Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 10, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:21

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #194

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Tuesday, the 10th of August 2021.
	I'm joined by Harry Miller from the activist group Fair Cop.
	Harry, would you like to give us a brief overview of who you are and why you're here?
	I'm here because in, when was it, two years ago now, I was simply doing some shopping for my wife, as a man does, in the Tesco car park, and I got a telephone call from my office saying that the police would like to talk to me fairly urgently.
	So I had a phone number, so I rang them up and I got hold of P.C. Gull.
	And P.C. Gull explained to me, in certain terms, that he was concerned because they'd received a report That my workplace was dangerous for transgender people.
	This came as something of a surprise to me, because as far as I was aware, I didn't employ any transgender people.
	Maybe I do, but how would I know?
	At the time, my company, it employed around about 90 people.
	And we work on Immingham Dock, unloading ships.
	Now, I don't know if you are familiar with Immingham.
	Not very.
	Well, it's not the wokest place on the planet.
	Doesn't sound like it.
	No, it really, really isn't.
	It's the sort of place where they've only just understood that there's a thing called being gay.
	They still stare at aircraft that go across the sky.
	It really is that sort of place.
	It makes Swindon look bosh, I'll tell you now.
	Really, really, really.
	So that came as a bit of a surprise to me.
	And I said to Pace Eagle, look, in all the years that I've been working, I've not had a single complaint based on the Equality Act or based on the acts that preceded the Equality Act in 2010.
	So I don't understand how it's possible that my workplace could be dangerous for transgender people.
	And PCGull informed me that, nevertheless, somebody from down south had been so concerned by my tweets and had somehow discovered that I ran a company in Immingham that they felt it was their moral duty to get in touch with Humberside Police and report me on behalf of my trans employees.
	So I thought, right, okie dokie, that's quite interesting.
	So I said, right, have I committed...
	Have I committed a crime?
	Because I'm an ex-police officer, so the very first thing I want to know is, have I committed a crime?
	He said, no, no, no, of course not, Mr.
	Miller.
	You've not committed a crime.
	No suggestion at all of you having committed a crime.
	I said, well, if I've not committed a crime, what have I done?
	He said, ah, well, you retweeted the limerick.
	I said, a limerick?
	That's a bit weird.
	I don't write limericks.
	He says, no, no, you retweeted the limerick.
	We're not suggesting you wrote the limerick, but you did retweet it, which means that you endorsed the limerick.
	I said, well, I can't remember what it said.
	And he said, well, I can't either.
	But anyway, it was horrible about trans people.
	I said, okie dokie.
	And he says, no, what's more, there were 30 others.
	30 others.
	So this is one of 31.
	So you are clearly a very dangerous person, and this person from down south is correct, we feel, for us to get hold of you and just warn you about your behaviour in case it escalates.
	That's what you mean, escalates to what?
	You've already told me that I'm not committed a crime.
	How does it escalate?
	Do I move from limericks to sonnets?
	Is that what might happen?
	Is that an escalation?
	Non-rhyming doggerel?
	Is that the kind of escalation that you mean?
	And I said, look, let's just get this straight.
	Is it correct that I have not committed a crime?
	And he said, no, sir, you have not committed a crime.
	I said, so why the hell are you ringing me?
	And this is when he said the immortal words, I need to check your thinking.
	Now, I said, hold on a minute.
	You're a police officer.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And I've not committed a crime.
	No.
	And you're here to check my thinking.
	Yes.
	I said, have you any idea what that makes you?
	And he said, no.
	So I reminded him about George Orwell and I said, 1984, it's a dystopian novel, not a police how-to manual.
	Now, of course, this reference went entirely over his head.
	And he continued to lecture me about escalation.
	To be fair to him, he did say, well, we do understand that you do have free speech, but not that kind of free speech, because that kind of free speech is dangerous.
	So we talked a little bit about escalation, and we talked a little bit about common law, and I would have gone into the freedoms that we have under Magna Carta, but I figured he probably hadn't been on that course.
	I strongly suspect.
	But he has been on a course, because after about 34 minutes of chatting back and forth about this, I said to him, look, mate, I'm not being funny, but...
	This trans stuff, it's just a little bit nonsensical, isn't it?
	Don't you think?
	And he said, oh, no, no, no.
	What you've got to understand, Mr.
	Miller, is this, that sometimes in the womb, a female brain accidentally grows the wrong body parts, and that's what being trans is.
	Oh, is it?
	Yeah, and I said, I just went, you've got to be kidding me.
	You cannot believe that.
	And he said, oh, yes, I've been on a course.
	Well, I mean, if you've been on a course, it must absolutely be true, wasn't it?
	Of course, the course he'd been on was probably delivered by gendered intelligence or mermaids.
	And, you know, they advocate for...
	Transitioning children.
	Transitioning children, yeah.
	I mean, people don't like it.
	People don't like us talking about it, but...
	We all talk about FGM and how FGM is terrible.
	Well, this is a form of FGM. It absolutely is.
	It's also MGM. It's male genital mutilation as well as female genital mutilation.
	But the police have no interest, it seems, in genital mutilation.
	If you can attach genital mutilation to a good cause, be that an Islamic cause or be that to the trans cause, they've no interest.
	There's a part of me that just thinks anything that claims to be a good course while also wanting to mutilate children's genitals possibly isn't telling the truth.
	You would think that it would raise up some flags, wouldn't you?
	That's what I would think.
	So, you know, we had this conversation and it took me two months to find out what the other 30 tweets were.
	So I had two months of worrying myself stupid because...
	You know, I'm partial to a little drink now and again, and I'm a gobby sod now and again, so I just wondered, maybe that during, you know, drinking one night and being gobby, I fired off some absolutely monstrous tweet at the trans community.
	Imagine how bad the tweet must be.
	How terrible it must be.
	So I eventually had to put in what they call a subject access request.
	So I had to prove who I was, and then write an official letter, and then after two months, the police sent me these tweets.
	Now, I was expecting the worst, bearing in mind that this PC gull was low level, because straight away, the balloon went up.
	It went all the way up to the Assistant Chief Constable.
	The Assistant Chief Constable went into the national press, and he said that, And whilst he believed in free speech, they had to take hate crime very seriously.
	And speaking to me was what they called a necessary intervention in order to prevent escalation to a crime.
	Now, when I tried to ascertain which crime they were thinking of, the crime that they had in mind was the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
	Right, okay.
	How did you have a connection to that?
	Ah, well, because what you've got to understand is this.
	What I'd engaged in was a thing called antilocution.
	I thought you were going to say wrong think, then?
	Well, wrong think...
	Unironically.
	Well, wrong think leads to wrong speak.
	Right, that's a good point, yeah.
	And wrong tweet, and wrong limerick, and all the rest of it.
	And the party can't have any of that.
	And what you've got to wonder is that.
	Paul Giasani of the College of Policing, who I believe has been knighted for his work on hate crime, He has indicated that step one, which I was engaging in, antilocution.
	There's a nice word for it.
	Yeah, I've never heard of that word.
	Antilocution.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So this is step one on a five-step journey, which doesn't end in the death of Stephen Lawrence.
	It ends in genocide.
	Right.
	So he was accusing you of being part of some sort of pro-genocide pipeline.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	Yes, yes.
	Without the necessary intervention of the police turning up at my place of work to check my thinking, I was on that bus.
	I was on the murder bus, and I was heading all the way to a 21st millennium version of Auschwitz, where I would be in charge.
	Cattle prodding off the trains, all the trans people, all the rest of it, but thank God for PC Gull and ACC Scott Young and Humberside Police because they prevented Harry Miller literally equating to Hitler.
	Right, okay, well, that's Harry's introduction.
	That's just...
	So, I mean, I'm glad that the Thought Police intervened there.
	Right, but before we go on, I didn't do the necessary introductions that I was supposed to do for the things that we've got doing.
	I got caught up in the story.
	But okay, we'll come back to that in a second, actually.
	Right, so for everyone watching, we have a live event coming up on the 27th and 29th of August in the Midlands.
	The link is in the description, and the actual venue will be emailed to you, of course, to avoid leftist activists trying to deplatform the event.
	This is being done in conjunction with Academic Agent, if you're familiar with his channel, and it should be a very interesting little discussion about what exactly we're going to do because, of course, left-wing politics has basically taken over the country and we need to figure out a way out of the mess that we're in with it.
	We also have a new article by John Tangney talking about the importance and function of national broadcasters and how the BBC is looking a bit anachronistic in the modern day and age.
	And, of course, we have the contemplations and epochs content that came up on the weekend.
	This is all very good, just good quality intellectual content that you can find on lotuses.com.
	Also, I have a request from Callum to, again, say on the video comments, don't send us any copyrighted comments or a copyrighted content.
	We've had to remove that.
	So if you use music, please make sure that you know it's copyright free.
	So yeah, anyway, right.
	So let's go through just some of the things that I've got down here because this is important.
	So, yeah, we covered the BBC report there, and that, I think, was important.
	And so, in February 2020, you won a court case against them, didn't you?
	Yeah, what happened was that we said to the police, look, this is absolutely ridiculous, because I discovered that I'd got this thing called a non-crime hate incident.
	Now, nobody had heard of these non-crime hate incidents.
	What's interesting about an NCHI, as we call them, is this.
	That you don't need to have an incident, and there doesn't need to be any hate.
	So for a non-crime hate incident, no incident is necessary, no hate is necessary.
	And no crime is necessary.
	No crime is necessary, no hate, no incident.
	But nevertheless, nevertheless, on perception alone, and this can be third-party perception, as was the case with me, this was a person allegedly from down south...
	There was absolutely nobody who was directly offended by anything I'd said.
	But nevertheless, perception was that those tweets had the capability of, as the police called it, showing hatred towards and intending to cause distress to the trans community.
	So in the absence of a crime...
	That then becomes a non-crime hate incident.
	Now, what we then found out is that there are 200,000 of these non-crime hate incidents.
	You're bound to have at least one.
	Yeah, I'm going to have to put in a request to find out, aren't I? Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Well, subject access request and you will find out.
	Now, these things don't sit benignly on a police record, on a police database.
	They are utterly malignant.
	Because for up to six years, a non-crime hate instance can, and probably will, appear on an enhanced DBS check if you apply for a job.
	I mean, this sounds deeply Soviet to me.
	Party member has had an incident of wrong think, so it's gone on a bureaucratic record.
	And so the party leader can check next time he's moving people around in his cabinet or whatever.
	Oh, who has had the wrong think?
	Who is in trouble?
	This seems like the sort of thing that a communist society would use.
	It's exactly that.
	I've just recently read a book by Anna Fowder called Starzyland.
	And in there she recounts the story of a woman who was a linguist, multi-linguist actually, who kept finding out that she was going along to try and get a job.
	She was interviewing very, very well.
	She was clearly very, very qualified.
	They liked her at interview.
	And then a few days later, she would get a phone call or letter to the bro saying, unfortunately, not on this occasion.
	It turned out she'd got a non-crime hate incident against her name.
	And it was based on that?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	So the problem here is the police don't have to tell you you've got an NCHI. They don't have to tell you that.
	So you can be applying for jobs in blissful ignorance and wondering why you're not getting them or why you're not getting a promotion or whatever.
	Or they might tell you.
	Either way, there's nothing you can do about it.
	Nothing at all.
	We went to court.
	We took the chief constable of Humberside to court because that was the force that approached me.
	But the defense of the chief constable was that they were following national guidance set out by the College of Policing.
	So we did the sensible thing and took the College of Policing to the High Court as well.
	Now, in an incredible ruling, Mr. Justice Knowles, the High Court judge, ruled that I had absolutely been abused by Humberside immediately.
	In fact, he called them the Stasi, the Gestapo, and the Cheka.
	That's three in one.
	The three worst possible policing regimes in history.
	That's Humberside.
	Okay.
	But that was for the recording and the contacting me and the going on national television, et cetera, et cetera.
	You know, say how horrible I was.
	But weirdly, he said that the guidance which Humberside had followed was legal.
	So where did that come from?
	Well, we have no idea.
	So the College of Policing guidance is legal, but following the guidance leads you to being called a Nazi.
	So that being illogical, we took the College of Policing to the Court of Appeal in March of this year.
	And we're currently waiting for the ruling on that because what we want to do is throw out the guidance because if we throw out the guidance, we throw out all of those 200,000 non-crime hate incidents and we free up people to be able to speak without the fear of some random nutter Reporting you to the police and you ending up with a criminal, a criminal non-criminal record, because that's what it is.
	My non-crime hate incident says this.
	It's headed crime report.
	So immediately you think this is something to do with the crime.
	It then names me as the suspect.
	Okay.
	The suspected liberic retweeter.
	Yeah.
	And then he puts, then it says, offence.
	Not an offence, but carry on.
	Transgender hate.
	And then down in the bottom somewhere, it says, type, crime, non-crime, down there in the small print.
	Okay.
	Okay, so this to me, it sounds like the police force is being run by social justice warriors, like radical leftists, who are instituting some kind of tyrannical Soviet regime based on their view of transgenderism.
	Am I overstating that?
	No, no, you're not.
	You're not at all.
	Absolutely, because the person who reported me, okay?
	Now, one thing, we have to call them Mrs.
	B, because...
	We can just call them informers.
	Well, yeah, but the one that sort of dubbed me in it, they were granted the title Mrs.
	B, the anonymous Mrs.
	B. So you don't even get to face your accuser?
	No, not at all.
	That's very interesting.
	What's very interesting is that Humberside Police redacted the crime reports, the non-crime crime reports, sorry.
	And when the judge said, you know, this is not how we do it in England, what's all this redaction?
	And they said, oh, we've redacted because Mrs.
	B, we've assessed as being very vulnerable, so we need to protect any other.
	The judge wasn't having any of it and said, tomorrow morning, I want to see the unredacted version.
	And guess what?
	In the unredacted version, it said, assessment made, no risk.
	So the police, the Humberside police, had lied to the court.
	Now then, I know why they lied to the court, because since I've discovered who Mrs.
	B is, I can't tell you who Mrs.
	B is because of a court order, and I will be thrown in prison.
	But Mrs.
	B has a history of talking about how they're going to do people in who disagree with them.
	They claim to be a member of an organised crime group.
	They claim to be part of the Hell's Angels.
	They told a very well-known Jewish journalist who used to write for the NME that she would look great in a gas chamber.
	And you're the Nazi.
	Yeah, and I'm the Nazi.
	I'm the Nazi.
	So this person gets absolute, unconditional anonymity and protection.
	I'm the one with a non-crime hate incident that I now carry with me for the next six years.
	And if I want to get rid of it, I'm risking £200,000.
	To do this.
	It's a lot of money to go to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal.
	But this person, Mrs B, gets absolute anonymity.
	I also have a leaked email between the Chief Constable and Mrs B, in which, even after the court case, the Chief Constable was personally giving Mrs B his assurance that under no circumstance would he reveal who Mrs B was.
	Now, I know who Mrs B is.
	And I'll tell you now.
	We'll just call Mrs B the average Labour voter.
	Okie dokie.
	We can do.
	But this is what I'm prepared to do.
	This is so important, this whole thing around secrecy.
	It's so important that once the Court of Appeal thing is over and done, and hopefully we will win, I will reveal who Mrs B is, and I will do it very, very publicly.
	And at that point, the court will have to arrest me.
	And then I will conduct a defence in which I will say, this is the reason that I went public, because...
	Humberside police hid their identity.
	Humberside police lied to the court.
	And the person who they were championing in order to persecute me has this history of threatening violence.
	Now, that's the type of witness that you're relying on for these non-crime hate instances.
	I am personally prepared to go to jail in order to bring down the idiots who think that's a good idea.
	Yeah, I mean, that is just disgraceful.
	And exactly as you say, the judge mentioned, this is not how things are done in England.
	No, it's not.
	The judge saw straight through Mrs B and said, described Mrs B as presenting evidence from the outer edges of rationality.
	He said, there was no chance whatsoever that my tweets indicated that I was going to commit some future crime.
	Not none whatsoever, but nevertheless, nevertheless, the guidance is still in force.
	I still have a hate crime incident.
	And get this, in October 2020, so emboldened were the College of Policing by their little victory at the High Court, that they republished their hate crime guidance.
	Now, they can go into schools, and a school child, who is reported by a third party...
	Somebody they're chatting to in the playground, perhaps.
	Maybe a teacher.
	Maybe a parent.
	They, too, can have a non-crime hate incident against their name.
	Against children.
	Against children, yeah.
	Absolutely.
	Against children.
	Unbelievable.
	So that's where we are, Cole.
	And we'll talk about this whole thing about secrecy in the next section, because it's chilling.
	Yeah.
	Okay, yeah, I mean, I was going to go through some of that, but I think you've covered pretty much everything.
	I like the way that Judge Knowles said, we've never lived in Norwellian society.
	And in response to this, Helen Belcher, who co-founded Transmedia Watch, said, I think trans people will be worried it could become open season on us because the court didn't really define what the threshold for acceptable speech was, which is basically a way of saying if we can't have Norwellian police state, it's open season on trans people.
	Yeah, well, that's absolutely nonsense.
	It's ridiculous.
	Yeah, completely.
	They don't understand that we have a tradition of common law.
	Now, this is where it's so fantastic to be born and bred an Englishman or to be an adopted Englishman because you're now living here.
	You get to live under common law.
	Now, common law basically says that I am free to think, speak, do and act right up until the point where the law specifically says this far and no further.
	That's it.
	We don't live under the Napoleonic Roman idea of permissions, where everything that we do is based on the state allowing us to do it.
	Although, during this last year or so, it's been getting very much that way, of course.
	But this is what happens in Britain.
	So we don't need a definition.
	If anybody wants to target a trans person, They can't do it in my name because that becomes harassment.
	It's malicious communication.
	We've already got laws that protect people, everyone from this.
	Precisely.
	But what and their ilk wanted me to be forbidden from doing or to suffer a negative consequence for doing was simply commenting.
	Yeah.
	On trans issues.
	Now, as I say, I got this evidence back, the things that I tweeted.
	And I looked through it with some trepidation, because I did wonder if I'd said something stupid.
	Anyway, the things that I'd said were things like...
	If Caitlyn Jenner has always been a man, who won the 1976 Men's Decathlon?
	Oh, it's been a woman, you mean?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, well, a woman then.
	Yeah, another one was...
	So how was she allowed into the Men's Decathlon?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, how does that work?
	Another one was, is Transgender Day of Remembrance a thing then?
	I didn't know.
	That was another one.
	There was another one where simply referencing Dame Jenny Murray was classed as a non-crime hate incident.
	Ah, well, because Dame Jenny Murray had been pilloried for writing in the Sunday Times, I think it was, that while she respected trans people, that she didn't believe humans could change sex.
	Now, I just happened to mention the name Dame Jenny Murray in a tweet about the Oxford students going and pilloring the students who'd gone to see Steve Bannon.
	Yeah.
	And I put the anti-Jenny Murray lot are out, spitting and screaming at students going to see Steve Bannon.
	And this was classed as transphobic hate, because I'd mentioned Dame Jenny Murray without saying the dangerous transphobe Dame Jenny Murray.
	Right, so if you weren't condemning in the same breath, you are complicit...
	Yes, that's precisely it.
	Another one was Sheffield women know the difference between lads and lasses.
	This was a non-crime hate incident which, without necessary intervention, was going to lead to Auschwitz by way of Stephen Lawrence.
	Another one was simply this.
	H-U-H. Her.
	That was a non-crime hate incident.
	That was a non-crime hate incident.
	Now, what I was saying her to, I've no idea because it had been redacted as so much was.
	So, unless I was saying, you know, unless I was answering a tweet that said, all those that want to gas trans people say her, it's difficult to imagine how her...
	Could possibly be construed as a non-crime hate incident.
	It's just so ludicrous.
	It's just so ludicrous.
	And the thing is that Dame Jenny Murray, like you were saying there, she doesn't believe people can change their sex.
	That's not even the contention of the trans lobby.
	They think you can change your gender.
	You know, your sex is coded into all of your cells.
	You can't do anything about that.
	It's based on your chromosomes.
	Except if you're a clownfish, apparently.
	Well, okay, maybe I don't know anything about clownfish, but at least in the case of humans.
	But the argument from the transgender lobby is that you can change your gender expression.
	So that doesn't even contravene their own ideology.
	But right, okay, so let's go on and talk about Faircop, because this is an organization, what, you set up?
	I set up with Rob Jessel.
	Right, okay, can we get the Faircop information up?
	Because I was just hoping you could tell us about it.
	You know, why did you set it up?
	Well, I can tell why you set it up, don't get me wrong.
	But what it is that Faircop does.
	Well, we set it up initially.
	It was Rob Jessel, a friend of mine, who came to me and said, look, we've got to do something.
	And I think in his mind...
	Something must be done.
	Something must be done, yeah.
	It was, let's get some banners and let's go and march outside the Police Federation confidence and go, yeah, boo, hiss, and all that sort of stuff.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, that was great.
	That was a great starting point.
	But I think we realized that the way to actually make a difference with any of this is to conduct lawfare.
	So in order to do, you know, conduct a...
	I mean, they are, so you may as well...
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	In order to go to judicial review, you have to have some form of presence.
	You have to have some form of organization because it's a long, nasty, scary, scary process.
	So we gather people around us, lawyers, journalists, few politicians, et cetera, and we set up Fair Cop.
	Basically to support me in the judicial review.
	But then, as we realised that this was affecting far more than just Harry Miller, then it became the organisation that challenges the police whenever they step over the line ideologically.
	So we're less bothered about...
	Was a stop and search right or wrong?
	They only have procedures.
	Not those operational things.
	But when the police step over the line ideologically, this is when fair cop step in.
	So I spend my life writing to chief constables, reminding them Yeah, I am a Chief Constable's absolute worst nightmare.
	Because, in fact, so much so that the Chief Constable of Humberside got his legal department to write to me just last week, begging me not to write to him anymore, and that all correspondents should now go to the legal department because he needed shielding the poor thing.
	Well, it sounds like it, because, I mean, if he makes one wrong statement, that can be used against him.
	He's got to be very careful with you.
	Yeah, yeah, of course it was.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Right, okay.
	Well, let's talk about some of the cases that Faircop have covered then, because I think some of these are quite interesting.
	Right, so what's the complaint that you made against the LGBT Police UK Network?
	Okie dokie.
	Well, for starters, you've got to understand what the National LGBT Police Network is.
	Yeah, I don't know what it is.
	I can take a guess, but you know.
	It's a secret police force.
	It's a national secret police force.
	And we know it's secret, because when we get hold of the police and say, could we please have the caller number of the person who tweeted this...
	Yeah, so for anyone who's listening and can't see the tweet, they've, in fact, we can go to the, if we can go to the next link, we've got the tweet as an archive here.
	So someone called Caroline had said, in response to the National LGBT Police Network tweeting something, she'd said, this is balanced, debate is good, thank you, but biological sex is binary and immutable and matters profoundly for the safety of women.
	True.
	And the National LGBT Plus Police Network replied with, Our network in no way condones or supports any comments made from your account, Caroline.
	We believe that trans men are men, trans women are women, and non-binary people are fabulous.
	So I just want to be clear, right?
	Now, for someone like me who does analysis of this sort of stuff, this is not only a blatantly political statement, but it also sounds a lot like a profession of faith.
	We believe.
	We believe.
	That's exactly what it is.
	But if you go back to the previous slide where it said, anybody who criticizes, we see you, we have reported you.
	Yeah, so yeah, and then you have this one here.
	We have a short message for all of those posting hateful comments.
	We see you, we've reported your comments, we won't stop supporting trans and non-binary people.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So the police are tweeting out how they're coming before you.
	Yeah.
	And so when you say, okay, can we please have the, you know, the collar number, the identity of the officer and the force who tweeted that, please?
	They say, don't know what you're talking about.
	No.
	No, we're not telling you.
	We're not engaging with you.
	How is it that that can't become public knowledge, though?
	Like, what justification do they think they have?
	Well, they don't.
	They just hide, and they're being protected by Chief Constable.
	So I know for a fact, because they published it on their website, that the National LGBT Police is chaired by the Tee Commander, I think he's a Chief Superintendent, actually, of the City of London Police.
	So, you know, he's employed by the City of London Police.
	So I wrote to the City of London Police and said, Your senior officer is responsible for an organisation that has tweeted this.
	I need to know what he thinks he's doing.
	I need him to be held accountable and for him to give me the name or to take responsibility for these tweets.
	And they wrote back to me and said, yeah, he is the chair, but...
	When he's chairing that, he's not really one of us.
	He's not really City of London Police anymore.
	He's doing it as something else.
	Well, what is he doing it as?
	Because he's clearly a police officer.
	On the National LGBT Police website, he's there in your uniform.
	They're saying, we see you.
	We've reported you.
	This is clearly a police account.
	It claims to be a national account.
	How do we hold it accountable?
	And they said to us, well, if you don't like us, sue us.
	So that's what we're going to do.
	Good.
	Because we can't be having secret ideological police in this country.
	That's unacceptable.
	Well, I've written to every chief constable in the country and said, who are your national LGBT police members who are tweeting and actively have a public-facing voice with us?
	And they've all come back and said, we can't tell you because of data protection concerns.
	Every single one.
	Data protection concerns.
	Yes.
	They're more interested in protecting the secret police force than they are in following Peelian principles that the public of the police and the police of the public, they completely ignore all of the code of ethics which says that the police are supposed to be accountable, they're supposed to be transparent, they're supposed to be helpful, they're supposed to engage when we ask a question.
	Well, they're meant to be out Oh, a police.
	Yeah.
	Not the police of an occupying ideology.
	You say occupying ideology.
	That's exactly what this is, because the National LGBT Police Network is part of an EU police network, which takes its orders from Ursula van der Leyen and has adopted the manifesto of Rainbow Europe, which comes out of the European Commission.
	And we know this because they tell us this on a podcast called, very cleverly, get this, The Thin Pink Line.
	Get it?
	Get it?
	It's like a twist on the thin blue line.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Okay, so this is something that you'd think that Brexit would have severed.
	You would have thought that the Conservative government, the Brexiteer Conservative government, would have made sure that this doesn't exist.
	You would think so, but it does exist.
	We are run...
	We are being policed by an EU-dominated secret police force whose head or co-chair is a senior officer with the City of London Police and the City of London Police have told us to get knotted because it's got nothing to do with them.
	That, for me, is the very definition of a secret police force.
	We wrote to the College of Policing and the College of Policing said, nothing to do with us, Gov.
	And every single chief constable...
	Well, who's responsible for this secret police?
	Well, if you don't know, it's secret, isn't it?
	Well, that's the point, isn't it?
	And it literally is, as you say, designed to obscure accountability.
	It's designed to obscure accountability.
	So we go, okay, you've said, we see you, we have reported you.
	Right, one, we want to know who you've seen, what they've been reported for, who they've been reported to...
	And who has done the reporting?
	You can't get any of that information.
	So we're simply sitting here, feeling the chilling effect, wondering on which database do we sit as a hater?
	Because this National LGBT Police Network is a It's a para-police force.
	It's an occupying EU police force.
	And chief constables are terrified, absolutely terrified of it, which is why they won't engage with us.
	Unbelievable.
	Right, okay, so we're going to have to skip a lot.
	Let's change topic and go and talk about the London trans rights protests.
	Let's do that.
	Because I like to get a bit of rank punditry done on this podcast as well.
	But honestly, this is all terrifying stuff.
	I'm really concerned about it.
	Right.
	So, recently on August the 6th, there was a protest outside of Downing Street in London in which a group of obviously sane people got together for a protest.
	This was organised by someone called Laura Kate Dale, as they tweeted out.
	August 6th, 1pm, Downing Street, London, myself and various others, organising a trans rights protest.
	Trans people and allies would love to see you there.
	They post all the information.
	And yeah, so this was the big thing that they kicked off with.
	We'll get to the next one.
	We're told what they're protesting.
	And so they were protesting the failure of the UK Equalities Minister to safeguard minority groups.
	The importance of conversion therapy bans, not including exceptions.
	I'm sure there's not a lot of conversion therapy.
	Well, this is weird because conversion therapy, as I understand it initially, was that if you were gay, and for instance, you were a member of a church, a Christian sort of church.
	Sounds like an American thing.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's probably not a great idea to take your gay church member along to an exorcism and have them cast the gay out of them.
	Fair.
	Conversion therapy means any attempt to try and persuade a child, or an adult even, that chopping off their willy or their breasts is a good idea.
	That perhaps, perhaps therapy might be good.
	Perhaps talking about it, you know, and trying to realign your thought life with your body life.
	But no, that is conversion therapy.
	Yeah, chopping bits off and causing irreparable, irreversible damage to a human body.
	That's the norm.
	Trying to talk about it and trying to get people to come to terms with their body, that is conversion therapy.
	So there you go.
	So that definition has been massively expanded.
	They're also protesting the current media backlash against the trans community, the unacceptable wait times for trans healthcare in the UK, and the UK government's constant platforming of anti-trans groups.
	Yeah, right.
	Okay, let's just talk about this backlash.
	What backlash?
	You can't open a newspaper without there being some celebration of trans this or trans that.
	There is no backlash.
	It exists purely in their imagination.
	Well, yeah, I mean, especially not on the media.
	I guess that there are probably people on social media who are saying, well, look, I have questions about this.
	Those sort of people who have non-crime hate incidents to their name.
	Yeah, but that's what happens.
	You see, when you can frame a question as hate, then you find hate everywhere.
	Now, get this.
	The College of Policing, their guidance on hate, says that a reduction on hate crime is not an appropriate target.
	Hold on.
	Come again.
	What are they trying to do then?
	Precisely.
	That's what it says.
	Because it could be demotivating to staff.
	That's what it says in the College of Police guidance about hate.
	That the reduction of hate is not an appropriate target because it can demotivate your officers.
	So what is actually happening is the College of Policing is a national hate factory on behalf of every lunatic ideology under the sun.
	Because, of course, they need to keep promoting this idea of hate and manufacturing hate in order to keep the police on side and in order to keep you and I suppressed.
	And not only that, it's for their own careers, isn't it?
	If this isn't a deeply hateful country and there's hate everywhere, then why do they have a job?
	Yeah.
	That's why they hated Lawrence, because Lawrence Fox says, we're the most tolerant country in the world.
	And we really are.
	We really are.
	But they don't want to hear that.
	They don't want to know about the fact that we are, in fact, very, very tolerant.
	They don't even see the reduction of hate as a legitimate...
	Can you imagine if that was the murder guidance?
	The National Murder Guidance.
	Do not consider murder to be a legitimate, the reduction of murder to be a legitimate aim because it might demotivate staff.
	What are they on about?
	It's absurd.
	Absolutely absurd.
	Right, so they've got some demands for the government.
	They want transgender and non-binary healthcare to be overhauled and reformed.
	Obviously, this means give them more money.
	They say it is vital for transgender, non-binary, and gender-diverse minors who are explicitly confirmed to have the right to Gillick competency, which means to access gender therapy and medical treatment without the requirement of parental consent.
	Yeah, nothing scary there at all, is there?
	Are you a parent?
	I'm absolutely a parent, yeah.
	Do you think that parents should have some sort of influence over whether their children are castrated?
	I think absolutely.
	I think it's not really a question, is it that...
	Well, you know, I didn't think it was, but you are on the first stage to genocide, so that proves it.
	Damn it.
	Done it again.
	Done it again.
	I mean, yeah, obviously, anyone who seeks to take away a parent's authority over their own children I think is a deeply suspect person and is not operating in their best interest at all, especially when it comes to such unbelievably important issues.
	So when I was between sort of the ages of 14 and 18, if this sort of nonsense had been around then, I would have absolutely lapped it up because it would have marked me out as special.
	Exactly.
	So what I did at the time, you know, I just looked like a complete dick and experimenting with makeup and stupid hair and got over it.
	Got over it.
	It's as simple as that.
	Yeah.
	But no, now, you know, if this had been around then, I'd have probably chopped my dick off.
	Well, I imagine that...
	Well, we know there are people who have done this...
	What was the lady...
	The young lady who got her breasts removed?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I can't remember her name off the top of my head.
	But she recently...
	Yeah, yeah.
	Because this is crazy.
	Yeah.
	You can't be messing...
	And people don't seem to understand that children don't know what they want.
	They're not fully formed adults or anything.
	They're kids.
	Of course, the whole thing is crazy.
	But what's interesting about this?
	Allies.
	You know, they used the word allies.
	We want our allies to be outside Downing Street protesting for these things.
	Now then...
	The police join an ally program, the Stonewall Ally Program.
	They talk about how they are allies, which means that they are part and parcel of this political protest.
	Well, how can you possibly be a police force and engage in political protest as an ally?
	How can you do that?
	There's also this thing called the Stonewall Champions Program.
	Well, if you will look at what the word champion means...
	It brings up images of Heracles, for instance.
	It's someone who's fighting for a cause.
	Fighting for a cause, doing amazing mythical tasks, you know, slaying the Hydra and all the rest of it.
	But why did they do that?
	They did that because they'd sacrificed, they'd killed their children in a fit of madness towards girlfriend or whatever.
	Particularly in the case of Hercules.
	Yeah, particularly in the case of Hercules.
	Well, that's exactly what's happening here.
	The police have become champions, and they are sacrificing children to mermaids.
	That's what they're doing, because they support mermaids, they're advocating for mermaids, they're advocating for all of this nonsense.
	And furthermore, the EU police, of which the National LGBT Police Network is a part, are advocating Advocating for the criminalisation of any resistance within a school to this, and any resistance in the private home to this.
	That's what our police are signed up to.
	And I hate the term ally as well.
	Allies are what you have when you're fighting a war.
	Well, they are fighting a war.
	Well, that's the point, isn't it?
	Why are the police who are supposed to be politically neutral engaged in a war?
	It's not their job, not their responsibility.
	But they've got some absurd other requests.
	They want the Johnson government to commit to ensuring that transgender people have access to single-sex spaces As in, if you're male, you should be guaranteed access to female spaces, which, again, as a misogynist, I disagree with.
	Obviously, as a joke, I'm not a misogynist.
	But I do obviously think that women deserve their own spaces.
	Don't know why I have to say that.
	It's ridiculous.
	But how many spaces are we going to end up with?
	Because apparently there are something like 365 genders and counting.
	Well, that's the point, isn't it?
	Can you imagine the row of bogs that they're going to have to be to satisfy every one of these genders?
	Could you direct me to the new Toir toilets, please?
	Can you direct me to the Tetris gender toilet, please?
	They also want to get rid of the Minister for Women and Equality, Liz Truss, because she said that women have vaginas.
	Yeah, terrible.
	She actually had to say that on the radio recently.
	And they're also annoyed that the UK government hasn't admitted that the UK is systemically racist yet.
	Because that's a transgender issue, apparently.
	Oh, yes.
	Well, of course, we have this spaghetti junction of...
	Intersectionality.
	Intersectionality.
	The spaghetti junction of oppression.
	And interesting, North Yorkshire Police have just held a conference, a national intersectionality conference, in which they hired a fellow called Dr.
	Robert Beckford, who charges, I think, 1,500 quid a day to teach the police about their white supremacy.
	So, yeah, absolutely.
	Yeah.
	Clearly, no crime whatsoever in North Yorkshire.
	I mean, that's clearly not just indoctrinating the police with racist, woke ideology.
	We actually have a clip.
	Let's play the first clip.
	This is at the protest itself that was taken by Andy Ngo.
	Women are women.
	Trans women are women.
	Trans men are men.
	Trans men are men.
	Non-binary people are non-binary.
	Non-binary people are non-binary.
	Not at all like a cult, that, is it?
	I was literally about to say that.
	That's exactly not what I would expect from a cult.
	It's very moderate, reasonable, and doesn't give me really creepy vibes.
	But yeah, so this is deeply concerning.
	And there was a bit of a hoo-ha about one participant, in fact you can see them there, that was dressed in a baby costume.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, I think this is what we call age play, isn't it?
	Or something.
	This is a man who identifies as a woman who identifies as a baby.
	Can we get that first picture up so we can see that person?
	So, yeah, you can see that.
	I mean, I've got an eight-month-old boy, and he doesn't wear pink, he wears blue, obviously, but that's definitely a baby grow and sort of dungarees.
	And I can't help but notice that they have a badge that says slut.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's, well, you know, dress as you want to dress.
	Love who you want to love, as J.K. Rowling says.
	But I don't really think that we need to be having our police championing that.
	Do you?
	No, and I'm sorry, but I refuse to just move past this and say, well, look, there's nothing wrong with this.
	No, there is definitely something wrong with this.
	I mean, this is an adult man who's dressed as a baby with the word slut.
	I'm, no, just no.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	This is weird, because you can look at that and go, that is terribly, terribly wrong.
	The way that Slut is married to that costume, and that was clearly a man.
	He looks actually like Buster Blood Vessel.
	He hates it.
	Now then, perception only works one way.
	So they can perceive us as being hateful, but you cannot perceive that as being hateful or dangerous or in any way worrying.
	Well, you can, but the police will take no notice of it because you, Carl, I'm afraid, are not part of their...
	I am a straight white male.
	You are a straight-right male, which means that you do not fit into any form of category whatsoever, only as a suspect, never, ever, ever as a victim or as someone whose perception should be taken seriously.
	Now, us doing this podcast right now, If he were to listen to it, or she, or whatever it is, and you and I absolutely 100% guaranteed non-crime hate incident against our name from Wiltshire.
	Well, I'm sorry, but this just seems like a fetish to me.
	Of course it's a fetish.
	I mean, if we can get to the next one, as you said, not the next image, next tweet, please.
	You posted this out, and if we can open up that image, just so we can see the stickers they had.
	Yeah, you can see the one next to their puppy player's age play, which...
	I assume is what that guy was doing, and I mean, I don't actually know what age play is supposed to mean.
	Well, I didn't, but apparently it's when a man who identifies as a woman, or possibly just a man, but then identifies further still as a baby, and then they have their dom and master, or what have you, do unspeakable things to them in their role as a baby, and Okay, that apparently is age play.
	Now, the fact that that kind of hints towards normalising paedophilia, I would consider to be quite worrying.
	And the fact that we have a Wiltshire Police Force car with a child's toy...
	Multiple child's toys, actually.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Knocking around with this thing about age play and master slave pride and rubber pride and puppy pride.
	And there's another one on there.
	I think it's called...
	What is it?
	Dungeon Master Pride?
	Ownership Pride.
	That's the one.
	Ownership Pride.
	Now...
	In a world where we've got real-life sex trafficking, where people are not their own because they got brought over here, they get trafficked over here, they have their passports and everything taken off them, and they are owned by their pimp.
	I think this is just absolutely disgusting.
	I think we're getting very close to the point where insurrection is not only inevitable, I think it's entirely justifiable because our police force have given themselves up to political ideologues operating from the EU and operating, as far as I can tell, from the pit of hell.
	And I think the contract between the police and the public is over.
	So the next time I get pulled up, I'm just going to tell them to get stuffed.
	Well, I mean, obviously when we say resistance, we mean democratically, of course.
	Well, well.
	No, no, well, we have to say that.
	We have to say that.
	We are definitely saying that.
	What I said was we're getting to the point where...
	But I do think the public should be engaged.
	And this is why, in fact, I've had you on to promote Fair Cop.
	Because if people would like to support your efforts against this ideological infestation of the police, I think they should.
	The problem with this, Scott, is it's so expensive.
	Who's got a quarter of a million quid lying around to challenge the police?
	Who's got that?
	Who's got that?
	And when you have the judiciary captured, when you have the police captured, and when you have...
	Politicians pushed aside in favor of experts.
	What are we living in?
	What are we living in?
	So I am entirely for the rule of law and that's why we call ourselves Fair Cop because we believe in the police.
	I went down the judicial review route because I still believe in the judicial system.
	But it can't go on, Carl.
	It simply can't go on.
	There comes a breaking point.
	No, I completely agree with you.
	And this is the sort of thing that they're putting into the minds of kids.
	If we can play the next clip, I found this hilarious.
	This is a 14-year-old person.
	If we focus on educating young people, you're still not tackling the root of the problem.
	People that grew up in an even worse time for minorities than it is now.
	So no, maybe it's not their fault.
	But we can at least stop them from spreading their views that they're obviously not ashamed of onto their children and the youth of today.
	On the face of it, maybe I can see why Bob's mum feels that way.
	In my new school, there are over four other trans people in my year, which is certainly a higher proportion than at that school I went to before.
	But the way I see it, it's not because more people are trans or it's a phase.
	It's because young people don't have to hide who they are like they used to.
	Well, whenever a child says, this isn't a phase, Mum, that means it's a phase.
	It's definitely a phase.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's definitely a phase.
	But this is what they're doing.
	They're turning children into moral legislators.
	I don't take lectures from 14-year-olds on anything.
	We're weird, isn't it?
	But this is what they're doing.
	They're little child soldiers for their mission.
	And you can see here, if we can get this picture up, this is completely endorsed by the police.
	This is the Met Police.
	I don't know whether you can see on their breasts there, they've got the racial pride flag.
	So it's the pride flag with the black line on it to say that race is somehow a sexuality.
	And that's unacceptable.
	They may as well be wearing a swastika.
	Exactly.
	It's this deeply intersectional thing, and I see that sex work has now got its own position on the intersectional flag by way of a red umbrella.
	Oh, is that what that was?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I thought that was an anus.
	Well, it might well be.
	I mean, I'm not judging.
	It's endless because they have to keep adding more and more and more to this spaghetti junction of oppression.
	And that's absolutely fine.
	Let the lunatics loon.
	What worries me is when the police force adopt these symbols because symbols have enormous, enormous power.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	And...
	Take, for instance, the second you see somebody in a red hat that says maggot on it, you know full well that they are a Trump supporter.
	The second you see a police force carrying that flag on them, you know damn well which side of the gender debate they are on.
	And it is a political debate.
	And it is deeply, deeply, deeply political.
	And there's no amount of saying, oh, well, it's all to do with human rights.
	Sorry, but human rights, which are not embedded and adopted in British law, are contested.
	And therefore, by definition, they are political.
	Correct.
	But we have a problem.
	We have a problem, Carl.
	In the 2000, I think it was 2003, the 2003 Police Act changed the oath of attestation that every police officer makes.
	So previously, the police force swore to uphold the law and to keep the Queen's peace.
	Now they swear to uphold the law, keep the Queen's peace and uphold human rights.
	Well, which human rights that aren't already adopted in British law are you seeking to uphold?
	And I think this is one of the sources of problem that we have because the police say, well, it might not be the law, but it's human right, isn't it?
	No, it's not.
	It's a contested human right at the very most, in which case it's political.
	Oh my goodness.
	Don't even get me started on the concept of human rights because it's a very deep conversation and, as you say, it's contested.
	But this is another thing that the police were doing, apparently, posing with these fetish outfits.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, these are literal dogs, obviously.
	They do identify as dogs.
	Yeah, trans rubber dogs are dogs.
	Definitely appropriate for children.
	Definitely not a weird fetish that should be kept behind doors, closed doors.
	You know, there are sometimes there are pictures that just speak for themselves.
	I'm not even going to comment on it.
	Yeah, no.
	It's gross.
	But, right.
	So, we're running out of time, actually.
	So, I think we'll have to...
	You've got to play this.
	Okay, go on.
	We'll play this last clip because I haven't seen this one.
	So let's watch.
	This is from Liverpool Pride.
	I pledge to increase inclusivity by challenging negativity in all its forms.
	I pledge to continue to promote pronoun awareness, continue to ensure that Merseyside Police is a fantastic and inclusive place to work for everybody, no matter how you identify.
	I pledge to bring about greater understanding of what it means to be intersex.
	I pledge to encourage colleagues to use gender neutral terms.
	I pledge to enable everybody that attends occupational health to be themselves.
	I pledge to continue to support the LGBT plus community within Merseyside.
	I pledge to reduce hate crime across the whole of Merseyside and ensure our workplace is a caring and passionate one for all my LGBTQ colleagues.
	I pledge that I will work with our community, partners and the force to ensure that people feel that they can be themselves without fear of abuse, harassment and violence.
	So, let me stop that there.
	What they're telling us is the Merseyside police have been taken over by the woke cult.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	This is a new religion.
	Yeah.
	I mean, in there we have, I pledge, I pledge to challenge pronoun.
	Yeah.
	On what basis are they going to do that?
	But get this, I pledge to challenge all negativity in all its forms.
	So I guess that means that if you and I would say that the Beatles are a bit shit, that we can expect a knock on the door from the negativity police.
	Well, they're acting like they're private citizens.
	Like, they're just random activists who are on Twitter or, you know, out of protest or something, but they're not.
	They're the police.
	Not just the police.
	We had a chief constable, a deputy chief constable, two, I think it was chief inspectors, all the way down to a PSO, and, of course, a nun who'd taken off from fervent intercession to join the police.
	It's unbelievable.
	As you do.
	It's unbelievable.
	I mean, it's so clearly a foreign ideology that's taking control of these forces.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's so obvious.
	And the fact that they're waving a flag, I mean, you know, if it's not the British flag, what right do the police have to wave any flag?
	Absolutely.
	Again, going back to Peelite principles, it's utterly inappropriate.
	I've not seen a display of onanistic flagmanship like that since Pickett's charge at Gettysburg.
	Seriously.
	Seriously.
	I mean, if I was making videos like that, waving the English flag or something like that, they'd be like, oh my god, he's a gammon, he's a racist, he's this and the other.
	Why supremacist?
	Yeah, you would put people in fear of their lives.
	Well, I watch that, and I am in fear of going to Merseyside.
	Because whilst I may be able to walk down Penny Lane without being misgendered, fantastically, okie-dokie, I was speechless.
	You know, we had a report out last week that says that only 7% of violent crimes end up in any form of prosecution.
	But meanwhile, this.
	Meanwhile, in North Yorkshire, intersectionality.
	Meanwhile, National LGBT Police Network saying, we stand for...
	For Stonewall.
	Not with Stonewall.
	Not supporting the aims of Stonewall.
	We stand for Stonewall.
	So a political activist organisation they're pledging allegiance to.
	Yeah, well, again, in North Yorkshire Police, we caught North Yorkshire Police giving private pledges to, I think it was Stonewall.
	We wrote to North Yorkshire Police and said, can we have the name of the officers, please, and what the pledge was?
	And they said, no, no, there wasn't any pledges.
	If you're going to lie about it, don't put it on their social media.
	Because here's the screenshot of them taking their pledges.
	Well, we don't know what the pledges are.
	Why not?
	Well, we've lost them.
	Okie dokie.
	Well, who are the officers?
	We don't know who they are.
	It's right there.
	I've sent you a photograph of the officers.
	They're senior officers.
	It says it right there.
	No, go away.
	We're not going to talk to you anymore.
	That's literally what they said.
	They said, go away.
	We're not going to engage with you anymore.
	I mean, if this was like any other religion, like Islam or something like that, this would be mad.
	You know, if they were flying like the black flag of the caliphate and things like that, saying, I pledge to, you know, whatever they want.
	And it's like, this would be mad.
	And it's exactly the same thing.
	It's exactly the same thing.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So let's move on to the final thing I want to talk about, which is something you wrote.
	Actually.
	And I found it very, very interesting because it's very evident that the woke have a deep contempt for the common man.
	And as common men, I think that we should have something to say about that.
	So, yeah, you wrote this called On the Clapham Omnibus.
	And I just want to read a few bits of it because it's really, really good.
	So, one point you say, That's really fascinating to me.
	That's a really great observation.
	And so the thing that I think this is most important about is that it shows the flow of power and authority in the country.
	Power comes from below and it flows upwards into the authorities that are vested with this power on the basis of our trust in them.
	Exactly.
	I almost want to say normalcy of the Peelite principles.
	This is to design, to create a fair environment.
	And this is what Roger Scruton described as Magna Carta style of governance.
	So it's governance from the bottom up.
	And that's how England has particularly always operated.
	And we fought civil wars over this concept.
	So this is deeply embedded in the English psyche, I would say.
	And so after that, you say, notice that the code does not ask what the expert or academic or learned counsel thinks.
	It is the opinion of the balding man from Clapham or the single mum on her way back from Aldi that counts.
	That's fantastic because you've put there in dramatic opposition to the Magna Carta style governance what Scruton called vanguard politics.
	So a small cabal of elites take control of an institution and then sit there engineering and telling people how they must think.
	And that's exactly what I think you've demonstrated so far on the podcast.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's it.
	You know, the Code of Ethics pays lip service to the ordinary man, the common man, the balding man, like me, on the Clapham omnibus, the woman shopping from Aldi, and says, whether we're doing the right thing or not, whether our association is right or wrong, that rests with you.
	That rests with you.
	You're the judge.
	And it's right there.
	It's called the test.
	That's it.
	So what we need to do, Carl, is start applying the test.
	And if you read through to the bottom of that, I've put in a model letter.
	Yeah, we'll go through a bit more.
	So I like this as well.
	Nowhere is the contempt for the order of any man more evident than on Twitter.
	And again, you can see that in the way the police are using Twitter.
	Whenever possible, respond to contact posted by others, whether positive or negative.
	Communities value honest feedback is the official line, but in practice it translates to this.
	Wherever possible, ignore, sneer at, block, and report any account which fails to post a clapping emoji every time we tweet something punctuated by a rainbow.
	Many such cases.
	I've seen this so many times.
	And they literally are saying, we're going to find you.
	We're going to report.
	We see you.
	We've reported with you.
	We are not going to engage with you.
	You are ideologically and politically against us.
	We stand for this ideology.
	And you better watch out.
	By the way, good luck finding us because we're hidden in secret.
	It's mad.
	So what we have to do, we have to write to our chief constables and we have to invoke the ordinary man test.
	We have to say, I am the man and the woman on the Clapham omnibus and you damn well will do what we say.
	Absolutely.
	And so you go on and quote sociologist Max Weber saying, bureaucratic administration means domination through knowledge.
	In common with their masters at the home office, the police have adopted the position that the experts are a legitimate source of power.
	That's great.
	Yeah.
	Because again, it raises the question, from whence does legitimacy flow?
	And in this country, it has always been from the common man and woman.
	The people upon whose backs everything rests.
	This is the genuine distinction between England and the continent, and the other countries in Europe, and the thing that made England a better place than the other countries in Europe.
	There's a reason we haven't had a tyrant in 400 years, and the Continentals can't go three decades with that one.
	You know, there's a reason, and this is it.
	And so, honestly, I think you've captured that perfectly there.
	But I'm going to go on a bit more.
	Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies recently criticised the police for failing to distinguish government guidelines from law.
	This is hardly surprising when the Prime Minister conducts his televised evening chats flanked by experts.
	It tacitly conveys the primacy of the technocrat above all other considerations.
	Government policy is placed beyond politics and as a consequence is beyond serious challenge.
	With no effective opposition the bureaucratic administration is dominant.
	It's brilliantly phrased.
	And no more was this evident than today, when Boris Johnson came out and said, ah, we're going to reduce Britain's climate footprint, or whatever it is, by 68%.
	And Keir Starmer said, no, you need to do it by 70%.
	It's like, oh, well, the 2% disagreement.
	That's how far away from the Labour Party the Conservatives are.
	2%.
	Yeah, well, this is it.
	Unbelievable.
	Because whilst it's the job of the opposition to challenge the sitting government...
	It's not the job of the opposition to challenge the expert.
	So if you can reframe everything as this is about interpreting what the expert says, then we move into a brand new type of very dangerous, very dangerous politics.
	Well, as Scruton called it, vanguard politics.
	We are being told by a cabal of unelected, unaccountable experts.
	That we have to do X, Y, and Z, and this is just not up for debate.
	Where do we have this debate?
	Who can be allowed to be put up to resist it?
	Well, we need to seize back.
	We need to absolutely seize back the principle of common law.
	We have the House of Commons.
	It's called the House of Commons for a reason.
	And it's meant to be sovereign as well.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You know, the house lords next door might have the ermine and the flashy this, that and the other, but it's the commons that holds the power.
	Okie dokie.
	So we have all that already.
	So what we need to do is use it or lose it.
	That's it.
	We need to stand on our common law powers.
	Now, what's interesting is that I had a meeting with the Chief Constable of Humberside after he'd lost, in which he gave me, you know, a coffee and a biscuit, etc.
	And we talked about what had gone wrong.
	Yeah.
	And I said to him, I said, look, I kind of get why a young man like PC Gull, having just been on a course, didn't said what he did.
	What I don't understand is why, when the balloon went up...
	Somebody didn't apply some common sense.
	Somebody high up.
	And the Chief Constable looked me in the eye and said, Harry, you're an ex-policeman.
	You should realise that common sense is not an appropriate tool for a police officer.
	Okay.
	Common sense is not an appropriate tool for a police officer.
	You want to know why?
	Yeah.
	Because it leads to unpredictable outcomes.
	So what we need is more guidance.
	Right.
	So the bureaucrat's mantra.
	This is the bureaucrat's mantra.
	Exactly.
	Because we can predict.
	We can then predict.
	We can algorithm everything.
	Control and predict everything.
	There is no place for common sense.
	Now, for me, that is an act of mutiny.
	It's an act of sedition because it says that European law supersedes British common law because common law is based on common sense and the commonality of all the people on the Clapham omnibus get to decide.
	Not you, not the expert.
	Well, you're exactly right.
	They've totally inverted the paradigm.
	Now it's everything that's not permitted is forbidden.
	Yes.
	Whereas before, it's the traditional English way of if it's not forbidden, go ahead.
	Precisely.
	And this is what scares me.
	We're in the middle of a...
	Deeply horrible reversal of the Civil War.
	Deeply horrible now.
	It's not the Queen on her throne that we're against.
	No, she's not the problem, no.
	No, no, no.
	But there's a different form of sovereign.
	There's a different sovereign on the throne.
	And it's a sovereignty of experts.
	It's this bureaucracy of power.
	And we are, you know...
	Look at the way that people who don't want to take a vaccine or who question.
	They are instantly labelled anti-vaxxers.
	We're dangerous.
	The Royal Society has suggested that we should be criminalised.
	Those who don't believe in the trans ideology.
	We're TERFs.
	We're haters.
	We need putting on a police database.
	Anybody that doesn't absolutely love the pigtails of Greta Thunberg literally wants the world to be destroyed in a ball of fire.
	And we need locking up and criminalising.
	And this is all going to bring in this social credit system where our obedience to the expert is measured effectively.
	Is measured via the app and that will convey upon us the degree of worth that we have and it's an entirely different model to the common law that we've enjoyed and has brought us thus far and that has made us one of the greatest nations on this planet.
	I just want to point out as well, it's not even that it's just different.
	It's horrifically tyrannical, and it goes completely against the sort of deeply embedded principles of English life.
	And again, Roger Scruton, I have to call upon him because he nailed all of this a while ago.
	He's saying, well, look, the primary principle of English life is accountability.
	We need to know who the people above us are, and we need to know how we can raise our grievances with them.
	And how can you raise a grievance with any of these people?
	And the answer is you can't.
	So when you don't like what they're doing, you've got no avenue.
	You've got nowhere to complain.
	You've got nowhere to have your just grievances redressed.
	This can't be allowed to go on.
	No, it can't be allowed to go on.
	And that's why Faircop does what it does.
	This is why Reclaim does what it does.
	This is why I'm heavily, totally committed now to Reclaim, because I just think that what we're fighting for is correct.
	And the beautiful thing about Reclaim is that we can pave the way for other people to sort of go off on their hobby horses.
	So we might not take a particular strong view on immigration, say, but what we will say is that we demand the absolute right to be able to talk about Absolutely.
	We may not take a position on a number of issues, but we demand the right to talk about it without being labelled pejoratively and without being edged out of the Overton window and acceptable society because somehow the experts have decided that we're wrong and that not only are we wrong, but that our opinion is fundamentally dangerous.
	And in order to save the people, we have to lock you away in some form of camp.
	It couldn't be any more elitist if they'd tried.
	Literally pathologizing the common man and woman as dangerous and being told, no, you need to be instructed by your betters.
	Also, get this app.
	Papers, please.
	Don't question this.
	Don't question that.
	Don't worry about what the evidence of your own eyes is telling you.
	You do as we say.
	It's like, no, I don't.
	Yeah, be kind.
	I don't do that.
	Yeah, be kind.
	Be thoughtful.
	Think about your neighbor.
	Think about...
	Well, I'm going to think about my neighbour.
	I'm going to think about my neighbour because I'm a Christian and I want to love my neighbour as myself.
	Absolutely.
	But I am not going to wear a mask for my neighbour and I'm not going to get vaccinated for my neighbour and I'm not going to use a pronoun just because my neighbour wants me to and considers me to be some sort of evil if I don't reaffirm their every last whim and wish.
	I'm not going to do it because it's not common law.
	It's simply not English.
	It's not the way we behave in this country.
	That's the argument, that we are such a mishmash.
	What do you mean by English?
	And the second you say something, the second you say, well, Morris dancing, warm beer, then instantly racist, racist, narrow-minded person.
	Well, I'm sorry.
	You asked me what I thought Englishness is.
	Well, to me, that's what it is.
	It's cricket.
	Exactly.
	If you're going to demand, I define what my identity is, don't then complain when I do it.
	Just because it's not the same as every other identity doesn't mean that what I'm saying is invalid.
	And it's also very tribal.
	English people are very tribal.
	And you know this because you go along to a football match and we sing our heart out and we wish all kinds of unspeakable things to happen to the opposition.
	We do it every single week and we love doing it.
	And then afterwards, when we've all calmed down, we all go for a drink together and talk about the football.
	It's obviously like a kind of public catharsis, you know, get the feelings out, and then they're not there, you know, in the back of your mind, pushing up, are they?
	Yeah, but this tribalism is in the back of our brain.
	I love Steven Pinker, and I love the way he talks about, you know...
	Manners, they're our second nature.
	Because our first nature is to beat the living shit out of somebody.
	And we've learnt not to do that.
	We've learnt not to do that.
	So in that sense, the miracle is not that we have factions of fighting and factions of hatred.
	The miracle is that there is so much that...
	It's not that.
	The miracle is and the progression is in the fact of the progression that we're not doing that, that we can sit down and sup and talk with our enemies and we don't instantly pick up the battle club and start fighting.
	That is progression because once upon a time, that's what would have happened.
	Absolutely.
	And again, the vanguardists who have taken over don't seem to understand that this is a very old country, and it's got very old, settled customs, and this is one of them.
	You know, what looks on paper to someone who has spent their entire life in academia studying, it looks horrific, you know, and they look at it and think, oh my god, this is going to lead to terrible things.
	It's like, no, this is how we make sure that terrible things don't happen.
	Give people an outlet for these feelings at a football match, and that's as far as it goes.
	That's where it ends.
	One of the things I got into huge amounts of trouble for, even with my own supporters, was that I tweeted, in response to the police banging on about hate, I tweeted, hashtag say yes to hate.
	I can see why that got you in trouble.
	But what I meant by that was quite simple.
	That the police have a definition of hate, which is unfriendliness and dislike and antagonism.
	Now, I'm sorry, but antagonism forms the basis of our democracy.
	It forms the basis of our legal system where we antagonistically...
	I mean, it's literally adversarial.
	Yeah, adversarial.
	Exactly.
	Not liking somebody, I'm sorry, but I'm free not to like whoever the hell I like.
	Unfriendliness, well, I'm a naturally friendly person, but I reserve the right not to be friendly, and I reserve the right for you not to be friendly or not to like me.
	So when the police are saying, you know, we stand against all forms of hate, they're saying we stand against all of that because they find it for us.
	So when I tweet out hashtag say yes to hate, That is specifically what I'm aggravating against.
	Don't tell me not to display an everyday human emotion like hate, which is just like love or jealousy or anything else, with a stupid definition that is so scurrilously bad and open to misinterpretation.
	So I'm just going to do that thing and go right against you, head to head, hashtag say yes to hate.
	But also, you can see they've gone way outside of the ordinary bounds of English law here, common law, because common law doesn't have anything to say about your belief system.
	It doesn't have anything to say about your ideology.
	What it has to say about it is your behaviour.
	You know, did you do X? Did you intend to do X? If it was an accident, well that's different.
	But if you intended to do a certain action, and that action is an illegal action that breaks the law, then you get punished.
	You don't get punished because you have an opinion.
	You know, you could sit there in your bedroom ranting and raving and hating on whatever it is you like, and that's fine.
	That's your right.
	You know, that's your freedom to do that.
	But until you take a prescribed action, there should be nothing that the police can do.
	Well, yeah, absolutely.
	Men's re plus actus reis minus a defense.
	Guilty mind plus guilty action minus a defense.
	There we go.
	That's exactly it.
	That is the definition of a crime.
	So what does a police force do when it wants to create a chilling effect over people who they have no legitimate power over by virtue that they've committed or are about to commit a crime?
	Well, they invent this brand new level of non-crime thought crime which has exactly the same effect because no normal person wants to have their name associated on a crime report Why would you?
	Why would you?
	How successful has this been?
	Well, how could they measure it?
	They don't measure it.
	They don't even attempt to measure it.
	They say, what are you on about, escalate crime and non-crime aid?
	Entirely separate and distinct, they say.
	Well, that's not how it was sold.
	It was sold as, this is an important little piece in the puzzle to stop us preventing serious crime.
	So you ask Chief Constables, how many serious crimes have you prevented as a result of non-crime aid incidents?
	Answer, zero.
	We don't even try.
	So they base everything on academic, this academic idea of the anti-locution leads five steps to genocide.
	And I get why they did that in 2013, because they didn't have any empirical evidence.
	So they establish it.
	But you would think before...
	Republishing the guidelines, that they would have done some empirical checking.
	They would have looked for empirical evidence.
	We FOI'd them, the College of Policing.
	What empirical evidence do you have to support this now?
	The answer, none.
	We haven't conducted any research.
	Why?
	Because the means has become the ends.
	It's a very convenient tool for them.
	It's about intimidating the public at this point.
	Yeah, it's called the chilling effect, yeah.
	It's very effective.
	Yes.
	No, no, it absolutely is because, you know, most common people can't really afford to just lose their job over a tweet or something like this.
	And so that's going to shut you up, isn't it?
	Well, that's one of the things that Peace Eagle said to me.
	He said, what you've got to understand, Harry, is that your HR department might not like you tweeting like this and you couldn't lose your job.
	I said, hold on, mate.
	I am the HR department.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And I don't employ idiots.
	But that was in his mind.
	In his mind was he connected the police with an ideology, with a tweet, with a HR department, with the threat of getting sacked.
	It's interesting how he helped you map out the network, as it is, that's actually operating to do this.
	HR departments are entirely suspect, then?
	Of course they are.
	Forgive anybody who's bright in the HR department, but most people in HR departments, in my experience, aren't the brightest.
	And they're certainly not most English because they live by guidance.
	Their entire job, their entire profession is predicated on bureaucracy and guidance.
	And for me, it's just incredibly un-English.
	It's un-British and it is anti-freedom.
	We don't want to live in a bureaucracy of expert power and domination.
	Well, I certainly don't.
	I don't.
	We've only got 10 minutes left, so I think we'll skip the video comments today.
	Do we have any normal comments?
	Or is it just not loaded up on my pad?
	Okay, I'll reload it.
	Give me a second.
	But yeah, we'll skip the video comments, I'm afraid, just because this was an unusual podcast and I didn't realize how long we'd go talking about this stuff.
	I didn't realise the depth of the things that we'd have to cover either, because, I mean, I'm most annoyed about all of it.
	Honestly, the whole thing just needs to be torn up by the roots and gotten rid of.
	All of the people running it just can be defunded.
	They don't need jobs paid for by the public at all, do they?
	The College of Policing employs 650 people.
	The average salary is £56,000 each.
	The average salary of a cop is £28,000.
	So you can have two coppers for every one of them.
	That's it.
	And which one would you prefer, folks?
	Which one would you like?
	And they take £51 million from the government every year to produce more and more iterations of hate.
	That's all they do.
	Oh, and to insist, and to insist that police only employ graduates.
	That's an interesting one.
	Why do they want graduates?
	They want graduates because graduates have been through the system and have learned how not to think.
	Yeah, no, no, I agree.
	I think that's exactly it.
	So Samuel says, I would love to hear how I can support Fair Cop.
	Okie dokie.
	Well, what I would like you to do is to just type in Harry Miller Crowd Justice and there'll be a big donate button there and you can donate to our campaign.
	Right, okay.
	Brad says, Harry is the true hero this country needs right now.
	Can I donate to your legal fees?
	If not, is there any way we can help fighting this crap?
	So apart from donations, what else can we do?
	Well, you can follow me on Twitter.
	You can follow HarryTheL101 on Twitter and WeAreFairCop on Twitter.
	You can do that.
	You can also find us on Facebook.
	And also, really, you ought to be looking at the Reclaim Party because I think that's going to be your natural home.
	Yeah, we covered the Reclaim Parties in Protection of Free Speech recently.
	I thought they did a bloody good job.
	I read through the whole thing.
	I thought they did a fantastic job.
	And they seem to be the people who are actually challenging what the left is doing under the Conservative government.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	If the Conservatives won't do it, someone has to, don't they?
	But this is the thing.
	You're absolutely right.
	I want money.
	I don't need money to come down here and see Carl and stuff like that.
	What I need money for is to fight this lawfare.
	That's what we've got to do because it's very, very expensive.
	And if we can create law in England, which is what we're seeking to do through the Court of Appeal...
	That spreads throughout the world.
	I was told just a few weeks ago that in New Zealand, the QC in New Zealand opened up a case by quoting from my case.
	Really?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It goes right the way across Europe, right the way down under, right across the United States.
	So by supporting what happens here, the knock-on effect is for everybody.
	And this is a great example of how we can show that the common law is the tool of the common man.
	I say, you can create the law.
	You can create the precedent if you bring this to court.
	This can actually be entered into the body of legal precedence that then goes forward.
	So again, the common man can actually take action.
	If we lived under the Roman law, the canon law of the inquisitorial law of the continent, how would that happen?
	You'd have no chance at all.
	You'd have no power whatsoever.
	This is why this is so important.
	And this just goes to show the common law is so much better than the other legal systems.
	If I could just say for a second what happens to the money that we collect for our legal fight if we win.
	If we win and we get the costs back, I don't get the money.
	What happens then is that I then redirect that to another legal fight.
	And what I'm going to be going for next is, I think, the City of London Police, who are, they're the ones who are masking and hiding the senior officer in this secret police that we have.
	And I will be going, Faircock will be going after them.
	Good.
	Carl, right, this is a controversial one.
	So Carl says, are we supposed to be feeling sorry for Graham Linen now, are we?
	Are you forgetting that this guy supported Dank to be arrested while charged with his own Nazi jokes?
	Sorry, and charged whilst his own Nazi jokes were appearing on Father Ted was supposed to be seen as acceptable humour because in his own words, he's a real comedian and Dank is a rank amateur.
	Called him a Nazi and rallied to have his crowdfunding page shut down.
	Leinen is just an elitist coward, the epitome of one of the ruling class and another for the plebs.
	So what do you make of that?
	Yeah, well, I'm friends with Graham, and to be fair with Graham, one of the things I like about him is he is a lefty, and he had a right go at me for going on Dellingpole.
	Are you a Nazi?
	Yeah, he had a right go at me for going on Spiked Online, and he and I fall out quite a lot politically.
	But what I will say about Graham is Hart is in the right place, is a lovely guy, and he's changed his mind about Dank.
	Right, okay.
	He's changed his mind.
	And for me, that's one of the things that the left...
	The loony left, the woke left, don't do.
	There is no room for forgiveness, no room for progression, no room for change.
	So whatever you said five years ago, that is with you forever.
	Honestly, it's almost as though, you know, you've had it carved, like at the end of The Glorious Bastards, onto your forehead.
	That's it.
	So, you know, give Graham another chance is what I'd say, because he's actually a nice guy.
	Yeah, no, and the thing is as well, people seem to forget that when he's trapped in the sort of left-wing Twitter bubble, you know, he's getting constant validation and reinforcement for being this kind of bully, you know, and now that he's been ejected out of it, I'm sure that he can be like, oh, wow, my behavior was terrible.
	I did the wrong thing.
	And at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter if Graham Lyndon hasn't changed his mind.
	These are our principles.
	I don't judge myself by what Graham Lyndon thinks.
	I think that what has happened to him is wrong.
	In the same way I think it's wrong that it happened to Dank and to you and to everyone else.
	Graham's a brave guy.
	Graham's a brave guy, but he comes from this loony left background.
	There's still a little bit on it, but I shall knock it out of him later.
	Exactly, and you're absolutely right about forgiveness.
	If he's like, yeah, actually what I did was wrong, then fine.
	That's all I require.
	I'm the same, mate.
	I'm the same, but I'm going to be wrong loads of times.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	We move on.
	So Hammurabi says, friendly reminder that queer doesn't refer to sexuality, but something being strange or unusual.
	In that light, Year of the Queer actually somewhat fits, although not as well as Year of the Clown.
	I ask the London Pride.
	We're asking...
	2022.
	That's it, Year of the Queer.
	Do you think it should be?
	No, of course it shouldn't be the Year of the Queer.
	It's absolutely bonkers, isn't it?
	I saw James Dreyfuss, who's one of our great, great comedic actors, and he was straight on to it and saying, not in my name you don't.
	And I agree with him, because queer means the queering of, in terms of what they're talking about.
	And it means the queering of sexual boundaries.
	It means, you know, age play, what is age anyway?
	I mean, all of this, all of this moves toward paedophilia, as far as I'm concerned.
	There is definitely an undercurrent to it there.
	And again, the guy in a baby suit wearing the word slut?
	No.
	Just no.
	Just not having it.
	And it's not like there isn't enough history behind the radical left and trying to abolish things like age of consent.
	And some of their...
	Favourite authors are actual paedophiles, so, you know.
	Anyway.
	Well, at least they don't read J.K. Rowling, you know, who's dangerous.
	Oh, God, yeah.
	J.K. Rowling, deeply dangerous for the children.
	Anyway.
	JJHW says, PC Goal was clearly committing an act of intimidation, which is a crime.
	Humberside police are also clearly an ongoing criminal enterprise.
	I think I wouldn't...
	Okay, let me say this.
	The police constables, the men and women who serve at Humberside, as who serve in most forces, are good, honest coppers.
	I love them.
	And that's why we call ourselves Fair Cop.
	But they are being led by bureaucratic fanatics.
	And it's them that I stand against.
	Yeah.
	And I think that's exactly the right characterisation as well.
	So I know, I know for a fact who the authors of these ideas are.
	You know, I read their material, and I know it's not the average PC in Humberside police force.
	Of course not.
	We love coppers.
	We love them.
	Absolutely, because they're ours.
	Yeah.
	Omar says, I just realised that hate crime is a slippery slope fallacy of the left.
	Man retweets mild criticism of protected group, thus lynchings and Hitler with no intermediary steps.
	That's exactly it.
	Well, four intermediary steps, actually.
	We don't quite know what the other three are.
	Yeah, but they expect you to go straight from, like, you know, maybe there's a connection between sex and gender to death camps.
	And it's just like, that's the slipperiest of slippery slope arguments I've ever heard.
	It's totally unreasonable.
	It's just so stupid.
	I can't even say it.
	Anyway, Student of History says, God bless the First Amendment.
	One of our American friends who is very, very lucky.
	How in the name of any God one thinks this is fair?
	Do you manage to jump from, oi bro, have you retreated a limerick to an effing genocide?
	My God, America's got problems, but this is terrifying.
	Godspeed, gents.
	Well, this is an iterative process between America and the UK, I tell you.
	So if it's not with you yet, it will be.
	Oh, it is.
	I mean, a lot of this ideology comes from America, in fact.
	But they do have some quite firm constitutional protections that we have to develop because we have an evolutionary system and they have a revolutionary system.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, Paulie says, at least if you've been charged with a hate crime, you get to plead your case in front of a judge.
	With an NCIH, the policeman monitoring Twitter becomes judge, jury and executioner.
	Can I mention that?
	When we were at the Court of Appeal, I think it was Lady Justice Simler who pointed exactly the same thing out to opposing QC. She said, let me get this right.
	She said, it seems to me as though I would be far better off being accused of a crime I think we're good to go.
	All of that goes.
	So I'm better off being accused of a crime.
	Absolutely nailed it.
	Yeah, I mean, that's exactly right.
	There is some accountability there.
	You get to defend yourself, and you at least get to know who your accuser is.
	Yeah, precisely.
	It's totally antithetical to English law, the way this is being run.
	Honestly, I find it disgusting.
	Carl says, Carl, can you ask Harry if he's had any involvement in dealings with the Merseyside Police when they came out with the being offensive is an offence nonsense?
	I live in Brighton, and I had to walk past one of these groups of officers in front of one of their van adverts.
	I got into an argument with them about this, even though I completely kept my cool, was threatened with arrest if I didn't move on.
	Yeah, we were the ones that picked up on that one and got it into the national press and all the rest of it, yeah.
	Because being offensive is not an offence.
	Being offensive is not an offence.
	In fact, Mr.
	Justice Knowles, in the Judgment Miller versus the Chief Constable of Humberside, quoted, I can't remember who they quoted, but it basically said that...
	That any freedom that criminalizes offense is not a freedom worth having.
	And it's true.
	Absolutely.
	So the police should have read that ruling.
	They should have.
	Because when a police force gets likened to the Gestapo, the Stasi and the Checker, the thing that you do is go, shit, we better check ourselves here.
	So they will have read it and they've just gone...
	Not interested.
	Being offensive is an offence.
	Stick it on a 10-foot billboard, take it into Asda, get a bloke there with a big old sticker as an inspector, and stand there and just intimidate the life out of everybody.
	But they've not come across Harry Miller before.
	Because what Harry Miller will do is stand there, head-to-head with them, absolutely fearlessly, and say, not a chance.
	I just stepped off the Clapham omnibus, and I'm not having any of this.
	See you in court.
	Good.
	Honestly, and the thing is, in a way they're kind of right, because gross offence is of course criminalised under section 127, but just the idea of offending people, that's not a crime.
	Of course it's not a crime.
	And it can't be a crime.
	You say of course, but we're genuinely heading into a...
	A paradigm where it might become a crime, aren't we?
	We're heading into this new atheistic theocracy of checking people's hearts and words, and we're moving very quickly towards a sinful state where there's going to be an inquisition, and we're going to have Chief Constable Torquemada, and that's going to be that, and we're all going to have to bow.
	And I won't.
	I just simply won't.
	And on that, I think we're going to have to end because I think we're out of time.
	Sorry for not doing the video comments today, but they would have referenced things from other podcasts that we wouldn't have seen, so sorry about that.
	And we kind of got talking.
	But Harry, thanks so much for coming on.
	Remind us where they can be found.
	Just Google Harry Miller, Crowdjustice, and donate there.
	That would be grand.
	Great.
	Thanks everyone for joining us.
	We'll be back tomorrow, 1pm UK time, so we'll see you then.

▲