Harry Miller - Triggernometry - Arrested for a Meme

[FOJN]

Harry Miller talks about the man arrested for posting the meme of the progressive pride flag arranged as a swastika on social media. Despite winning his case against the college of policing it seems to me that things are getting worse rather than better. The whole episode is shocking; some parts give quite a frightening insight into where we may end up if corrective action isn't taken soon.

There are too many examples of eyebrow raising behaviour by the police to give a full summary of the discussion but if you don't have time to watch it all then I'd recommend scrolling to about 58 mins in to see how a school and the police dealt with a 14 year old boy with ASD who failed to recognise a feminine presenting female as a boy.

He also talks about how the police are interpreting a law known as section 127, Konstantin is outraged by it, Harry uses Chesterton's Fence/Gate to push back but I'd be interested in other people's opinions. FWIW I agree with HM but understand why Konstantin is so angry about the way the law is currently used.

I watched it and agreed with KK. Most of the rank and file aren't best placed to interpret anything with such room for error/subjectivity.

Halfway through this - one good bit with a nugget I wasn't aware of that seems to maybe partly explain the police's bizarre behaviour - they really don't think their job is to uphold the law any more.

Harry, how have we come to this point where people are literally being arrested for a meme? How have we descended to this?

I don't know. I think part of it stems from, I think it was the 2002 Police Act changed the oath of attestation that every police, every bobby swears to the Queen. Okay, now prior to 2002 you'd swear to the Queen to keep her peace, keep the Queen's peace and to uphold the law without fear or favour.

In 2002 there was a subtle change, so it's "upholding the Queen's peace, upholding the law - and human rights."

It's like - hold on a minute, that sounds good. But why do we need to have this addition of "and human rights" in the oath? What's wrong with simply "the law"? Because if there's a human right that - if the human right is within the law, then we don't need to say "and human rights". And if the human rights are outside of the law then by definition it's contested, and it's therefore political.

So we've given the police a virtual obligation to listen to those human rights organisations who have the most influence, who are shouting the loudest, and for them then to adopt the policy as though it were law and uphold it as though it were law of those human rights organisations.

One of those organizations is of course Stonewall, and Stonewall have been saying for a long time that "trans rights are human rights", that "trans women are women", that gender identity trumps sex, but worse than that that anybody that that disagrees, that anybody that doesn't accept these statements of facts, are de facto haters.

But they should be. If they can't they're not police officers - simply guards or peacekeepers.

Just watched this.

If it wasn't so frightening, it would be funny to watch how utterly gobsmacked the interviewers were, how incomprehensible this situation is - and how on Earth is it sustained? The Internet is chock full of offensive material, how come some people fall foul of the police and some don't!? And what is the bar?

I would have liked to have asked, how come the infamous configuration of the pride flag was considered so egregious, but all the threats and lies to GC women, all the memes, poems and downright threats and insults I have had in twitter don't even constitute a ban from twitter!!??

Really interesting - thanks!

“failed to recognise a feminine presenting female as a boy.”

Wha….?

I thought the same as you...and then my brain imploded.

Is there any more info anywhere on the 14 year old who had a visit from the police and his headmaster and was told they could be glasses for not recognising a female presenting female that was a man? I really don’t want that to be a true story.

I was appalled at the story of the 14 year old, and although I would like more info and evidence, I think Harry is a very credible source. He is very engaged in the legal side of this and I don't think he would repeat anything he didn't have very credible evidence for: the biggest problem would be, if trying to speak to someone about this and they demand evidence, for me to then say that I heard Harry repeat it and I believe him would not be enough.

Throughout the whole video I was OMG-level shocked - and I kept reminding myself of Kara Dansky's words:

"I have become convinced that the easiest way through the gaslighting of the #GenderIndustry is to quickly accept that this entire thing is as bad as it seems, and probably much much worse, and to go on from there. We don't have time to be shocked about any of it anymore."
twitter.com/KDansky/status/1510306327184224258

"Things are just as bad as we think they are. Most likely worse."
twitter.com/KDansky/status/1394031027849506818

"This is absolutely common. I remember seeing the same thing in the form of a Facebook ad in May of last year, and I have seen it several times since then. We all need to understand that this kind of thing is everywhere, and it's going to get worse. We need to stop being shocked."
twitter.com/KDansky/status/1501707699075092486

I agree with Kara Dansky. She's a US feminist lawyer and unlike the UK, we have a first amendment for freedom of speech and no legal concept of hate speech. If Kara's scared...

It's a very unsettling position to be in to think half the world has gone fucking mad. If a high proportion of society has been brainwashed into gender ideology, wtf else have we been brainwashed into.

I think the problem we have is that most people still don't fully grasp what is happening.

I've been reading about the whole Keffals/MTG/KF situation on Ovarit and even though I've been watching developments on gender ideology for years it still sounds like a film plot so there is no way your average punter is going to believe things are as bad as they are.

In the UK I think the government's failure to take decisive action leaves many Stonewalled organisations doing what they like and the public thinking it's not that bad. SW have been taking public funds and misrepresenting the law (which is unlawful) for years but they have yet to be held to account by the government?

WRT the 14 year old boy... It sounds like HM has been made aware of the situation through his work with Fair Cop but the family hasn't gone public with the story so it will be hard to verify. I have no reason to doubt him and I'm sure he will be aware that if it was discovered he was fabricating stories it would damage his credibility.

I think gender ideology goes beyond women's rights and protecting children, it's an attack on democracy itself and I agree with Kara; whilst we're celebrating small wins the ideology shows no signs of slowing down. How and why?

whilst we're celebrating small wins the ideology shows no signs of slowing down. How and why?

I think we've reached the point where everybody has chosen their 'side' and we need more people on ours to step up and get involved rather than grumbling everyday in the Daily Mail comments section.

WRT the 14 year old boy... It sounds like HM has been made aware of the situation through his work with Fair Cop but the family hasn't gone public with the story so it will be hard to verify. I have no reason to doubt him and I'm sure he will be aware that if it was discovered he was fabricating stories it would damage his credibility.

Maybe so, but it needs to be properly sourced. If you are going to support your claims regarding unacceptable behaviour on the part of the police, it needs to be with examples that can be verified. This is what slightly worries me about Miller, along with his association with Fox and what seems to be a whiff of xenophobia.

Miller makes some very good, well argued points. His point about the police oath is spot on. His comments about police ignorance of the law and procedure are demonstrably true - and he has demonstrated them. His point about common sense is an intriguing one, but needs fleshing out. I need to hear the Chief Constable's reasons for why "common sense" is not a useful attribute. Does he simply mean that guidance needs to be clearer, or is he really saying that police officers should not use their own judgement? Miller's bluntness about university graduates sounds like a groundless smear to me. University does not turn people authoritarian unless they have that trait to start with. I can think of many reasons why a degree should not be a requirement, but a tendency for graduates to turn into Sister Sunshine and Brother Flower is not one of them. He is overly simplistic about the source of police authority, and misrepresents the constitutional nature of sovereignty in UK. Sovereignty is not vested solely in the Queen.

I really dislike claims that you're on "the right side of history", or that things are "true in the sight of God", or appeals to "It stands to reason, dunnit?" (nothing except mathematics stands to reason. Everything else requires evidence). Miller gets too close to that kind of stance on occasion in this interview, especially towards the end.

And the Dansky quotes upthread are much too close to the "just believe" for me. We do have time. We always have time to make sure we actually do know what's going on. Documentation, and critical analysis must never stop.

Miller's bluntness about university graduates sounds like a groundless smear to me. University does not turn people authoritarian unless they have that trait to start with.

Is this more to do with universities being hotbeds of radicalisation into the gender c*lt?

People who leave education in their teens and start working with people of all ages and a variety of views are less likely to be brainwashed than those who only hear one side of the debate in a university.

Maybe so, but it needs to be properly sourced.

It's an anecdote in an interview, not evidence in legal proceedings so I don't think he needs to share the full details. He is clearly protecting the anonymity of the people concerned. We have no idea if this is an ongoing issue or has already been resolved.

Politicians regularly refer to conversations or letters they have received from constituents without offering identifying information and no one expects them to, why would we expect a higher standard of evidence from HM?

I think it's reasonable to remain sceptical but, in the context of gender ideology, the situation he described is both horrifying and believable.

Exactly. It's an anecdote. It can't be used as any kind of evidence, or support for anything while it remains an anecdote.

You learn how to follow instructions and do as you're told at university. Or you don't graduate. That's definitely the case. But that's far from being turned into the kind of zombie HM was talking about in the interview. I teach at a university, and the vast majority of people are not brainwashed, despite the university admin's pronouns, gender neutral toilets and rainbow lanyards. Saloon bars, workplaces and golf clubs brainwash more than universities.

Exactly. It's an anecdote. It can't be used as any kind of evidence, or support for anything while it remains an anecdote.

You seem a little hung up on obtaining receipts for this particular anecdote, it's almost as if you think that without sharing all the details of this one case we can't believe a word HM says.

Yes, I know exactly where I am, and exactly what the women on this board have been doing for the past few years. And what they've achieved. This place is documentation central. May it long remain so.

I may have misinterpreted Dansky's tweets, but we should never stop being shocked.

We can believe it, and I do. But we can't use it without evidence. Yes, I am hung up on obtaining receipts.

If you suspect the poster is a troll you should report to @mnhq and not engage.

There must be something wrong with the way I write.