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

From NW

JB because it's about people who want to groom people to engage in sex with minors
[we go to av of GL coming out of BoI filmed by SB - he approaches GL and asks q about domestic terrorist - GL says go away groomer and calls him an incel]
SV so at this point SB was not harassing

you
JB no it must have been FW
P not SB
JB not for those few seconds
[more av filmed by SB of him and GL who is filming him - they exchange insults - "sissy porn watching scumbag... incel" which SB says "you're the incel you're divorced" etc]

P you weren't close by
JB I saw it and heard them
P but not of those insults
JB no I said I don't recall what was said
P you said he said go away
JB no I said words to that effect
P you said SB filmed you
JB yes

From NW

P but we don't have any footage of that
JB no
[we then see the a/v of the final confrontation]
P did you see this
JB yes very clearly i remember this well SB filmed me or put the camera in my face without filming - whether it was just an act of harassment
P if you were nearby..

NW

... why don't you recall incel, sissy porn watching scumbag, groomer
JB can't answer that - I heard his voice - don't remember those words. I was anxious harassed and trying to get away
P weren't trying to help GL
JB I was appalled when I heard this case was going ahead

as I had seen the level of harassment - and how he had been harassed. He was clearly not committing criminal acts. This was so clearly a case of GL being harassed and intimidated me and other women inside the venue and outside

P he pointed the phone at you and shouted at you - no threats no physical violence
JB that behaviour was a threat. he does it in the way abusive men follow women so they can't get away - it was intimidation
P how far did was SB able to follow you

JB he gets close and gets in front of you - he gets on top of you
P so he didn't follow you along the street
JB wallace did
P hours before
JB yes that was the beginning of the day

From NW

... why don't you recall incel, sissy porn watching scumbag, groomer
JB can't answer that - I heard his voice - don't remember those words. I was anxious harassed and trying to get away
P weren't trying to help GL
JB I was appalled when I heard this case was going ahead

as I had seen the level of harassment - and how he had been harassed. He was clearly not committing criminal acts. This was so clearly a case of GL being harassed and intimidated me and other women inside the venue and outside

P he pointed the phone at you and shouted at you - no threats no physical violence
JB that behaviour was a threat. he does it in the way abusive men follow women so they can't get away - it was intimidation
P how far did was SB able to follow you

JB he gets close and gets in front of you - he gets on top of you
P so he didn't follow you along the street
JB wallace did
P hours before
JB yes that was the beginning of the day

P you say you found out FW was tweeting about you - but your attendance had been publicised in advance with your photo
JB yes
P SV showed us the video you took of SB putting the phone in your face - is that what you were talking about
JB yes
P so you were standing

From NW

JB yes
P you weren't sitting with your laptop
JB yes - no idea if they filmed me whilst I was sitting down
P so you weren't aware of SB putting a camera in your face with your laptop
JB not whilst I was sitting down
P you describe chattering, muttering, upped the ante

From NW

... got up out of their seats. Do you accept that calling him intimidating was just by the way he looked at you
JB yes
P so you made an assumption there
JB If I had a mastermind subject it would be male violence, harassment and intimidation and I know it when I see it

P you said that you assumed SB was involved in the release of insects at the LGBA confy
JB yes
P you have no evidence of that
JB no evidence whatsoever just my assumption based on his behaviour based on his behaviour - if there was going to be sabotage I

... would assume it would be connected to the protest outside.
P last year SB stayed outside
JB yes
P didn't see him inside
JB correct
P looking back at it now - is it possible SB wasn't there until after the insect
JB I saw him in the morning

P are you sure?
JB yes
P mistaken looking back about when he arrived?
SB he's an unmistakable presence. I saw him.
[evidence ends - J says she can leave]

SV that concludes our case
J says long lunch till 2pm

Thanks @MyrtleLion

Break now.

I can't live paste this afternoon. I have a medical appointment.

That was also quite tiring.

Yes it's quite full on this case. I have to go out again too but will pick up as soon as I get back. We have the closing statements from 2pm.

I caught Nick Wallis' tweet where he quoted Julie Bindel giving evidence and I wish I saw that in person!

JB: If I had a mastermind subject it would be male violence, harassment and intimidation and I know it when I see it

Yes, though I can imagine her expression as she said it!

Thanks to those diligently posting the tweets. Nick Wallace's pithy summaries are very readable.

Hmm, if I were one of the well-connected, legal eagle parents of the TKDB cricket idiots I'd be a bit nervous about it being brought up in court twice today. Especially after all the trouble they went to making sure that their kids faced no consequences at the time.

How did they manage to stop their children not getting in trouble?

Thanks @MyrtleLion and @IDareSay

I couldnt work out whether the prosecution counsel genuinely didnt understand difference between sex and gender or if it was for the cross-exam.

Just got back, I'll catch up...

NW

Okay we're back in court.
SV (defence counsel) is on her feet talking a couple of technicalities to the judge (J).
P (prosecution counsel) on her feet Julia Faure Walker [she's off]
P this prosecution is not about one-off mere comments or offence taken.

... Both sides of the GI debate have reasons for subscribing to what they do, but GL's posts were repeated, abusive and unreasonable to a large audience and came from an obssessive possibly hatred towards TRAs - at the end of his evidence he said he hated them...

... But I'll start with the crim damage - and what he said to her (SB - the complainant). SB says the phone was not damaged. There was damage after GL threw it - there was crim damage. His actions were deliberate - he was angry with SB and he must have been aware...

... that he either intended or was reckless with whether crim damage would happen. Now - does he have a reasonable defence? It won't do to accuse SB of behaviour in the recent or distant past - he has to demonstrate that taking the phone and damaging it would prevent a crime

... it won't do to import JB's views as to what was reasonable. GL could not give any legal justifcation for his behaviour in taking and throwing the phone. He denies feeling threatened so that is not a defence...

... he was asked why he grab the phone he said "to stop him from doing it" - not anything about JB or anything towards anyone else - his only evidence was what was going on towards him. He said SB was annoying and persistent because his adrenaline was up and it felt like

surrender. Being annoying is not a criminal offence. He agreed SB had the right to challenge him and film his response and that he had the right to answer these questions and that SB had the right to follow him.

NW

P continues...
He does not say that SB was committing any crime or about to when he took the film. His defence of lawful justification fails. JB's evidence does not rescue him. She cannot say what was going on in GL's mind. The conduct was towards GL - he was not trying to protect anyone else.

JB did not hear incel, groomer or sissy porn watcher nor did GL say he was protecting JB. The defence relies on SB's behaviour during the day. This was not something GL was trying to prevent at the time he damaged the phone. Also - there was no crime - we saw it on SB's own vid

Ms Brooks conduct was not criminal - it may have been annoying disruptive and insulting, but it was not criminal. There was a difference between FM's evidence about JB being filmed on her laptop and JB who didn't notice that at all.

FM's evidence was that SB had a phone out, whereas we know he had a camera. Also the evidence from KH about SB going round filming people doesn't square with JB's. Clearly someone took a photo of SB before she got up - this lends support to SB's allegation that someone...

... came up to her and took a photo. Someone took a photo of her as an attendee before then she got up. All these factual issues, however the court resolves them - it may not matter. SB's behaviour at its height still does not give GL the lawful excuse to do what he did.

We have not seen any of SB's photos published. And GL can hardly complain about publishing photos anyway. The disruption was small. Irritating and disrupting behaviour, but not a crime and no justification for GL taking and throwing the phone. It's obvious GL was angry...

... and found her actions annoying. He had a deep dislike of her and what she represented. He was even proud of what he did. He said to her "groomer... incel" - this was 20 mins after coming out of the venue. SB was not provoking GL and those were the first words...

GL chose a disturbing and abusive words to level at a young trans activist. JB told us what a groomer is. It is abusive to be called that. GL's attitude to TRAs in general became apparent during his evidence.

NW

P continues...
He used the word troon on sm - which he said was TRA and Gooner - someone who watches porn all day. His sm posts were oppressive and unacceptable in the circs. They targeted SB. At the time SB was 17 - GL knew this.

GL said SB had been active for years - and suggested SB had faked her driving licence. He cannot think about SB in a rational way. He was famous and had a following. He knew he was posting to 500k people and at the time had not met SB or interacted online. This was one...

... way abuse. JB has called someone a wanker. This is not the same. GL repeatedly linked SB to a crime she didn't commit (releasing insects). He calls SB a sociopath and psycho, he says he associates with strange men. He called her Buffalo Bill - a transgender serial killer

he link is the trans. He tried to find out personal info about her. He says SB likes to handle people and then complain about being touched himself. That cannot be true. He said SB was disturbed and a porn-addicted man. This is not just offensive but abusive. Taken as a whole

they could cause alarm and address and we say they did. Whatever you think of SB and her behaviour - she was perfectly capable of being alarmed and distressed. The abuse went on after GL took her phone. SB was measured about her response to GL's failure to use female pronouns

saying it was quite rude, but she was not alarmed or distressed. If she were exaggerating about being alarmed and distressed she could have said she was. It was online harassment. and GL knows what harassment is.

GL accepted in xe that tagging the Met in a tweet it was not the way to report a crime. He used abusive terms, mockery - he was not drawing attention to a crime, nor trying to prevent one. He wanted SB's personal info - not to prevent crime.

He knew SB had already been in contact with the police, so the police would have her details - he did not need to gather details - it was nothing to do with preventing or detecting a crime.

NW

P continues...
GL accused SB of being involved in the cricket release. There is no evidence of this. The people responsible was arrested. SB was not among them. There is no evidence or history of SB doing it or SB suggesting it. Even GL accepted the teenagers involved could have come up

... with it themselves.

When assessing what is said about his belief in her involvement which I say I don't believe is genuine - as you have to consider if it was his genuine belief... if he really wanted to know what happened at the event - he could have asked KH and had he asked KH

• on the basis of what she told us today there was no link whatsoever. GL didn't ask. He didn't bother to find out. He jumped to his conclusion and it was not rational. In any event the level of abusiveness levelled would not be for the purpose of detecting or preventing crime.

SB was not committing a crime - there is no rational reason to connect her to the crime. The next defence is whether his tweets were reasonable "scumbag, homophobic, sociopathic, sadist" - when I asked him about that GL said all trans activists fit that description. That is not

easonable. What about repeated "sociopath" and "psycho" - they referred to soup being thrown over another activist. Unpleasant, but that doesn't justify the idea that SB is a sociopath.

What GL said about SB put a speaker under his car and followed him around all day. He was not followed around all day. As for calling him a Buffalo Bill - he said that was because SB was harassing women - that does not equate to a serial killer. He repeatedly attacked

SB online - he has not demonstrated that his tweets about SB were reasonable. [P goes to authorities on what is reasonable - but notes abusive behaviour if found is not protected under ECHR]

[P ends with some technical legalities] [Judge thanks her]
[SV for GL stands and checks GL can hear her and asks the clerk for some water]
[GL asks if he can go to the loo and get some water himself]
J By all means Mr Linehan. [There is a pause]

NW

[GL is back. SV begins]
SV Judge I will start with the allegation of crim damage - there are two strands to be considered for the defence: 1 prevention of crime - addressed by P extensively, but it has to be said that notwithstanding GL's lang to describe what was going on

... irritating and annoying - it can properly and reasonably be inferred that the way in which SB conducted himself was very much part of a a course of conduct designed to provoke and harass GL. It is not for

GL or his responsives to xe to set out the parameters of SB's right to challenge him to seek a further answer to his q's and whilst SB has those rights it is as ever the manner in which he does it.

That is important. The footage makes perfectly clear that the manner in which SB was asking those q and pursuing GL was entirely in bad faith. it was not in the spirit of enquiry - it was not - as he said to you that he sought a retraction or an apology or an...

... awakening - it was provocation and harassment which on the face of the footage SB enjoyed participating in. It was a game to him. The conduct persisted. SB would not listen to GL's entreaties - irrespective of the language he used - his terminology was somethin about

which he asked and which he xplained in detail to the court - he used the terms groomer incel and troon with ref to and in context of aspects of the sex and gender debate.

"The surrender mentioned by my learned friend to which GL made reference when he described why he had cast SB's phone to the ground does not nec indicate surrender of a fight"

"It can just as easily be surrender to the consistent harassment and provocation. In any event if the court is sure the provisions of the criminal law act do not apply and that is something GL cannot avail himself. There remains the damage itself was not caused by his actions."

NW

SV continues...
Bearing in mind what SB is like - the court ought to be careful that the actions of GL did actually cause the damage. I would remind the court of the language SB used when SB took the phone to the Apple Store. His words were "to assess any damage which Linehan may have caused"

That's some way from the certainty he presented in court. There MUST be some doubt that the marks on the phone we saw can be properly mapped to GL's actions.

Turning now to the q of harassment. Abusive language in and of itself does not make harassment. Once again, context is all. A claimant is expected to come to the court with clean hands. In this case SB fails significantly when the court assesses in the round his conduct, cred

ibilty and motivations. The conduct complained of fails to cross the threshold from offensive to oppressive and unacceptable. Consider Op and Unacc with care. The notion is elastic and fact-sensitive. Words out of context are not oppressive. Even defamatory isn't nec oppressive.

Nothing short of oppressive attracts crim liability no matter how unpleasant it might be. The P asked the court to consider GL's posts of SB were about the prevention of crime and were not the sort of things a police officer in the prevention of crime would say

That's a straw man. There's nothing about the prevention of crime which requires it to be done so to a particular standard of courtesy or propriety.

NW

SV continues...

GL was attempting to investigate SB - he posted a phot of SB wearing suffragette colours infiltrating a LWS speak event. GL says he's preparing a doc on "this guy" to give to police.

Another tweet refers to the cricket release and GL appeals anyone there to make a crime report. GL WAS seeking to investigate SB. The tweets are obvious.

The crown's position is that the posts were calculated to produce alarm and distress. This submission has little or no force. Irrespective of the knowledge GL has of the many anonymous accounts SB has... he at no point tagged SB or directed ANY message at SB.

There was no communication between them online. Turning to whether they caused alarm and distress. SB saying they were alarmed and distressed even if truthful are not nec sufficient. [goes to authorities which state things which cause alarm and distress are not nec harassment]

SV reminds the J of the footage filmed by Robbie Travers when RT asks if SB was involved in the cricket attack. SB does not deny it - he asks if RT is filming. This evidence goes to the truthfulness of SB's apparent alarm and distress.

Turning to SB's credibility. There is nothing to trust about what SB said beyond what is captured on video. His evidence is wholly unreliable and should not be used by the court as supporting P's case.

SB was a police cadet at the time. Was helped by a former police officer Lysnay Watson and lawyer Stephanie Hayden. SB was asked how he felt and each time he recited alarm and distress - he said the fact it matched the statute was "coincidence"

It was his evidence GL's posts were brought to his attention by a friend and that friend was definitely NOT LW. SB's initial complaint to the police was about the phone. SB's complaint about alarm and distress from the tweets only came after LW;s complaint to the police

NW

SV continues...
and LW's comms said he was in contact with SB. He was not alarmed or distressed. He complained because he thought it would be a good idea. His readiness to pursue and confront GL was not someone who was feeling alarm and distress.

The video evidence suggests he was enjoying himself. His evidence that he wanted and apology or retraction from GL is in bad faith. His denial that he was causing problems inside the venue does not stand up. None of the witnesses with impeccable character who came to court

to talk about what they saw have any reason to want to commit perjury. They have mixed recollections. Any group of witnesses with exactly the same recollections should not be trusted. SB does not have assymetric protection just because GL has a large following.

He posts sinister texts telling women who don't accept his female identity. he is following what they are doing. He says what sounds like a threat to women "you will pay. I never lose"

SV goes to Maria McLachlan video. MM was assaulted by Tara Wolf. We hear SB repeatedly asking why MM is trembling. You might say because he is male he might not understand why it might be intimidating for MM to be intimidated by two men who are filming her.

I don't say that I say he was intending to bully intimidate and victim-blame. Stereotypically abusive male behaviour to women. What SB has posted online isn't that differnt from what GL posted about him.

SB has said he can track people, catalogue their every move and their information. SB has produced a post which he considers to be acceptable in which he posts a photo of...

... someone leaving a building and asks for info on them for allgedly committing the offence of taking a photo in a courthouse. Re GL's insults. SB has referred to a GC person as "a weird nonce"

and a paedophile. When SB was challenged on his wish the soup thrown on Posey Parker was acid, he was disdainful.

NW

SV continues...
You have heard this morning J about SB's conduct at the BoI. His behaviour towards women, that he started to get up and photograph attendees as soon as FM started speaking about the need for single sex services for biological females.

"In my submission, J, a conviction for harassment would require a double standard which has no place in the criminal justice system."

[she is going to a Nicklin judgment from the civil courts which suggests the recipient of abusive communication should first attempt to shrug it off, be resilient especially if someone wants to be part of public debate]

The baseline Mr J Nicklin identified was a sense that people not involved in public debate should look after themselves. SB says he was made aware of the messages, by 11 Sep but did not tell the police until after they were sent to the police by LW. SB's conduct...

... is the inverse of the expectations of any reasonable person. SB's approach "was to seek offence to be taken. There is therefore in my sub no proper bass for accepting to the criminal standard what the...

... complainant says about his reaction to those posts, what their effect on him was or indeed any of his motivations about making those complaints to the police...

... His credibility is very shaky indeed in my submission and the court should therefore be slow to accept anything he has said in evidence, which is not precisely backed up by the evidence in the video presented to the court."

NW

[bit of legal argument about the strength of the Nicklin authority - J says she will read it in full] [J wants to talk about dates - she says she is going to have a judgment ready early next week]
[J is now talking about my application]

J says Mr Wallis wants full trial bundle, opening notes written submissions and skellies - not nec a problem - but WS's are not covered, so can you come to agreement between you and give him that. The other more controversial issue is the s.17 issue

• it's not urgent and I would be minded to come to a come to conclusion P on the opening note - he can get that from the press office and I've given him their address [some chat about some of the things I've asked for - J asks if parties can agree whilst judge rises]

J then addresses me and asks if the parties can agree on my a and b requests and that she will have to give thought to my c request at a later date because she has to prioritise her judgment to the parties.

So judge has risen. Parties' counsel are discussing something (hopefully what they will give me from my broad requests) and then I guess my specific request (which is basically the police correspondence with the complainant and the complainant's friends and their internal comms)

(All of which was referred to extensively in open court during the first two days of the trial and are a matter of considerable public interest because they explain HOW this case came to trial)

Will be addressed at a later date or without any hearing.