March of the thought police Harry Miller

[BovaryX]

There is a great article in the DM about Harry Miller's case. The article describes the CPS' pivotal role in pursuing hate incidents which are not crimes. It questions whether these investigations are a legitimate use of police resources when police are failing to investigate crimes like burglary and rape cases rarely reach prosecution. It discusses the inherently problematic nature of the subjective interpretation of non crime incidents and identifies the fact that police guidelines were influenced by transgender lobby groups. The fact that the police are spending time pursuing individuals on Twitter for crime non crimes should concern everyone concerned with freedom of speech and how it is being threatened by the new totalitarians.

^I have broad shoulders, but this fight is hard. If ordinary people like myself don't stand up against what I see as over-reaching authority by the police,
who will?^

The maths is correct,

Scotland Yard, which now has a staggering 900 hate crime officers, has chalked up the highest number — 9,473 over the past five years

This means each officer has reported 2 hate incidents a year.

I've worked with some unproductive people in my life, but that takes the biscuit.

You really would think they might have some time left over to investigate misogyny, wouldn't you?

I do hope the judge in the Harry Millar case has led a blameless life. I remember reading that the whips in the House of Commons knew about all the paedophilia going on and used it to control the MPs involved.

The Scotland yard numbers are only part of the story The main event is 87,000 non crime incidents investigated by 27 police forces in 5 years. While investigations into actual crimes plummet.

More than 87,000 ‘non-crime hate incidents’ have been recorded by 27 forces in England and Wales over the past five years, when the national policing body introduced its Hate Crime Operational Guidelines

Thank you both...and that was absolute dynamite.

Lang is wonderfully articulate...god, I miss her.

Does the article mention Harry's tweets in support of Tommy Robinson?

Snow I think you’ve deliberatelymissed the whole point of the thread. Harry doesn’t stand for me. He is a person who has a right to speak in an ordinary way about anything at all without having the police at his door to check his thinking. Support anyone you like - it’s not a crime (yet)

snowblight

The bait switch stunt isn't working. The police have investigated 87,000 non crimes while failing to investigate real crimes Any comments
on that? I know you are desperate to smear Harry Miller, but the existential threat to freedom of speech has centre stage irrespective of your attempt to distract attention. By the way? Provide proof of your accusation Because unsubstantiated smears are beyond tedious.

Provide proof of your accusation

Have a look on Twitter yourself. They've been widely shared

Nope. I am not going to trawl through Twitter. The onus is on you to substantiate your accusation And even if you can? It will not distract from the central issues raised by his case

snowblight

Post a link to the tweets then, cheers.

Quick quick..... look over there......

Squirrel!

(Didn’t there used to be a poster called NoSquirrels )

Also he can think what he likes. He can think literally anything. Thoughts are not crimes.

Some people think Owen Jones is the Prince of Peace. Wrong but not a crime requiring a visit from the police.

Are there any other kinds incidents which get logged but as non-crimes?

I can imagine it happens (or should) for some incidents which alone may not be criminal but are part of a larger pattern of criminal behaviour - I'm thinking of things like domestic abuse, antisocial neighbours, stalking.

Thank you HandsOffMyLang
I think the fact this is getting prominent coverage in the media is quite significant. There has been a confluence of various events, all of which highlight the insidious advance of an increasingly authoritarian agenda. The Telegraph is running several articles a week about the suppression of freedom of speech within academia, Julie Bindel writes in The Spectator and the DM is reporting on the Harry Miller case. Douglas Murray weaves the threads together and the picture is crystal clear. Despite all attempts at distraction......

I can imagine it happens (or should) for some incidents which alone may not be criminal but are part of a larger pattern of criminal behaviour - I'm thinking of things like domestic abuse

Are you referring to domestic violence? That isn't a non crime But hey. Who knows whether the police have time to investigate? They are trawling Twitter for limericks and visiting ex cops to check their thinking A valid deployment of police resources. No doubt.

No, no sorry. I'm not calling domestic violence a non-crime. I meant do they record incidents which on their own are not a crime, but are part of a larger pattern of crimes. For instance I can think of some things that happened inside my family, that my father did, which would not be a crime, but were part of a larger pattern of domestic abuse. I know my mum would not have contacted the police over them, but if she had done so would they have been "logged" as non-crimes?

It should be getting prominent coverage, which will hopefully continue until someone is forced to admit that what they're doing is very, very stupid and more than a little sinister.

Nearly 90,000 cases of "someone got pissed off" diligently recorded, while rapists and robbers and grooming gangs are allowed to continue as they like because you see the police are just too busy. Someone is upset on the internet and something must be done! Not about the person who just got stabbed on the street, obviously, that can wait, there are hurt feelings to soothe.

I meant do they record incidents which on their own are not a crime, but are part of a larger pattern of crimes

Perhaps you can explain how something which is not a crime is part of a pattern of things that are crimes? At a time when the investigation of things that are unequivocally crimes is at an all time low, why have 27 police forces investigated and recorded 87,000 non crimes? Is that a rational use of police resources?

And to be clear, I don't mean domestic abuse or violence in any form isn't a crime. I just mean that there may be elements to it which on their own are not criminal. After my parents separated my dad just happening to get a job next to my mum and therefore having the same hour long commute each day and regularly being in her train carriage for the journey etc - not criminal acts on their own. But in fact part of a larger campaign of stalking and abuse, designed to intimidate. I just wondered if the same level of resources is given to those kind of 'non-crimes' because I feel angry about all this. For years abuse and violence and stalking has gone on and been ignored and minimised, and suddenly there is this much money to spend on policing the "non-crimes" of "wrongthink". I just want to know if the same is being applied to other areas.

But in fact part of a larger campaign of stalking and abuse, designed to intimidate

Stalking is a criminal offence.

Ok never mind maybe that example wasn't good enough. It's hard to explain but he lived next door to us for ten years - that was part of the stalking, and did a lot of things that the police didn't care about but they hurt us all psychologically and my mum didn't report most of it because nobody cared. A lot of those things were not crimes, but they were part of a crime of stalking and abuse. I just wondered, for my own knowledge, whether they'd get logged nowadays. It isn't on-topic anyway and wasn't meant to result in the third degree. I just wondered. And no, of course I don't think logging "non-crimes of bad thinking" or whatever you want to call it, is rational.

Unless it's part of a bigger plan to then use that information in some way. Then it could be seen as rational. Though obviously not good.

I get what you mean harry.

Maybe antisocial behaviour and the like. Not quite criminal but a pattern of disruptive unpleasantness.

The thing is I imagine a concerted campaign of negativity against you individually on Twitter is quite hard to take. Women face it all the time. And yet somehow the police don’t drop in on the culprits to urge them to check their thinking. Whereas Harry’s generalised - not personalised - thought about the trans ideology do merit a call. It’s a puzzle

Thank you bin

"It states a comment that is reported as hateful by a victim must be recorded 'irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element'.
Written with the help of pro-trans lobby groups, the guidelines say police should also pursue 'any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender'."

In case anyone missed it, the guidelines now state that police must pursue 'any non-crime incident WHICH IS PERCEIVED, by the victim OR ANY OTHER PERSON, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a transgender person'.

So these non-crimes only need to exist in the perception of one random person. No laws need to be broken; just someone's feelings hurt (and not even the victim's!!)

'Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world'...