that if you're not far right?
Because Anglo-Saxon helmets are famously far right.
Well, it wasn't even an Anglo-Saxon helmet.
It was a replica Roman helmet.
But nevertheless, this was an indicator to prevent that her ideology was unsound, that she was a passive supporter of the Southport riots.
And when she said what had she done, they simply looked at her and said, bite your tongue in the future, and then left.
Oh, mate.
Well, I hope she shouts even louder.
Because that's how I think we can go back at this and just go, do you know what, if you're telling me I can't say something, I'm going to say it and I'm going to say it louder.
And what's interesting as well about the religious iconography, if that iconography had been Hindu or Islamic or Jewish or any other than Christian, they wouldn't have said a word.
They would not have said a word or even mentioned it.
It might have been Jewish, I think.
I think the police got a bit of a downer on Jews at the minute.
But certainly...
They wouldn't have understood it if it was Sikh.
I mean, they can't tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.
It's quite pathetic, really.
But you're absolutely right.
Had they got a scimitar on the wall, then I'm sure it would have been given a pass as being, you know, religious iconography for the correct religion, Islam.
I don't think they would have touched it.
But this is where we are at the moment.
The whole grooming gang.
Scandal and cover-up is simply because the police and the government do not want to meddle with Muslims for two reasons.
One, because they're dangerous.
They don't just argue with you.
There is a tendency amongst certain parts of the Islamic population to take direct violent action against you.
So that's one reason.
And the other reason, of course, is the gerrymandering of votes.
Doesn't want to upset his constituencies where there is a heavy Muslim population.
It's as simple as that.
It's rank cowardice and dishonest.
The state of this country at the moment, honestly, I feel like I sound like an angry pensioner half the time now when I look around me and I start...
Start speaking about it.
Where can people find you then?
Because I'm thinking now, if people say, do what I'm going to do and what I will continue to do and always have, which is speak my mind, and if you don't like it, well, fine.
But if people do do that and they find themselves in hot water with this madness, how can they seek your services?
The best place is to follow us on Twitter.
We're at WeAreFairCop.
And you give us a follow.
If you get into trouble like that, Even if you can't get hold of me directly, somebody will get hold of me.
Somebody will see it and get hold of me, and then we'll swoop in to help out.
To be fair, we only cover matters arising around free speech.
If somebody gets accused of having a bunch of rocks down the back of their sofa, then there's nothing we can do about that.
We're quite limited in what we do do, and that is the right to express yourself.
Freely, not targeting anybody individually, you know, not going after somebody, but just expressing a view.
If the police come at you because of that, we'll be there to help.
Fantastic. Thank you so much for talking to us.
Honestly, it blows my mind, mate.
It really does.
I see stuff all the time, but, you know, Singaporean spy agencies, like you say, it's something from a very bad novel.