I'm going to repeat others' thanks for listening and taking this seriously, stillvicarinatutu.
Harry Miller brought up your oath in his recent Triggernometry interview, highlighting his concern about the "human rights" bit.
Francis: Harry, how have we come to this point? How have we come to this point where people are literally being arrested for memes? How have we descended to this?
Harry: 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.
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 organisations 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 disagrees, that anybody that doesn't accept these statements are facts are de facto haters.