Challenging Thought Crime: HarryTheOwl v The College of Policing
Challenging Thought Crime: HarryTheOwl v The College of Policing
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: March 12, 2020
'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…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.
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.
Harry Miller - @WeAreFairCop
March 12, 2020
'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.