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

‘We need any and all information on this man’, suggests that Watson hasn’t made the link between the Nick Wallace who live tweeted and the well known and respected journalist Nick Wallace who played a major role in delivering justice to those caught up in the Post Office scandal.

There is plenty of information on the internet about his excellent journalism and tenacity. I’m not sure Watson like what he discovers!

It’s not just that Nick is a tenacious journalist, it’s also that he is publicly seen to be the sort of person who uncovers scandals in support of the little man, the underdog. There will be many TRAs who will be surprised that they are not the underdogs in this scenario. And Nick publicly taking that stance further underlines that.

Interesting. It didn’t cross my mind that Watson, Hayden, would be open to that level of reflection.

Oh let me be clear, I doubt that very much, but the general public associate Nick with the Post Office scandal. He is seen as an old-school investigative journalist who is out to uncover wrongdoings. If the public see that this is the next thing he has his eye on, that will colour their understanding of the situation. I think Watson et al do not remotely understand what they have poked, nor how their behaviour will be seen by the public, in light of that.

eta: spag

Ah, yes, I agree.

Really?? You can get quite a good look at him there too.
On a side note, that was Steve, Edge Of The Matrix he was talking to who is doing an amazing job of standing up for women and girls. For anyone who doesn’t know him he is on X and YouTube.

Funnily enough, when you can’t airbrush photos or filter them to fuck, an aggressive man in a frock just looks like an aggressive man in a frock.

I'm very much struck by hypocrisy of that first video. All wearing masks, using umbrellas to stop themselves being photographed by the press....
And in a court case pushed by them where they shoved phone cameras at people in close range, taking multiple close up photographs of women just sitting at a talk.
Pure hypocrisy.

As ever, they accuse others of doing what they actively and aggressively do themselves. More sunlight, please!

That's quite a read, isn't it? What an absolute POS that man is. One life on this beautuful planet, and how does he spend it; making other people's lives a misery.

Possibly aware, unless he didn't really get the joke.

Graham is in court this morning and this is the current state of play: from the Telegraph.

Nick Wallis is live tweeting.

https://x.com/nickwallis/status/1993271833601212579?s=20

"there are at least 8 journalists in court to report the conviction of a man for chucking someone's phone on the floor. By the way I've been told my application for documentation is unlikely to succeed as crim courts"

"prevent the release of documentation even when referred to in open court"

(Nick has been asking for access to documents that show how this case even ended up in court)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrj4520rrwoBBC report

Surprisingly factual from auntie beeb

"Ms Brooks, who was 18 at the time, is a trans woman who was born a biological male."

I still wonder what the BBC means by "is a trans woman".

I think they mean "a sort of woman, obviously, you know, like a red-haired woman, we wholeheartedly accept that, but due to ridiculous laws and awkward people we now have to point out that this person is actually male".

Looks like an appeal may be an opportunity to dig into how this case came to court (I believe the CPS initially declined to prosecute).

The murky relationship between certain TRAs and certain police forces need exposing and if Nick Wallis can't do it nobody can!

Is this a good result for GL? I mean OK he's been convicted of damage to the phone, but the other charge of harrassment has been dismissed. I think that's more likely to enrage Mr. Brooks.....

The grift of accusing multiple people of breaking a very very similar phone in the same places each time shocks me - but I suppose Glinner always admitted he'd knocked it on the floor.

I think that's a good result. Judge basically said that Linehan was entitled to be offensive in an important matter of public debate, that it was good for that debate to occur, that Brooks had been a provocative nuisance and not honest, unlike Linehan, and Lynsay Watson had been in the shadows causing mischief.

See, for example, this from NW:

"As far as mitigation is confirmed the court heard from GL about his "perfectly awful" engagement in... a highly-important public debate. As the court fairly observed his views are "firm and firmly held" - they are both lawful and protected. The cost to him of his involvement have been enormous. The offence of which he has been convicted was, as you found, a momentary lapse of control. It was the culmination of circs where C's conduct - either in respect of GL or more widely could not be described as beyond reproach and was a failure on GL's part to take the kind of action that you set out in your judgment. The damage was minor, the process itself has been highly impactful on GL and maybe regarded by the court as a salutory lesson in terms of keeping his head should another situation so occur."

C is Brooks, the claimant.

Interesting that the BBC claim Tarquin was 18 at the time. 🤔

Good result. Glinner was on camera throwing the phone so will have to take responsibility for that.

the more important result is the win for free speech.

hopefully glinner will learn from this and not react to the deliberate provocation from those vile men again

Ms Brooks, who was 18 at the time

Wasn't there a whole hoo ha about Tarquins age, some TRAs saying he was underage and therefore a child at the time? More BS as usual.

As Graham said yes he did knock the phone it would be hard for the judge to go any other way I would have thought. But if the appeal means further digging can be done into how it all came about so much the better.

She [the judge] also did not find that the complainant, a biological male who identifies as a woman, "was as 'alarmed and distressed' as they portrayed themself to be by these messages and this course of conduct".

Nick Wallis reports that glinner is likely to appeal, which also seems to mean that glinner will get access to documents showing the dealings between the complainant, his friends and the police. I gather NW has asked for documents ans has been refused, witness statements?

The Judge also refused an application for a restraining order against glinner, mentions the involvement of older transactivists generating the complaint, and names Lyndsey Watson.

Also says the Complainant was not giving entirely truthful evidence, which I assume is Judgespeak for liar liar pants on fire?

IANAL, happy to be corrected.

Tarquin?