Announcement from Glinner

[AdultHuman]

medium.com/@glinner/please-note-13b56fdee612

Is there no end to the trouble caused by this contrary man*:

twitter.com/Glinner/status/1110868098679271425

The tweet is a response to Robin Ince, a comedian well known for apparently promoting science.

*Just to be clear, I'm referring to Linehan.

Linehan challenged Ince - a well known no-nonsense TV science-man - to define woman.

Ince declined to do so, and flounced off twitter instead.

Issuing a claim against Graham Linehan for libel, harassment and misuse of private information is very much like making love to a beautiful woman oneself.

I am sure we are allowed to state the fact that in the past a man named Anthony Halliday was convicted of affray in an incident involving a golf club, with a charge of assault being left on file? It's also a fact that the judge stated that Halliday had in the past been convicted of other crimes including a number of offences of dishonesty.

Of course I am not linking this in any way to people on this thread but as a general warning that people should take care when making "jokes" about golf clubs on Twitter , as they can be used as weapons.

Disappointing re Ince.

I just wish Ince would stick to his principles and flounce off Radio 4. Surely with Jenny Murray around it's an unsafe space.

Thanks to everyone posting on this thread for all the wonderful work you are doing for feminism.

The other thing is, of course, that the person who has jumped onto this thread could be anyone. And what they are saying a whole load of bollocks. That's the beauty of the internet.

I hope Graham has a scene with two people tweeting Pope Ted!

MNHQ- could you explain why my post was deleted please? I don’t think I said anything wrong, did I?

Unless I accidentally misgendered Robin Ince?

Don't take it to heart. It's a signal that MNHQ are a bit twitchy about the possibility of vexatious litigation.

This rule is somewhat confusing as comments are deleted for correctly sexing people, including people with criminal convictions:

So we will, for instance, allow people to discuss biology and scientific evidence.

Personal attacks are not allowed, although I’ve reported plenty that they let stand on AIBU. But personal remarks, inc insults, about a public figure who was not previously on this thread, have been removed. Do they remove personal remarks about other public figures? Like, politians? Are we not allowed to say what we think of public figures?

SH has been quite busy reporting away... funny as I was told off for over-reporting once.

I donNt mind being deleted if i’ve done something wrong-but all I said was that glinner was being accused of hounding Robin Ince off Twitter and did anyone know anything about it.......

Don't take it to heart. It's a signal that MNHQ are a bit twitchy about the possibility of vexatious litigation.

Exactly.

It's a well-known phenomenan that there is absolutely nothing a TRA can do, without drawing attention to their agenda.

BertrandRussell why on earth would that be removed?? Strange

Wait, I got deleted for saying that it’s generous to assume that a person with a history of expensive vexatious litigation and violently assaulting people with golf clubs has benign intentions towards the people they’re angry with?

But it IS generous. I think that’s almost objectively true.

Is the problem then that I characterised repeatedly hitting someone with a golf club as “violent assault with a weapon?”

I will acknowledge that a golf club is not, technically, a weapon. But I would argue that it counts as weapon as soon as you pick it up and repeatedly bash someone with it. Like in Cluedo.

Ooh, let me guess why my post disappeared, was it a vexatious litigant, in their spite den, with the report button?

@BertrandRussell Apologies! We misunderstood your post. We've reinstated it now.

That's a fast and productive response MNHQ.

Thank you, @MNHQ-I’d hate to waste a delation!

Or even a deletion.......

Regulated professional lawyer here. I only wish some of my clients were able to construe withdrawal as victory 😂

“You’re going to lose this and end up liable for even more than they already say they’ve cost, maybe turn tail and run while you still can”

“Excellent that means I’ve won!”

twitter.com/Glinner/status/1111589215953973248

Since Hayden has seen fit to publish details of the case, Glinner will be updating his statement later on.

twitter.com/Glinner/status/1111589215953973248

Further announcement from glinner coming soon...

I've been wondering whether a lawyer you were on good terms with could bill the other party for, say, 14,000 quids worth of work IF that were the way the agreement had gone, but, when the parties agreed to each pay their own costs, not invoice anyone at all for the putative total of 28,000.

From what I understand, you are usually allowed to claim what the court would consider 'reasonable costs' which is not necessarily the full cost.

The case was dropped. There is nothing to persue here. So Stephanie is basically boasting that they caused someone who had done nothing wrong, to have to spend 28 thousand pounds totally unnecessarily. It's not a great look is it?

I hope these facts can be used by anyone else being persued through the courts, by SH.