Challenging Thought Crime: HarryTheOwl v The College of Policing

by Harry Miller - @WeAreFairCop

Challenging Thought Crime: HarryTheOwl v The College of Policing

by Harry Miller - @WeAreFairCop
Harry Miller - @WeAreFairCop
Case Owner
I'm an ex cop, father to 3 women & have been throwing money at this cause all year. Taking on the government is huge. I need your help. We take this on together.
days to go
pledged of £100,000 stretch target from 3,494 pledges
Pledge now
Harry Miller - @WeAreFairCop
Case Owner
I'm an ex cop, father to 3 women & have been throwing money at this cause all year. Taking on the government is huge. I need your help. We take this on together.
Pledge now

This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)

Latest: Feb. 12, 2021

Court of Appeal - Imminent

The Date

Miller versus The College of Policing will take place at The Court of Appeal on 8th-10th March 2021. The hearing is likely to be virtual.

The Story So Far

It is a year since The High Court rule…

Read more

I'm Harry. @HarryTheOwl. You may recall that I got into bother for liking a limerick on Twitter and the problem hasn't gone away. 

My retweeting of a gender critical verse apparently so enraged someone that they felt it their civil duty to engage the police. The police duly obliged. But I'm not going to take this kind of Orwellian thought policing lying down. 

Launching legal challenge in the High Court against Humberside Police and, more importantly, against The College of Police who issue Police Guidelines to get those guidelines declared unlawful. Now I need your support. 

These Guidelines, forced upon police forces, are systematically used to shut down lawful discussion. They weaponise the police in favour of one group at the expense of another. They trample over our tradition as free people to engage in political debate without fear of arrest, coercion or intimidation from the police. 

I believe these guidelines breach Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and I am bringing a legal challenge against the College of Policing to prove it. This is about more than my case - it's about freedom of speech for everyone in this country even the people we most vehemently disagree with. Please contribute now and share this page with your friends, family and on social media. 

Fighting the establishment is costly. Doing nothing is terrifying. Please, if you believe in freedom, donate. All funds donated are transferred directly to my legal team and I stand to gain nothing. I simply cannot afford to do this on my own.

Case Background

The officer in question, PC Gul, described the tweet as containing a limerick. It wasn’t but that is beside the point.

PC Gul contacted my work, spoke to my MD, then spent 32 minutes on the phone lecturing me on hurt feelings and how in-vitro body parts sometimes accidentally grow from a lady brain as I sat with my shopping at Tesco. 

Sarcasm, satire and talk of synthetic breasts was sufficient to prompt the urgent police intervention. That PC Gul didn't appear in Tesco car park with his blues and twos blaring, I suppose, is a small mercy. 

‘Were any of the tweets criminal?’ I asked

‘No,’ says PC Gul. 

‘Then why are you ringing me?’ 

‘I need to check your thinking,’ said PC Gul. 

The following week, the Assistant Chief Constable threw the full weight of the College of Policing Guidelines behind his constable, sternly warning in the press about escalation,  proportionate action and publicly declaring me a transphobe. 

I was in Australia when Inspector Wilson called some weeks later, urging me to stop my political commentary on Twitter. 

I reminded him that the Government has called for a public debate on proposed changes to the Gender Recogniton Act and of my Article 10 Rights.  His response was, ‘If you don’t like it, sue.’

Thanks for the advice, Inspector Wilson. 

On behalf of Maria McLachlan, Kate Scottow, Margaret Nelson, Graham Linehan, Posie Parker, Julia Long and the women forcibly removed by the police at Accenture, this is precisely what we intend to do.

How much are we raising and why?

Initially we are seeking to raise 25,000 to start legal proceedings, pay for initial advice and begin our case preparation. However, we then need to go on to raise considerably more to cover all the associated costs of the case so your support is critical. 

This fight is for the right to exercise lawful speech free from coercive interference. It is a fight we fight on behalf of women and right-minded men. It is a fight we have to win.

Recent contributions

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 2

Harry Miller - @WeAreFairCop

Feb. 12, 2021

Court of Appeal - Imminent

The Date

Miller versus The College of Policing will take place at The Court of Appeal on 8th-10th March 2021. The hearing is likely to be virtual.

The Story So Far

It is a year since The High Court ruled that Humberside Constabulary had acted like the Gestapo, the Stasi and the Cheka when they visited my workplace to ‘check my thinking.’ If you recall, I had reposted a feminist lyric on Twitter that stated, in direct terms, that males do not possess a vagina. 

Humberside maintain that they acted as they did in order to comply with the Hate Crime Operational guidance published by The College of Policing. The College of Policing agreed. In a bizarre judgement, the High Court ruled that the Guidance is legal - although following it, apparently, is not. This is what we are challenging.

What Is The College of Policing?

The College of Policing is not, as the name may suggest, a training school for new recruits; it is the body which sets the guidance that police forces in England and Wales are expected to follow. In other words, it wields a huge amount of power over Chief Constables, who subsequently hold a huge amount of influence over us all. Police and Crimes Commissioners, whose job it is to protect us from out of control police, are entirely absent. It has been left to Fair Cop to hold the police to account.

When we took on The College of Policing, we imagined it was staffed by maybe 50 or so former senior police officers, offering advice and guidance to the next generation. In fact, it employs 650 staff and has an annual wage bill of £37 million. That’s £56,000 per person; the average copper gets under £30,000.

Here’s Something I Bet You Didn’t Know

The College of Policing is a private limited company, no different from Specsavers or JCB. But if Specsavers or JCB made annual losses of £40 million a year, we are confident that the government would not throw money at them to keep them afloat. And do you know who the single shareholder of The College of Policing is? You might like to ask Priti Patel.

Why We Are Fighting

In October 2020, The College doubled-down on its High Court win, extending the reach of the Hate Crime Operational Guidance into schools. This means that a 15 year old girl making a fuss about the presence of a penis in her changing room is at risk of having her name registered on a police hate data-base if a teacher, pupil, parent or anybody else is minded to lodge a complaint of transphobia.

And if you happen to state that  Eddie Izzard does not qualify as the UK’s greatest female comedian, you too are at risk. Since 2020, transvestites now have more protection than women. 

3 Minutes and 45 Seconds

Reporting to the police is easy, anonymous, and can be done on-line in the time it takes to boil an egg.  Once lodged, the record will remain for 6 years and may be revealed to a potential employer at the discretion of the Chief Constable.  The Guidance and the TrueVision Portal are gifts to the motivated activist and the malicious lunatic. My malicious lunatic goes by the name of Mrs B, and continues to harass anyone who challenges them. Mrs B has has been reporting people to the police since at least 2014. We would name them, but the police granted them anonymity. 

Over the past year, Fair Cop has supported an alarming number of female employees, many of whom are from the police service, who have been targeted by their colleagues for a range  non-crime hate incidents. Offences include insisting on the provision of single sex toilets and tweeting in support of Keira Bell.

At the moment, employers  have The College of Policing Hate Crime Guidance on their side. We have the chance to overturn that Guidance at The Court of Appeal.

What Is Hate?

By hate, the police do not mean the kind of deep rage and prejudice which, if left unchecked, is likely to spill over into criminal action. No. The police define hate as antagonism, unfriendliness and dislike. 

A healthy democracy needs to celebrate antagonism, not criminalise it. And unfriendliness and dislike are personal emotions which should not be the business of the police.  Plenty of people hate me - provided they don’t threaten, harass, or send me malicious communications, I fully support their right to do so. 

Please Donate

We are relying on fivers and tenners from a host of people across all political spectrums to do battle with a private company that is funded by the government to the tune of millions. Please give what you can, if you can, and let us put an end to this police state. We appreciate every penny. 

Harry. x


Update 1

Harry Miller - @WeAreFairCop

March 12, 2020

Supreme Court

'We have never had a Gestapo, a Cheka or a Stasi in Great Britain' said Mister Justice Knowles, delivering his groundbreaking judgment in favour of Miller at The High Court on Valentine's Day. Humberside Constabulary not only lost but were utterly vanquished, being compared to not one, but three, of the worst policing regimes in modern history. 'We followed the Hate Crime Operational Guidance, issued by The College of Policing in 2014', they pleaded. The College of Policing agreed. Humberside had followed it to the letter. And yet, in so doing, they behaved like the Gestapo. 

Interesting. One might even say, bizarre, given that in the same judgment, The College of Policing Guidance was ruled to be not unlawful. In other words, the Guidance is lawful whilst following it is unlawful. It is this anomaly that we are seeking to put right by way of appeal at The Supreme Court. We lodged our petition, yesterday. 

Whilst the ruling entirely vindicates me with respect to the actions of Humberside - it turns out that tweeting 'Sheffield women know the difference between lads and lasses' is not a hate incident, after all - the Guidance in its current form remains open to illegal implementation and a breach of Human Rights.

Third party, subjective reporting remains. In a hate incident, no evidence of hate is required. Police MUST record, regardless of rationality. Hate Incidents MUST show an increase regardless of whether or not hate crime is on the decrease. And the definition of hate includes 'an aversion to' or 'a dislike of.' So, if you have an aversion to, say, dating a woman (sic) with a penis, then you are eligible.  Last month, PC Gul was teaching the staff of a bread making factory in Scunthorpe about precisely this: how to recognise and anonymously report hate. Imagine the horror.

The Guidance is a heckler's charter, a way for activists and political agitators or straight up trouble makers to demand that the police place an individual under undue stress on the basis of an imagined, or manufactured, slight.  To have that individual's details  recorded on a Crime-Non-Crime police database, which may then be disclosed in a pre-employment Enhanced DBS (criminal records) check. Short of a Judicial Review (about £150K), there is no possible redress. 

Such dark, para-justice is not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Fair Cop, together with The Free Speech Union, is fighting to have the legality of this hateful Guidance overturned as it is being handled and applied by a police force and a Crown Prosecution Service that marks you for life, on the malicious say so of a single person, irrespective of your innocence or guilt. As such, it is the very definition of a totalitarian state system. Think Gestapo, Stasi, Cheka. Thank you. We fight on. 

    There are no public comments on this case page.