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…)

The irony is that the narrative 'she was only a DEI tickbox appointment' is used in circumstances where there is no 'gender' or other kind of quota system in operation at all.

For instance, not only does the UK not have DEI quotas in public appointments, it is illegal to make an appointment on the basis of a candidate's race or sex.

It makes you wonder where the narrative comes from and how it has taken root in so many people's imaginations, doesn't it?

An alternative narrative for successful women is of course that they slept their way to whatever level of success they've achieved.

Or, as in the case of Kamala Harris, both - she was a DEI tickbox pick as candidate, and she slept her way to the role of AG in California, allegedly.

A woman's place is in the wrong😒

Nothing makes the CPS pause for thought these days. They use the strangest criteria for deciding which cases to prosecute and which to ignore - it's very frustrating.

All-woman lists for elections are not banned AFAIAA.

My point is not that this means that women who get elected from such a list would be less capable, but rather that this is handing people a way to dismiss them, whether it was deserved or not.

The idea that if it isn’t that it will be something else (which I suppose is the point you’re making about Kamala Harris) would be a good one IF these various strategies at least led to women getting into positions they would not otherwise get - but in practice it seems that the technique doesn’t even work anyway. Because the Tories have had many women and ethnic minorities in the top jobs while Labour have had none at the very top, and even those in the second tier seem to be either less effective or perhaps just discredited by the fact that their party actively tried to increase diversity as a policy.

But isn’t the point being made that DEI often gets ridiculed and candidates dismissed as not being worthy, when in reality there were no DEI policies in place?

So often a woman or a person of colour gets an appointment and there are mutterings about DEI - even when DEI had absolutely nothing to do with it. DEI wasn’t a policy and had zero bearing on the appointment. Some people are so convinced of a DEI agenda - even in the absence of a DEI policy - they blame it for any appointment they disagree with, which typically means any appointment that isn’t a white man.

It just seems really hard for done people to accept that a woman earns any appointment on merit.

(This isn’t aimed at you btw, but a more general point on how often I see female successes unfairly scorned as “DEI appointments”).

Or it's something that they want to happen.

Quite possibly but that doesn’t explain why the Tories have had so many women and ethnic minorities at the top of their party while Labour haven’t.

It’s that split between the principle of diversity and equality which Labour claims to have, however they apply it in practice, and the Tories who supposedly don’t have this as an aim in its own right that I find so striking.

There needs to be some level of accountability for public bodies that get their own job so badly wrong.

Yes that seems right. He was still Jewish at heart of course. I think one had to be a Protestant of some kind to be PM back then . You had to take an oath to the monarch as head of the Church.
From Disraeli and Gladstone to these Muppets. Even from Wilson and Heath to these strange cardboard cut outs.

I understood that GL was being filmed without permission. If so, what was he supposed to do in that situation?

I'm not sure of the law on that ? But getting right up in someone's face could constitute assault I think.

I understood that GL was being filmed without permission. If so, what was he supposed to do in that situation?

Glinner was in a public place so his permission was not required.

Yes.

I suspect if we end up with an insane left coalition in govt at the next GE we'll see them do this at national level and tear a country apart from the inside.

Hmm wonder what Fat Tony has planned next week?

In public, you don’t need to have permission to be filmed at all under any circumstances

The left have shown no ability to keep a coalition together either before or after an election and I do not think there is a significant chance of that happening. I do however with almost certainty predict abroad right wing coalition even including Restore if the bad blood can be put to one side and I think it can in exchange for Power and changing the things that they have in common, which is in fact majority.

important caveat for me to add - I have been previously a card carrying Green party member and a card carrying labour party member they left me I didn’t leave them

I believe you could be nicked for harassment if you were forcibly and aggressively shoving a phone in somebody’s face yes but it’s not the filming itself which is the problem

Colin Wynter KC:
I have read Nick Wallis' account of judgment in @Glinner's appeal. For a case to be dismissed of a judicial panel's own volition means that the the prosecution evidence was considered insufficient, incredible or unreliable or any combination of the three.
This has been a fiasco.

https://x.com/QcWynter/status/2050274746927837574

I do wonder how the first court got it so wrong. I wonder if they made an assumption because Glinner is such a big bloke that he must have thrown the phone with enough force to damage it.

We will never know (but that doesn’t stop me speculating).

The original case was heard by a district judge sitting in a magistrates' court - I don't know if that makes a difference. It's also not clear to me whether the first judge had all the information (eg the report of the damage being made several weeks after the incident, the use of a phone case etc) that the second judge did.

Colin is compiling information for a formal vexatious litigant process against some of these fragrant individuals.

The judge at appeal spotted the photos of the damaged phone were undated. If the DJ didn’t have a dated police report as well they should not have proceeded. It really doesn’t add up. The appeal dismissed the case without even needing to hear the defence because the evidence was so deficient.

Did the police examine the damaged phone? Or the CPS? Did the police take photos of the phone? How do we know the phone Brooks/Tarquin took to the Apple shop was the same phone thrown to the ground?

Is Stephanie Hayden Fat Tony, if yes where does that name FT come from.

Finally,(sorry guys for so many questions), was Lynsay Watson in court this week?

Is Stephanie Hayden Fat Tony, if yes where does that name FT come from.

Yes. His real name is Anthony George Halliday & he is a convicted sex offender.

He also hit a man with a golf club after he refused to move his car and called him a 'big fat bastard'.

I mean, come on Tony. Pot / Kettle/ y'know.

He also sued Mumsnet to get access to the email address of an account that disrespected him, and when the email address was revealed, it turned out the poster had registered under Stephanie Hayden's name. It was genius.

You could not make up the shit that this bloke has done or been involved with.

One day there WILL be an opera about it all.

https://genderblog.net/linehan-is-acquitted-smiles-all-round/

Second blog from Nick Wallis - another great read, ITS SO MAD :D