Met Police pay Graham Linehan £25,000 compensation over Heathrow arrest.

[Imnobody4]

Great news, I'm really pleased for Graham.
The Metropolitan Police have paid £25,000 in compensation to Graham Linehan after his arrest at Heathrow over his gender-critical social media posts.
In a letter to the Father Ted co-creator, the force accepted there had been “shortcomings in the investigation, the arrest and the imposition of bail conditions”.

A spokesperson for the Met said: “We recognise the considerable distress caused to Mr Linehan, and have offered our sincere apologies.
“This case prompted a significant change, which means the Met no longer investigates non-crime hate incidents. We believe this will provide clearer direction for officers, reduce ambiguity and enable them to focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations.”

www.thetimes.com/article/8126375b-2d4e-434c-a828-6876a990bcaf?shareToken=318bdc3f8684139b85bafada73954ba6

As i am querying how/why the court have come to the conclusion that the criminal damage is not guilty.

And the response I tend to get is "well that's what the court have said, so it must be correct"

I just don't understand the argument which the judge has raised - and in my opinion its not correct

As I said before - if I'm the victim of a failed robbery of my phone which is knocked out of my hand and damaged - it appears that i now have to prove the phone was in good condition immediately before the attack to get any conviction at court. So would the police/CPS now say that its pointless to investigate your crime any further if you don't have such proof.

I think it's all to easy to get distracted from the subject of the thread which is the Met police turning up with 5 fully armoured lads toting automatic submachine guns and semi-automatic sidearms, to arrest GL for something that he was supposed to have posted on the twitter. Basically the equivalent of an SAS squad with enough firepower to put down a herd of charging elephants, to arrest an in all fairness pretty unfit-looking man in his late middle-age, who was sitting at the airport about to eat a meal-deal tuna sandwich and a bag of walkers cheese and onion (he went for the meal deal, so it only cost him £14.95)

The alleged offence was perpetrated so long ago it was on actual twitter not whatever it is called now.

And then it turns out the Met oughtn't to have done that, and we have been fined 25K (because make no mistake that is our money not the Met's money).

BAD INTELLIGENCE

All the police are fully armed at airports - and they tend to stay as one unit, so they will send the unit rather than one individual cop.

I just don't understand the argument which the judge has raised - and in my opinion its not correct

Is this an informed opinion?

As i am querying how/why the court have come to the conclusion that the criminal damage is not guilty.

And the response I tend to get is "well that's what the court have said, so it must be correct"

If you read the thread, you would see that I commented that the verdict could have been a result of the evidence either not being presented correctly, or to the courts satisfaction. Who knows if the evidence had been presented differently, he verdict could have been different ?

Its must have been presented correctly for the first court to find him guilty.

I wonder what happened between that court and the second court....?

If I understood the law, I wouldn't have wasted a career in computers ...

How about ignoring the faux innocent thread derailer, hmm?

Presented incorrectly as the first court erroneously found him guilty.

Anyway as fun as this has been, I'm going to take advice and stop playing now.

Being the subject of an attempted robbery must have been horrendous though. So, if you wish to have it, you have my sympathy.

It must have been pretty surreal for Glinner. Imagine being three bites into your factory-made tuna sandwich. You've got your grab bag of walkers C&O balanced on your leg. Bite of sandwich, couple crisps. It's not a great sandwich and it did cost £13.95, but you're warm and dry and you have food. Life is OK.

You're just ruminating while you're masticating, and a shadow that is both long and broad looms over you. You look up and see a wall of tactical gear and guns blocking out the fluorescents of Gate 15B. "Graham Liney-hang" one of them says.

"Mts mmnhan amctully" you say, before managing to swallow. "Hem hem, it's Linehan actually, but yes. How can I help you, err, officers"

"Could you come with us please sir?"

It's not a question. You can barely focus on the speaker's face. You keep getting distracted by the array of weaponry and tactical gear. Shiny sub-machine guns, sidearms, spare mags, tasers, pepper spray, enough cuffs to put Copperfield out of commission and there's five of them. The muscles you can see bulging round their armour and gear are huge, and they wear massive steel-toecap boots you wouldn't want kicking you up the arse.

"Oh OK can I bring my sandwich?"

"Now, sir. Please"

They didn't say you couldn't, so you fold over the top of the crisps and put the half-eaten bit of sandwich back in the cardboard packaging. You pick up your bag and are led away to a part of the airport it is never good news to be in.

I have started saying I am "trans-critical" as a contraction of "trans-ideology critical"

I am not critical of the concept of gender.

I am not anti-trans people- I have compassion for them

But I am critical of the ideology that says that a persons inner subjective world is more important than objective reality for that person and for other people.