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

Did anyone see Glinner on Trevor Phillips’s show on Sky this morning? I wasn’t able to watch so was hoping someone would report back.

I'm just adding this article from the Critic

Graham Linehan, Reprobate | James Martin Charlton | The Critic Magazine https://share.google/UKR0q5NFlCdptPPzV

Mostly because of this quote from it

“I approve of what you say, but I will disavow to the death the way in which you say it.” 🤣

If this link works it'll take you the the Trevor Philips show. Possibly to the bit where the interview with Glinner starts, 59 mins.

https://news.sky.com/sunday-morning-with-trevor-phillips

Fantastic article - thank you! Love the way it makes clear that Glinner’s suffer-no-fools approach is not just acceptable but necessary.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/victims-commissioner-calls-stalkers-courts-harassment-b1248858.html
Victims Commissioner: Government must stop stalkers weaponising courts to harass their victims
Claire Waxman OBE has suffered for more than 20 years at the hands of former TV producer Elliot Fogel

This is unrelated, but topical.

The UK’s next Victims Commissioner is calling on the government to change the law to stop stalkers from weaponising the courts to continue their campaigns of harassment.

Claire Waxman OBE has suffered for more than 20 years at the hands of former TV producer Elliot Fogel, as he has been convicted of stalking and harassment, repeatedly broken court orders, and spent periods of time in prison.

Criminal cases have been punctuated by repeated legal applications by Fogel, leading Ms Waxman to believe he is using court processes as a form of harassment.

She has now spoken out to call for the Labour government to toughen up the law around stalking, to protect victims like herself from endless litigation which the courts appear unable to shutdown.

"I increasingly hear from victims whose offenders, like mine, use the courts to further their control and abuse”, she told The Standard.

“Each time there is an appeal, an application to vary a protective order, an unmeritorious civil claim, victims are dragged back into contact with their abuser.

“The justice system needs to get wise to stalking by litigation, and the Government should use the opportunity of the Victims and Courts Bill to prevent stalkers exploiting and wasting valuable court time and better protect victims."

Her words come after Fogel made his latest court application, to try to water down the orders that ban him from going near to the homes of Ms Waxman and her family.

A judge rejected the bid, but also refused a suggestion by the Crown Prosecution Service that he should be blocked for ten years from bringing any court applications.

Ms Waxman, who has spent the last eight years as London’s dedicated Victims Commissioner, is due to step up to the national role from January next year.

AND

However the judge denied the request, saying he feared he would be making the situation even worse by introducing the prospect of Fogel making a future application to the court, being charged with a criminal offence, and having to stand trial in front of a jury.

Judge Lodge did, however, indicate that any future applications by Fogel is likely to be dealt with administratively – without a full court hearing – and will be rejected swiftly if there is nothing valid to consider.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

New article about Catherine Larkman in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/489f104e-493e-40bb-bc22-17a7020fb125?shareToken=ac3e4d9ab0d80db786af4b22426d013c

for fucks sake

Dear The Police (not the band). If there are any crimes in the real world AT ALL, yes even that really awkward potential domestic violence one, then investigate them first. Once there are no real world crimes requiring investigation, then you can turn your attention to policing social media.

I feel like some sort of flow chart could help here

Thanks @IcakethereforeIam for the link to Graham’s interview, I thought he came across pretty well. The Labour toad who tried to imply that being on trial for harassment meant he must be in the wrong was pretty enraging and shows how TRAs can use the mere fact of a trial to to smear people.

Comment by Catherine Larkman in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/3e36360d-106f-4938-99b4-3339530bf77a?shareToken=100c7b10deca4d6f3db86c94ef66ba31

I'd rather that people like Catherine Larkman were still in the police, cos Jeez, people like her are needed. But it's not hard to see why she isn't. Still, still fighting the good fight, good on her.

My first thought tbh…

I randomly thought about this today, is there meant to be an outcome to the case?

It’s been adjourned till the end of this month. So not yet.

Yes, the case continues on 29th October, though I will be surprised if Graham comes back for it.
Those of us who follow court cases and tribunals are going to have a rather busy end of October; Maria Kelly case final submissions are on 22nd October, Darlington nurses starts around then too.

Thanks @ErrolTheDinosaurand @IDareSay

I would be utterly gobsmacked if Glinner does NOT come back for the 29th
point of principle.

Not sure if this has been posted already. Great interviews with Glinner, John Boyne and Stella O'Malley. Also there is Paddy O'Gorman, who interviewed the notorious Barbie Kardashian on his release from jail in Ireland.

www.goloudnow.com/podcasts/the-state-of-us-1157/graham-linehan-529890

Can I ask what glinner actually did?
My friend was telling me what a transphobe he is… but couldn’t explain why.

He tweeted to suggest that if a womans see a transwoman (i.e. a male) in the women's loos, and the male won't leave, the woman should punch him in the balls.

Apparently he is threatening violence. (The issue of whether the male should have been in the women's loos, and should have left when asked, was ignored). The many TRAs who threaten women with rape, death, decapitation and other delights, merely for existing and having opinions, are all ignored by the police.

Linehan was already in the sights of the TRAs because he stands up for women and calls transwomen men. This of course is transphobic.

Oh, and here's the thing. If anyone says that someone or something is "transphobic", but can't say why or give any evidence, well, they're either a sheep or a twit, you choose.

It wasn't even straight to "punch him in the balls" but something like "first tell him to leave, then shout, then call for help, and if all else fails..."

I read it as a joke because nobody with balls should be in the ladies', but however you read it, it definitely wasn't a call to go around kicking trans people in the crotch for no reason. There was also a tweet of a picture of the protest after the SC ruling, in which they were threatening to piss everywhere, and he captioned it "A photo you can smell". I laughed.

Something about the likely relative heights of the two people involved, what with men on the whole being taller so their bollocks would be at a convenient height to punch?

Ah ok. Well it’s really nice that he stands up for women. But that comment does sound quite transphobic. Not all trans women are violent.

Imagine a tommy Robinson supporter saying that about punching Muslims in the balls - would that not be racist?

One could argue that if they are going to arrest Glinner then why not all the other hateful twats who post on X.

A man refusing to leave a women’s space is illegal and is a violent and abusive act.

(Remember that it’s the trans lobby that has expanded the definition of ‘literal’ violence to include almost anything uncomfortable or that they find emotionally hurtful, such as deadnaming.)

The present Queen recommended her mother’s advice to fight off predatory men with a weapon (in her case a shoe). Strangely, she wasn’t arrested by armed police (in fact her assailant was arrested).

Did Linehan say all transwomen are violent? No. That’s entirely your interpretation. The comment regarding Muslims is irrelevant and an attempt to (once again) draw a false comparison between racism and protecting women’s rights to safety, privacy and dignity.

The actual tweet was “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”

A man who stayed out of womens spaces would have no need to feel any concern about that tweet. Any man acting lawfully has nothing to be concerned about, it is only those acting unlawfully who are criticised. Would you suggest it was racist if a Robinson supporter, or anyone, saw a Muslim man outside a synagogue with a knife to call the cops? If they werent there as he approached the door would it be racist to kick him in the balls?

I dont agree with Graham that it's a violent act being in the wrong place so I disagree with a violent response. It is abusive and calling the cops appropriate.