Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 10, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:09

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #498

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Eaters episode 498 on today Monday the 10th of October 2022 Today's a very special episode, because I'm joined by Mr.
	Harry Miller, the founder of Faircott, but also CEO of the Bad Law Project.
	How are you, Harry?
	Fantastic.
	Great to be here.
	And we're going to be talking today, specifically with Harry here, about a minor incident that happened when...
	The wonderful Rory Cranston and I went and covered the Conservative Party conference, and that is that, well, despite being Lotus Eater's newest presenter, I was threatened to be arrested, so I'm the first on staff to get in trouble with the cops.
	Fantastic.
	Join the club.
	Join the club.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I'm an old hand at this.
	Fantastic.
	It's a badge of honour, isn't it?
	We should have a dinner, actually.
	An annual dinner for those who've been arrested or nearly arrested.
	Yeah, under the trans pride swastika thing that you got hauled in for, all the banners, that'd be great optics, won't it?
	For those who don't know that, you can go and check out our coverage of that on the website, because that is...
	Unreal.
	What happened to you?
	So yeah, today we will be discussing my encounter with the cops at Conservative Party Conference and also how the UK's police have just been turned into Stonewall's diversity and inclusion enforcers because we live in a rainbow police state.
	And isn't that just a wonderful thing to live under?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Great.
	I get up every morning and sing for joy.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We kneel down to the increasing number of colours added to the LGBT LMNOP acronym.
	Oh, isn't it just remoralising?
	Anyway, so, those who didn't know, those who didn't see on Twitter, and you'll be seeing it in a moment, when we were at Conservative Party Conference last week that ran between the Sunday and the Wednesday...
	Fantastic train strikes.
	Cheers for that, RMT.
	I had an encounter with the police because I was called by my girlfriend of all people who said, oh, right outside there's some biblical preachers and some anti-abortion protesters having a bit of a pop-up one another.
	So do you want to come down and film?
	And I at the time was accompanied by our fantastic website editor and who knew he could double as a great cameraman, Rory Cranston, who sprinted down, we turned our camera on, we just filmed the events because we wanted to report on the ground.
	We'd actually had plenty of cordial conversations with protesters before this.
	These will be going up in a sort of compilation on the website later on.
	I even chatted to Steve Bray.
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah, I got him to admit that Germany was wrong.
	So that was quite a fun one.
	We spoke to people that weren't insulate Britain, but they were similar types.
	They weren't sitting in the road, but they did stage some kind of protest.
	We spoke to anti-abortion protesters, pro-abortion protesters, people from all sides of the aisle having a pop at one another.
	So weirdly enough, it was very civil.
	And in this instance, we decided to film a woman who later turned out to be a journalist, who we have redacted the identity of, but she has tweeted about it, and we'll respect the fact that we want to keep her name and face out of it as much as possible, but obviously you can, you know, she's put things out there, so that's not our fault.
	she was speaking to these biblical protesters, preachers, and they had signs up.
	And they had, and they said this YouTube, it's not us, they said various members of the LGBTQ plus coalition are doing something unnatural.
	And she was very angry at them with that because of personal family members who have had mental health struggles related to their sexual and gender identity.
	Again, I won't disclose her personal circumstances.
	And so when we were reporting on it, what happened was she turned to me and said, do you agree with this?
	And I said, I don't know what he's been saying.
	I've just got here.
	And as you see in the clip that plays out, a copper then decided to insert himself into our conversation because he overheard one word, and that was insidious, and that was without context.
	So as you can probably see on screen right now, this is the tweet that went...
	I don't want to say viral because it's kind of arrogant, but it had about 250,000 views and we were very nice enough to get some support from some people.
	If we just go through, I'd just like to thank that lot.
	So if we go to the recent case with Caroline Farrow, which I know you...
	It's happening still.
	Updates pending.
	Next one.
	Right said Fred.
	Thank you very much for that.
	And our very own Nick Dixon, who decided to tweet out that I was almost arrested for my excessive vocabulary, which teaches me to speak properly, eh, I suppose?
	But I thought we'd just go through the footage.
	I'll just chime in here, supported by Andre Walker, Raheem Kassam, Calvin Robertson, Colin Brazier.
	Cheers for that, lads.
	I thought we'd go through the footage, especially with your expertise, because I would personally like to take this as far as a complaint may go.
	This footage will be available about 3 o'clock on our YouTube channel, so you can go and see it unedited with my post thoughts on the conference floor as well.
	But obviously I thought I'd consult you because you're the resident genius on police misconduct having faced so much of it yourself.
	So if we just play the first clip, please, John.
	I apologise for the wind sounds as well.
	We've subtitled it as best we can.
	You don't see it that way.
	You see it as hatred.
	You don't see it as hatred.
	It's an abomination and a natural.
	Well, having the TQ and the plus, there's nothing to do with sexuality.
	That's the abolition of gender, which is entirely untruthful.
	The LGB... Don't film me, please.
	I don't want to be...
	Oh, okay.
	That's fine.
	Well, I'm just...
	I'm here doing that, but that's certainly fine.
	The LGB is completely different.
	That's to do with sexuality.
	But the plus...
	The city is far.
	My question was, okay, I'll try again.
	Do you believe that gay people are unnaturally engaged in unnaturally engaged in people?
	I'm warning you now.
	That's discriminatory behaviour.
	That is on the cusp of a public order offence.
	If you use discriminatory behaviour, or you start insulting other people's use of game, then we will take action.
	I've given you the warning.
	That's it.
	Sorry, can I ask?
	What was the discriminatory part?
	When you start talking about LGBTQ and so on, that's an insidious part.
	I said your view was it's an insidious part.
	It doesn't matter.
	You have just insulted this person.
	Did you feel insulted by that comment?
	I don't know anything about who I am.
	I've just given you where the parameters are.
	Don't step over them.
	I've given you where the parameters are.
	Do you understand where they are?
	If you use derogatory, defamatory or discriminatory terms, that will border into criminal offences.
	Don't use them.
	That's it.
	I'm not negotiating.
	I'm telling you where the parameters are.
	You can continue your conversation now.
	I'm asking you a question because I didn't speak to this woman.
	I think I've been very clear in what I said.
	I'm asking you a question.
	So do you think that was proper police conduct?
	Wow.
	That is truly shocking on every single level.
	Apart from anything else, apart from anything else, it's not a crime to be on the border of criminality.
	No.
	It's not.
	No, that's a perfect point.
	It's like, you know, if you're doing 70 miles an hour in a 70 zone, you're on the border of breaking the speed limit.
	But you're not breaking the speed limit.
	You're not.
	So that was completely ludicrous.
	And the idea that asking a question, can border...
	Criminality is ludicrous.
	And the fact that he's focused on the word insidious...
	It is beyond ludicrous.
	In fact, it is insidious.
	That's exactly what's going on.
	You mentioned when we were off air beforehand that this happens so regularly now.
	I used to be able to pass it off as a mistake, but I think it's built into the software of these police officers.
	It's not a bug.
	As you say, it's a function.
	It's happening too often.
	And I think it's happening because the police have decided that they wish to blur the lines between crime and non-crime, between a hate crime, a hate incident, and just plain old hate.
	There's nothing wrong with hate.
	Hate is an everyday human emotion.
	A hate incident is an incident that somebody perceives as hateful.
	But that's not criminal either.
	A hate crime is the only thing, the only thing that the police should be involved with.
	And this isn't even in the foothills of a hate crime.
	That police officer is absolutely out of order.
	Yeah, well, we did have his number, which we'll be hopefully forwarding to a complaint, which we'll be getting your advice on.
	Is it worth giving out on the show, or is it just worth saving it for the actual complaint?
	Personally, I wouldn't name and shame the individual officer, because I think that that officer is a product of training.
	He'll have been on a course, and he will have been told that any form of criticism of the LGBTQ plus community...
	Or it goes beyond that.
	Any criticism of the LGBTQ plus ideology constitutes borderline hate crime.
	That's what he will have been told.
	Now, I know it's no defence, really, but it kind of is.
	When you're being instructed all of the time by your superiors, when the College of Policing...
	Push out information that blurs the line between law and something else.
	You as a police officer are very likely to succumb to that lie and that's what this is.
	It's a straight up lie and it stems from the College of Policing.
	Well, the obvious ideological capture is evident by, and I didn't realise this at the time, but our editor, Jack, who put this together and subtitled it, it's evident by the fact that he uses gender-neutral language for the entire thing.
	He says, you've offended this person.
	And I said, I don't know this woman.
	I don't know her name.
	But he repeatedly affirms the gender-neutral pronouns when talking to her.
	And then he realises as well, I think, at one point, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on because he goes, are you offended by this?
	And she goes, you don't know anything about me.
	Because I wasn't even talking about her.
	In where Rory had walked away, you can hear it in the background, but it isn't subtitled because the author's subtitle and thing didn't pick up on it.
	But I said the name, do you know Gail Rubin?
	And that's why I said to him, no, I was talking about Gail Rubin.
	And we'll get on to some of Gail Rubin's writings later to give context to what I was talking about.
	Because she truly is, sorry if I get arrested for this, insidious because she's an awful human being.
	But then later when, and we'll play the second clip in a second, later when we came back, when we were walking away from inside the conference, we saw this woman talking to this officer after we had parted ways, shook hands, all that, and then the officer wasn't round for the rest of the day.
	And it does make me wonder, did he realise he'd be sort of tripped up?
	Sorry, what's going on?
	Fix the TV here.
	Tripped up by his own misapplication of the law and the fact that there wasn't an offence taking place because she wasn't offended.
	She didn't report anything.
	Here's the thing, Ed.
	Just because somebody is offended, that itself would not be an offence either.
	It's not an offence to offend somebody.
	Being offensive is not an offence.
	Now, again, if you remember just over a year ago, Mersey's...
	Merseyside Police pulled around a massive billboard through the Wirral and parked it up inside the Asda car park in the Wirral that said being offensive is an offence.
	And this was not young coppers there sort of out on a learning exercise getting it wrong.
	There was an inspector there, standing there.
	Now, that inspector should have known better.
	And what the police are doing here, they are taking the law into their own hands.
	They are redefining what the law is and what the law is not.
	And that is the definition.
	of a police state.
	And that's why I think it's so worrying.
	And that's why I wrote my ode to hate.
	And that's why a couple of years ago, I put out the hashtag, say yes to hate.
	Because hate is an everyday human emotion, like love, like anger, like jealousy.
	It's nothing to do with the police until that hate becomes the motivating factor in a criminal act.
	At that point, of course, we say no to hate, but you can't criminalize a human emotion.
	You simply can't.
	I saw today, coming down on the train, that I think it was...
	I can't remember which police service it was...
	I think it was Derbyshire Police published a thing that said, there is no place for hate in society.
	Well, I'm sorry, but there is.
	There is a place for hate in society.
	There's no place for hate, crime in society.
	And it gets even worse.
	Because if you look at how the police define hate...
	Then there is no place for that definition in society because they define hate as ill will, ill feeling, dislike, unfriendliness, and antagonism.
	Well, I'm sorry.
	I am absolutely free to like or dislike who I will.
	Absolutely.
	And our entire judicial system is based on antagonism.
	Yeah, towards criminals.
	Well, towards each other.
	You get the defense barrister, And you get the prosecuting barrister, and the model is one of antagonism.
	In our parliament, we have an antagonistic system.
	Yeah, the loyal opposition.
	Absolutely, the opposition.
	And the reason that we separate the front benches And there are two sword lengths apart because antagonism is part and parcel of our parliamentary system.
	So when the police say there is no place for hate, what they mean is there is no place for our adversarial judicial system and there is no place for our current democratic parliamentary system.
	That is dangerous.
	In fact, it's worse than dangerous.
	I think it's anarchistic, I think it's nihilistic, I think it's Marxist, and that's why I oppose it.
	And until the police change the definition of hate, I will continue to say there is a place for hate, and I will continue to say, hashtag, say yes to hate.
	I don't blame you.
	I just wondered if I could consult you specifically on the officers that were in this.
	They all had different uniforms.
	The fella who accosted me and pointed his finger on my face had the red lapels.
	I think he was from Kemp Police and had been bussed in, obviously, to assist with that.
	Do you know if that says anything about his seniority or are the red lapels there for a specific reason?
	No, I don't.
	I would have to look again to see if I could work out his seniority.
	But regardless, regardless, from a PCSO to a special, To a chief constable right the way through, it is fundamental if you're going to police, if you're going to put on the king's uniform and take an oath to the sovereign, that you know the difference between what is legal and what is not legal.
	Because in criminal law...
	Ignorance as to law is not a defence.
	You can't say, oh, I didn't know that was the law.
	I didn't know.
	Well, if the public can't successfully use that as a defence, then the police absolutely cannot.
	They absolutely cannot.
	Now, as I said earlier, this happens so often now that I'm beginning to feel very strongly as though this is a product of design rather than a product of individual failure.
	It's controlled demolition rather than just pure incompetence.
	I also wanted to just ask before we play the second clip, and the reason basically why he had no case for the matter, because I spoke to the one afterwards.
	I understand that obviously lots of police officers can wear body cams.
	Is it normal for a police officer to have a shoulder-mounted...
	Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with a body cam.
	They don't always have to be on.
	You can switch them on, you can switch them off.
	If you find yourself in a situation where trouble's brewing and you want first-hand evidence of what's going on, then you switch on your body cam.
	Yeah, but what about a proper ITV-style camera rig?
	I don't know why they would have that.
	I'm assuming they had that because they were expecting some form of crowd trouble, something like that.
	That's what I would imagine it was there for you.
	Okay, and the only other thing is as well, and it's not that I would obviously endorse some arresting the biblical preacher guys, no matter how you felt about their tact, do you think that they had some sort of protest parliament and that's why they were exempt from what would otherwise be decried as hate speech?
	Whereas I was pulled up on one word?
	Well, whether we like it or not, there is an ideological hierarchy that the police are operating under.
	Now, I'm quite surprised that the Christian preachers weren't arrested.
	Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
	Because the norm is that they would be arrested.
	Again, it would be an unlawful arrest.
	Yeah, agreed.
	Because absolutely we are allowed to preach the gospel.
	We're allowed to say things which are unlawful.
	What we're not allowed to do is create a public disturbance.
	What we're not allowed to do is intentionally go around causing alarm harassment and distress to people.
	You're not allowed to do that.
	But you are allowed to preach the gospel.
	You are allowed to say things which someone may find offensive.
	Absolutely.
	That is one of the fundamental features of our democracy.
	In this ideology that we have, this hierarchical ideology, if you are at the top of the ideology, at the very peak, in other words, you are a member of the LGBTQ plus community, whatever you say, pretty much the police will turn a blind eye to if they don't endorse it.
	Moving slightly further down, you've got Islam.
	Absolutely.
	If you're an Islamic preacher, you can get away with doing all sorts of stuff that you couldn't as a Christian preacher.
	Moving further on down, if you're a left-wing Remainer, you can get away with doing a lot of what any other person would not do.
	And this happened to me, well, I witnessed this with Steve Bray, actually, at the Tory party leadership hustings just a few weeks ago.
	I went along to the Hustings and I was quite struck in Wembley Arena how few black faces there were, but I was really struck by how many Asian faces there were.
	Now, it may well have been the Rishi Sunak effect.
	I don't know.
	Sunak supporters were incredibly vocal, far more than trusses.
	Yeah.
	So I sort of enjoyed it.
	I'm not a Tory, but I enjoyed going along and seeing the dynamics.
	Now, as we went into the conference, Steve Bray was there, as he always is, with his amplified sound system.
	Blasting out the lunatics of taking over the asylum.
	And calling everybody names.
	Well, fair enough, that's all part and parcel, as far as I'm concerned, of the political to and fro that we have in this country.
	It's cringe, but it's fair.
	It is cringe, but it's fair.
	Now, as we left...
	He was still there.
	The lunatics were still playing throughout the asylum.
	But this is when it all got rather insidious again.
	Because he wasn't just going, boo Tories, boo Tories.
	He was saying, get out of my country.
	Get out of my country.
	It's weird.
	Yeah, get out of my country.
	And I'm thinking, this is weird, because there's a whole bunch of Asian people in the crowd with me.
	So I went up to him to say, you don't get to say that, Steve.
	You don't get to say that.
	I was prevented from approaching him, guess what, by five police officers who were operating as his Praetorian Guard.
	So they told me that by approaching him, I was potentially committing an offence, but he's standing there with a PA system saying, get out of my country.
	You are the wrong politics, get out of my country.
	I said, this is racist.
	They just literally turned the cheek.
	They looked away.
	They looked away.
	I filmed it.
	I think we got something like...
	275,000 views.
	Because people care about this stuff.
	It's not right that you get away with saying, get out of my country, and using racial slurs, because that's what it is, just because you happen to be in the right position otherwise ideologically.
	I saw a few days after that That Steve Bray approached James Cleverley outside Parliament and said exactly the same thing.
	Get out of my country.
	James Cleverley turned around to him and said, stop being racist.
	He said, I'm not being racist.
	Well, you are.
	If you tell a black person or an Asian person to get out of your country, that is racist.
	Now, what worries me...
	Is that the police simply stood there and did nothing.
	In fact, operated as a Praetorian Guard.
	And this is what happens.
	We have a hierarchy, and depending on where you are in the hierarchy, that will determine whether you get arrested or whether you get a guard.
	Yeah, it's repressive tolerance.
	It's the academic term basically for left-wing hypocrisy.
	It's advancing arguments that move society towards the left and just playing whack-a-mole with anyone that's seen as a rightist, whether or not you are, whether or not you're even using their own standards against them, which you are totally fair to do at the Conservative Party hustings.
	So if we can go on to the second clip, please, John, just to show how he had absolutely no foundation for his complaints.
	I will say to you, did you bring that LGBTQ people are behaving in an unnatural way?
	You said not the LGBT, LGBT people are already.
	I said I don't think...
	Are you familiar with the LGB Alliance, for example?
	There is, yeah.
	Yeah, okay, we've just interviewed them, and they have a slightly different view that the acronym should not be together, because gender and sex are very separate categories.
	But I'm concerned, for example, with, are you familiar with Gail Rubin, the foremother of a boy in theory?
	Okay, that's fine.
	No, I don't expect everyone does.
	But she was an academic, and she wanted to abolish boundaries because she thought of intergenerational relationships.
	And anyone who says that, for example, like those academics, are awful people.
	But regular, I mean, if you want to use the LGBT accent, it's fine.
	Regular people that are going around, they're fine.
	And I would like to say to you, I didn't actually be insulted by it.
	What I'm insulted by is people over here talking about putting everybody together and saying being lesbian, gay, bi, trans, anything else is unnatural and offensive.
	So I was asking you, they're a friend.
	I could argue with you on a...
	I actually didn't find it offensive.
	That's why I was insulting you because I don't know anything about you.
	So that's why I just found that really strange.
	Yeah, I have to say, I was kind of like, okay?
	If you're going to talk to anybody, talk to these guys.
	Also, I didn't even finish my sentence to you.
	You immediately assumed I was insulting you.
	But that's a weird country we live in of where I've just been told I could be charged with public order offence for something I didn't even say.
	That's nuts.
	And I don't even know.
	Sorry.
	Jane, very nice to speak to you.
	Literally ended with a handshake.
	We spoke a little bit more after that, but obviously we're going to keep her personal information out of the video.
	Even she said, yeah, I wasn't insulted.
	You weren't even talking to me.
	I was more offended by these guys, which we just said shouldn't have been arrested either, but that was the primary reason it was there.
	And I was referring to an academic who we're going to read the insidious works of in a bit to justify why I took issue with it, but there is absolutely no reason why that interaction should have taken place based on her own admission.
	It's...
	It's insane.
	And also, that's our Tory party conference, no less.
	I mean, I'm sure you've heard endlessly the Conservative platitudes, even as a party member.
	I'm blooming sick of it, and that's why I'd rather the party improve it, about, oh, we're going to improve free speech.
	We're going to defend it.
	It's going to be fine on university campuses.
	Sue Ella Braveman's going to crack down on police going after wokery.
	That happened outside their doorstep.
	That's inexcusable.
	It does.
	They say the right things, but there seems to be an absolute lack of will to do it.
	That's why I think it's incumbents on us who actually do believe in free speech, properly believe in free speech, to push the limits.
	To know where the limits are.
	To definitely not go over the limit, but to push it right to that limit.
	Because that's where we have to redefine what the law says.
	And that's what my organisation, The Bad Law Project, will strive and attempt to do.
	What we will do is we will look for cases such as yours, such as Darren Brady in Aldershot, analyse it, And hopefully teach the police a lesson.
	Teach them the difference between lawful and unlawful.
	Teach them the difference between grossly offensive and simply offensive.
	because there is a huge difference between the two.
	Get rid of this idea that something becomes a crime if it's perceived to be a crime.
	No, it's not.
	Something is a crime.
	It's old-fashioned, I know, but a crime is mens re plus actus reus minus the defence.
	In other words, the guilty mind plus the guilty action minus the defence.
	And what constitutes a crime is set out by our government.
	It's as simple as that.
	A crime is a breach of the criminal law.
	It's not a hurt feeling.
	It's not a perception.
	It's not defined and dictated by the police.
	It's defined and dictated by the law.
	Simple as that.
	So that's what the Bad Law Project will aim to do, to re-establish the rule of law over bad practice and over bad guidance and over bad application based on bad understanding of the law.
	Yeah, and I have to thank you again for creating another parallel institution that we've basically been forced into because the government, the leftist ideological hegemony have chased us together to be fellow travellers just to defend ourselves.
	And seriously, thank you for setting up organisations like this because it means a lot.
	Again, people have had it way worse than I've had, but that was...
	As I say in the commentary that will be available in the video that goes on our YouTube channel, I'm normally quite a confrontational guy.
	I wouldn't be in my job if I was.
	But...
	That was weird.
	It shakes you a little bit.
	Watching it is weird.
	I mean, it's sort of a slightly toned-down feeling to when I watch the video of Darren Brady in Aldershot being arrested, because, of course, I was only there for parts of it, because halfway through the incident, I had the cuffs slapped on me, thrown in the back of the van and taken off.
	But to watch the absolute ignorance of the police was quite stunning.
	When they said to him, when he said, "I didn't post this meme," he, talking about Lawrence Fox, who's standing right there, he was the one that originated the meme.
	It's been distributed by the Daily Mail.
	Why aren't you arresting them?
	They said, because we don't have the resources.
	In other words, had they got the resources, they would have arrested the entire staff of the Daily Mail.
	The leading newspaper in the country.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But what they said was, the reason we are arresting you, because it was your post, your post, that caused someone anxiety.
	And that is the offence.
	No, it's not.
	Causing somebody anxiety is...
	Is not an offence.
	It is not a criminal matter.
	It is not a police matter.
	And what's happened to you here?
	Absolutely not a police matter.
	Isn't it kind of weird, though?
	I mean, if she had not been more reasonable and would have gotten it misconstrued and not thought I was talking about someone else even though I named them, she would have said, yes, I am offended.
	Would I have been castigated further by the police?
	You might well have been, but you would have whooped their ass.
	Oh, of course.
	It wouldn't have been a final deal to go through.
	In my ruling at the High Court, Mr.
	Justice Knowles reminds the police that being offended is not an offence.
	That a freedom that doesn't include the right to offend is a freedom that is not worth having.
	And then he reminds the police that if they continue down this road...
	Of policing offence.
	What we have is a Stasi, a Cheka and a Gestapo.
	He reminds them of that.
	It appears to have made very little difference because...
	Whilst I went and took on Homicide and I took on the College of Policing about their ridiculous non-crime hate incidents, which, just to remind your listeners, a non-crime hate incident is any incident perceived by any person to be motivated by hostility.
	No evidence of hostility or hate is necessary.
	That's how bonkers it is.
	In spite of beating the College of Policing around non-crime hate incidents at the Court of Appeal, The police have continued to issue non-crime hate incidents, although they have done a rebranding of them.
	So they're now no longer referred to as non-crime hate incidents or NCHIs.
	They're now referred to as offence incidents non-crime, which gives us the beautiful acronym of Oink.
	So now the police can give you an Oink, which is basically exactly the same as an NCHI, just with a different name.
	So, yeah, they've accidentally bought into the BLM for it.
	It genuinely is clown world.
	Like, it's both at once Orwellian and utterly ridiculous.
	It's like a Monty Python sketch.
	They take us for absolute idiots.
	What they've done, what they've done, they've looked at the hate crime guidance, realised that I whooped their asses at the Court of Appeal, and what they've done is gone, I know what we'll do, I know what we'll do.
	Let's just take off the label that says jam, let's stick on one that says strawberry preserve, and hope nobody knows the difference.
	Yeah, semantic smuggling.
	It is.
	It's semantic smuggling.
	Insidious semantic smuggling.
	That's exactly what it is.
	But the thing is, the College of Policing are quite clever.
	If you read through their reissued guidance following my victory against them, they've done just about enough to stop their asses being dragged back to court for contempt.
	so a clever kc will be able to argue and i think successfully that when a police force does this um interfering with our free speech and recording offense etc they will be able to say ah yes but if you look at paragraph so-and-so in our in our reissued guidance it instructs them not to do this and i think they would get away with it
	however the vast majority of what they've published all it does is encourage police officers to not only do the same but to do more of the same right To do more of the same.
	That is the tacit message that is being given to police officers.
	And that's why I feel sorry for this officer, really, in some respects.
	Because I imagine that officer, along with many officers, they are being subject to this...
	It's a tirade of misinformation that stems from the College of Policing and they are getting it on a daily basis.
	Not only that, but it's being reinforced with false statistics about deaths.
	For instance, you can go on the North Yorkshire Police Twitter feed and you will find on there...
	A little chart that shows that 1 in 12 trans people are at risk of murder every year.
	1 in 12.
	Let's imagine that there are a quarter of a million, a half million trans people in the year.
	That's a lot of people being murdered, isn't it?
	A huge amount of people being murdered.
	Do you know what the actual figure is?
	1 in 9 years.
	1 in 9 years.
	That is the degree of the lie that is coming out of the police.
	But...
	Regular police officers believe this.
	When they have the Transgender Day of Remembrance, what they're doing, they're taking the Remembrance Day, which commemorates the millions killed in the war, and then they also liken it to Holocaust, where millions of Jews were killed in Auschwitz and the death camps.
	And they make an equivalence.
	That's what they do.
	By having a trans day of remembrance, they make an equivalence.
	And so in people's minds and in the police's minds, oh my goodness, unless we put a stop to this, we're going to have a holocaust on our hands.
	And what police officer wants that?
	Now, it's further reinforced by this insidious...
	A piece of psychological theory called the Allport Scale, which was developed in the 1950s.
	And what that says is that stage one on a five-step process is things like you, when you describe a person or a group as insidious.
	That is level one, non-criminal hate speech.
	And the argument is that without police intervention, That will escalate through to direct discrimination, through to violence, through to murder, and through to genocide.
	Yeah, so I'm going to be the next Hitler, I suppose, because obviously everyone knows that the Nazis started with a civil disagreement.
	It's just, yeah, it's absolutely insane.
	I suppose the last question I had before we move off from the footage is...
	As for the copper filming me with the shoulder-mounted camera, do you think that could have been recorded as a non-crime hate incident anywhere?
	Would I know if that had happened?
	Absolutely, it could have been recorded as a non-crime hate incident.
	Again, you don't know whether it has or whether it hasn't.
	It depends on a number of things, all of them arbitrary.
	It may be that the police officer decided to record you.
	It may be that the chief constable did.
	It may be that any police officer at any point who's viewed this thought, okie dokie, that's reportable and reported you.
	So you don't know.
	You don't know.
	You could have been reported to any force in the UK, and you could have an oink, an offence incident non-crime, against your name.
	And the only time you would ever know about it, perhaps, is if either you put in a subject's access request to the correct force, or you apply for a job, and suddenly you're thinking, why didn't I not get that job?
	Well, that may be because your non-crime hate incident or offence incident non-crime Has appeared on an enhanced DBS check.
	You've been nailed, marked down as a hater, as a non-criminal hater against a marginalised community, and therefore, of course, they're not going to give you the job.
	We don't know.
	We just don't know.
	Yeah, is there an ability to find that out alongside launching a complaint against this officer for this, for example?
	What I would start with here is I would put in a subject access request to the force which is local to where that took place.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Thank you very much for the advice.
	And then demand that it's removed.
	Yes.
	If we can just go on, John, to the tweets from the journalist in question I was talking to.
	Again, we've redacted her identity, her request, she just gave her first name.
	She said, She has a photo with the woman in the badger costume from behind us.
	It's going to be really confusing for audio listeners to figure out what the hell I'm going on about there.
	And a bunch of the images that the Christian preachers themselves have about Drag Queen Story Hour, the definition of marriage, etc.
	So if we can go on to the next one.
	She said, I made the mistake of going back past on the way back into conference.
	I engaged again after seeing the same men with four young women repeating their unnatural slur.
	The four young women in question were actually on their way to a concert.
	We actually interviewed them.
	They were anti-abortion protesters.
	So they were pro-abortion.
	We had a civil chat with a girl in bright pink everything and makeup.
	She's actually quite nice.
	And that was all we were there to do.
	That's why we got caught up in this stuff.
	So that will be included in the footage when we put it out later on the website, later in the week.
	On to the next one, please, John.
	I was walking away and engaged with a young conservative blogger, hello, asking him for thoughts.
	His response was to tell me he didn't like the conflation of LGB with TQ+, calling the latter part of the acronym INSIDIUS, called Gail Rubin Insidious quite particularly.
	But at that point, a police officer walked over, next one, please, and told him he needed to, quote, be aware that he was risking a public order offence, end quote, by using the descriptor INSIDIUS.
	All ended calmly, but it was really fascinating insight into the line that WM police have to tread.
	When does something become an insult?
	Now, again, she said she didn't feel insulted, which is the reason...
	I've got off with that, but it is kind of strange to phrase it, I thought, as the line that the police have to tread.
	Because if you said, they have to tread this only because of ideological indoctrination, but if they're applying the law fairly, they wouldn't have to tread this line at all.
	Absolutely.
	So what?
	When does something become an insult?
	I don't care.
	I simply don't care.
	Something else I don't care about.
	I don't care that there are Christians out there saying that homosexuality is unnatural.
	I don't think it's unnatural at all.
	I think it's perfectly natural.
	But if that's what you think, because you've got a belief that it's unnatural, fill your boots, mate.
	Fill your boots.
	I'm a Catholic.
	Unnatural is not...
	Not the right word for it at all, I don't think.
	Because clearly some people who have either struggled with their sexuality or perfectly accept it go, yeah, I was gay as long as I've known.
	So clearly there's something natural to it.
	Whether or not you want to castigate it as sinful is a completely different conversation to natural.
	So I not only think that their tactics didn't work, but their semantics wasn't even correct in the debate.
	So it didn't make sense to me.
	We've always had people who think weird things about human nature.
	Yeah.
	Whether we think Jesus is coming back tomorrow, that we think unless we use a certain form of words, we're going to end up in hellfire forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
	You know, so what?
	We've had religious freaks.
	We've had strange religious ideas.
	We've had flat earthers.
	We've had people who said that they've been, you know, too much sex doesn't exist, for example.
	Okay, we are allowed.
	If you want to stand there and go, biological sex doesn't exist, fine, I will defend your right to say it.
	100%.
	No matter how crazy you are, you've got a right to put it on a placard and march up and down.
	100%.
	And it's not a police matter.
	We have the right to be heretical.
	Fantastic.
	If we just go on to the last one, please, John.
	I was more offended by so-called Christians who told me if a child of his came out, he would tell them it was wrong and unnatural.
	Genuinely grateful that police are actively on guard, but also appreciate that freedom of speech is something we must defend and encourage.
	Just to hammer home the point, she wasn't offended.
	The entire intervention was pointless.
	So if we go on to the next one, this is just the Public Order Act of 1986, which I believe is the piece of legislation that he specifically threatened me with.
	And as far as my cursory understanding of legal jargon allowed me to know it, it had to do with imminent threat of violence.
	That's the sort of predicate for that.
	So where did he get the idea that there was an imminent threat of violence from me saying one word about an academic?
	Yeah.
	Absolutely didn't.
	This is just, this is them playing on your ignorance.
	Yeah.
	If you come out with public order acts, breach of the peace, what have you, communications act, they're hoping, and I guess most of the time they're correct, you'll think, oh, this is the policeman saying this.
	Yeah, it must be true.
	It must be true.
	I must be about to commit some offence.
	I'd better stop doing what I was doing.
	Yeah, just shut up and walk away.
	And there's even a part about sexual orientation in there, If we can just go to that, John.
	It's in the next tab, please.
	And again, there's nothing specific in there to actually saying that, oh, if you distribute materials against someone's sexual orientation, that that is an arrestable offence.
	It's just imminent threat of violence.
	So even in the subsection that he might have tried to cite, it wouldn't have washed.
	So we can just go on to the next one.
	I thought it would be really amusing to just talk about the definition of insidious briefly, just because the police officer didn't seem to know what it meant.
	Insidious means, of something unpleasant or dangerous, gradually and secretly causing harm.
	So, I would just like to read, and you can read this woman's essay in your own time, Jane Lindsay has also done something on New Discourses on this, some quotes from Gail Rubin's work, and let's see if she fits the definition of insidious.
	I would describe her as someone who's using the gay acceptance movement as a Trojan horse to normalize paedophilia, and she would probably describe herself the same way, hence my criticism.
	So, I'm sorry to subject you to this, Harry, but for over a century, no tactic for stirring up erotic hysteria has been as reliable as the appeal to protect children.
	The current wave of erotic terror has reached deepest into those areas, bordered in some way, if only symbolically, by the sexuality of the young.
	Now, bear in mind, this paper is the foundation for queer theory, the actual academic discipline that's taught in many universities, including my own when I went.
	She said, There's a little time jump in here.
	While the misery of boy lovers affects very few, the other long-term legacy of the Dade County repeal, that's a specific case she's talking about, affects almost everyone.
	The success of the anti-gay campaign, so she's conflating paedophilia and gay people, I'm not doing that, she was, that's gross, ignited long-simmering passions of the American right and sparked an extensive movement to compress the boundaries of acceptable sexual behaviour.
	I personally think we should police the boundaries of acceptable sexual behaviour to police children, keep them safe, But she apparently doesn't think so and that's what I was critiquing.
	In contrast to cultural feminists who simply want to purge sexual dissidents, the sexual moderates are willing to defend the rights of erotic non-conformists to political participation.
	That is, homosexuality, sadomasochism, prostitution, or boy love are taken to be mysterious and problematic by the sex-negative feminists in some way that more respectful sexualities are not.
	The search for a cause is a search for something that could change these so-called problematic eroticisms and cause them to simply not occur.
	So she's saying if you try to erase this, you're akin to someone discriminating against gay people, or even a racist at one point, She even says, all these hierarchies of sexual value, religious, psychiatric and popular, function in much the same ways as do ideological systems of racism, ethnocentrism and religious chauvinism.
	So, much like the woman that critiqued those preachers standing out there, and we both said, oh, that might not be the right tactic to go about voicing your opinions, but you should be allowed to do it.
	She's saying, if you're a Christian street preacher, you're no different from a racist.
	And if you're a racist, you're no different to someone who wants to prevent pedophilia.
	So, if you want to prevent pedophilia, you should be prosecuted like a racist.
	This is what this woman's saying.
	And that is what I was critiquing.
	She literally said, Sorry, hang on.
	Hang on a minute.
	Hang on a minute.
	She's conflating gay people and sex outside of marriage with pedophiles.
	Again, why is this a me problem?
	I think this is definitely insidious if you're euphemising it at multiple stages and saying we should use gay acceptance to do stigmatised pedophilia.
	And if this became the foundational text for queer theory in universities, is this somehow above reproach for criticism?
	Would actual LGBT acronym people who want to be left alone and aren't part of the queer theory...
	Yeah, LGBT, not the Q on the end, group.
	Would they not want to denounce this?
	Because I'm pretty sure many people do this.
	Well, the LGB Alliance do, for example, that I spoke with.
	So I don't understand how I can be raked over the coals by someone who literally compared the oppression of paedophiles to the oppression of black people in the Jim Crow South in this essay.
	And somehow the police officer, who probably didn't know the definition of the word insidious, can haul me up over that.
	So I suppose my final question for this segment is, what do you propose I do about it?
	Well, I would send the police a copy of Gail Rubin's book.
	Yes.
	Assuming they've not already read it, of course.
	No, unfortunately, that might actually be the case.
	You know what?
	What you've got to do with this is do what you're doing.
	Go on social media and laugh yourself to scorn at it.
	Just laugh at them.
	Hold them up to ridicule because I think that's the only way we're going to win, actually, is by laughing at them.
	I tried it through the High Court.
	I tried it through the Court of Appeal.
	We had the previous Home Secretary and now the current Home Secretary all cheering me on, and yet nothing appears to have changed.
	If anything, it's got worse, because these people, it is queer theory in practice.
	Because they think that in the same way that there's no demarcation between man and woman, there's no demarcation between adult and child.
	Which is just evil.
	Yeah, there's no demarcation between law and not law.
	There's no demarcation between What the government have decided and what an individual has decided.
	There's no demarcation between reality and perception.
	The only thing you can do about this, I think, is hold them up to ridicule and laugh.
	Just absolutely laugh at them.
	As well as ask them.
	For their chief constables to be sacked.
	To tell the PCCs to do their job and sack the chief constables.
	Unless the chief constables get hold of their officers and say, you are not going to be doing this on my watch.
	So, humour and litigation.
	Yeah.
	So, I have possibly grounds for a complaint, but you're sceptical as to the institutional fortitude to take action on it.
	Is that fair to say?
	What you will get, you will get a, on this instance, in this instance, the police officer got it slightly wrong.
	We do occasionally get it slightly wrong.
	However, hate crime is a very real thing, and then it will go on like that.
	That's what you will get.
	Profession of faith back.
	Yes, yes, you'll get a profession of faith back.
	Okay, so on the second channel at 3 o'clock then, the full unedited footage is available, and I suppose, as you've already advised, it would be a real shame to the reputation of those police officers if that video was shared far and wide by everyone now, wouldn't it?
	Okay, so I suppose on to a lot of your work, just before we wrap up and go to the video comments in about 20 or so minutes...
	So obviously you've been working a long time on fighting against the fact that the UK is basically run by Stonewall's diversity and inclusion enforcers, like our streets are entirely policed by the Rainbow Brigade.
	You've had your own run-ins, as we spoke about in the prior segment, which will be available on YouTube as well.
	But I thought we'd go through some exact examples from the likes of Faircop as to how this is taking place in practice.
	I'd like to say for anyone who's watching, if you'd like to see the genealogy of the identity, the progressive stack as you called it, the hierarchy of who can get away with what, you can go to the website, sign up and watch Carl and Callum go through the intersectionality origins and intentions from one Kimberley Crenshaw, the original little Marxist thought camp that they had to germinate things like critical race theory out of the academic ether.
	And now we're all suffering because of that.
	So pay a fiver a month and you can get educated and talk to everyone else about it.
	If we go on to this first tweet, we can see it's been deleted.
	And I was like, hmm, I remember seeing this earlier.
	So I remember looking through the script and thinking, oh, what tweet was that?
	And then I went to Faircop.
	And funnily enough, you guys had archived it and brought it up.
	Go to the next one, please, John.
	It was the Devon and Cornwall Police talking about hate crime awareness week and saying that, oh, we have a zero tolerance to hate crime.
	And hate crime basically means naughty words and graffiti that might be perceived as offensive.
	Can you walk us through what exactly happened here?
	Hate crime cannot be any criminal or non-criminal act.
	It can't be.
	You can't have a crime that is not a crime.
	Unless it's Schrodinger's crime.
	Depending on who's looking at the time.
	On every level...
	The tweet is written by somebody who has exchanged critical understanding for mantras and meaningless dogma.
	They've heard this in a course.
	They've seen this on a meme.
	Yeah.
	Somebody said this to them and they thought, oh, that sounds good.
	A hate crime can be anything that's criminal or non-criminal.
	That covers it all, doesn't it?
	Yeah, it does cover it all.
	But your job is to prevent crime.
	Your job is to solve crime.
	Your job is to crack-catch criminals.
	It's not to go out and police things which are non-crime.
	And I've said it before, and I will say it again.
	The police have no business policing hate, except where that hate is on the cusp of spilling over into criminal action.
	Then, of course, the police should be involved.
	But hate in and of itself is an everyday human emotion.
	I'm sick of...
	To the back teeth of saying it.
	There is nothing wrong with hate in and of itself.
	You know what?
	It's not even one of the seven deadly sins.
	No, no, you're right.
	Avarice is, greed is, lust is, envy is.
	Hate isn't.
	No.
	No, well, I think it might have been Stefan Molyneux of all people who said, "Anger is the immune system for our soul." And it's incredibly natural to despise or be disgusted by something, because it's an evolutionary advantage to keep us away from things we think might be dangerous.
	Yeah, sure, some hatreds might be completely arbitrary based on wrong presuppositions.
	If you hate someone based on how dark their skin is, rather than the content of their character, yeah, it's completely stupid.
	But some hatreds are completely legitimate For example, the entire police system operates on a system of intolerance of hatred towards criminal acts.
	And the reason they aren't solving any bloody crimes is because they've stopped doing that.
	Instead, they're being intolerant towards the general public who don't line up with the newest progressive orthodoxy rolled out in their training sessions.
	But also, hate.
	I think, if you ever read Steven Pinker, The Angels of Our Better Nature, it's an incredible book, a very optimistic book, and I like optimism.
	He actually talks about how the fact that beating the living daylights out of each other is our natural state.
	That's our first nature.
	Our first nature is antagonism and mistrust and bigotry.
	That is our first nature.
	It's our second nature which moves on to trust and kindness and accepting people, etc., etc.
	The natural state is to not trust.
	What do we tell our kids?
	Don't talk to strangers.
	That is asking them to use bigotry and prejudice as a form of protection.
	It's only when you graduate out of childhood and come to the position where you were able to fend for yourself and fight for yourself that you then take away that bigotry B, don't talk to strangers to let's accept all strangers.
	That's our second nature.
	It's not our first nature.
	And I'll tell you what, hatred.
	You just need to go to a football match.
	Hatred is manifest every single week in every single football crowd across the country.
	You hate somebody for that 90 minutes and maybe an hour before the match and maybe an hour after the match on the basis of the shirt they're wearing.
	Yeah, and some of the funniest football chants come out of that.
	I remember when the Sweden-England match happened at the last World Cup, and the chant was, and I'm going to butcher the rhyming here because we're trying to swear, but your excrement, but your birds are fit.
	And it's like, well, that could be racist against Swedes.
	But it was hilariously complimentary because it spoke about how rubbish they were at football, but the fact that their women were quite attractive.
	And also, my favourite is...
	It's Luis Suarez, who is well known by people, you know, your teeth are offside.
	Yeah.
	Which I think is just hilarious.
	But we live in...
	Hate is natural.
	What we need to do is control our hate and civilize our hate.
	The reason that the Speaker in the House of Commons is always shouting, Order!
	Order!
	Order is because there is a tendency to disorder.
	There is a tendency for the antagonism which is natural and right within the House of Commons to spill over into something that's not right.
	And that's why the speaker shouts, order, order.
	Hate, antagonism, ill will, ill feeling, dislike, these are natural.
	When Angela Rayner calls Tories scum, Actually, that's normal.
	We all know lefties who think we're skull.
	Yeah, it might be unbecoming of the position, but it's not shocking that she believes it.
	No, and we don't think that just because she said it, that she's going to go out and take an Uzi and, you know, shoot up the Tory Women's Institute or something like that.
	No, that's after Labour win the next election, obviously.
	Joke, everyone.
	The same thing with the woman on Question Time, the Jeremy Vine show the other day, where she mentioned that...
	That Tories shouldn't be resuscitated.
	Look, sorry, but I would have no problem whatsoever if she was the nurse, if I needed resuscitating and she was the nurse.
	Because you know what?
	I don't believe that she actually meant it.
	I think it was rhetorical speech said in the moment.
	I wouldn't trust her.
	I don't think she's Harold Shipman, and I can understand why they said that we don't want her on a death ward, because if she's capable of that, but you're right, it's probably overblown.
	I'm kind of happy that she's not working around patients in future, but I think it probably was also an off-the-cuff remark that she sincerely probably regrets, because even then she tried kind of backpedalling it on the show.
	Yeah, all of us say things that we don't mean.
	We've ended up in this world where everything we say, which is actually just hyperbole, it's just rhetoric, it's just heat-at-the-moment stuff, somehow we take it literally as though, oh my goodness, they've said this, that means I can't possibly be safe around them.
	Rubbish.
	It's rhetorical speech.
	That's all it is.
	Yeah.
	So if we can just go on to the next one, please, John.
	So, the Fair Cop were looking a little at the police organisation which was affiliated with this group.
	It's quite interesting.
	It says the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, and this is one of these ideological rubber stamps that you were talking about, basically giving out training courses and saying, okay, we'll give you a little badge if you're ideologically aligned.
	And it seems like a lot of these disciplinary committees that should be relatively toothless have actually captured our institutions and are making them abide by a set of rules which nobody voted for, the government didn't pass laws on, etc.
	And it seems like Devon and Cornwall Police have been operating by this scheme since about 2005, as you can see in this tweet thread.
	And it's resulted in things like this.
	John, if you can play this insane video.
	So, just as audio listeners can understand, this is a club called the Salad Bar and there are animated fruit and vegetables standing outside and a tomato has handed its ID card over to what looks like a courgette and a bit of broccoli that's mined in the door.
	They're mocking him, and I think the joke is meant to be that tomatoes are often mistaken as vegetables when they're fruit, so they can't quite understand the identity of the tomato.
	The tomato then enters the club, where a bunch of fruit and veg are dancing, And he can't decide which bathroom to use, even though he's obviously a vegetable, because he might identify as a vegetable.
	The depressed tomato then leaves, because there isn't a bathroom for him, walks down the street, and then down an alleyway, He encounters someone spray-painting on a wall, Tomatoes Ain't No Fruit, with an X on it.
	It's a lemon.
	It's a vegetable and fruit purist, I suppose.
	And the depressed tomato slumps down against the wall, and then puts his hand up, and decides, has a bright idea, to call the police, who has a suspiciously German moustache, and a pride hat on, to report hate crime.
	Stop it happening to someone else.
	Don't let other people's actions dictate who you are.
	And then this weird Mr.
	Men-looking character jabs his finger in the camera, just like the copper did at me, and says, don't let other people's perceptions dictate who you are.
	It's a bit of fruit doing a creative.
	But that was actually made by the police department that Fair Cop pulled up.
	It's beyond belief.
	They're not only treating people like children.
	They're putting actual public money into making animations, telling you to report naughty words, or the fact that you can't get a bathroom.
	It's infantilising.
	That's what it is.
	It's absolutely infantilising.
	If you can't...
	There is no such thing as an oppressed tomato.
	Let's just put that right out there, okay?
	Tomatoes don't have a history of being oppressed across the ages and across every society.
	I don't know.
	I've been made fun of when I've been sunburned, so...
	Women...
	Do have a history of being oppressed throughout the ages and across continents.
	And you cannot begin to solve a problem unless you can name it.
	Okay.
	So what they're trying to do is saying that by having the oppressed tomato, they're downplaying the oppression of women, the actual oppression of groups which historically have been and continue to be oppressed by other groups.
	It's infantilizing and it's stupid because you cannot begin to solve a problem unless you can name the problem.
	And the name of the problem here is sexism by men towards women.
	...who dress as women to get access to their spaces, often because they're autogynophiliacs.
	It's not abiding by the feminist conception of patriarch as this timeless, ephemeral, global conspiracy between all men to keep women down.
	It's some weird, creepy men, specifically weak men, We'll use the trans issue to dress up, gain access to women's spaces, and sexually exploit them and young girls.
	We're trying to defend women from that, but instead, police officers and departments are using public funds to create infantile cartoons about fruit and veg self-identification to push you reporting more trans hate crimes that aren't actually happening.
	It's mental.
	I don't see what we've got there.
	So Faircop called this out, and then it turns out they've been blocking loads of people, including Faircop.
	So isn't that lovely?
	Yeah, well, again, this is quite serious.
	This habit of blocking dissenting voices is very serious.
	It's actually incredibly serious, and it's a breach of human rights.
	Yeah.
	Because Article 10 of the ECHR talks about authority not restricting the giving and the receiving of information.
	Yeah.
	So when a police force or a police department block...
	An individual or a very successful human rights organisation who came to fame by beating the police on Article 10 ECR. When they block us, they are then committing another Article 10 breach and we will be holding them to account.
	Because it's not just Devon and Cornwall.
	It's Hampshire.
	It's Leicester.
	It's West Yorkshire.
	There's a whole bunch of people.
	Police forces or police departments who are blocking anybody that criticises them.
	Yeah, they're trying to insulate themselves from totally fair scrutiny from their complete misconduct and favouring one identity group over another, despite the demonstrable crimes of a minority of people within the identity group that don't represent the group, but still must be spoken about in order to protect women from men, again, who exploit the group's identity marker in order to abuse them.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But I'm saying, now, if you're a chief constable or a PCC, if you've got a department, That is blocking Fair Cop or the Bad Law Project or members of the public without very, very good reason.
	We will come for you.
	We will come for you.
	We will drag you through the court because this is a human rights breach.
	Don't blame you at all.
	We can go on to the next one, John.
	We can just see this is everywhere.
	So this is something that Pete in the office forwarded to me.
	Because he noticed this.
	We can just scroll through some of the photos.
	I apologise, John, for all his notifications.
	We can just scroll down.
	There's, like, that one in the middle there, for example.
	Up a bit, John.
	That one, perfect.
	Yes, I'm just going to describe to our audio listeners.
	It's talking about how we've got loads more diverse and inclusive officers, but this is something I noticed, and it's something I noticed with the police officers who were accosting me outside Tory party conference.
	The officer who was talking to me was, I don't wish to be rude, but he wasn't in any shape to chase down an athletic young criminal.
	And he was significantly shorter than me, which I know some men are, some men are taller.
	I know Harry intimidates me every time I walk through the office.
	But this group of officers is majority young, short women, and black and Asian officers who cares about skin colour, except actually the Met Police keep putting adverts on Spotify saying, we need you to police your community.
	And it's like, right, okay, let's not segregate police officers by skin colour, please.
	But it's like, do we not...
	You'll probably know more about this.
	Have the high weight physicality standards been...
	Lowered, abolished even, for frontline coppers who might have to chase down dangerous criminals wielding machetes on London streets, for example.
	So the height restriction went a long time ago.
	And I've got to say, in defence of small police officers, female police officers, I have a stepdaughter who is short and a police officer.
	But as Shakespeare said, she may be short, but she's fierce.
	Okay.
	Very, very, very fierce.
	I think there's definitely...
	I think what worries me more is the fitness issue.
	Now, one might hope that a fatty in the police force is allowed to remain in the police force because they know an awful...
	They've got vast amounts of experience about the law.
	Okay?
	They've got vast amounts of...
	Clearly that guy didn't have any.
	Not at all.
	So I don't understand.
	I was going to say as well, we were speaking about this in the office when we saw these photos, and we said there are definitely places in the police force for female officers, particularly for the job that no one wants to do, which is knocking on people's doors and telling them about tragic accidents.
	I had that in 2008 when my uncle committed suicide.
	And we had a female and male police officer come to the door and they spoke to my mum and dad.
	And I know that can never be something that isn't tragic, but they did a very good job of delivering that news at the time.
	So there's definitely a place for frontline female police officers.
	It's just, I wouldn't want someone that...
	Short, fine, I have quibbles with that, but the physical fitness requirement and also I wouldn't want to put a bunch of female police officers against a muscular man wielding a machete on London streets, which we've seen time and time again.
	It's like the Leicester Square stabbing that happened a little while ago.
	He stabbed a female police officer during an altercation.
	It's like, why are we putting these police officers in danger and why are we putting the general public in danger by not being able to apprehend criminals?
	Just for inclusion.
	It's...
	Utterly, utterly frustrating.
	So we can go to the next one.
	Why is all this stuff happening?
	And Faircop had pointed this out.
	It's because one of the consultant charities is Victim Support.
	Right?
	And if you can scroll down, please, John, so we can read their definition of hate crime.
	Hate crime is the term used to describe an incident or crime against someone based on a part of their identity.
	There are five categories of identity when a person is targeted because of hostility or prejudice towards their disability, race or ethnicity, religion or belief, which includes non-belief, Sorry, atheist hate crimes, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
	Victim support also recognises crimes targeted at alternative subcultures, such as goth, as a form of hate crime.
	I would then assume that's why Coronation Street had a recent storyline about a goth and his girlfriend being attacked, and one guy died and the other girl had a goth hate crime committed against her, and oh god, wasn't it awful?
	Hate crime can be any criminal or non-criminal act.
	As you said, doesn't make any sense.
	Such as graffiti, vandalism to property, name-calling, assault, or online abuse using social media.
	Experiencing hate crime can be a particularly frightening experience, as you've been targeted because of who you are or who or what your attacker thinks you are.
	Unlike non-identity-related offences, the attack is very personal and specifically targeted, which means it's less likely to be a random attack.
	Okay, but we don't put lovers quarrels under hate crime, and that's definitely to do with hate.
	So, again, none of this makes sense, but Faircott pointed out, hmm, this actually seems to be one of the sources where they're getting their definition from, this nebulous definition, because if we go on to the next one, as we know, police of vice and virtue get lots from Stonewall.
	Ugh, we hate cookies pop-ups.
	Just scroll down.
	Victim Support UK's most LGBT-friendly charity, according to the Stonewall Index.
	Isn't that just amazing?
	I wonder how this weird definition of hate crime came to contaminate the English and...
	The whole notion of hate crime, though, it sort of presupposes such a thing as a noble crime.
	Yeah.
	Like, there can be noble graffiti, or noble theft, or somebody steals my watch because they love me so much.
	It's just...
	It's nonsensical.
	It makes no sense.
	And what we've done, Yet again, we've watered down something which was very serious.
	The Holocaust was serious.
	It wasn't about oppressed tomatoes.
	The murder of Stephen Lawrence was serious.
	It wasn't...
	Well, the thing about Stephen Lawrence is quite interesting, actually.
	Because the Macpherson Report, which addressed the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the major criticism was towards the attitude of the Met Police.
	Now, what's interesting is the Met Police have applied the lessons of the Macpherson Report...
	To everybody except themselves.
	Because if you...
	I did a recent FOI. How many non-crime hate incidents have been applied to MET police officers since 2014?
	The answer came back, zero.
	Right.
	Zero.
	So they are applying non-crime hate incidents to everybody except themselves.
	Who watches The Watchman?
	That's exactly it.
	They are giving themselves a huge, great pass.
	Yes.
	So if we can just go on to the next one, I thought this was quite interesting because you forwarded me this by Helen Dale.
	And the reason they're giving themselves this pass and blowing things out of proportion is because they've got this concept of the Alport scale.
	And you already explained it in the previous segment.
	But just to go slightly through it, and Helen does say that all psychology is one of the dud social sciences.
	I know our resident psychologist there, Josh, will be very frustrated by hearing that.
	But Alport's core claim is that each step in the pyramid, and she shows the pyramid if you don't mind scrolling down, John, just for our video viewers, has a causal relationship with the step above it.
	That is, antilocution, often translated as hate speech, which he was accusing me of, although Alport himself did not use the later term, leads naturally to the exclusion of no black people, no Jews, no Irish, no dog signs, which were put up in the 1960s, for example, which my grandma was subject to as an Irish immigrant. which were put up in the 1960s, for example, which Or no lady members sought.
	which in turn becomes something like Jim Crow, which then turns into Kristallnacht or Stalin's anti-Kulak purges and culmates in the Holocaust or Holodomor.
	Obviously, they wouldn't mention the Holodomor because that was perpetrated by communists and they wouldn't want to make them look bad.
	So this, as you already said in the previous segment, is what they're basing their ideas on.
	And my frustration with this is twofold, right?
	It, first of all, revokes the agency of people because it raises the moral boundaries between actual genocidal maniacs and people who tell jokes or have reasonable criticism, maybe don't even word it that articulately, or...
	Like me, say one word and it's taken out of context and that's not even a bad word.
	And also, it also morally exculpates the worst kind of criminals because it believes that if you can just reprogram them mentally to not think the initial thought, then one, they shouldn't have been guilty in the first place.
	It's the society, the intolerant society which caused them to commit the crime.
	And if you can intervene before crimes are done with brainwashing sessions like the police are subjected to in their training groups, then that will stop all crime.
	We can get to this perfect utopian offence-free society.
	It makes no sense.
	The other thing, of course, is that we asked the College of Policing, they're the ones who issued the hate crime guidance and the non-crime hate incidents, etc.
	And specifically, they say they do this in order to prevent an escalation up the Alport scale.
	We asked them, when they reissued the guidance in 2020, so they've had six years of this, What research did they do to see how effective it's been?
	And the answer came back, they haven't done any research, none whatsoever.
	So even if they believe this were true, if they believe that this was real, you would expect a professional organization to test the theory to see how effective it was.
	They haven't done, and the reason they haven't done it is because they found an entirely different reason for having non-crime hate incidents.
	And that is to generate a chilling effect on free speech.
	It's got nothing to do with escalation to crime.
	That's the lie upon which the policy is predicated on.
	It's actually there in order to encourage police officers to record non-crime hate incidents, to approach you at the Tory party conference over the single word insidious, to approach Darren Brady in Aldershot over a meme, to approach me based on the fact that I retweeted somebody else's feminist dog rule.
	On the belief, in the mind of the police officer, that by approaching us, they were preventing a genocide.
	But what it actually is, it's to do with categorising the people with the wrong type of politics, which is you and I, it's to do with putting a black mark against our character.
	That's what it's to do with.
	It's got nothing to do with preventing crimes.
	Yeah, it's a scarlet letter.
	I wonder as well if anyone's introduced him to the Brandenburg test that was formulated in America, which was like the line of what crossover from free speech to incitement to violence, because if that was a policy that would pretty much fix all of this.
	But I don't suppose anyone at home office has put this into law, unfortunately.
	If we go on to the next one, please, John, this is something you also brought to my attention.
	Conservative Home has done some reporting very recently on how the police have been using identity politics and that's just allowed loads of other crimes, actual crimes, not non-crime hate incidents, to go not only unreported but unsolved.
	My girlfriend, for example, had her luggage stolen on the train.
	They had CCTV footage of the perpetrator.
	They simply gave her a crime report number.
	And said, we're not going to follow it up, even though add a wee belongings in there.
	And that was about a year ago.
	Ridiculous.
	So apparently the Home Office figures indicate declining police performance on bread and butter issues.
	Only 3.7% of burglaries, 4.2% of thefts, and 6.6% of robberies result in a charge.
	In 2010 to 2011, 15% of these crimes recorded by police resulted in a charge or summons.
	So that's dropped by roughly 6%.
	There's something amiss when thefts, burglaries, and robberies go unpunished.
	But non-crime figures increase year on year.
	Comes as little surprise then that Sue Ella Braverman, new Home Secretary...
	Wrote to police chiefs encouraging them to spend less time on diversity and focus instead on tackling crime.
	A brief aside, do you think that's going to go anywhere?
	Well, I don't know, because the blob always gets in the way, doesn't it, unfortunately?
	Yeah, the civil service just paralyzes anything.
	Indeed, political activists are influencing policing priorities from within, and the implications are significant, not least because they threaten the police's sworn commitment to neutrality by drawing them into political disputes.
	One area of contention is non-crime hate incidents.
	Data obtained via a Freedom of Information request while researching a recent report for Civitas called We Need to Check Your Thinking shows non-crime hate incident figures have dramatically increased over five years.
	Non-crime incidents, as you already said, are not criminal offences, but do sharpen background checks.
	Research found that just seven police forces recorded almost 27,000 non-crime incidents over five years, with the Metropolitan Police alone, thanks Cressida Dick, you useless person, Accounting for 10,961 of them.
	The percentage increase when comparing 2017 figures to 2021 figures was a staggering 129% increase.
	Note that the Met, which was placed under special measures, was found by an independent investigation to be failing to record 69,000 actual crimes every year, as well as almost no cases of antisocial behaviour.
	And I can say that from my area in South East London.
	We're on the outskirts.
	We don't even have a tube line.
	It's not that antisocial.
	But there's been massive reports of it As reported by our local politicians in the council elections, people just leaving, you know, graffitying, smashing up cars, throwing little bits of the balloons that people take in the road, rubbish everywhere.
	Not being done about it, but oh god.
	You say the word insidious, clap you in cuffs.
	Figures show that police spent at least £58,000 on stonewall products last year.
	That would explain it, wouldn't it?
	Down from £83,000 in 2018.
	Oh, they're saving us so many thousands.
	Over seven years, the police spent almost half a million pounds on Stonewall products, an average of 67,000 per year.
	Stonewall promotes highly contentious ideas.
	Despite this, the group has written Police Policy on Transgenderism.
	It's as you've said in your repeated tweets and in your court cases, Stonewall are basically running the police and they're making them an ideological enforcement arm of their doctrine.
	That's exactly it.
	I know these figures.
	I've seen these figures.
	When I see them, I'm shocked every time I see them.
	27,000 non-crime hate incidents with just 10 forces.
	Yeah.
	That's huge.
	That's absolutely huge.
	That's potentially 27,000 people with black marks against their character.
	27,000 people who may or may not have their career advancement or change inhibited because of this.
	Yeah.
	That is terrifying.
	That's why I think Mr.
	Justice Knowles, when he likened the actions of Humberside to the Stasi, the Chequet and the Gestapo, he wasn't using hyperbole.
	He saw the direction of trouble.
	And unfortunately, the police have done nothing To suggest that his assessment was wrong.
	The problem is getting worse, not better.
	When we win, and when I win, they double down.
	So this then becomes a war of attrition.
	It becomes a battle of wills.
	Now, the thing is, we will keep going.
	The Bad Law Projects and Fair Cop will keep going.
	We will remain a thorn in their side.
	We will issue pre-action letters.
	We will hunt down Every chief constable who prioritises ideology And politics over actual crime.
	We will do that.
	And we will look to have them removed from office.
	We will look to have the PCCs removed from office.
	We will look to have police officers sacked if they do this.
	Because what we want is a police force, a police service, call it what you will, that operates without fear or favour.
	Whose locus of control is the law.
	Not Stonewall.
	Not so-called independent advisory groups.
	Yeah.
	Not mermaids, not victim support, not the perception of so-called victims, the law.
	That's what we want.
	We want the police to uphold the law.
	And just be accountable.
	That's it.
	Just to the people that they're meant to serve.
	It's also important to note, just almost finally, that they're chasing phantoms entirely.
	The Home Office figures that were published last Thursday state that hate crimes have apparently risen to the highest level on record between March 2021 and 2022.
	With a total of 155,841 offences.
	This was a 26% rise that nearly quadrupled from the 42,255 offences that were in 2012-2013 when the records had begun.
	No shock, considering the snitching cultures all over Australia.
	You know, Great Western Railway or TFL saying see it, say it, sorted, no place for hate, all this sort of nonsense.
	Racial emotive offences accounted for 70% of the crimes.
	The Home Office actually said that the report data they admitted, it is uncertain to what degree the increase in police-recorded hate crime is a genuine rise, or due to the continued recording improvements and more victims having the confidence to report these crimes to the police.
	So they could say, oh, it's just ideologically motivated, and because we're encouraging you to see hate everywhere.
	Well, let me tell you how this is.
	Let's just say, you know, I'm outside and I see you get mugged by somebody.
	Okay.
	And let's say that I perceive you as gay.
	That's it.
	I perceive you as gay.
	Okay.
	So you've not perceived yourself.
	You don't perceive yourself as gay.
	Sorry, lads.
	I don't.
	All right.
	Okay.
	You're not gay.
	Right.
	But I perceive you as gay.
	Yep.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	as a homophobic theft, and it would be recorded as a hate crime.
	Mental.
	Because the perception is everything.
	Yeah.
	Perception is everything.
	And the hate crime guidance specifically says the victim or any other person, if they perceive it to be so, it is so.
	Now, it gets even worse than this because in the 2014 version of the hate crime guidance, it actually says that a decrease in hate crime should not be counted as a measure of success because it will demotivate officers.
	Well, in what kind of world...
	Do you not see a decrease in hate crime as success?
	Imagine having a murder squad, for instance, and they were told, oh, we don't want to see a decrease in murders, or a robbery scrub.
	We don't see a decrease in robberies.
	What they've done...
	They've set themselves up a Ponzi scheme, a hate industry Ponzi scheme.
	It's perverse and sensitive.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And where there's a Ponzi scheme, there is an actual no product.
	So you've just got to invent the product.
	And that's why they see hate everywhere.
	They are taught to see hate everywhere.
	They are like the religious fanatics who see Jesus in a slice of toast.
	These people are trained to see hate everywhere and to crank up the hate statistics.
	Why?
	Why?
	Because if they crank up the hate statistics, more money will be poured in to policing against the hate.
	But what they're actually policing is people who are ideologically difficult.
	The people like you, people like me, people like traditional feminists, people who believe that sex is a thing.
	Everyday conservatives.
	So you create this illusion of hate, and that then becomes the prompt for more resources, which then gives you even more hate, which then brings you even more resources, until eventually we just have to give up and go home.
	Seek refuge somewhere safe like Hungary.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I've checked the commute from Hungary to Swindon one too many times, I will say.
	I suppose you can just close with that by saying there's a hate demand which massively outstrips the supply.
	And so if you'd like to hear more from Harry specifically, we've got your sub-stack here, which you can subscribe to.
	We won't scroll down because there might be some verboten facts for YouTube.
	And there's also the Bad Law Project on Twitter, which has been doing some fantastic work.
	John, if you could just pop that on the screen, please.
	Thank you very much, and I really appreciate you helping me out with all of the absolute nonsense I was subjected to, and look forward to seeing you help everyone else out in the future.
	It's always a pleasure.
	Thanks for having me.
	So, if we can just go on to the comments, that's alright.
	I think we're probably going to have to skip the video comments today, mate, just because we're a bit strapped for time, aren't we?
	I'll just read a couple of the website then.
	So, Base Ape.
	It's good to see Harry Miller back on the show, or Base Harry Miller.
	You really are doing the Lord's work, good sir.
	Is there anything we, the Lotus Eaters, can do to help you out?
	You have my axe, obvious Lord of the Rings reference.
	Is there anything they can do to help out the Bad Law Project specifically?
	Yeah, you can retweet us, you can write and thank us, you can send us information, you can give us money.
	Any of the above.
	Fantastic.
	Get in touch.
	Free Will 2112.
	We have about 18 months before Labour take power.
	How much worse will this authoritarianism get under Labour and will we ever get out of the government when they lower the voting age to 16, tipping the scales even further in favour of people who support this agenda?
	Did you see at the Labour Party conference they tabled a motion that was unanimously voted through to criminalise misogyny?
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's all part and parcel of it.
	They want as many criminal offences as possible.
	We're moving very swiftly to a European system of permissions.
	They've stripped away this notion that we are free.
	What they want is the European model of we are free to do what the state tells us to do.
	That's it.
	And that's based on having even more legislation.
	Not less.
	It is big state.
	It's big Marxist state.
	So there we go.
	I mean, I don't particularly worry about a Labour government because I think we've been under a de facto Labour government for years.
	They're both Blairite parties, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, it's Blairism with a blue door as opposed to Blairism with a red door, but it's still Blairism.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Risto, oh my, Connor is now a legitimate thought criminal.
	Yeah, join the club, mate.
	Captain Charlie, Gail Rubin, Michel Foucault, Simone de Beauvoir, all of these are titans of leftist academia, and yet they're all known paedophiles or apologists.
	It says, everything you need to know about these people, yes, if you go over on 3 o'clock on the second channel, there will be a video where I followed up with a quite frustrated monologue within the party conference floor a few minutes after the arrest encounter, and I literally named the postmodernists who put their letter to the French government, the names on the letter, to say we need to abolish the age of consent in France.
	It's not like they're hiding it.
	these people are named academics who are driving the movement like Simone de Beauvoir is is called by second wave feminists as the author of the feminist bible and she literally says we need to abolish patriarchy which is male domination which she describes as every legal system property so property ownership she was a socialist and parenthood to ensure women's liberation and also she said that every act of heterosexual sex is a kind of rape that's a direct quote um violent uh Logic in male hands is a form of violence, and she thought that having sex with children was okay.
	And these are the thought leaders of the left, so you should be able to criticise these people.
	But apparently, it's criminal if I do.
	Isn't that wonderful?
	Keith Savage.
	Regardless of the training they've had, cops who act like Poundland Stasi should be sacked, along with the senior officers who have inculcated gender dogma in their minions.
	Clear the lot out.
	Is that something you can endorse, essentially?
	Wow.
	I don't think you can.
	I think you've got to start with...
	I think you've got to treat this as a top-down exercise, actually.
	Most police officers, they join the job and they believe their superiors.
	They do.
	So I think we've got to treat this as a top-down problem.
	We definitely need to be sacking chief constables.
	We definitely need to be closing down the hate factory, which is the College of Policing.
	And we definitely need to be encouraging PCCs to hold their chief constables to account.
	I would say anybody from, I don't know...
	Superintendent level up is absolutely culpable.
	If you're endorsing this nonsense, you need to be sacked.
	Yeah, so I have two comments actually relating to that hot off the heels.
	Apparently, first of all, a fellow named Matt says that he believes the guy harassing me was an inspector.
	So I don't know how you can call it.
	Perhaps he's in the Kent district and has some familiarity.
	We can't confirm that yet, but I'm sure we'll find out when we lodge a complaint.
	Which I'll be chewing your ear off after the show, if that's alright, before you go home.
	And then a gentleman by name of Paddy said, I have to disagree with you, Harry.
	What is essentially the Nuremberg defence here doesn't fly.
	Any plod who happily goes to work each day, despite what they've become and what they do, despite 30 years of grooming gangs, for example, being ignored, they're nothing less than traitors to the country and the people that they serve.
	I do fall on that line having encountered with that fella.
	I do have a lot less sympathy for him just following orders than perhaps you do.
	Okay, so Nuremberg was about people, was about Nazi guards shooting people.
	It wasn't about...
	There's a magnitude of awfulness.
	Yeah, it's a magnitude of awfulness.
	So I take the point, but I think it's a little bit overblown.
	I think you can make a comparison to principle.
	Of course, I'm glad I wasn't shot on the spot, though judging by the way he spoke to me, I wouldn't have put it past him.
	Free Will 2112.
	How ironic.
	The demonisation of white people is inherently racist and evil.
	Must be about three on the scale that you said.
	Why have the police not intervened?
	Yeah, it's quite interesting how the progressive stack just seems to overlook certain forms of racial discrimination.
	The hate only runs one way.
	Absolutely.
	Always.
	Absolutely.
	Andrew Narog.
	The very embodiment of C.S. Lewis's moral busybodies, inserting themselves into everyday dealings to try and enforce his absolutist moral paradigm at being pushed by the left.
	Baron von Warhawk, Mr.
	Harry Miller believes the cops arresting people for speech is breaking their oath to the king's law.
	He must understand that they don't care about their oath to the crown and country, but their oath to a global government and what he would say is the new world order.
	Didn't you once raise, actually, that the police system in this country is still abiding by EU law, even though we've disconnected from...
	No, I didn't say the police system.
	We have two problems.
	One is that since 2002, the oath has changed.
	So the police now take an oath to the Queen to uphold the law and human rights, but nobody's defined which those human rights are.
	And the second problem is that we have, in every police force in England and Wales, In Ireland as well, we have a bunch of activist police officers who are part of the National LGBT Police Network, who are part of the wider EU LGBT Police Network, who have adopted the policy of the EU in relation to Rainbow Europe.
	So we have, absolutely, we've got a European police force operating within the police force, and we need a police Brexit now.
	So there's fifth columnists, essentially?
	Yes, 100%.
	Have you heard the recent story as well about...
	The Chinese in Europe, America, and the UK have been building police stations.
	They technically own the buildings.
	Have you seen that?
	I can absolutely believe that.
	I mean, they own some of the ports in Australia, don't they?
	So, yeah, I can believe that.
	How creepy.
	Lord Nerevar, Mr Miller, what is the number one thing in your opinion that needs to change in the way the police conduct themselves?
	It could be something to do with management, training, conduct, or law, or anything else you think is the most important issue.
	It's fairly useful to know where we should be focusing our efforts in support of efforts like Fair Cop or Bad Law Project.
	Godspeed.
	Okay, two things.
	Repeal the 2002 Act, which has police officers swearing to uphold human rights.
	We need to get rid of that.
	Absolutely.
	We need to, actually, three things.
	Abolish the College of Policing immediately and make it a sackable offence if you wear anything on your uniform other than standard uniform issue.
	You have anything on your uniform that is not standard.
	That's it.
	You're not fit to be a police officer.
	You're saying they can't carry trans riot shields and dress up in puppy costumes.
	Is that what you're...
	That's exactly what I'm saying.
	100%.
	100% Andrew Loving Harry's contributions He's bang on that hate Has no business being policed We have the capacity to hate For good reason What we must learn to do Is control hate As a good person would Otherwise we let hate control us Completely in ways That slip under our radar As actually the progressives do When you were talking About discrimination Are you familiar with Thomas Sowell by any chance A black economist in the US Yeah And he spoke about Type A and type B Discrimination
	And then type 1, type 2, and then there's type 2A, type 2B. Type 1 discrimination is just over racism.
	And then there's another subcategory which basically says, okay, if you make an assumption about a group that's based on probability because you don't know the person, then that is a reasonable evolutionary tactic and is discriminatory but not evil and racist.
	So he said, for example, like cab drivers who don't want to drive into Brixton.
	I think he used the example of New York, but we'll go with Brixton.
	Who say that, okay, it's a crime neighbourhood, and I don't want to go there in case I get robbed for my fare.
	So if a gentleman gets in the back of my cab and says, I want to go to Brixton, he might be going there for perfectly legitimate reasons, but I don't want to drive there and risk it.
	So he might be accused of being racist because he's not driving into minority majority areas, but he's doing it for personal safety, not out of hatred.
	So that's a good example of, hey, it's not of minorities, it's of the crime that is in those areas.
	That's where we get back to first nature and second nature, and don't talk to strangers.
	That's it.
	It's a version of that.
	Omar, nobody ever asked the real questions.
	Maybe it's right to discriminate against the tomato.
	Discrimination means making an evaluation based on characteristics.
	Children need to know how to evaluate properly, or they won't be able to make the correct choices.
	Making sure children never face discrimination means they lose an opportunity to grow.
	Absolutely.
	Colin, I do think there may be a place for taking into account the motivation of an offence, but it is at sentencing, not in the offence itself.
	That's how it is.
	That's where the hate crime is supposed to be.
	It's supposed to kick in at sentencing.
	So if it turns out that you have committed a crime against somebody, you've been found guilty of that crime, and your motivation included just an irrational hatred to that person because they were a member of a group, a particular group, then...
	Then, well, I don't know.
	Maybe fair enough.
	I'm not entirely sure that I even believe in that.
	No, you can police mentality accurately.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's basically born out of a benevolent...
	You struggling with it is born out of a benevolent intent because you know that racism is abhorrent to try and diminish that.
	But then...
	We've kind of got to tolerate people's racist thoughts, otherwise we're just going to get persecuted for the nebulous definition of racism they keep rolling out.
	All of us, all of us are racist, in one way or another.
	Honestly, if you listen to taxi drivers, you go down to the local sauna, you go to the local cafe, you hear people being casually racist all the time.
	It does not translate into violence.
	Look at what happened during the queue, the great queue.
	Thousands upon thousands of strangers from all different walks of life and nationalities and ethnicities came together.
	How much violence was there?
	Very, very little.
	Because in real life, we don't allow our natural prejudices, our natural bigotry, our natural racism to spill over into criminal or discriminatory action.
	That's a fact.
	Thank God.
	And that's the miracle.
	We operate with the angels of our better society.
	Yeah, and so the last one I'll just read out because it's funny.
	Paul says, I'm imagining Connor being rolled out on a Hannibal Lecter dolly with someone saying he's an expert in racism and can provide advice on how to catch other serial offenders.
	The reason I read that one out, not just because it's a funny image, but actually we'll be covering the Silence of the Lambs in a premium podcast for Halloween, so you'll really enjoy that.
	Anyway, that's all we've got time for.
	Harry, sincerely, thanks very much, my friend.
	Absolute pleasure, mate.
	This will continue off air because we've got to hold these police officers to account, I think.
	For everyone else watching, join us again at one o'clock tomorrow and go to the second channel to see the full footage of the police encounter and the commentary afterwards from the conservative party conference floor at three o'clock again on our second channel.
	Until next time, I and Connor, you're watching the podcast of Lotus Eaters.

▲