'Mrs B" complained to Humberside Police about Harry Miller
She hits out at Mr Justice Julian Knowles for impugning her character
Harry Miller is a "transphobic bigot" and We Are Fair Cop are a "hate group" says "Mrs B"
In her own words "Mrs B" talks to Judicial Cat Editor Stephanie Hayden and has some pretty forthright views
STATEMENT BY “MRS B” CONCERNING THE CASE NO CO/2507/2019 – R v COLLEGE OF POLICING AND HUMBERSIDE POLICE ex parte Harry Miller – JUDGMENT OF JULIAN KNOWLES J ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE 14/02/2020
I am the aforementioned Mrs B, whose original complaint via True Vision to Humberside Police brought led to Harry Miller bringing the above claim.
First of all, let me say quite unequivocally that Mr Miller LOST on the main case which was against the College of Policing (“CoP”), a case he was always likely to lose as it is based on irrationality. I believe Mr Miller is looking to take this the UK Supreme Court (“UKSC”). I look forward to the "UKSC" affirming the judgment in respect of “CoP”.
I will also state very clearly that I stand by EVERY SINGLE WORD that was in my original statement, which was prepared for use by the Defendants in the Judicial Review.
However, I am disappointed Mr Miller won against Humberside Police. Humberside Police, and their officer, PC MANSOOR GUL, DID NOTHING WRONG. It is my belief that PC Gul would have take advice from his superiors regarding the THIRTY ONE tweets by Mr Miller before pursuing his course of action. It is also totally irrelevant what PC Gul said to Mr Miller. All Mr Miller had to do was hold his hands up and say something on these lines: “I’m sorry if the tweets have caused offence but I am entitled fully to my opinion. However, I will tone it down.”
He clearly did not. It is also worth noting that PC Gul’s superiors backed him to the absolute hilt, and it is fair to suggest that it is police operating procedure to advise someone that further incidents could lead to criminal proceedings, something Mr Miller - who claims to be a former police officer - should have known. On 23 January 2019, on his now banned Twitter account (which I shall refer to later), he went on what is euphemistically called “A Twitter meltdown.” A meltdown in which he was so aggrieved that the police had merely spoken to him. Not arrested, handcuffed him and thrown him into a cell - merely spoken to. Now, I am no psychologist, but I would suggest that this meltdown of Mr Miller’s were the rantings of someone with an ego the size of Russia. Perhaps Mr Miller is not used to someone telling him “no”. “Spoilt brat syndrome”, someone might unkindly say, or the ultimate display of privileged entitlement. This meltdown was promptly seen by his followers who then proceeded to bombard Humberside Police and its Police and Crime Commissioner, KEITH HUNTER, with the vilest of abuse, leaving some of the civilian staff distressed. Mr Miller is clearly not responsible for the actions of his followers, but he certainly did nothing to stop them. I would like to know why this was not brought up in court.
Mr Miller, in his witness statement said this: “I completely reject any suggestion that I am racist, homophobic or transphobic. The suggestion that I am serves to show how ignorant the writer is, and that the writer simply does not know me or anything about me. … The assertion that I would have been making ‘the same comments’ (clearly meaning bigoted comments) about Jewish people 80 years ago, about black and Asian people 40 years ago and gay people 30 years ago is simply gratuitously offensive.”
First of all, I am of the opinion that Mr Miller is a bigot. That is evident from his Tweets and his subsequent behaviour. Secondly, no, I don’t know Mr Miller personally. That does not mean to say that I am ignorant. I find that an unreasonable comment to make. Thirdly, in the public domain, there are comments Mr Miller made that are arguably Islamophobic.
Mr Miller argues he was acting “lawfully” in making transphobic comments and he is, of course, backed up by the judgment of Mr Justice Julian Knowles. I am, therefore, entitled to ask if, say, racism is “unlawful”? Anti-Semitism? Islamophobia? WHY is transphobia “lawful”?
I would also like to know why the borderline harassment of DR ADRIAN HARROP and MISS LILY MADIGAN was not brought up. Both were reported to Humberside Police. Mr Miller engaged in several vexatious complaints to the General Medical Council over Dr Harrop’s alleged conduct, merely because Dr Harrop is a staunch supporter of transgender rights. In the case of Miss Madigan, it is absolutely unbecoming for a man of FIFTY FOUR years of age to be so obsessed with a highly vulnerable TWENTY ONE year old female. I suggest it was because Miss Madigan is transgender. This was, in my opinion, bordering on harassment, especially as it would have been seen by his followers on Twitter and it would have instigated a “pile on” by them on both individuals.
Mr Miller claims he has “never had any hatred towards the transgender community”. That, as evidenced by his tweets before and up to the time when his Twitter account was permanently suspended, is not credible. The evidence suggests that Mr Miller is hostile towards transgender people. Regarding Dr Harrop, he claims, and I quote: “Harrop is currently the subject of a full GMC enquiry in relation to both online and off-line behaviour towards at least two women and towards me and my family.”
As far as I am aware, and I am sure Dr Harrop will confirm this, Dr Harrop has NEVER been the subject to any professional disciplinary proceedings nor sanctions. Mr Miller also mentioned that the Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, was transgender. That story was patently so untrue. Yet no retraction from him?
I also find it most bemusing that Mr Miller was “humiliated, shamed and embarrassed” by the act of the police merely speaking to him. I ask you, would someone so “humiliated, shamed and embarrassed” by this go straight to the national media and appear on media outlets not just here in the UK but also elsewhere, most notably in Australia? I also find stories that he has personally suffered frankly unbelievable and without foundation. After all, Mr Miller is a successful businessman - a millionaire. He owns his company. He is also in his mid-fifties. He is hardly likely, therefore, to want or need to look for alternative employment. The fact that he is on a police database for this incident is of no consequence to him at all.
Nor are proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 of any consequence to him. In short, it has absolutely nothing to do with him. So why does he feel the need to get involved in the debate around this? I will state right here and now that the rights of transgender and non-binary people are not now, not then, and not EVER up for debate. Under the Equality Act 2010, transgender people are fully and legally entitled to use the facilities that match their gender; namely, transgender women use female facilities and transgender men use male facilities. Again, what has that got to do with Mr Miller or his colleagues in “We Are Fair Cop”?
He states “I believe that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women. I believe such persons have the right to present and perform in any way they choose, provided that such choices do not infringe upon the rights of women. I do not believe that presentation and performance equate to literally changing sex; I believe that conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights; I believe such concerns warrant vigorous discussion which is why I actively engage in the debate. The position I take is accurately described as gender critical. 18. In this context (political reform) I want to raise awareness by stating that which used to be instinctively obvious - a biological man is a man and a biological woman is a woman. To claim otherwise is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require both extraordinary evidence and extraordinary scrutiny prior to becoming law.”
Mr Miller (along with his organisation) is not and never has been an expert in Human Biology and certainly not an expert in the field of transgender studies. Also, it is not as simplistic as that. None of the sciences are that simplistic. Studies have proven that transgender people ARE the gender they say. Transgender women are women and always have been. He also states that they should not infringe on the rights of cisgender women. Since the Equality Act 2010 came into force, transgender women (even those without a Gender Recognition Certificate) are for all intents and purposes treated as women and, as I have previously stated, allowed to use women’s facilities. The law doesn’t care one iota for Mr Miller’s opinion. It is also interesting that he does not once mention transgender males (Female to Male). Why is that?
To sum up, I stand by what I say when I call Harry Miller a common, garden bully and bigot. “We Are Fair Cop” are an anti-transgender hate organisation. Indeed, this is something they have not challenged to my knowledge. Mainly because it is TRUE. “We Are Fair Cop” is nothing more than a vanity project, an ego massaging exercise for Harry Miller. I furthermore stand FULLY with PC Mansoor Gul and his colleagues at Humberside Police and always will.
I am, however, astounded by the language used to describe me by MR JUSTICE JULIAN KNOWLES in this case. The judge went against guidelines in the Equal Treatment Bench Book. Using pronouns based on so called biological sex was against all guidance given to the judiciary and is, in my opinion, indicative of the judge’s leanings on transgender issues. The language he used I found to be offensive and I intend to raise the matter with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. I will set out examples of this below:
To accuse a police force in the United Kingdom of acting like a “Gestapo” or “Stasi” is highly irresponsible. Especially when there is so little evidence that Humberside Police resorted to those tactics. Since when has merely visiting someone in broad daylight at that person’s place of work or speaking to him over the phone as to his alleged conduct been “Gestapo”-like? It is totally hyperbolic. No one, least of all myself, is saying that Mr Miller is not entitled to his opinion - of course he is. What he is NOT entitled to is to use that opinion to stigmatise, harass, bully or intimidate others.
Mr Justice Knowles also says that I had the choice not to read those tweets, never mind report them. First of all, I have EVERY RIGHT to report to the authorities anything that I find harmful or offensive, especially if it contains transphobic comments. What is Mr Justice Knowles trying to say? That the transgender community has no right to report anything they find offensive? That they have to sit there and take it? Secondly, those tweets of Mr Miller’s were sent over by a trusted friend of mine. Of course, I was going to read them. Although they were not directed at me personally, it is unequivocal that they were targeted at the transgender community. I mean, who were they targeted at? I can assure Mr Justice Knowles that my friend found them alarming and appalling as well.
Which leads me nicely onto my next point, that I acted “within the outer margins of rationality”. Again, do transgender people like me have to sit there and take it? It may not be known to Mr Justice Knowles that, approximately an hour before he delivered his judgement in this case, a woman by the name of KATHERINE SCOTTOW was CONVICTED at St Albans Magistrates Court contrary to s127 of the Communications Act 2003 following a complaint to the police by a transgender woman, STEPHANIE HAYDEN. Mr Justice Knowles needs to realise that there are police forces and courts out there who are willing to take a stand against the vitriolic abuse transgender people face on a daily basis.
Furthermore, were Twitter acting “on the outer margins of rationality” when they permanently suspended Mr Miller’s account after repeated warnings of hateful conduct? I think not. So why was this accusation made towards me? I am a very rational person. I do not do things like this lightly. To suggest I do is patently unfair. Any rational person would have been appalled by Mr Miller’s tweets. It does NOT express an “extreme mindset” on my part.
Regarding the use of the acronym “TERF”, it is absolutely laughable that an organisation like “We Are Fair Cop”, an organisation that prides itself on its defence of Freedom of Speech, can be so upset at the use of a mere acronym. Strangely though “We Are Fair Cop” have no complaints about senior members of their organisation using the word “Troon” or posting messages to harass transgender women on a well known website specialising in harassment, abuse, and hate. Mr Justice Knowles states that this acronym has been used pejoratively. Why then does the judge not condemn the use of the hateful slur “Troon”? “We Are Fair Cop” engage in misgendering transgender people which is designed to insult and demean transgender people. He also accuses me of using “derogatory language” in my dealings with those who are transphobic. Again, am I not allowed to defend myself and my community from attacks? Do you expect me, as a transgender woman, to sit there and just ignore it?
It is also clear that Mr Justice Knowles could have used transphobic language himself. He mentions that transgender women are born biologically male. This, at the very least, is a matter of some dispute and it is unfortunate that he made that comment. Biology, like all the sciences, is open to interpretation. The most common example of that from history is that of the Nazis who used manipulated biology for their own ends. In short, it is not an exact science. I also have reason to doubt that, with respect, Mr Justice Knowles is an expert in Human Biology. He also mentions: “I am referring to individuals whose biological sex is as determined by their chromosomes, irrespective of the gender with which they identify. This use of language is not intended in any way to diminish the views and experience of those who identify as female notwithstanding that their biological sex is male (and vice versa), or to call their rights into question.”
That is transphobia in a nutshell. Again, is Mr Justice Knowles an expert in Human Biology? There are numerous biologists out there who will disprove his theory.
Mr Justice Knowles states that what I told the police was not accurate. I would like to inform Mr Justice Knowles that I am NOT in the habit of telling lies to anyone, never mind the police. That is an outrageous slur on my character, for which he should apologise. Mr Miller’s comments WERE deeply offensive and his hostility for transgender people is evident. I am NOT going to sit there and let disgusting abhorrent comments about people like myself go unchallenged. I do NOT give in to bullies or bigots either. Furthermore, as for anybody else making complaints about Mr Miller, do you honestly think the police would inform me? Seriously?
To sum up, I am deeply aggrieved at the comments of MR JUSTICE JULIAN KNOWLES. To basically impugn my character in the way he did was deeply hurtful to myself. The comments in his judgement show an inherent transphobia which is deeply concerning, especially in the pursuit of justice by transgender and nonbinary people.
Thank you.
"Mrs B"
As a postscript, I am going to add the words of Laura Whitmore who spoke so movingly about the tragic passing of Caroline Flack. Laura’s words should be heeded by everyone.
"The problem is, the outside world is not (loving and caring). Anyone who has ever compared one woman against another on Twitter, knocked someone because of their appearance, invaded someone else's privacy, who have made mean, unnecessary comments on an online forum - they need to look at themselves."
“Only you are responsible for how you treat others and what you put out in the world."
