What is in the water this week?! Glinner now making a mockery of the cause

[RobynMiller]

I know I know I should just get off twitter but this week is just back to back GC news and not in a good way.

If you haven't seen, Glinner posted a video mocking Green Leader Zack Polanski, understandable plenty of material for a comedy writer there, but the video is so unhinged and unfunny.

Some speculating Graham was drunk when he made it but it's been 24 hours and he's left it up so maybe not.

I feel like we are finally gaining real ground in this fight and this makes GCs look like a bunch of lunatics.

I know there is no formal hierarchy but like it or not, for better and worse, we do have public faces and 'spokespeople' for this fight and this is just embarrassing.

I just feel so helpless because there can't be any accountability for this kind of thing but my God.

Thanks for listening to my rant, just been a very frustrating week.

Video here: https://x.com/Glinner/status/2047187374699126873?s=20

There's sufficient evidence in the public domain to establish that Neil Gaiman is an abusive creep.

The fact that he hasn't (yet) been convicted of anything doesn't mean the BBC is obliged to keep paying him shedloads of money for adaptations of his books.

This is not the same thing as women losing their jobs for expressing an unfashionable opinion.

What’s a

Bad Character Application?

Thanks

It's a thing you can do in criminal proceedings, where you can introduce evidence about a defendant's or witness's past conduct, if you can prove relevance. In a defendant's case, it might be showing they have a propensity to commit similar crimes. In a witness's case, it might be showing that they're a shocking liar and that the court might draw some conclusions about their credibility.

It’s for when you want to introduce evidence about the bad character of a person during a criminal trial. It’s a way of showing that someone is not credible or has been involved in misconduct.

From Nick Wallis’s tweets, this is what Glinner’s lawyer has said about the complainant (C) Sophia Brooks (SB) (aka Tarquin) in the BCA:

"in short my submissions are as follows. it is artificial to disaggregate the events of 19 Oct 2024 from the history of C's conduct towards and hostility towards GC campaigners. SB's credibility is at the heart of your decisions and the material on which we seek to rely will be of assistance to you in understanding the depth and longevity of his hostility and demonstrate we say why he will not be fettered by the need to be truthful before this court about the material events."

Which is a long winded way of saying Tarquin has been hostile for years and doesn’t tell the truth.

Tarquin gave evidence on oath today claiming to be seventeen years old. I'd be astonished if this is true.

Does he identify as 17? That's what counts, not reality

I think he was saying he was 17 at the time of the incident, rather than now.

Not that I necessarily believe the former....

I think Venice Allen described him as the world’s oldest teenager. And that was several years ago.

Reminds me of a story about a young theatre critic who was sent to review Mae West's one woman show, and trying to be complimentary to a show business legend, said "Miss West looks half her age."

Miss West's response was "That bitch says I look 40!"

The BCA was rejected by the Judge, but not yet explained why.

I think Sarah V might have something up her sleeve re cross examination of Tarquin tomorrow. We shall see...

Tbh Vine’s decision to not examine Brookes today after her BCA was so roundly rejected doesn’t smack of confidence but of someone without a contingency plan.

We’ll see in the morning

Is a bingo card required?
I nominate a lot of alarmed and distressed.

Oh bless your heart.

Having breasts can't define who is female for the simple reason that men also have breasts!

I don’t believe, and I don’t think that regular posters on this board believe, that ‘having breasts’ is the definition of female. the poster I am responding to thinks we believe that.

Why, thank you, friend, bless your heart as well!

That said, the appeal is a rehearing of the criminal damage conviction. There’s no real dispute that Linehan grabbed and threw the phone, so the case turns on whether there’s reasonable doubt about damage or whether his actions were justified as preventing harassment.

The defence strategy relied heavily on undermining Brookes’ credibility, particularly on the condition of the phone, and on supporting a genuine belief that a crime was being prevented.

The BCA was central to that approach. Its rejection significantly narrows the defence case. That was predictable given the scope of the material, the risk of a trial within a trial, and the tight timetable.

The defence is now confined to the incident itself, especially the video evidence. That makes it harder to challenge credibility more broadly or justify the use of force.

And it's harder to see how the outcome will differ from the original trial; the prosecution's position looks stronger given the earlier findings on damage and conduct.

That said, this is still a full rehearing. The outcome will turn on how the court assesses the video and the reasonableness of the response.

Linehan is not bound to repeat his earlier evidence and can give a fuller or different account, but any departure can be put to him in cross-examination. Significant inconsistencies risk damaging his credibility.

So, yeah, I do think the delay to cross-examination reflects a need to adjust strategy.

Let's see what the judge says this morning about why they rejected the majority of the BCA.

And!

Maria Maclachlan will be on the stand today and is probably the main wildcard as she's the only witness appearing who hasn’t given evidence before.

However, her evidence is likely to be tightly constrained to what she directly witnessed at the BoI event and the immediate circumstances.

The court is also likely to be made aware that she is not a neutral witness, given her prior public comments, which go to the weight of her evidence rather than its admissibility.

I didn't know this was happening. Nick Wallace reports that there were only a few people in the public gallery and hardly any press, two thirds of those disappeared after lunch too. It seems strangely quiet.

I wonder how old Tarquin really is, there have been so many comments about Glinner's behaviour towards 'a child' when all I see is a hulking young man.

Show me you don't practice criminal law without telling me 😀
I dont think GL expects to win. But goodness me, that BCA in open court before reporters has meant an awful lot of sunlight on some very dodgy people. Which some might think warrants the application.

That's a fair analysis; do the appeal without any real expectation of winning, but use it as a platform to make assertions about the tactics used by his opponents.

Is it working? The BCA was rejected, and no one beyond Nick is reporting on it.

IMO, the allegations aren't given any more credibility just because they've appeared in a rejected defence application. And it's not new material, just stuff that Linehan already tweets about 24/7

If Graham loses today, any press coverage is more likely to focus on his loss and guilt rather than on the arguments the court rejected as irrelevant.

Things may be different if he's found innocent.

And, if true, it's a risky strategy

If the court got the impression the defence were trying to play to an audience outside the courtroom, it’s unlikely to help their case. Judges tend to expect the focus to stay on the legal issues and take a dim view of attempts to run a parallel public narrative.

Is there any way to prove that Brookes is lying about his age?

If there is, and it's a serious matter that would undermine Brookes' testimony and make them perjurers, the defence would pursue it.

They aren't. Read into that what you will.

She's a woman, you're a weird obsessed disgrace.

Leave women alone. Misogynistic rubbish like this is why women get bullied out of sport.