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

I agree. NCHI's have to go but also there needs to be wholesale chages in the law(s). However, there is no way this current Government is going to do anything in fact they are more likely to do the polar opposite.

Even if the laws were to be changed by the government, another task would be to excise all of the Stonewall law adherence out of the Police. I think that would be require a cultural change among many and would be quite the undertaking.

The problem with the non crime 'hate' stuff is they still intend to record it, just in a different way. So isn't this the same problem just with even less visability.

It seems like a cope out of policing crimes by saying they aren't really crimes, even though they are crimes and then adding non-crimes because someone has been vexatious and lumping them all in together.

Get rid of the vexatious shit. Start recognising harassment and coercive and abuse control and its patterns.

The police USED to know this shit, but stopped policing it because they got into arguments about prejudice - even though they knew who was the problem.

Women are easier to ignore than angry men with vendettas. Thats the bottom line.

This is not new knowledge.

I think this is relevant to the BBC as a whole, but not to Barnett personally. Have you listened to any of her WH work on this topic? She has been excellent.

I'd be very surprised if BBC journalists are given free rein on these matters. Yes, some will be more courageous than others but I think their jobs will be at risk if they go fully down the right thing route.

@RedToothBrush I support recording non crime hate incidents - in a different form sure. They were a recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report.

In theory they represent an early warning system where racial issues where heightened.

For example, the recent racist murder of Bhim Kohli, the 80 years old dog walker was preceded by racially motivated prior incidents.

In theory even if there's not a crime, the police can and should take further steps based on the information - i.e. patrols.

I've found lower level racist behaviour to have worsened, and encouraged my mum to report one such behaviour last year. It's still needed.

@JustAnotherFunday
The law as written around NCHIs is not bad at all.
It is the implementation
particularly around women's rights that has gone badly wrong.

Those wanting new laws need to read the existing ones and see whether they are being accurately followed first

See also the Equality Act and a certain ruling in April

That’s true for many institutions, and yes the police too. I do think it can be done, via law changes first, it’ll take time to filter through.

FWS have taken a brilliant spot in post-madness phase with the SC ruling. That’s a definition, there’s more that can change.

Police would need to use discretion, nuance and their brains. I'm not sure they are currently capable of that.

😂I very much agree with that r.e. the police!

Not my areas of expertise but I suspect some small system & procedural changes would go a long way.

I.e. not recording an incident against someone's name based on an alleged mean tweet like er checks notes calling a man a man.

@EasternStandard
Which laws do you think need changing and in which way ?

All of the single sex spaces and trans stuff is down to a misinterpretation of an existing law.
Legislative change was not needed.
Application adjustment is needed.

I campaign to have certain laws changed.
I know which clauses and which wordings.

This would seem to be a strong candidate because for decades it's been used by the Police to go after inconvenient speech:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

@nauticant
"Menacing" should cover all of the death and rape threats that women get
particularly those by private message and email

Here's the most notorious mis-use of section 127 for us:

https://www.scl.org/12147-high-court-quashes-conviction-for-annoying-tweets/

Although after having her life interfered with massively Scottow got the correct outcome, trans activists have taken advantage of the chilling effect ever since the Police went after her.

Yes.

Changing the law will not have the desired effect unless you are talking of a law that bans misogyny - and can be used against the police when they ignore the threats to women. But because the police have consistently shown they are misogynistic women would still have to take them to court.

Senior police officers could discipline any senior officer who has shown massive errors of judgement, starting with the one who took the decision to arrest Glinner but then going on to those who have harassed, mainly, women.

Have you bothered looking at other cases that are prosecuted under this law you propose abolishing?

The fact the 2003(127) has been used badly
does not make it a bad law
see also EA2010

I have huge problems with the Localism Act 2011
but there is enough good in it to merit SI adjustment of a few words
rather than full legislative reform.

Many of the the people who shout "there should be a law a against" need to read a lot more legislation
and campaign harder for proper application of what we already have

Which laws do you think need changing and in which way ?

This would seem to be a strong candidate

Your comprehension skills are lacking.

I’m not ‘shouting’ anything I’m putting my views on mn.

@EasternStandard
You have repeatedly said that the law should be changed
which law ?

Yes, I am a pedant on this
but
EA2010 was being misused.
The law was not wrong. The use is wrong.
Legislators are often muppets. Why let them mess with what is not in fact broken.

Yes they are and the initial GRA was a bad law (I already posted that earlier). When I see someone arrested for three tweets at an airport along the lines of Linehan I can trace it back to the initial legislation created by muppets.

Gender ideology is not good for women, or children for that matter, it’s a falsehood.

Whilst I apologise for not sharing your precise language, the gist of my question stands: you are proposing changing this law without looking up why it is important. Just what you see as disadvantages to TERF woman.

It is leaving me frustrated on a forum which I recall is supposed to include intersectional feminism discussions. It protect women of colour, disabilities and lesbians, as well as women in the public eye who are all more likely to be targets.

Here's a few examples for you from a quick search (unfortunately had to remove links it wouldn't post)

• Jess Carter (England footballer) – Arrests were made after racist online abuse during Euro 2025, under the Malicious Communications Act.
• Angela Rayner (Deputy Labour Leader) – there's been a few convictions for malicious communications sent to her
• Ex Met Police officers - six were convicted for sending various offensive messages in a group chat.

l also agree with another poster than changing this law is unnecessary. It already sets a high bar for communications that are intentionally grossly offensive.

Has anyone been arrested for the violent abuse towards JKR do you know?

Has the Lib Dem politician putting up violent gun memes against women had any repercussions