Graham Linehan arrested on arrival at Heathrow Part 2

[IDareSay]

First thread here

Started thread 2 as this seems destined to run for some time...

good point!

- but any large fine would have a huge effect on GL and those he radicalises - trying to stop GL is surely a thing to seek - I will help anyway I can and can send a draft text for an witness statement...

So a disgraced, sacked copper who spends all day on social media harassing and trying to obtain people's details was using the police, hoping GL would be fined significantly and this would scare other people into staying silent.

And the police saw nothing wrong with this?

In the North there's always been a certain demographic that we referred to as the Trevors. Doesn't have quite the same ring of poshness but you find them in certain parts of society - golf clubs, for instance, or the senior ranks of the police.

GL is not formal, polite or diplomatic

This is one aspect of Glinner I really like. He just says it how he sees it, with all the emotions he's feeling at the time. It's raw and honest. A rarity these days.

In the Army they’re always ‘Ruperts’

DC we submit C's claim to be alarmed and distressed was robotic and unpersuasive DC it is prima facie evidence that C engaged in behaviour v similar to that which he complains of. His conduct in person at BoI confy further supports the interpretation of his behaviour as H

DC moving on to crim damage of phone - evidentially this is a diff picture. GL did take the phone and throw it. Two matters are before the court - there is sufficient evidence for the court to consider at this stage. The first is C's credibility in his attribution of the damage

... on undated photos. images of damage we can be reasonably certain we can reliably tether to 7 Nov. In my submission it is unrealistic that a phone which is four years old was in pristine condition after 4 years of use.

... separately in respect of the crim damage there is the question of the position GL found himself on the 3rd occasion that he was approached in short succession after the BoI confy.

- the court has a description of a prelim form of H, brief footage has been seen of SB mentioning GL before the event before asking if he was being recorded.

DC I can play the relevant footage of that final capture, but C's response that he had a clear line of exit can't

... be seen on the camera.

DC do you want to see it again
J yes

[TECH TIME!!! will it work, will it not... exciting...]

Just to note I am here and available to copy and paste this afternoon’s proceedings, as Sabrina is not available.

The good thing about the use of Tarquin, besides making the point re his entitled poshness, is that's it's not 'dead naming' so gives fewer grounds for a transtrum.

Fair enough - the Met Police do in fact have a press bureau which fields inquiries. I've just never previously heard that term applied to an internal press office.

Many thanks to you, and many thanks to @SabrinaThwaite 👏

Wow this is gripping. Do you think the judge will dismiss it? DC is making a very good case for SB's harrassment, imo.

[Credit where due - it was pretty swift - we see GL as people exit conference - he is being filmed by SB. it is dark. SB gets close with the phone and asks "why do you think it is acceptable to call teenagers domestic terrorists" - GL clocks him and within a second or two...

... has grabbed the phone which loses picture and "Oi! Oi!" can be heard.] DC whilst of course I don't suggest that this was a slow calculated response, in order to get himself out of that situation - GL either had to stand and take more of it, or he had to move the complainant

the judge wanted to see the footage again. I’m not hopeful.

While GL's actions could be seen as harassment if squinted at through a deep fog without one's glasses, SB's appears to be an ongoing co ordinated attack leveraging the police and various others.

One is clearly worse than the other.

... out of his way or he had to take the phone and get rid of it. DC on that basis, it's my submission that neither count should proceed further because there is no case to answer on either. I appreciate of course perhaps a different situation on the evidential landscape...

... on H rather than crim damage. Before P responds I think I can say we would both be content if you are against me on either or both you can indicate that.

P the crowns evidence is 60 pages of soc med posts over a 16 day period. It is clearly targeted at an individual

Is there a new thread? This one's nearly full.

The trouble is the throwing the phone I think.

I'm ready with thread 3 when we get onto the last page.

It might be an Irish thing to be unvarnished; English people often perceive Irish people as being blunt to the point of rudeness.

It varies within Ireland too. I don't go to Dublin often, but show up in Dublin with a Belfast accent and people will look at you as if they're expecting you to glass them.

It's definitely part of why some people don't like Glinner. And yes, I know he's quick to anger and lets himself be provoked and sometimes he expresses himself poorly...

...but we can't all be as mild mannered as Kathleen Stock. Indeed, much as I like Kathleen, hardly anyone is as mild mannered as she is.

P who is not engaging - it is repeatedly targeted at an individual - it goes over a threshold because it is repeated. It links SB to an event for which there is no evidence they were involved. SB says she only came to the event at 1700 - that was not challenged.

Has anybody else realised that the protest for this has already been written?
And wouldn't it be great to do if everybody turned up to do it?

Yes, and indeed the DC notes that. The harrassment count, though?

P this is repeatedly abusive comments made by a person with a very large following, celebrity status, a middle aged man in his 50s. He is of great influence. It is against a person who he might view who he might view as annoying, but who has a lower status...

... This was published to a very large audience online. In relation to the tweets which have been put before the court - D's comments are oppressive and H. Those tweets fall into the matter of a reasonable excuse for...

... which he has the burden of proof and we're not there. In respect of SB's tweets - they are in the context of ongoing situations where people insult each other. So we don't need to look futher than what he said over the BoI - "groomer... sissy-porn addicted... scum"

I really can't have any sympathy for anyone who repeatedly puts their phone in someone's face like this. I don't think it's unreasonable for it to get chucked. 🤷

That may not be the law though 😆