The Nick Wallis wrote up of Graham Linehan’s retrial deserves its own thread as it’s so interesting. Also quite barking mad.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://genderblog.net/glinner-rides-again/

I knew a lot of this but the machinations exposed clearly are fascinating.

(it’s probably been linked 20 pages deep in another thread but…)

Try refreshing the page? I often find it doesnt load first time.

He turned up with FT this morning.

I’m anticipating ‘alarm and distress’.

Glaikit, is the first word that pops into my head whenever I see an unfiltered picture of FT.

Court is rising to consider an acquittal!

I’m anticipating ‘alarm and distress’.

"I was too but it's been more I don't remember and I'm confused.

How weird! I clicked on SlackJawed’s link again and there the thread was in all its glory. I’ll try to find the rest now. Thanks all

I'm trying to understand the phone - I think that I have seen in the live tweets (but can't search them properly), that the phone was in a protective case when it was thrown and somehow fell out to become scratched.

Is this correct?

That is my understanding.

The Prosecution case that the phone was damaged because SB says so is looking pretty thin imho...

The BBC enabled Savile for years. Remember that. They are not a friend to safeguarding or women's rights.

So true.

Urgh.

This photo has made my day thank you.

The more these men are exposed, the more people realise their credibility is nowhere.

We all know, because we've seen it played out time after time, year after year. But this is coming to fresh eyes, I guess.

Could it be that the tipping point has been reached, I wonder.

On another note, I can't bloody wait to see Nick Wallis's eventual documentary.

The Prosecution case that the phone was damaged because SB says so is looking pretty thin imho...

Indeed. The cross examination of the detective highlighted that the original police report was Tarquin making a 999 call & reporting a robbery. There was some messages to-ing & fro-ing over a couple of days about assault by battery before they settled on a case of criminal damage to the phone.

Normally a phone remains in its case unless you need to change a SIM card or change the phone whereas Tarquin's evidence is that he changed the case several times during the day. It seems more likely that he had multiple phones.

Finally the idea that the phone hit the ground & flew out of the case thus sustaining damage seems far fetched. The whole point of a phone case is to protect the phone so normally they are a tight fit & won't allow the phone to fly out when dropped.

That photo is blanked out as ‘sensitive’ 🤣

I left it as ‘sensitive image’ because I didn’t want to put anyone off their lunch.

I am the clumsiest person I know. I buy a protective case as soon as I buy a new phone and the case goes on immediately. I drop my phone upwards of 10 times a day; last night I dropped it at the top of the stairs and it fell down to the bottom and bounced to about knee height from hitting the skirting board so hard. Not only does my phone remain pristine inside the case, there is only the slightest of scratches on the case itself. I dropped it last week on the concrete path outside my work, not a mark on it. The story offered re Tarquin's phone isn't remotely credible. One might even say it was total bollocks.

I wonder if it was Hayden that Tarquin was arguing with outside the courtroom? Imagine having these three dumpy, devious, middle-aged men as your puppet masters at such a young age. Shudders.

It would be interesting (though likely pointless) to get an expert to look over the phone (that still has not been repaired) and check for things like the way the screen is bonded to the body. It should be pretty obvious if the phone has been previously repaired - i.e. previously damaged

I guess that if it has been repaired or appraised for repair by an Apple repair center then there will be a record associated with the phone's unique ID - this would give a bit of a paper trail if there has been previous damage

Tarquin’s claim that he had already changed the phone case a couple of times that day was so he could claim that the phone was undamaged earlier and was damaged when GL threw it and it came out of its case.

From Nick Wallis an hour ago:

J we have risen to consider whether or not the P has made out the case to prove the damage to the phone was caused by GL and we're not sure it has. GL's evidence won't help us.

The photos of the alleged damage are undated, and the Judge [J] is wondering if the Prosecution [P] can prove that the damage was caused by GL.

GL’s barrister is saying that if the court can’t be sure then the Judge should direct an acquittal.

Decision from the judge at 2pm.

Tarquin’s claim that he had already changed the phone case a couple of times that day was so he could claim that the phone was undamaged earlier and was damaged when GL threw it and it came out of its case.

This can be the problem with making stuff up as you go along - what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive

The photos of the alleged damage are undated, and the Judge [J] is wondering if the Prosecution [P] can prove that the damage was caused by GL.

Interestingly it was the judge who observed that the photos are undated.

It’s almost like the BCA set the scene for Tarquin having a rep as being economical with the truth, and then his evasiveness was plain to see in this mornings cross examination.

I wonder whether the Judge was able to overhear the shouting match between Tarquin and (presumably) Hayden.

The altercation at Battle of Ideas on 19 October leads to:
19 October - SB phones 999 to report a theft (logged as a robbery investigation on 20 October)
21 October another call made (PC Copper not sure who made the call) to report “threatening abusive words and behaviour with intent to cause alarm and distress”
22 October report from Lynsay Watson …. notes saw GL admiting that he threw the phone in a tweet and suggests criminal damage (1st time this is mentioned in police reports)
23 October Michelle Burrows reports “malicious communication likely to cause stress or anxiety” (seems as if police not convinced the caller was there in person so didn’t follow this up)
24 October SB phones police to say he is a police cadet and is being advised by an officer….not a robbery…criminal damage

Tuesday 5 November -SB claims to be having (A) phone examined by Apple in Regent St, with a £369 cost estimate for repair.

Repair not undertaken.

I’ve never found it particularly tricky to get a Genius bar appt, albeit at different stores. All the documentation had the phone serial number on it when I recently had a new battery put in.

I hope the panel see through this.

Weird, huh. 😁