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

Ok I’m a bit disappointed with that video. It doesn’t appear good enough quality to determine for certain that it’s tarquin.

I don't really get the video. It's not a defence that Tarquin has previously been a little shit or is a little shit. He can be an objectionable scrote and still get harassed.

Also, this trial has hardly been kept under wraps, why is this only coming out now?

Not if he has been harrassing too. That was Glinner's counsel's argument this morning. To throw out the harrassment charge.

Yup, can't disagree with your and Sionnach's descriptions of the differing politeness norms between here (Ireland) and England.

[we're back]
J - I wanted to look at some evidence in private and I am now able to explain - there was an applicaiton made by DC to adduce a further video clip take about a yeaer before the relevant period in this case said to show the C at a LWS event.

Urgh, that is disturbing

I don't always agree with the way GL expresses himself, but SB IS coming across as quite a disturbed individual, especially for someone so young.

Has anyone managed to find out if he has any family supporting him? He clearly has been in thrall to the extreme of gender ideology for years so he has been groomed from his mid teens at least? How does a teen become friends with a convicted pedophile with nobody intervening?

SB is on track to being a danger to women and definitely needs a referral to Prevent. I'm not sure he will come out of this case understanding the seriousness of his behaviour.

Bizarrely the best way to stop him filming at the conference might have been calling social services (a minor groomed by males with criminal convictions including underage sex crimes, harassing and intimidating women, getting into altercations and refusing to leave a public venue).

This case shows another aspect of why GI is so problematic from a safeguarding point of view.

Interesting that when the police officer wrote had strong anti-trans views, he asked his TW colleagues to get this information.

J That evidence if it were to be addcued would require C to be recalled so it could be put to the C. I have ruled that the footage is NOT admissable it falls into category of bad character evidence - it did not meet the requisite test so the C will not be recalled.

Gah

Maybe that video was also submitted with the intention that the press would report on it, even if it ends up being inadmissible for this particular trial.

also I am not going to allow a strike out of this case. There is a case to answer on the evidence.
J are you going to call D
DC yes
J and five others?
DC we're going to try to whittle it down
J so we're likely to go to another day
DC reluctantly yes - would you adjourn for

... submissions on another occasion
J yes

[so it looks like we're going to have GL give evidence and get all the Witness evidence done by the end of the day - then there will be another day for submissions - J not keen to sit late just to squeeze it all in...]

That's how I read "TW colleagues" initially too, but TW below just means Acting Det Sergeant Thomas Wells.

TW I wrote that - it was probably too strong a word - I should have said gender-critical
DC who were your sources
TW colleagues, publicly available info and the info...

This is all getting a bit Sandie Peggie!

I think they had said it'll have to wait for another 5 weeks if it overruns?

That’s not good if the judge thinks there’s a case to be answered. Agree with her about the video.

I wondere who the prosecution is going to call, aside from GL.

I think court has adjourned for lunch, but Nick hasn’t said so.

In any case, all Nick’s tweets from today so far.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1963870564499456372.html

It's the Defence now isn't it?

which is understood - so the plan is to try to get all the witnesses in before end of play, but that might not happen. SV raised the prospect of getting them all done by 3.15pm which might change the game a bit - J intimated we'd cross that bridge if we came to it]

D'oh! Yes it is.

Prosecution had two witnesses, SB and TW.

Defence has GL and four others.

[we reconvene after lunch]

Lunch first!

Then Defence

Ha ha. Those were the witnesses for the prosecution?!?! 🤭🤭

Lunch