Wow that video is something else. Too right it speaks for itself.
It shows SB trying to film to build a narrative for online content. Keeping in mind that women were refusing to consent to being filmed and he constantly harassed them until he was escorted off the premises.
That was his purpose in being there. It wasn't to protest and it wasn't to observe neutrally.
You might reasonably argue that if you attempt to mislead others with online content you have created, if it's aimed at an under 18s group, it is deliberate grooming. It is something done as part of the process of radicalisation. Thus Linehan comments about SB being a groomer are potentially valid and not necessarily abusive. It's arguable and would fall under protected free speak considerations in the public interest if you felt that was the case.
You can't claim a public interest defence if you are faking something for your own benefit.
The way SB and FW surround MM is intimidating. SB directs FW to "get the angle, get in from behind" is the exact quote.
When she asks reasonably why he thinks it's a hate event (trying to engage in a civil manner) he aggressively says he doesn't have to explain. She replies he doesn't even know what he's talking about (that tends to back up claims of him being groomed tbh)
He then goes immediately on the attack.
SB: "Why did you say I lied about your assault on twitter?"
SB: "Why did you lie about your assault?"
MM responses are all defensive.
SB and FW together say she lies. They do this several times. She replies she doesn't lie.
At one point he actually laughs at her. Egged on by Wallace. There's moments where I think he almost looks to Wallace for approval. It's like he's trying to impress Wallace. He's performing for Wallace.
Some quotes from the next bit (they don't let MM get a word in. They talk over her again aggressively)
SB: "You instigated your assault and then cried about it when you were assaulted.
SB: "I'm building up..." [Cuts off mind sentence]
But this sentence reveals much about his intent. He wants something dramatic. He wants his sensation to put on his online content. He wants to stir the pot
SB: "I'm building up to something. When I got assaulted at an event"
MM: "You did not get assaulted at an event."
(Now I know there's a lot here in terms of background stuff that's not in the video about SB deliberately trying to stage stuff which is consistent with the content in this video and the clear intentions of filming. MM might have been aware of this but it isn't evidence but it reasonably explains why she's filming.)
As she then explains on the exchange where he says she instigated her assault because she started filming. She responds I started filming because they were filming us and then my assault was caught fully on camera and the judge ruled in my favour.
Then he talks about how someone else got convicted for assaulting him. And MM says she knows he did, he was trying to knock the camera out of SB hand.
Once again it looks like the whole of SBs presence there is to try and provoke another reaction.
MM: I was punched to the ground
SB: [in sarcastic tones] oh WERE you?
MM: "Oh well of course I was, it's all on film"
Yes he outright gaslights her. Then he goes after that exchange
SB: "Why are you trembling?"
MM: "Because I'm angry. I always get angry at misogynists"
A few more mumbled exchanges and then he says
SB: "I suggest you go away"
MM: "No I won't go away, you do tell me what to do".
It ends shortly after.
Throughout it's clear he's intimidating. The idea he's scared or distressed is laughable. He actually identifies MM distress at the situation and comments on it. He's not trembling. She is. She's an assault victim from a not dissimilar situation.
Now read back Nick Wallis from the other day from the relevant section (this is especially odd if you have just heard the video and his tone of voice in the video)
SV the temperature in this debate is high
SB depends who you are
SV someone who wishes acid to be thrown on a woman is quite high up the scale
SB couldn't really say
SV GL is a well-known GC campaigner
SB yes
SV so he would be a massive scalp for you
SV if you say so
SV so when the police discontinued legal action you threatened them because you wanted his scalp
SB no
SV Where did you get the phrase alarm and distress from
SB I felt alarm and distress
SV they are the terms in the Harassment Act
SB coincidence
JFW (Prosecuting - P) re-examining SB
P would you get kudos from getting GL convicted
SB I'd get a lot of abuse
P were you telling the truth when you said you were alarmed and distressed
SB yes
[P goes back to the "fucking weirdo nonce" message - screenshots from Thames Pilgrim - Guy Robinson]
P what was that in response to
SB Mr Robinson making reference to me as a "teenage sidekick"
P bad language either way perhaps
SB can I add to that - Mr R reported me to the...
... police and I was arrested. After that there was NFA after it had became clear he'd lied about an ambulance attending his house sending pizzas to his house. [exact quote "there were no malicious pizza orders"]
P asks about the MM confrontation and gets SB to explain that his claim of MM lying about her assault was because he believed she had also lied about his assault. SB calls it all part of a tit for tat exchange which never ends.
[J asks about the "you will pay I will never lose" conversation]
J how did it get in the public domain
SB twitter now known as X had a thing called Spaces - so if you recorded it it immediately gets published
J did you know it would be made public
SB not at the time
SV so when you said about the TERFs being too scared - why say it
SB in jest
SV but still why say it
SB I knew it would be made public, but only many months down the line
[SB's evidence ends - he is taken out]
[J now having case management discussion]
It's actually very chilling, considered and calculated after just having watch that video.