TRIGGERnometry - Arrested for a Meme - Harry Miller

Episode Date: August 25, 2022

SPONSORED BY: *Ridge Wallet* Use Code “TRIGGER” for 10% off your order at https://www.ridge.com/TRIGGER Harry Miller is a former police officer and CEO of the Bad Law Project and Fair Cop, organisations that aim to depoliticise democratic institutions, and support those facing discrimination for their political beliefs. Miller appeared on TRIGGERnometry in January 2020 after he was investigated by police over a poem that he'd posted on Twitter. The police officer told Miller, "I need to check your thinking." On Twitter: @HarryTheOwl101 @BadLawTeam @WeAreFairCop Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: https://www.subscribestar.com/triggernometry https://www.patreon.com/triggerpod Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | https://www.xentricapc.com/ | Channel ID: UCo_8zzSxKeL3arKWVuP8wdQ Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/​​​ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/sign-up/​​​ Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod​​​ https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod​​​ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod​​​ About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Netflix's remarkably bright creatures. What if a Pacific octopus held the key to a mystery that could heal your heart? Well, that's Tova's reality. An elderly widow working at an aquarium. Tova forms an unlikely friendship with the cramudgeonly Marcellus, whose remarkable intelligence leads her to a life-changing discovery. Watch remarkably bright creatures with your remarkable moms this Mother's Day weekend, only on Netflix May 8th.

He looked me straight in the eye and said, Harry, you should understand that common sense is not an appropriate tool for a police officer. This is what happens when you stand in defence of a member of the public whose only alleged crime is posting a flag on Facebook. There was no rationale, no reason, no argument, no appeal to basic humanity, no appeal to history, no appeal to context, no appeal to anything that was going to stop them on their mission to make an arrest. over a mean.

Is that okay, sir? No, not really. Not really. As far as they're concerned, it doesn't matter if they're on the wrong side of the law, providing in their minds they're on the right side of history. That's the problem that we have. Hello and welcome to Trigonometry.

I'm Francis Foster. I'm Constantine Kitten. And this is a show for you if you want honest conversations with fascinating people. Our brilliant and returning guest today is a no-twenty. Horrious thought criminal, Harry Miller, welcome back to Trigonometry. Thanks for having me on. This has been fantastic. It was great. I enjoyed it last time.

You will note that I'm not wearing the jumper that you so roundly mocked after I was on last time. Did we mock his jumper? Yeah, it was a nice blue piece, I think, with like a maroon sort of across. And I remember watching his show a few weeks, and you did mention me, and you were quite disparaging about my jumper. I don't remember saying anything about your jumper. Much more bland. I'll find it and show you.

Stop slagging off his jumping. It caused me a lot of anxiety. Well, thank you for not reporting us to the police. But Harry, we're joking around, of course, and it's great to see you again. I hope you well. We were actually not going to do any interviews in August at all because we've just come back from a really long trip. We're quite tired.

We need a bit of rest and recuperation. But while we were in America, we saw this thing going on with you. And I just can't tell you how unbelievably angry it made me, seeing it particularly because we were in the US, We were enjoying the freedoms of the country, people being able to say what they think and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then we see on social media that you're involved in an incident. We'll get you to talk about it, but essentially where a man is being arrested for sharing a meme on Facebook. Right.

So just take us through it from the beginning. What's happened? Okay, well, sometime earlier this year, Lawrence Fox put as his profile picture, this image of four intersectional trans flags which were set so that the vector in them, the, I think it's the Black Lives Matter vector, the race theory vector, if you position them in a certain way, it gives the impression, perhaps, of a swastika. Now, Lawrence Fox didn't invent this meme. I've seen this meme for the last two or three years. So he's a joke thief? Yeah, exactly, yeah. It's been around for a long, long time, but nevertheless, Lawrence has got, I don't know, quarter million followers.

So when he tweeted his out, it got some traction. An army veteran from Aldershot, 30-year service, three tours of duty, a chest filled with medals, including for loyal service, good conduct, etc., etc. I believe that he was a warrant officer. He's a proper sound guy, Royal Green Jacket. on a Facebook forum, a discussion forum called, wait for it, mass debaters. I know what they're doing there. Yeah, exactly.

So he put a picture of the flag. And all he put underneath it was, what do we think to that? So it was prompting discussion. That was all. So one Sunday morning, about three weeks ago, three police officers, three police officers turned up at this house. he immediately said, is this a crime or is this a non-crime? And they said, it's a crime.

So, OK, dokey. And they said, what crime? They said, Section 127 Communications Act. So sat them down. And this section for people who are not aware is about being grossly offensive. Section 127 of the Communications Act is when you send by electronic means an image or message, which is grossly offensive, obscene. or of a highly menacing nature.

Okay. So there is an objective standard attached to it. It's not based on a subjective feeling. It's what would the person on the Clapham Omnibus think about this? Would they think that this is grossly offensive? If the answer is yes, then, you know, it meets the bar. If the answer is, well, it's offensive, but, you know, say what? Then it doesn't meet the bar.

So they sat him down and they said, right, okay, these are your options. options. They pulled out a bit of paper and they said, you can either sign here, this is our community resolution agreement, sign between you and the victim. And he said, well, who is the victim? They said, we don't have to tell you that. Okay, they said it would be against our policy to tell you who the victim is. But nevertheless, you have to sign this. And part of that is that you admit your guilt, you are guilty of a breach of Section 127, we will hold it on your record, and then we will downgrade your crime to a non-crime.

So that's a good thing because that means that you're not a criminal, but you will be able to release this information about your hateful nature to any potential employer on an enhanced DBS check for the next six years. But in order to help mitigate that, one of the things that you will sign up to do is to go on a course. And he's, yeah, we heard this before. And they said, he said, what's the course called? Well, he said to them, is this a course to check my thinking?

Because he was obviously channeling a little bit of me there. And they said, oh no, this is a re-education course to teach you how not to get arrested in the future. So we have a re-education course for people who share. share memes on Facebook. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And one of the things that they told him that he would learn, one of the life skills that these young officers who had a combined age of about 25,

said this sort of 56, 54 year old army veteran, they said, well, for instance, in the future, before you post on social media, you will learn the skill of going to your neighbor and asking them for approval. And if they say it's okay, then the chances are it will be okay. And he said, I'm a 54-year-old man. I'm not asking my neighbours before I go on fucking Facebook.

And they said, well, they said, well, the alternative then is that we will prosecute you. And he said, well, before we go on, he said, one, I didn't, I'm not the originator of this mean. It's a fellow called Lawrence Fox. And they said, that doesn't count. You're the one who posted it. And somebody has been caused anxiety based on your post. and they said right okay well there's also this other bloke called harry miller and the high court and the high court of appeal have recently said that you know this sort of recording of non-crime

hate incidents is illegal it's unlawful and they said well have the high court as the court of appeal written to you he said well no of course like so well in that case it doesn't count he said well that's ridiculous the court doesn't need to write to me personally for for the ruling to apply. They said, no, we're not talking about it. You've got a decision to make. Are you going to sign your guilt away or are we going to prosecute? He said, well, let me have a think about it. So they agreed to come back in 10 days' time, 6 o'clock on a Thursday night. That's when he got hold of us. So we watched the video because his house is, there's videos everywhere. It's like he's expecting an attack from ISIS at any moment. Everywhere there's video.

Are you tired of using bulky old wallets giving you a bulge where you don't want it to be? My old wallet was massive, so it brought all the ladies to the yard, which was a huge distraction and got in the way of my esteemed work on trigonometry. Ridge wallets have an incredible solution for you. This is mine, sleek, stylish and with an industrial look to it. It can fit 12 cards with cash on the back using a clip like this one or a strap. We've got one for the whole team. I've got one. Francis has one. Even our producer Anton has one, but he's from Liverpool, so he flogged his on the black market.

The great thing about Ridge is that they give you a lifetime guarantee, which means if you want, you can have only one wallet for the rest of your life. Ridge are so confident in the quality of their product. They will give you 45 days to test drive their wallets. That means you can get the wallet, use it, and if you don't like it, you can return it within 45 days. Because Ridge are such great guys, they're going to give you 10% off and free worldwide shipping and returns. To take advantage of this incredible offer, go to ridge.com forward slash trigger. That's ridge.com forward slash trigger and use our special code, which is of course, trigger. So we watched the video and I was absolutely stunned.

We had to peel my barrister off the floor on several occasions because she gets passing out with the degree of awfulness of this so-called police. The first thing, of course, is this, that when you've established that somebody has committed a crime or you suspect somebody has committed a crime, you have to caution them. You have to. It's not an option. You have to do it. They didn't do that at all. This demanding money with menaces, this 60 pound shakedown. That's because that's exactly what it was. It was a shakedown. That was entirely wrong. When they, when he said, well, what is section 1,2, 7? They couldn't quote it. They were like toddlers at a pick-and-mix bar, just hungrily grabbing whatever they could remember. A little bit of Section 127, a little bit of Public Order Act, a little bit of absolute made-up nonsense. They didn't know what they were talking about.

So that's also very, very worrying. At one point, Mr Brady said, well, you know, I feel alarmed Harris and distressed by you being here. And they just ignored it. They just absolutely, it just ignored that. It's as though that didn't happen. So we said, right, what should we do? I said, right, I know, I want to give them a little bit of their own medicine.

So we're going to turn up. We'll have a bit of a plan, but we'll turn up. And we're going to have a bad law project, Fair Cop Community Resolution Order that I'm going to ask them to sign. So at an appropriate point, we will burst out and we will say, we accuse you of a breach of pace. We accuse you of harassing this chap. We accuse you of not doing your job. However, he doesn't want to prosecute you

and providing you hand over to us 100 quid and sign away your guilt on this dotted line just here and we'll send you on to a re-education course where we will teach you about the intersectionality between police powers and the actual law. And for that 100 quid, we'll throw in some sandwiches. And they wouldn't sign it for some unknown reason. So if you're not going to take that option,

option number two is this. And we handed them over a pre-action letter written by our barrister to hand to their chief constable, which listed the entirety of their failures to date. Their reaction was, we're not postman, take it yourself. And then they tried to dismiss us. I told them about Pace, about interviews under caution, etc. And they said it didn't count because this wasn't an official interview.

And I said, no, of course it's not an official interview. What you're doing, in effect, you've got a workaround system where you don't think you need to caution anybody. because you don't expect to make an arrest and you don't expect to have to justify that arrest to a custody sergeant and you don't expect to have to justify the charge to the Crown Prosecution Service

and there is no expectation at all of this ever going in front of a judge. So of course you've dispensed with the protocols around investigation because you are conducting a shakedown. You've invented a quasi-system of legal summary justice and of course you're nervous now because we just burst out the kitchen with our cameras and we filmed it all over Facebook

and you don't know what to do. So of course, that's what happened. Harry, just to put that in simple language for people who are listening who may not be familiar like we're not really, what you're essentially saying is instead of following the procedures that the police are supposed to follow

when they are making an arrest or when they're investigating somebody, what they're doing instead is they're using the fear that people rightly have of being arrested by the police for a crime in order to get people to pay a fine and to sign up to some ridiculous re-education course instead of going down the legal route, right?

And they're using that fear to coerce people to take that option. Yeah, and they're relying on the fact that even though the police are entirely ignorant of the law, they at least look like they know what they're talking about. Well, people are going to be worried about the police, yeah. And most people, most people in this country recognize that the police are the public and the public of the police and that we police by consent.

And if a police officer has said I've done something wrong, then there's a fair chance that either I've done something wrong or I've been very close to doing something wrong, and I better do, as they say. That's what they've been relying on. Now, I don't know whether you notice, but a few weeks ago, it was reported in the press that seven out of ten police officers in the Met have not made an arrest this year.

Now, I don't know this, but I wonder, whether at least in part that is because they've been dealing justice by this other means. That they've been dealing justice outside of the judicial and criminal justice system. Because, you know, Hamish Police can say that this was the first time, but it wasn't. It's a little bit like when your wife catches you watching porn. Never happened, man. You can pretend it's the first time, but everybody knows it wasn't. And this is exactly, I'm looking at you there.

everything. This is exactly... He's not even married, mate. Which is too much pun. So, I think this is the same thing. I think this has been going on and on and on and on and on. We didn't get lucky on the very first time this had occurred. These officers were fluent in this, absolutely fluent in this. And that massively worries.

Now, of course, when we confronted them, they had no answers. They didn't understand the law. They didn't know what they were doing. And so they instantly started mentioning words like arrest. And it was at that point that I got in the way. I put myself between the Army veteran and the police and said, in order to arrest him, you're going to have to come through me. So they called for backup.

Eventually there were seven police officers there, at least three vehicles, including a police van. I tried to reason with them. I tried to tell them all the things that they'd done wrong. I tried to tell them about pace and about protocol and how, after all, this was simply a meme on Facebook. And the person who'd sort of not invented it, but had promoted it originally,

he was stood right there. Lawrence Fox was stood right there. But they said, we're not interested in him because we're arresting you, Mr Brady, because it's the result of your post that somebody was caused anxiety. and that's why we're arrested. So we're like, anxiety.

Since when was Section 127 of the Communications Act? Or in fact, any act you can think of, triggered by somebody feeling anxiety. This is absolute palpable nonsense. So I just stood down and said, you're going to have to get to him, you're going to have to go through me. I did advise Mr Brady to get back into his garden and shut the gate.

they advised me that I was obstructing an arrest I told them where to stick it in no uncertain terms and eventually there was a big enough guy turned up who I said right okay then you're going to make an arrest now and they did so I got put in handcuffs funny enough I had to remind them to give me a caution

I said so I'm under arrest them he said yeah yes well are you going to give me a caution then anybody going to caution me and then eventually someone remembered what the words of the caution were and actually issued it. And I was taken off. And then with me out the way, they then arrested Mr. Brady. But it was quite sad because there was another guy there, one of Mr. Brady's army

colleagues, former army colleagues, who they've served together, I think, across all three theatres of war that have been in. And I was just saying, can you not see how wrong this is? Can you not see how wrong this is? We were in Ireland defending the police. We put ourselves as bodyguards between the police and the IRA. And now you're here arresting this veteran, my friend, over a meme. REEC, you not see how wrong you are.

Is there nothing in you that tells you how wrong this is? And they were like dead-eyed sharks. For the first time in my life, I realised, I think, how soldiers, German soldiers in the Second World War were able to march peasants, Jews, dissidents, wrong-ins as far as they were concerned, into the woods and shoot them. And simply closed their eyes and their minds to the reason, you know, the course of reason and, you know, is this why you join the army? Is this, what would your mother think? Is this really what you want to do? Because we made all those arguments to the police and they were, it was like looking at dead people.

It was like looking at people who were made of flesh and bone, but were operating on some kind of automaton chip where the algorithm had been clicked. And that was it. There was no rationale, no reason, no argument, no appeal to basic humanity, no appeal to history, no appeal to context, no appeal to anything that was going to stop them on their mission. to make an arrest over a meme. It's a new form. It's a new form of tragic. I remember when I was last on your show, you closed the show and ask,

what's the question that you ask? Is there anything that... What's the one thing we're not talking about that we really should be? Yeah, and I said, how absolutely shit the rainbow is. The rainbow, that rainbow symbol, which used to be a great symbol of hope

for lesbians, gays and by people, I now equate it to, I think it's so corrupted, than I now equate it to a swastika. Well, that shouldn't upset you. That's not going to trigger people. To me, it has the same visceral reaction because it speaks of an ideology which I think is insidious, dangerous,

and which is just, sweeping through organisations left-right centre. Breathe, Francis. If that sounds you get here, is the internet going into fucking meltdown? And I remember you saying, oh my goodness, she'll crash the internet saying that. But I think I've been proven right.

Except I don't think it's the rainbow flag. I think I was wrong about that. I think the actual rainbow flag is quite benign, actually. I don't really have a massive problem with the rainbow flag. What I have a huge problem with is the intersectional flag which is you know during during pride month in london it was like they were preparing for a nuremberg rally it was everywhere i was staying in in wembley park um this week and every doorway has got the intersectional flag on it up and down the street there's the flags everywhere

and i think they do it in order to make you believe that resistance is futile that this is so established and embedded within our culture now it's so accepted within our culture that any form of resistance is futile and it's wrong and it puts you on the wrong side of history. That's the problem. And so I think I was absolutely right. I got the flag wrong, but I think the intersectional flag is as close to the swastika as I can think. Now, the problem is people always invoke is it Godwin's law and say the second that you mentioned Hitler, you've lost the arguments.

Well, I think that's a cheap and very lazy argument. human to natural facts. Because the problem is most people when they think of Nazism, they think of that period, 1943 to 1945, which was at the height of the death camps and the extermination of the dues. When I talk about Nazism, what I'm talking about is the 1920s and the early 1930s, because that's where the rot starts. That's where the rot starts. By the time you get to Auschwitz and invading Poland and all that kind of stuff, it's over. It's game over. So what you need to do, those of us who are wise,

need to look at the warning signs early on and cry out early on and saying, this is simply wrong. This is fascism wrapped up in a rainbow. This is a form of social architecture, which will stand no criticism, no mockery whatsoever. And if you do so, you do it at your peril. You will end up on a list of hate

you run the risk of being arrested, you run the risk of being thrown in jail, you run the risk of all sort of state intervention. Now, that, as far as I'm concerned, is far too close to fascism. It's far too close to Stalinism and Maoism than I want to be. And I think it was after I'd been on your show last time, the High Court hadn't given their ruling

when I was on your show. But if you remember, when they did eventually give their rule, building in the case of Humberside police's action toward me, in a very, very long and significant judgment. The High Court judge, Mr Justice Knowles, rounded off by saying, we have never had a Starzy, a Cheka or a Gestapo. We do not live in a Norwellian society. Now, at the time, people said that he was being, he was using hyperbole.

I don't think he was. I think he saw very clearly the direction of travel, and there is nothing that has happened since that has even begun to dissuade me that that opinion was absolutely correct. I think it's terrifying. 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? Hey, sweetie, your mother showed me this Carvana thing for selling the car.

I'm going to give it a try. Wish me luck. Me again, I put in the license plate. It gave me an offer. Unbelievable. Okay. accepted the offer. They're picking it up Tuesday from the driveway. I haven't even left my chair. It's done. The car is gone. I'm holding a check. Anyway, Carvana. Give it a whirl. Love you.

So good. You'll want to leave a voicemail about it. Sell your car today on... Carvana. Pick up fees may apply. 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 favor. 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 organizations 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 had 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 of fact, are de facto haters. And not only that saying it is they call it anti-locution. And to express, to express dissent or disagreement, disapproval or disbelief to these mantras is to be on step one, on a five-step journey to genocide. That's what it said. It's called the Alport scale,

where hurty words lead to hurty violence, which leads to murder, which leads to genocide. And they are 100% committed to this trajectory. Do you think part of the problem was obviously the Met made such a horrendous mess of the Stephen Lawrence murder? And then it was then found to be institutionally racist by, I think it was a Macpherson report. Yeah.

Do you think this is, and what they've done, They're trying to overcorrect. Yes. That's exactly it. So what we have, we have a problem of, we have a problem of this human rights element where they're committed to that. And then we have a problem of institutional guilt, where, you know, they were perhaps behind the curve in the past.

And now, rather than being on point, they're trying all the time to get ahead of the curve. So as far as they're concerned, it doesn't matter if they're on the wrong side of the law, providing in their minds they're on the right side of history. That's the problem that we have. Wow. That eventually the law will catch up with them.

Wow. Yeah. That is the problem. They police according to a law that they hope to be, rather than policing according to the law as it is. That is very, very worrying. Harry, but you're, I mean, that's a fascinating insight, actually. I hadn't thought about it like that.

But you're a former police officer, right? How is it that the people who are doing this and their police chief constables and the people who are in charge, how is it that they're not seeing what they're doing? How do they not see that arresting people for sharing memes may be crossing a line? Because in their minds, they're preventing genocide. That's it. When we asked, why have you intervened in Harry Miller posting a limerick? they said because of Stephen Lawrence.

That was their one and only answer. And I said, well, Stephen Lawrence wasn't murdered because of means. No, he wasn't. But according to the Alport scale, the scale of escalating violence, you can trace violence, murder and genocide to controversial speech. And this is how you get to, you know, if someone says the wrong thing, they should be prosecuted. So you're stopping a genocide.

Yeah. So you have pre-crime, which is what I committed, otherwise known as non-crime, a non-crime hate incident based on the perception of somebody else or a police officer. That's handy, isn't it? And without intervention, this will escalate to the death of Stephen Lawrence. As I pointed out to the police, I think you're a little bit late. Stephen Lawrence is already dead. But never mind.

they've taken this notion of escalation and they do not apply common sense. Now, you mention common sense. Following the High Court victory against homicide police, I had coffee with the chief constable of Humberside. And, you know, he was very apologetic in a very dead-eyed way. He didn't behave like a man who'd understood the full import of being compared to the Stasi of the Chequer and the Gestachar,

and the Gestapo. I mean, one of them, fair enough, but all three, that's terrible. It's a little bit like a health service being compared to Beverly Allett, Joseph Mengele, and Harold Shipman, isn't it? It didn't seem to have any emotional impact on him whatsoever. And I said to him, I said, look, I kind of get why a young officer who's just been on a course overreacts to something. But when the world's press turned on Humberside,

Why did somebody up the chain of command not apply some common sense? He looked me straight in the eye and said, Harry, you should understand that common sense is not an appropriate tool for a police officer. Because it leads to unpredictable outcomes. What we need is more guidance. That for me is as terrifying a statement as I've ever heard. Of course we want police officers to have common sense. but even worse, our entire relationship with the police and with the law is based on common sense.

We operate as free people who are free to think, to speak and to do, right up until a specific point, clearly defined at law where the law says this far and no further. Now, that is based on a benign common sense. there's an assumption that I'm not just going to come up and gratuitously punch you in the face. It assumes that we are by nature good people, that we are by nature, social people, that we have by nature the utilitarian understanding of life. In Europe, of course, they operate on a different system. They operate on a system of permissions where the state allows you to think, to speak and to do.

So I think one of the things that we've done, we've imported a European mentality when it comes to policing. And that's why common sense is nothing and guidance is everything. Right. That's, I think, is the nub of the problem. And Harry, there's also the flip side to this, which is the police are failing in their basic duties to investigate, prosecute and imprisoning criminals. not doing it. I'll give you an example. So my parents' house got burgled. My parents are very elderly, my mum's disabled. They're both in their late 70s. My father's a full-time carer for my mother. They were out doing a bit of shopping. They came back. Dad came back. Disrupted these

burglars. They literally ran past him. Thank the Lord they did, because if they'd knocked him over, it could have literally been killed. And they ran out and they took my mom's jewelry and some of her mum's jewelry, which is the only thing she has to remember her by, and they stole it, thousands of pounds worth. My dad called the police, they came around, did nothing, if not a cursory glance, went right, we'll be looking into this,

but basically there's not a lot we can do. And then by the time they drove away, five minutes later, my dad received an email in his inbox saying the case was closed and here's your crime reference number for insurance purposes. There was an article the other day that shows the... That's tragic, by the way. Yeah, but I think prosecution

or convictions, one of the two, for crimes of that nature, are in single digits in this country. So you've got the police completely failing, as Francis says, in their duty to the citizens in terms of dealing with actual crime, yet they're able to send three vehicles and seven officers to arrest a guy for a meme. Yeah. Does that make any sense to anyone? No, well, yes, it does make sense. If you understand that our police are engaged in the promotion of an ideology,

So it's quite interesting. You say your mom was disabled. Yeah, she's disabled. So disability is one of the five monitored strands. But it's not given anything like the same amount of attention as gender identity. Okay. Now, you would have got further with that complaint.

Had you said that I believe that I have been targeted because I am disabled. That would have made a significant. difference. If you'd said, I believe that I've been targeted because I'm LGBT, because of my identity identity, you would have everybody, including the chief constable, they're investigating it, because the theft would be an affront to their number one ideology that they are promoting. That's the problem. They're not that interested. When I talk about the police, I'm not talking about general police officers. Most police officers are good, good people who want to do, do the job. But the system is geared up so that there is a prioritizing of ideological crimes over

any other crime. And this is very much, very much like, as it was, behind the Iron Curtain. Well, it's true. And one of the things, I don't think people in this country watching this and listening to this realize how weird this is. Like, as I said, we were in America for three weeks talking to people and this issue came up and we were there while this incident happened and we were telling people, people in America can't believe that this is possible. No. They can't imagine that in a country like Britain, which is about as close to the United States as you're going to get in terms of the countries around the world, people are

being arrested for what they say on social media. Yeah. I don't know how to explain to people how wrong this is. Of course it's wrong. You know, and I think I hear what you're saying about. the way police are, but also, to me, it puts into question this whole law, which says that you can't be grossly offensive. Well, now, this is why we set up the bad law projects and called it the bad law project,

because fundamentally we think most laws are okay, are good. But when you apply a law, you have to bear in mind what did Parliament, what problem was Parliament trying to solve at the time the law was enacted? So what they've done instead, they've taken laws that were designed to solve a problem in 1990 or 1997 or what have you, and they're now trying to apply it to this highly digital age. So rather than going to the trouble of enacting a new, more specific law, they've just given the old laws a bit of a rebranding. and try to apply them.

Do you think that particular law should be repealed, I guess? No, I don't. You don't? No, not necessarily. Not necessarily. Barry, why should it be illegal to be offensive? It's not. It's illegal to be grossly offensive.

Okay, why should it be legal to be grossly offensive? Okay. Again, it's targeted gross offense. So if I were to send, you know, to your mom having been burgled, a message saying, you know, I'm glad you were burgled, you, you decide. disabled, cow or blah, blah, blah, and focusing on that, you know, that's not just offensive. That's grossly offensive. And it's designed with malice in mind and menaces in mind.

There is the hope that the effects I'm going to have on your mom is to make her extremely uncomfortable. I'm not against laws like that, providing they are applied in that way. What we have here is a unknown victim, just a somebody, a somebody who has said, that opinion causes me anxiety. Now, there is a world of difference between that and the situation I've just described to you. So providing the law is used in the manner it was designed for

and is not overextended into other things, I don't think there's a massive problem necessarily with 1-2-7. There may be, I need to look at the data on it, I need to see how it's been used, but I'm not one for saying just because the law has been badly applied it necessarily makes it a bad law. One of the problems that we have,

I always take the Dangerous Dogs Act as an example because that is a prime example of rushed terrible law. If you're going to have a dangerous dog, you've got to define what a dangerous dog is. You've got to define what is an American pit bull terrier or what have you.

Because otherwise, you can get somebody saying, you know, you get bit by a chihuahua, and somebody says, I interpret that as an American bull terrier and the next thing you know, little ponzi dog's been put down. That's the result of bad law. Okay, that's a very, very bad law. What we have here is potentially bad law,

but actually probably not too bad law, being applied by ideologically driven officers who understand ideology, but do not understand the law. That's the problem. And that's why when we confronted them, they were not able to quote it. They were not able to quote it. They had a go at quoting it,

but they got it miserably wrong. Now, when I was a police officer, and this is a long, long time ago, a long time ago, we learnt the law by rote. We understood our points to prove. If you're going to sort of convict somebody or charge somebody,

you have to understand the points to prove, and tick off everyone. That is reliant on knowing the law. And they don't. They simply don't, because the law, is secondary to policing ideology. But that's a fault of the institution,

because these people are not getting trained properly. Correct. But again, that's a product of design. The College of Policing, which as far as I'm concerned, is the fountain head of all of this nonsense. They said in the last year or the year before that they now only want to recruit graduates as police officers. Really? So you don't want a, you don't want

ex-army guys. You don't want people with loads of years as experiences, plumbers, electricians, etc. You only want graduates. Security people as well. Yeah, yeah. Why is that? Now, I've taught in university. I've taught in university for many years. And one thing that I know about university students is you are teaching them how not to think. You are teaching university students how to achieve a set of predetermined learning outcomes by using a particular form of words and managing to cobble it together within an essay or an exam answer. They want people who are trainee automaton's. That's what they want.

And don't have common sense. They don't have common sense. They have no experience of common sense. And the police are actively against common sense because as Chief Constable, Lee Freeman said, it's not an appropriate tool for a police officer. We know that. We know what they think, because they stand against common law. They're not interested in common law. They're not interested in interested in liberty. They are interested in enforcing us into a form of behavior and a form of words and a form of expression and cheering the NHS, you know, clapping everybody that walks past with a bright flag, all that kind of stuff. There's just this, this mass encouragement by the police to get us to obey. And of course, it's not, it wasn't held either by by government

during lockdown. When Boris Johnson stood there, with an expert on the left, had been an so-called expert on the right, and he would make pronouncements from number 10, as though number 10 were the source of authority when it's actually our Democratic Parliament, which is the source of our authority.

So that's number one error. But he would make these pronouncements about lockdowns, and that and the other, not backed up by law, guidance, but the police were enforcing guidance and the public were led to a position where they didn't understand the difference between law and guidance. Now then, let's just think about the death of Sarah Everard for a second. Under normal circumstances, would a bright, smart, feisty young woman believe if a police

officer pulled up in a car that she had committed an offence by somebody going for a walk? no, no chance, no chance. But during the COVID lockdown period, a police officer was able to pull up, say, you're breaking the law. And she believed him. She got into the car and we know what happened. Now that is not at all to excuse

what that evil, evil officer did. But this is a consequence of the public being duped and confused about what is love. and what is guidance? Under normal circumstances, she would have run a mile if a police officer had said, you've committed a crime by walking, going for a walk. She'd have been off like a shot,

but this confusion has led to all sorts of atrocities, quite frankly, being visited on us as a people by an authority which wants us to be confused and wants us not to understand the difference between law and guidance. Do you have a website or do you plan to have a website? Because if you do, then EasyDNS is a company for you. Easy DNS is the perfect domain name registrar provider and web host for you. They have a track record of standing up for their clients, whether it be cancelled culture,

de-platform attacks or overzealous government agencies. He knows about that. So will you in a second. EasyDNS have rock solid network infrastructure and fantastic customer. of support. They're in your corner no matter what the world throws at you, unless it's your ex-girlfriend, in which case you're on your own. Do you know about that? Move your domains and websites over to EasyDNS right now. All you've got to do is go to easydns.com forward slash triggered. That's easydns.com forward slash triggered. Use our promo code, which is also triggered, and get 50% off

the initial purchase. Sign up for their newsletter, Access of Easy, which tells you everything you need to know about technology, privacy and censorship. Harry, do you think part of it as well is laziness on the part of the police? Because it's like, take what happened to my parents. You know, you're going to have to get a team in. They're going to have to dust for fingerprints. They're going to have to take witness statements. They're going to have to look at other burglaries in the area.

They're going to need to match it up. Or did they do this at a certain time? They're going to have to establish a pattern. That's going to take a lot of effort and man hours. Whereas this, you photocopy or whatever, you do a screen grab of a meme on Facebook. Job done. Yeah. Yeah, it's absolutely about priorities.

I don't think the police are lazy as such. I don't think the average police officer is lazy. I think they've been led a pile of bullshit about what's important. Yes. I think that's it. And again, this comes, we always, I always like to punch. I always like to punch up always. The bigger the authority, the better.

I have no interest at all in causing trouble for rank and file. police officers. They've been absolutely misled. These officers that approached Mr Brady on the first occasion, they said they were there, they were there on the instruction of a sergeant. The sergeant had looked at the evidence and sent them. When they came back again, you know,

somebody somewhere, probably an inspector, maybe a chief inspector, would have been aware of what was going on, and they sanctioned it. They absolutely sanctioned it. When they realized they were live on Facebook, when they realized that they must have been being broadcast and millions of people, they'd just doubled down. They'd no common sense.

There was no instinct within them that said, hold on a minute, we weren't expecting Lawrence Fox and Harry Miller to come bursting out of the kitchen with a film crew. Really, this is a meme. Tell you what we'll do. We'll just say, we weren't ready for this. We're going to go back to the station and seek advice from a more senior officer. And then we wouldn't be here now because it would have been a tiny little stuff. not a massive, massive story.

But I'm glad we're here. But they haven't got common sense. I know, but I'm glad we're here, Harry, because I come back to the law point, I'm not sure I agree with you, man, because if we have a police force that is creating this ambiguity about what people, ordinary citizens are actually required to do, or what they're advised to do, or the guidance or whatever, I don't want them to have laws on the books that they can misinterpret in this way. And with all possible respect to Francis Disabled Mum, I'd rather you were able to send

her hateful message, then people are getting arrested for memes. And as far as I can tell, as long as the police have the power to misinterpret these laws in this way, and this is what I said at the time, not everybody is going to have Harry Miller and Lawrence Fox turn up with the film crew and get this film. Then what would have happened to this guy if you weren't there? He would have been arrested and probably prosecuted. And by the way, the media would have called him a hate criminal. Yeah.

I agree. So if we're in that position, I'd rather that law wasn't on the books, frankly. This may be overreacting in the moment, but I'm just saying, I'm not comfortable in a society in which the police have this much power. Are you? No, but again, it gets back to what problem was there in society

that this law was designed to answer. Well, you said it yourself, it's designed to answer the problem of escalating levels of violence towards genocide, right? No, the Section 1-27 wasn't. Oh, it wasn't. Yeah, no, that was designed. So, for instance, let's just say we have somebody who's sending dickpigs through the post.

Yeah. Yeah, week in, week out, week in, week out, I think we can all agree that that is grossly offensive. Yes. There's no justification. It's not saying trans women are men. It's not that. It's in a different league entirely. So you send a bunch of emails like that.

Then I think Section 127 is an entirely appropriate law to enact in order to stop me sending dickpicks to you. I think that's fine. Because that's the kind of problem that the law was seeking to solve. It was not seeking to address the problem of somebody expressing an opinion that somebody else found grossly offensive. Okay, so how do we get there? How do we get them to understand that difference then? Training, but I think this this begins with having a renewed respect for the law. What we have to do is get rid of this and human rights aspects of the police oath. Okay?

Because whilst that remains, the police will continue to be seduced by the loudest voices who are pushing forth an ideology. It's quite difficult to resist when you have Amnesty International, for instance, saying trans women are women, alongside Stonewall, saying trans women are women, alongside mermaids, saying trans women, alongside various parts of government saying it, and you've got the flags and all the rest of it. So the police are confused. Dixon of Dr. Green is now confused.

So we need to get rid of that. That's one solution. And then we need to revisit what the relationship is between the police and the public. And where do the police get their authority from? Okay, so the police get their authority to restrict your freedom, to act in a way which in any other circumstance would be unlawful.

putting somebody in handcuffs in any other circumstance against their will is unlawful taking money off them as a fine would be unlawful putting him in prison that power comes from the queen that's why every officer swear makes an oath to the sovereign because the sovereign is not the government the sovereign it's not the judicial system the sovereign is above it all so the police need to understand the notion of sovereignty that the take taking away and the limiting of our freedom can only be done by an officer of the sovereign. That's why laws are enacted with the permission of the sovereign. It's the Crown Prosecution Service.

In my case, it was the Queen on behalf of Miller versus the College of Policing. Sovereignty in this country means a lot. So we need to get back to understanding that. What we have at the moment, particularly with non-crime hate incidents and the police acting on behalf of perception. If you think about it, what we have is a removal of the power of the queen to the mob. Now, that, as far as I'm concerned, is a definition of anarchy. So we have a choice.

We either continue down this route, which is mob rule, where law is defined by a third-party perception, or we get back to sovereign rule where law is foreseeable and the officers of Her Majesty the Queen, enact the limitation of our freedom because they understand the sacred nature of that and they understand via clearly defined understanding of what they're doing. And they say, I am arresting you because you have breached and then they quote the law and they know what the law means and they understand that this is a serious thing. It's not based on Mrs. Miggins down the road saying what you said made me feel anxious. Do you not think that this section 127 is not sufficiently specific for the context in which we're now living?

Should it not say something like, okay, let's say, you know, it's about targeted, grossly offensive materials sent directly to someone with the express purpose of causing great distress, as opposed to this vague thing that can be misused. And it's not the first time, Harry. No. It's not the first time. This continues to be misused in this way. It seems to me like it may have been a well-written law at the time that it was written, but I do think it's a badly written law for the moment, and I'm talking out of my ass because I'm not a lawyer.

I'm just saying this is what it sounds like to me. I think one of the consequences, one of the unforeseen consequences of winning against Tompricide and winning against the College of Policing and placing a question mark over these ridiculous non-crime hate incidents, which are recorded absent of any form of common sense, entirely on third-party perception, is that the police, I think, are now using Section 127 in place of that. So they are escalating it directly to a crime because they're now nervous about non-crime existence. So I know, let's lower the bar of Section 127 and let's

start doing people for that. We have a police officer from Leicestershire called P.C. Watson who all, this last week, has been bragging about all my ruling did was making. matters worse and that the police will now use section 127 to criminalise those of us who otherwise would have been dealt with as a non-crime hate incident so we know we know that this is going on i'm helping a chap who who wrote a letter to the f a i think last year and he said that um it wasn't a particularly nice letter he said that in his opinion um taking the knee was a a fascist nasty racist thing to be doing, that Gareth Wokegate, as he cleverly called him, was picking his team with more of an eye on diversity than on talent.

And he ended the letter with a single word vermin. Not nice. It's not the kind of letter that I would write. It's not the kind of letter that I would want my mum to read. It's a nasty letter, no two ways about it. Probably a fan of Jack Grealish as well. Yeah, exactly, exactly. He wanted him in the starting 11. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Okay, the police is prosecuting under Section 127 on the basis that Gareth Southgate has put in a complaint that it's caused him anxiety. Fuck. So he is being prosecuted. He was served papers this week. This is what I'm saying, man. It's like this law, if the law allows for this to happen,

it's not well calibrated to the situation. No, it's not. I agree. I agree. But I think the first point of call is to recalibrate the police and get them to understand what is the appropriateness of the law. If that doesn't work and they're still confused, then we need to revisit the law.

So you'll be here in a year agreeing with me. Okay. I'm all not the white because of the question. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's got to be wrong, hasn't it? It's got to be wrong. I mean, that has to be wrong, but writing in that letter being criminalized.

The reason I'm so angry about it is I don't think people understand how fucking ridiculous this is. I agree. I don't think people get it. And if it, what it takes, is for us to get rid of the stupid law and to have something resembling a First Amendment.

I appreciate politically that's not the easiest task. But if that's what it takes, because see, this is the problem, this is my issue with your approach, Harry, is the police are always going to want to enforce whatever ideology they have, right? And they're going to use as much power as they can get away with.

And the only way to deal with it is to take the power away from them. Well, you know, I never, ever thought that I would be one of the sort of defund the police mob. No, we need the police. We do, but not in its current form. No. We do not need the police in its current form.

So what needs to happen is this. We need to close down the College of Policing immediately because it is a hate factory sponsored by public money. It burns through £71 million of public money to tell us that all police officers must be graduates and to see it everywhere. Honestly, honestly. You know the religious fanatics who see Jesus in a slice of type,

Well, this is exactly the same thing. The College of Policing and Teaching Officers to see hate everywhere. Now then, Mr. Brady, our war veteran, the police said, they used the phrase this was three strikes on you're out. He'd clocked up two previous non-crime hate incidents. This was his third one, and so boom, that was it.

Now, the first hate incident was, you know the meme of Hitler in his bunker that's been going around since about 2006? Oh, yeah. From downfall, is it in that one? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that was classed as a racist hate incident. So that was Strike 1, OK-dokey. Strike 2 was, it was a picture of Tom Daly doing some knitting,

and he put Tom Daly's knitting a cock-warmer. Now, if you look at the picture, it cannot be anything but a cock-warmer. It is a knitted ball sack and penis. That's what it is. It cannot be reasonably construed. as anything else. Tom Daly's holding it like this with a smile on his face.

He knows it looks like a cock warmer. That's why he put it there. But the police have decided that this was homophobic hate and recorded it against Mr Brady as a non-crime hate incident homophobia. That's the state that we are in. But Harry, isn't also the problem as well that the police are merely reflecting the culture,

as a whole? No. The universities? No. Let's define culture. They are reflecting a powerful minority. Yes. That's what they're doing.

But who dictate culture? Yeah, the elite culture. The elite culture. In inverted comics. Yeah. Which then trickles down in society. The rest of us, we are the proles. That's what we are.

We are those who have not signed up to the Politburo who are not part of the Stalinist Maoist elite. And you know how it was in Maoist China? You know, you could say, oh, you know, I've only got one chicken. My neighbor's got three. He's a capitalist, and they'd come down and have him shot. We're in that sort of situation where neighbor can grasp upon neighbor, where children are being encouraged to grasp upon their parents,

where children are being encouraged to grasp upon other children. In, where was it? I think it was worried. a few weeks ago. I might be wrong about that. A police force turned up at the door of a 14-year-old autistic child, okay, said that he was guilty of a Section 4 public order offence, which with a repeat would end in two years in jail.

What he had done was in the playground. He looked at a girl who was a girl. But who dress like a girl, well, no, a girl who was a girl, who dressed like a girl, had long hair like a girl, etc. But who said she was a boy and he refused to believe her. He said, no, you're a girl. So the school told the police, the police visited the parents, told him, read him literally the riot act. Okay. I have on tape the subsequent interview between the boy's parent, the child and the school.

We have it all on tape. And they say to him, where are you getting radicalized? How do we stop you getting radicalized? Because if you continue, if you continue in this vein and do not learn how wrong your behavior is. One, you would be fired from a job. And if you would say that in a pub, you would put. probably be glassed. What?

You heard me right. You would probably be glassed. They said that to a 14-year-old autistic boy? Yes, and his parent. This was the head of year 10 and the head teacher, who warned the boy that unless they could break the cycle of radicalism, that he would be sacked and he would be glassed in the face. And this was supported by the police who told him, came to his house,

and said, any more, he could be looking at two-year jail sentence. Now, you tell me, you tell me that that's not fascism. Well, that is fascism. And that's what I'm saying, what I'm saying. I'm more optimistic on the trans thing, Harry, because we've seen some good wins in the last few weeks on that. And I think when people see the outcome of these lawsuits against the Tavistock, that's going to open, put it very mildly,

it's going to open a few people's minds to what's been going on. But on this law stuff, if this is what the police are routinely going around and doing, I'm afraid I'm not persuaded that the right training. course is going to do that. These people cannot be allowed to have this much power. Well, okay, back in the day, prior to back in the 1980s, 1990s, okay, the police had their problems, no too ways about it.

But they didn't, they didn't spend their time doing this nonsense. Exactly. They spent their time chasing down burglars, preventing burglars, chasing car thieves, and all the rest of it. Now, what's got wrong? I don't think that the police have suddenly become utterly stupid,

But if they have, it's a product of design because what the College of Policing and Police want is automaton's, not regular people. They want an elite police force that represents, which is more like the Starzy. These are first and foremost, thought police, ideological policing. Regular, regular policing comes second. Which is why they want graduates who have been exposed to this ideology, who understand it, who have been... And who know how to do tick-box policing.

Same as they got their degree by tick-box essay writing, etc. Without any form of critical theory, well, that's critical bone in their body. Just automaton, the algorithm says, therefore go and do this. This is law by algorithm. And it is absolutely terrifying. So I don't know. You know, when you're trying to find a single cause, it's very hard. No, there won't be a single.

It's very hard to find it. But what I do know is the College of Policing is one thing. It needs shutting down. The oath of attestation needs returning back to as it was. And police need to understand that they have no part in politics whatsoever. Absolutely none. If it looks political, it is political. And that's it.

You just back away. You do not put a pride flag on. I'm even now against the thin blue line badges that police officers wear. I'm not even persuaded that the police should be wearing poppies. I never thought I would say that. But if that's the price that we have to pay to get back to policing that is totally politics-free, then I think it's a price worth paying myself. See, I'm with you on that, actually.

I believe that we shouldn't politicise any institution, teaching, the NHS, policing. Because once you politicise something, Harry, you're encouraging people to, pick a side. And once you encourage people to pick a side, they're going to look at the other side as the enemy. There's allies and enemies. And then that's very dangerous, because the police should be apolitical. It shouldn't matter if it's a conservative breaking a law, a liberal, whatever it may be. If someone breaks a law, they break the law, that's it. Their politics, their view, their ideology is irrelevant. Well, it's difficult, isn't it, when only one side of the argument is licensed to carry

pepper spray and it's aza. And that's the situation that we're in. And the other thing that we need, we need a policing Brexit. That's what we need. We need to get out of the continued influence of Europe. Because the National LGBT

Police Network, now that is a network of officers. They all have, each force has its own network and they're part of a national network and the national network sits on a European network, which has adopted the entirety of the policy of Rainbow Europe, which includes the criminalising of hate speech around a private table, which includes the criminalising of any form of dissent within schools. So we need to have a full police Brexit.

No more colluding with Europe, none. The second thing we need to do is have the national LGBT network shut down. Because at the moment, I wrote to every single chief constable and said, who are your members? And they said, we've no idea. But if we did know, we couldn't tell you because of GDPR concerns. But what about an F.O.I request?

Surely that's your obligation legally, isn't it? No, they say we don't hold the information and we're not going to tell you because of GDPR. So we have, we have the National LGBT Police Network issuing memes that say, we stand for Stonewall.

not with, stand for Stonewall. And then there was an absolutely amazing one that said, they were celebrating the inclusion of trans women in sport. And of course, there was a little bit of pushback from feminist and gender critical people. And their response was to say, we see you, we have reported you. This from a police account.

Okay, we see you, we have reported you. I wrote to them and said, who have you seen? what have you seen, who's seen it and who have you reported it too? Because that's open policing. They wouldn't tell us. They wouldn't tell us. So it just exists as a threat against people.

We had one of the chief inspectors of diversity and inclusion from the College of Policing, wishing all the homophobes a super uncomfortable pride month. What's diverse about that? What happens if you're a traditional Christian? What if you're an Orthodox Jew? What if you're a traditional Muslim? And you have some questions about homosexuality, that you're not going to celebrate it.

What is the College of Policing Diversity and Inclusion Officer telling you from a police account that she wishes you a super uncomfortable month? That's where we're at. That's where we're at. And of course, when we resist it, we're then told that we're the haters. I think we have a lot of work to do, man.

Yeah. By the sound of it. We do. We do have a lot of work. It is mind-boggling to me that we're having this conversation. I really genuinely don't know what. It is absolutely, it's ridiculous. It is ridiculous that we are in this position.

Harry, so I have no doubt that you're going to be getting involved in more of these cases. Congratulations on winning the last one. The latest with this guy is he's had an apology. He's not had an apology. All interest by the police in him has been dropped. The good PCC of Hampshire came out immediately. I can't remember to say, Donna somebody, I can't remember the second name. She came out immediately and said, this is absolutely ridiculous.

And they dropped it. I, of course, was released pending further investigation. So, you know, I may still be charged. I really hope they do charge me because I will have a fee all day. Yeah, that's why they won't charge, I don't think. And this is the other thing. See, this is why they didn't arrest Lawrence. Yeah.

They're targeting ordinary people because they know how this looks to the general public. And they know that if they arrest Lawrence or someone like that who's got a big audience, it's going to be in the newspapers. They're going to get ridiculed. Well, that way well, didn't it? Well, exactly, right? But my question is what happens if you and Lawrence aren't there. This guy's life gets destroyed.

Right? I agree. And so we've got to find a way to deal with this. We really, really do. Yeah, no, we've got our work cut out. And the reason that we're so aggressive when we find these things, you know, we're absolutely merciless. I said, I said, you know, do you want an apology? I said, no, I want the chief constable said in my fridge.

I didn't mean it. Now that is HATTS me. I didn't mean it. The metaphorically. not literally because what I want to do is what they've been doing which is create a chilling effect yes I want every chief constable in the country to know that harry miller of the bad law project is their worst nightmare because if I find out what's going on then we will just unleash hell absolute hell because we don't care we're not we haven't got reputations that we're

trying to you know protect we don't care we're just like bazookas we'll just like go in, I can just fuck you up, man. Just absolutely fuck you up. If you treat the British public with that degree of contempt, I'm going to take it personally because you're not only treating the public with contempt, you are disrespecting the queen. You're disrespecting the source of your power. And so I'm going to resist you with everything I've got. So you can expect more of Lawrence Fox and I bursting from the kitchens with a film crew and jumping out of hedges and, you know, leaping out of trees on behalf of the Great British public. You sound like Jeremy Beedle, mate.

Absolutely. I don't care, though. This is the thing. They don't understand. I just don't care. I'll take them all to court. I'll fight with them all. Because this matters.

Just watching your reaction about all this. I know that we're on the right side of history because you recognize how wrong this. You recognize. how wrong this is. And of course, you have a bit of background from Eastern Europe. So you're sort of familiar with how bad it can go. But Harry, you don't have to be from Eastern Europe, mate. You've got to read a fucking book. Like history is filled with this, all of this. People shutting down the speech of others in order to control what they say and think.

You don't have to be from Eastern Europe. You just have to have half a brain. Yeah. I agree with you. I agree with you. So for me, I take the approach, you know, understand the law and then go right up to the edge. Yeah, good. Well, look, you're doing good work. I'm sure we will see plenty of you in the future. Best of luck to you with it all. We're going to ask you a couple of questions from our supporters the only they will get to see on locals. They've already submitted a bunch. But in the meantime, as you know, we've got one final question for you. Which is always, what's the one thing we're not talking about that we really should be?

I think one of the thing that we should be talking about is the vacuum that there is in the home office that the Pretty Patel she knows that all this is wrong she has the power to do something about it and she doesn't do it she allows she's subcontracted it at no pay whatsoever to individuals like myself individuals like Boise Parker and a whole bunch of other activists to do the job that government ought to be doing. There you go, Priti. If you're watching, sort it out. Yeah, saw it out, love. Anyway, Harry, thanks for coming back on the show.

Really great to see you. And thank you for watching and listening. We will see you on locals with a couple of bonus questions that you've asked for Harry. And also, we will see you next week or in a few days with another brilliant episode like this one, or a show. All of them go out at 7pm UK time. And for those of you who like your trigonometry on the go, it's also available as a podcast. Take care and see you soon, guys. What's the best way to handle the situation if we unfortunately find ourselves in trouble with the police for wrong thing in this way?