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

Section 127 contains terminology that means it has been abused in ways to suit the Police and who the Police view as their clients (for a particular purpose). For example, sometimes it's the government but this is not limited to them.

Governments like passing laws like this. But they're bad for the public at large. One of the key principles of good law is certainty. To know before you act whether you'll be captured by a law or be outside it.

You don't want arbitrary laws where being prosecuted depends on how you're viewed by the Police, or by their clients.

There is already a legal framework for dealing with threatening or harassing communications. It seems to be enforced in a very selective way.

I'm not a free speech absolutist, but my idea of whether "grossly offensive" material should be illegal is related to whether I think the police and courts can be relied on to handle speech issues in a sensible way. My confidence in the plod handling speech issues is very low at the moment.

It isn't purely a UK thing. Germany has long had legal restrictions on certain forms of speech, for obvious historical reasons. But prosecutions used to be pretty rare, and restricted to hardcore neo-Nazis espousing Holocaust denial and the like.

In current year Germany, pensioners are being hauled into court and fined for dangerous anti-democratic crimes like tweeting the poo emoji at Green Party leaders. State overreach is a real thing.

Not so long ago "grossly offensive" would be saying that a trans-identifying person is the sex that they actually are. It's such a subjective test that it's asking to be abused, and has been.

Sometimes though, say in the case of a male rapist in a women's prison, speaking the truth is the right thing to do.

Just rereading the 2003 Act
(why by the way predates the GRA and modern trans - activism)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

Section 2 needs reducing to
"A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network"

That is all
because it would hit the persistent offenders
and remove claims against the one offs
linked to PROPER application of section 1

It is really really important to read the actual law

And yet in Scottow case, the High Court allowed her appeal because one of the ways in which the first instance judge had incorrectly found her guilty was on the issue of "persistently".

Why are you asking me this?

I think someone's already asked you this but what changes are you suggesting?

If you make it more specific, you also make it easier for people to exploit loop holes.

It also likely would take years to change, looks bad ("Women campaign for the right to abuse trans" headlines) and may not be passed.

The reason the Chief of Met is complaining is to point the finger away from his incompetence.

The reason many Lucy Connelly supporters campaign for free speech is they want to be able to incite violence against asylum seekers etc.

Why not? It appears you are satisfied with the current laws. Imo there is a discrepancy in outcomes which is problematic.

Not aware that's a issue with the actual law. You've either got to look at the police (if not investigating) or the CPS (if not charging). At least the Met is institutionally misogynistic - see the Baroness Casey report.

Exactly. Just look at today.

Trump > Starmer > Mandelson > Epstein > Mossad > Netanyahu > Maxwells > Money > Blairs > Mandelson > Staley > Banking > Obama > Clinton > LookASquirrel > Epstein > YumYumParties > Prince Andrew > HMTLQ > Head of State of NATO country > Kompromat.

Head spinning.

Re malicious communications I have a complaint with the police over horrific lies posted about me on social media on 1st August Ive been given a crime number and so far.............thats it.

No point writing to my MP.

Full on TWAW

No.

Yup, I've listened to her WH interviews and I don't agree that she's been excellent. I think she's been adequate but, in comparison to the dreadful legacy media coverage in general, she appears much better on this issue than other presenters.

In my view, she's not been as well-informed on the issues involved with genderism's impact on women, children, and gay people as she could/should be. But I do appreciate her willingness to discuss the topic on WH because it has been shamefully ignored for years. And I'm hoping the media coverage will improve in the future.

https://x.com/wearefaircop/status/1966036246716661835?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

LincsPolice have recorded a hate crime against Harry Miller for the offence of stalking Lynsay Watson. HM only found out as a result of a FOI. HM was interviewed by the police in November following a complaint by LW for misgendering in an article in the Critic.

I’ve asked before, but what does this ex-police person have on the remaining serving police to be able to get such responses and action?

How can a HATE CRIME be recorded on someone without them being informed? How can the ex-cop keep getting the police to do what they want, when previous interactions, investigations and charges have been thrown out on appeal, and the resulting appeal judgements have been supposed to inform future lawful procedures?

It is unbelievable and so very sinister…

Note that the hate crime has 'prejudice flags' attached

Was listening to BBC news last night - reporter mentioned someone's 'belief that people cannot change sex'. This is not belief, it is fact.

I still find it hard to understand why the BBC disseminate, perpetuate and normalise this ideology

Fucking hell. Truly dystopian.

our laws protect ‘WORIADS’ beliefs, rather than adherence to facts.
In some ways it’s helpful - circumvents tedious ‘but clownfish’ or ‘but hormones’ faux scientific arguments from being relevant to our established right to say that a baby boy becomes a man and remains one thereafter.

How does it work within the police systems to have an actual crime recorded against your name without any kind of court involved? I can understand how they do 'incident' as that is meant to be a separate database and a non-crime but an actual crime?
Surely, there has to be some kind of official process before you get a police record of committing an actual crime? Is there a way to skip this?
How many other people are completely unaware they have a criminal record because they were never notified, never mind had a chance to defend themselves in court?

How can a HATE CRIME be recorded on someone without them being informed?

More importantly, how can it be decided he has committed a crime without due process and a conviction? It’s completely totalitarian.

Totally not related to this thread but @LegalGengar I never know how to pronounce Gengar.

I'm assuming it's like the Pokémon Gengar.

Gengar is pronounced as "Gen-Gar" with a hard 'G' sound at the beginning and end, similar to the 'G' in "girl" or "gang". Some people pronounce it with a softer 'J' sound, but the hard 'G' sound is considered the correct pronunciation, according to the Pokemon Wiki.

I would like to understand more about how this “crime” is recorded and where. Is it on the Police National Computer (in which case, fucking hell that’s horrendous) or is it “only” held by the recording force?

The latter is still clearly a problem but could feasibly fall into dumb operational stuff happening at low levels, the former indicates a higher level decision was made to allow these uncharged “crimes” to be recorded to citizens who would never otherwise have turned up on the PNC.