Graham Linehan arrested on arrival at Heathrow Part 4

[IDareSay]

These threads have mostly been used to follow the case that has taken place at Westminster Magistrate's Court over the 4th and 5th September, (and will continue on the 29th October), but were created to follow the fallout of Graham's arrest at Heathrow on his return to the UK for this court case last week, and what is allegedly a conspiracy of TRAs to intimidate and harass a number of people, including Graham, with the alleged support of various police services.

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
Part 3 here
Graham's account of the arrest here
You can support his Substack here
Or buy him a coffee 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. At the time of posting it has reached 64% of its stretch target.
The FSU have managed to get the bail condition that @Glinner must not post on X removed, so he is now freely posting on there again.

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 again on 29th October.
You can support Nick here (posted 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

To show how difficult it is to hold the Met to account, the Undercover Policing Inquiry has passed the decade mark and continues to rumble on, largely unseen by the media or the public.

www.ucpi.org.uk/

It’s this that distorts and should go

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/10/dont-log-non-crime-hate-incidents-says-head-of-police-watchdog

Hahahahaha …

I was right - it was Hayden going arse over tit.

Meanwhile, I think Nick is closing in on the tip of the Matterhorn.

The Man Who Brought The Police Office Scandal To The Eyes Of The Public, just had a penny drop moment.

Has he read Helen Joyce's article yet?!

How brilliant. Get your crampons Nick Wallis and come join us.

Oh. He has....

Well.

Yes this is a start

I'm not going to quote but this morning more ranting about going to the SC to prove that GC beliefs are not WORIADS and some ranting about Niaomi Cunningham amongst other equally bonkers ranting from The Angry Man.

Good.

Hopefully it’s clear to everyone that incidents which are, or may be, actual crimes should be reported - but then it’s up to the police/CPS to decide if they are indeed crimes and if so how to proceed. Credible incitement to violence - sure, report it. Then the police/CPS need to apply rational, unbiased judgment to whether it’s really incitement or not.

'Credible Incitement to Violence'

I think that Mr Angry will have an issue with how you define this based on this blueskying this morning.

Absolutely. And this really needs to be highlighted.

Occasionally I go and look at some of the archive material on the inquiry site, out of curiosity because there are people I know who appear in it. It's wild stuff.

But again, they could spare highly trained officers to go undercover and sit for hours in Militant branch meetings listening to boring speeches from Peter Taaffe about the falling rate of profit, and you wonder if their resources might have been better spent elsewhere.

The work of the Inquiry goes back to 1968. So that's people trying, and still not succeeding, to get justice out of the Met for events that happened nearly 60 years ago.

I don’t doubt it.
But really, that’s his problem. It shouldn’t be everyone else’s.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kn54vj55xo
Police should stop logging non-crime hate incidents, watchdog says

If Emma Barnett had been properly informed this morning she could have skewered him. She obviously isn't aware of KJK and Helen Joyce and what they've been put through or if she is was too cowed to mention it. There's really no excuse for that. Was the perfect opportunity to show how the Police aren't applying the law fairly and she failed. If you don't have the facts you can't hold them to account. Disappointing yet again from the BBC.

Emma Barnett is well aware of the GC argument and experiences of prominent GC figures - she was formerly the one sane voice of Women's Hour, following the departure of Jenni Murray.

Emma Barnett is fantastic and I miss her being on Women’s Hour. Glad to see she’s one of the journalists on this story.

This is part of what I’m referring to below. Afaik women are not covered by this so we continue to get violent abuse and online is skewed against women.

Actions follow words so that violence plays out in society.

So I get the policing partisan stuff but I’d like to see structural change. I’d go back as far as the GRA.

I'd expect the Police will be hoping to jettison NCHIs and that that will kill the story. It's not actually about NCHIs but the idea will be to throw a shiny bauble over there and get the media chasing after it like a pack.

The thing the Police will want to avoid is having to make the structural changes you've mentioned.

I mean legislative changes which will up end this whole sorry saga for women. I know it’s a biggie. I completely agree on NCHI being a small thing.

I don’t mind if people want to lean on police I’m just more focussed on politicians and the laws which underpin our situation.

I know a clip was shared upthread, but for reference, here's the full Megyn Kelly episode. Glinner gets the whole front half.

MK has been very impressive on this. She's spoken before about having been a Be Kinder in the beginning (I think there was some corporate pressure that way when she was at Fox), but the more she's learned the angrier she's got, she's had plenty of good guests, and is far more GC literate - even about UK issues! - than your median Woman's Hour presenter.

I'm listening to the SEEN in Journalism podcast and the presenters (both ex-BBC) are discussing the fact that BBC presenters are not across the facts on this issue and that is a massive failure on their part (and the part of the production staff) to produce balanced coverage.

https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/no-fear-no-favour

Yes I know, but the legislative changes would change how the Police would need to operate. In particular, the requirement for the Police to examine the evidence and weigh it up impartially. That's the last thing they'll want to do, not because they're evil but because of the resources it would consume. Enough resources to help the Police realise that the actual solution would be for the UK law to have something like the First Amendment in the US.