Harry miller arrested

I don't know if the complaints had been made by the same person.

yes it was in Harry’s article that it was the third visit. I don’t know if they reveal who made the complaints in cases like this, but it sure sounds like the police were helping out someone with a personal vendetta.

Remember Dr Konstancja Duff who was punitively strip-searched and the investigation took years to resolve and made her question her own sanity?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4462780-Treatment-of-a-Woman-by-Metropolitan-Police

I'm sure I read that the person whom Harry was supporting had been visited by the coppers at least twice already in response to allegations. This would be his third go. I don't know if the complaints had been made by the same person.

Yep the police have a loooooong history of arresting onlookers who point out that the police aren’t following their own procedures correctly. It normally happens when eg a lawyer sees an illegal stop and search in progress and tries to tell the victim that they have rights. Boom lawyer arrested for ‘obstruction’ 🙄

Yes, I don't know if they're friends. But it wouldn't surprise me if Harry Miller wasn't now to go-to person when police start 'visiting' people for offending transactivists.

@JemimaPuddlegoose

I’m sure you don’t mean that, if the people who are responsible for something, or are contributing to it happening, or happening more, or more often, or in a particular way, happen to be Jewish, naming them (not naming their faith or ethnicity but giving their names) is antisemitic?

You don’t mean that, surely?

Oh, you thought he was writing about himself in the third person? He wasn’t the suspect. That was another guy. The “suspect” appears to have contacted Fox and Miller (or contacted Fox who contacted Miller?) when he knew the police were showing up to arrest him.

Ah thanks screaming!

What happened is that someone was arrested for posting a meme and the police broke a bunch of rules to do it and then just for funsies arrested the person who told them they were breaking the rules.

So these are two separate people? HM was the latter so they didn't actually think he posted it?
Sorry, I'm confused and not very good at inferences

No, that was someone else. He was basically there to offer support and advice, as he considered that the police had already dealt with the matter incorrectly. And he got arrested (and released without charge) for "obstruction" as he was answering back at the police officers and telling them where he thought they were going wrong.

I still don't understand what HM had to do with it. Why was he associated with an image posted somewhere? I just can't establish a chain of events from that account. It seems HM was "the suspect" for the (non-crime of) posting it... so they thought he had posted it? But they were incorrect?

now I don't know if you're trolling.

Not trolling.

Oh, I think you are right - they do think they like satire. And they do think they are "academically inclined" by which they mean they have attained a university degree and maybe a professional qualification.

By "satire" they mean Trevor Noah.

LaughingPriest "I think as a general rule of thumb, if you have a message you want to be taken seriously, whatever it is, leave swastikas out of it."

yes. Whoever came up with that hasn't done any favours to those of us who are concerned about LGBTQI+.

We are a long way from the days when civil liberties organizations fought for freedom of speech for actual neonazis.

It's encouraged?

now I don't know if you're trolling.

i did have an idiot ex friend tell me Jude Law should set a better example in his private life because of the characters he plays.

i asked if he played a drug dealer, what then? She went quiet.

we have actually arrived in Idiocracy about 30 years earlier than I thought.

I think as a general rule of thumb, if you have a message you want to be taken seriously, whatever it is, leave swastikas out of it.

On all sides, whoever you are. At worst they are genuinely offensive to many, at best it's a lazy trope that has almost become meaningless. Think of a better way to convey your message than swastikas.

I like and enjoy satire. I think satire is nearly always better if swastikas are not involved. I think the only joke I can think of that is funny that involves Nazi imagery is that Father Ted episode, purely because it's so ridiculously overblown.

They have become, culturally, a blunt attempt to troll.

Mangy "I would say there is a cross-over between people who don't get satire and people who think your skin colour should determine your political views."

tough one. I find it's often the people who are most academic and who would say they love satire, who have me labelled by skin colour.

This is identifying but I have been wanting to tell the FWR board for a while so....

I had a bizarre conversation with a 20 something about Trigger's broom. I thought she was trolling me. It took a while to establish that she wasn't.

To sum up, She believes what Trigger believes about the broom, amd now sees figurative as literal. Yes, she is at uni.

Thank @BernardBlacksWineIcelolly I have been sat here thinking... wtf just happened?

It used to be that as a society we mocked people who couldn't distinguish between television characters and real life - the sort of people who yelled at Phil from Eastenders in the street. Nowadays, this is apparently considered to be a perfectly legitimate attitude towards fiction, and university students are encouraged to theorise about it in return for degrees in film studies.

I see where you are coming from. But it seems to me that what you are describing is kind of the same thing I am - because so many people seem unable to grasp the concept of satire, it seems increasingly difficult to know if people are actually being satirical.

I would say there is a cross-over between people who don't get satire and people who think your skin colour should determine your political views.

That's a really interesting example.

I've actually seen that logic used by left-progressives plenty of times, even before things seemed to go off the rails.

I remember arguing, quite a few years ago now, with the idea I alluded to up-thread - that if homosexuality is inborn we need to accept it as natural and ok, because accepting who people really are is important.

This was a common POV at the time among certain people advocating for gay rights, but it seemed very clear to me that it was dangerously wrong. When I questioned them, their logic seemed to be what you've written above - they agreed with the conclusion it was being used to support, so they thought it must be valid. If I pointed out that it could also be used to support other things they did not agree with, they didn't seem able to deal with it, "that's different." They couldn't reason that even if the conclusion was correct, it must be for other reasons.

I thought that people in more responsible positions were foolish not to repudiate that kind of thinking more carefully, but the attitude seemed to be that if it was an effective argument, the end justified the means.

When Genevieve Gluck was discussing her investigations with Glinner, she had some interesting speculations as to why there is a concerted effort to disdain and attack the viewpoint of lesbians and feminists. Gluck argues that previous attempts (1970s to 1990s) to normalise various paraphilia and to remove the age of consent by forced teaming these campaigns with gay rights etc. were successfully halted by actions from women, feminists, and particularly lesbians who spoke up about their concerns, especially around safeguarding.

There seems to be a recrudescence of concerted action to normalise these ambitions again. Gluck comments on the strategy of the pre-emptive attack on feminists and lesbian by ostracising them and "slandering them as TERFs from the start:" I should think that Feminazis and similar slurs would be part of that strategy.

It's certainly been very successful in scaring a fair number of people away from even looking into what is happening.

wrt to the Denton playbook (see below), lobbying groups have been very careful to work in the shadows which allowed them to succeed with the #NoDebate strategy for a long time. Denton also gifted these groups the time to capture enough organisations and governmental bodies to give an authoritarian weight to the deprecation of concerns and the continuing refusal to engage in discussion.

3 part deep dive into Denton:

Part 1 grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document

Part 2 grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document-78d

Part 3 grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dentons-document-part-3

Mumsnet discussions here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3756354-RollOnFriday-law-firm-writes-report-called-Only-adults-Good-practices-in-legal-gender-recognition-for-youth?pg=1

Discussion on Dentons

www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/dentons-campaigns-kids-switch-gender-without-parental-approval

James Kirkup in The Spectator

www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp

I saw some idiots on twitter berating David Mitchell because Mark Corrigan in Peep Show is 'racist', like he's not a character that we are supposed to mock, but an extension of the actor's personality. I don't know what we do with people like that.