Graham Linehan arrested on arrival at Heathrow Part 3

[IDareSay]

These threads are currently being used to follow the case that is taking place at Westminster Magistrate's Court over the 4th and 5th September, but will also be following the subsequent fallout of Graham's arrest at Heathrow on his return to the UK for this court case earlier this week.

He is currently on trial for alleged harassment of a trans identified male and criminal damage to the man's phone. The charges stem from a series of events in October 2024 at Battle of Ideas.

Part 1 here

Part 2 here

Graham's account of the arrest here

You can support his Substack here

Free Speech Union are running a fundraiser to support a claim against the Met in reference to the Heathrow arrest. Just search FSU and Graham Linehan fundraiser and it should be easy to find. Currently reached 93% of its target.

Most of the mainstream media have reported on the case, but none have covered it as well as Nick Wallis. Follow him on X for live posting from the court.
You can support Nick here (posted this morning Friday 5th September):

"I am deeply grateful to everyone who has seen fit to bung me the cost of a coffee, a pint or even a bloody London pint since I found out I was able to come back today. If you think you can afford to make a small donation, there’s more info here:"

https://store29806256.company.site

It's the fact that so many of them don't keep it private and want to force everyone else to go along with it at any cost that is the problem.

A note on criminal law.

Even if a crime is committed against you, you are not a party to the case, you are a witness. The Criminal Prosecution Service is the prosecuting party on behalf of the Crown R = Rex/King or Regina/Queen.

This is because Parliament passes the laws on behalf of the public and these are approved by the Crown via royal assent. I won’t go into the constitutional niceties of this, or we would be here all day. So a criminal allegedly breaks the Crown’s laws, and therefore the Crown is the prosecuting party.

This means that as a witness, victims do not get lawyers and also do not get “briefed” on their evidence by the CPS or prosecuting barristers (unlike American TV). This feels unfair, but it is the law.

[Please note GL speaks v quickly and fluently and I have missed a lot - this style of court reporting really only gives a flavour of what is happening - NOTHING is a direct quote unless in direct quotes]

Would he also have had to be 18 or over at the BOI?

Say something happened when you are under 18, but the court case about it occurs when you are over 18, which age determines how you are handled?

I think that's exactly what the prosecutor is trying to do. In fairness it doesn't take much for him to snap. If he could stay focused and calm he'd have a better chance.

Depends on whether you are a witness or defendant.

As a defendant you are tried on the law at the time you were a child, but I think you can be named because you are now an adult, unless to name the defendant would also name a victim of a crime who is always anonymous. So a lot of paedophiles who are guilty of assaulting their children can’t be named, as it would identify the child.

A sex crime committed when the defendant was a child must be tried on the law as was. So if the law has been updated for longer sentencing or a different offence eg, stalking was not an offence till recently), the old law applies. Hence some historic paedophile cases result in very short sentences.

Also, as far as I am aware, even if a sex crime was committed before the Sex Offenders Register came into effect, (c, 1997), offenders can still be required to register as a sex offender.

[P resumes GL's x-e]
P do you agree on 19 Oct you referred to a "17yo sociopath who think's he's a girl"
GL I did, but I don't think he's 17
P you wrote "17yo sociopath on 19 Oct 2024"
GL but at that stage I was going by his word - don't believe that now
P But you did at the...

... time.
GL yeah he's been in this a while tho
P we have a driving licence with a birth date of 2007
GL and a female name - if you can lie about your name and sex you can lie about everything
P when SB approached you outside the BoI do you agree she was asking you to account...

... for what you had said about her online
GL yes
P did she have the right
GL yes and I have the right not to answer
P you called her a domestic terrorist
GL because of the attack at the LGBA
P quite extreme
GL yes
P so they have the right to confront someone

GL sure
P first time you she tried you called her a groomer etc
GL yes
P you didn't explain to her why you called her a DT
GL no I didn't
P by the time we get to the final time do you agree she still had the right to ask you
GL yes - right to do anything short of crim activity

P did she have the right to film your response
GL yeah, but not to constantly follow me around
P you were asked why you grabbed the phone and said to stop him doing it
GL yes
P you didn't feel threatened
GL no
P and she had a right to ask you these q's and film the response

I dont think he gives a shit if he is found guilty he has the national stage to talk about this shit show

GL yes
P wasn't committing a crime was she
GL no - he's v careful
P no justification for taking the phone
GL there is - I had been harassed all day, and it was a reactive instinct - I thought we'd have an interaction and then I could get on with my night.
P you said you threw...

... the phone like a stone
GL it was more like a frisbee
P in throwing the phone were you aware there was a risk it might be damaged
GL I wanted it out of my face
P were you angry
GL yes
P did you want to damage SB's phone
GL no - that's why I skimmed it

P you've talked about various things Brooks had done in the past - that's your mindset - did you think SB deserved to be harassed?
GL I think my friends in the feminist movement deserve to talk to discuss their rights without people disrupting them and have a right to know...

Interesting that his lawyer is saying his birthdate is 2007, he's listed on Companies House as 2005, that means he's made a false declaration somewhere. I am all astonishment.

... that abusive men are in the area.
P when you were posting about her online was it to get back at her
GL no it was purely to warn people about him and know his face
P do agree someone who appears argumentative can still have feelings
GL yes
P feelings of alarm and distress

Sorry, it's a female judge so I committed a misgender... Off with my head!

I’m not sure we can be confident that they are one and the same person.

Also p, director age is minimum 16 in England and Wales, but the actual rule could be 18 if the company’s governing documents, its Articles, state the minimum age as 18. No older age can be stated.

GL yes but we have seen precisely no evidence of this in all the evidence. We only see the alarm and distress he causes in other people
P you posted to 500k followers and SB was not responding
GL not as far as I am aware. "he prefers to bully women"

P you didn't call the police or make a crime report
GL yes because the police are captured - they believe men are women people can change sex they issue wanted posters of people in the wrong sex, they are errand boys for these men

The judge is a she, the youngest female judge appointed, which is really wonderful!

P so when you tagged in the Met Police you didn't think they'd do anything then
GL no but I wanted to put them under pressure
P the way you tagged the police was not a way to report crime
GL no but when I reported a credible death threat to the police from FW they did nothing

I’ve been lurking for that phrase again Lady Bracknell 😁

Birth dates can easily be checked on the GRO website. Nobody of that name was born in England/Wales between 2005 and 2009. There are only 2 males registered with that surname. One in quarter 4 2006 and one in Q4 2007.

I don't think we can be sure of anything at all to do with this man, other than that he is a clear danger to women.

Oh no, I'm not over using it am I?! 😂

P did you see SB post anything to suggest she was involved in the crickets attack on the LGBA confy
GL no
P do you have any evidence
[GL draws his connection between SJB, FW and SB and the crickets]
P so they were photographed after committing the crime and didn't run away...