Morning. On the way back to Westminster Magistrates Court for day two of Graham Linehan’s trial for harassment and damaging a phone. Here is @Glinner at the end of yesterday’s hearing.
... he really is - he's almost like a cipher - a twitter avatar floating around. I wanted the Met to be aware of him. Also I reported a credible death threat from FW and nothing was done about it and every time I do go to the police about these guys - nothing is done about it
DC the first time you used the word sociopath about SB was on 13 Oct when you tweet about him, FW and a link to the twtter spaces discussion
GL the "you will pay" one
DC - yes - why call him a sociopath
GL I'm told he sent pizzas to his victims at 4am
[P interrupts on hearsay - DC says it's about GL state of mind - we're not saying it happened]
GL we sent a 400 page file to the police - they arrested him for 1 day and said NFA
[DC takes him to a photo
GL can't find it
DC describes more - GL gives up "Oh just tell me Sarah - I'll believe you".
He finds it. Its a GL tweet calling SB, SJB, and FW "scumbag grooming homophobic sociopathic sadists"]
DC Without talking about criminality...
GL that's hard - there's so much of it
DC Scumbag?
GL I don't think there's anything lower than a man who bullies women
DC homophobic?
GL lesbians with penises etc
DC sociopathic?
GL they love this - you saw on the video - they...
... want to see me punished. Me being here is part of that process. It's almost irrelevant if they get convicted.
DC sadists?
DL talks about the relentlessness of the activists, publishing his address as soon as he upset them, targeting his wife etc etc
[We got to 19 Oct 2024 and the Battle of Ideas]
DC it was over two days
GL yep
DC were you there both days
GL yes
DC did you see him on the second day
GL no he'd achieved what he wanted to achieve
DC you call him a psycho and a psycho posh kid and say you walked him out
GL we should have reported him for harassment - not taking him to the cops - we asked the copper to talk to him for a while so SB doesn't follow us
DC see this list of sock accounts
GL yes
DC why tweet them
GL to warn people - he can try to use these accounts to win peoples' trust
DC takes him to Kate Harris video - in which GL says he likes to touch people
GL that's bad wording - I meant he gets close in peoples faces
DC are you saying he touches people
GL no he's very clever he never does that
DC what about Julie Bindel's tweet where you reply saying you're quite proud of grabbing his phone
GL he was using it as a weapon - trying to make people uneasy and frightened and worried about...
... where those photos would end up.
DC where you reply to someone saying knock his bollocks in you say he's already got someone prosecuted for that - were you inciting to violence.
GL no - the opposite - I just stupidly failed to take my own advice.
GL this had been going on all day. I had people telling me oh Tarquin's saying this about you, Robbie Travers showed me a boombox SB had put under my car at the same time he showed me a picture of my wife's house which he had taken.
[talking about taking his phone out...
... to film SB because he knew SB was filming and doesn't like being filmed. Said stupid things, but says his adrenaline always shoots up when he comes into contact with these people because they're so... nasty]
DC what was your plan after the BoI
GL I wanted to get out get to the after party and get on with my life
DC when did you see him when you came out -
GL quite soon, tried to stay with the people I was close to but he came towards me - we had an interaction [2nd vid?]
and I thought oh it's over - then he came back [3rd vid - i instinctively grabbed it I put it behind my back - he looked furious so I threw it across the road and said "there's your fucking phone"
[DC goes back to unpick this]
DC did you think he wanted a reasonable discussion
GL no their mantra is literally no debate [reveals: "I once actually had a secret meeting with Stonewall where they tried to persuade me men were women, women were men and I just couldn't buy it"]
DC going back to the phone throwing incident - could you have moved away?
GL what was I going to do - run away
DC why grab his phone -
GL to stop him
DC why not take his phone
GL because that would be theft
DC why not give it back
GL that would seem like surrender
DC why throw it
GL it was actually the first time he backed off so it was quite nice
DC did you want to damage it
GL no
DC how hard did you throw it -
GL not hard - just skimmed it across the road
DC was it an act of revenge
GL no it was instinctive - "in fact as soon as I did it - I thought - that's a mistake"
DC what happened
GL he followed us for about 20 minutes saying he had destroyed my phone and eventually we got a police officer to talk to him so we could move on without him. I wish we had then reported him for harassment
[GL now talking about his lack of trust in the police..
... references DS TW calling him a trans-activist - and that he was asked what he was assigned at birth when he was recently arrested on the info from another TRA - he says the police are working with TRAs and taking advice from them
DC is there a conspiracy here
GL no - the cops
... just don't understand this.
DC you were interviewed in Feb voluntarily
GL yes
DC and you were charged
GL yes - we submitted a 400 page doc on SB [?] to the cops they decided in one day they weren't going to pursue it. It took them...
... two weeks to decide to charge me.
DC you said the police are doing their job in hoc with TRAs
GL yes
DC am I?
GL without knowing it
DC so I'm subsumed in this
GL you're using female pronouns for men, so yes
[SORRY!!! THE ABOVE TWEET WAS ALL P - GL is NOW BEING CROSS-EXAMINED AND THE Q's ABOVE WERE Prosecuting Counsel P]
GL the police are an absolute joke for the way they've followed this idelogy
P you've spoken at BoI before 2024
GL yes
P there are talks of you at the Battle of Ideas on the internet
GL yes
P before the event they publish a programme
GL yes
P so the images of the people speaking at these talks are not private
GL yeah
P so someone speaking at BoI is harassment
GL not necessarily - but SB was filming the attendees too
P well you say that
GL he was! it's in the video
P is it wrong to take images of attendees at an event
GL depends on the context - he was trying to ruin peoples' lives
P is publishing attendees of an event okay
GL why would you want to do that?
P is it okay
GL it might not be
P is it harassment to take video of people at the BoI event
GL it might be
P who published photos of BoI attendees online
GL well I published photos of him
P you posted a 3m video online which pans round showing BoI attendees
GL yes
P who took that video
GL Julie Bindel took one and someone else took the other
P so she was filming attendees
GL not to try to get them to punch her
P she filmed it, you posted it - that's okay if you do it is it
GL she was filming a person trying to disrupt an event
P did you have permission to post up the images of those attendees?
GL no
P so you accept it's okay to do it
GL not if you are using a camera to try to intimidate people
[Tech time... we're aiming to watch a video]
[P asks GL to listen really carefully to the BoI internal confrontation video between Kate Harris (KH) and SB.]
GL is this where SB keeps telling people to fuck off
P just listen
[sadly the sound is not working]
[yet]
[not working yet]
P did you listen to this video before it was posted on the internet
GL yes
P did you listen to what's being sasid
GL yes
J - do we have a transcript?
P the defence transcript doesn't have this part of it.
[okay we have sound]
P do you hear SB saying "you came up to me and took a photo of me"
GL he's lying
P he's lying?
GL yes - as soon as people on the panel started mentioning trans people
he started taking photos.
P so it's not possible
GL it might be
[there is a bit of back and forth about whether KH approached SB twice - the pronouns between P and GL are all over the place and GL gets confused as to who we are talking about - P says she will revert to Ms Brooks]
P when Ms Brooks says that "you took a photo of may" - that may have been true
GL sure, but that's not compared to walking around aggressively and threatening to send photos of them to their employers
P did that happen?
P was she saying that?
GL no - but it's how he operates in the group I'm in I know he's contacted employers calling people paedophiles and bigots
P has she ever done that to you?
GL might have - through a sock account
[there's an epic pronoun-off happening in an argument about what SB is or isn't doing - P's argument is that SB was photographed first. GL says he was TOLD SB was photographing photo]
[sample:
P so was "SHE" doing so-and-so-and-so?
GL no, "HE" was doing so-and blah
P but "SHE" was not doing blah]
P there are much more disruptive things SB could have done
GL of course - she didn't get naked or set the place on fire
P but you say it was harassment - taking photos.
GL yes
P what is harassment
GL in this case taking photos with the intention to doxx them or tell..
... their employers.
P so basically H is whatever transactivists do that you don't like
GL no but this is their playbook - harassment and doxxing - where are those photos going? no one's ever seen them - you'd think he worked for Reuters the way he talks about it
P you've never seen them
GL no one has - he's using them as an implied threat.
[P turns to SB convo with MM]
P they were having a discussion about who was assaulted
GL MM was assaulted, the guy was convicted
P SB's assailant was convicted too - do you only believe people...
... on the GC side when they say they've been assaulted.
GL MM is of good character. SB was being assisted by a disgraced ex policeman - so I trust the conviction of MM's assailant more.
[Long discussion about whether SB was at the QEII building at the time of the crickets attack - GL is convinced SB was there when it's I think been accepted by the court SB turned up at 1700 after the attack]
P you called SB disgusting, a groomer, an incel
P SB disgusts you
SB he bullies women - it is disgusting
P incel?
SB shut in people who don't have relationships
P the expression sissy=porn watching
GL that was something I feel a little bit of regret about - because that was a guess. I think he does what he does is because he's a sadist.
P there are all manner of insults you could have used
GL yes
P but you chose siss=porn
GL it's sissy-porn
P you must be more familiar with it than me
GL Oh I am - I really am
[P calls SB female. GL asks her if she thinks SB really is female - asks her how P thinks SB can be female. J intervenes to tell him this is not what we are here to discuss and P is there...
... to ask questions. also admonishes the gallery for making noise]
GL the problem is we're talking in two different realities - she seems to believe that men are actually female - and she's trying to make me out as a bigot
J yes I know and it makes it quite hard to follow
... but we really are not here to discuss this. You're talking over each other. We need to calm it down and you must just answer your questions as best you are able.
P asks about the language GL used re trans people
GL says I don't know how many trans people you know - I have ...
... several trans friends and they hate this movement what these activists have done.
[we are running out of court time - it looks like we'll be sitting late but not too late - however they want to get GL finished so he is allowed to talk to his lawyers after giving evidence...
... and there is an issue in that the next witness Kate Harris is moving country tomorrow, so her availability is limited today (though of course video-links do exist in the outside world that was not raised yet)]
[The plan appears to be everyone have 5 mins to calm down...
... then finish GL and try to get KH done. Then set a date for the remainder of the trial. Which I wouldn't bet won't run into two more days]
[Please note GL speaks v quickly and fluently and I have missed a lot - this style of court reporting really only gives a flavour of what is happening - NOTHING is a direct quote unless in direct quotes]
[P resumes GL's x-e]
P do you agree on 19 Oct you referred to a "17yo sociopath who think's he's a girl"
GL I did, but I don't think he's 17
P you wrote "17yo sociopath on 19 Oct 2024"
GL but at that stage I was going by his word - don't believe that now
P But you did at the...
... time.
GL yeah he's been in this a while tho
P we have a driving licence with a birth date of 2007
GL and a female name - if you can lie about your name and sex you can lie about everything
P when SB approached you outside the BoI do you agree she was asking you to account...
... for what you had said about her online
GL yes
P did she have the right
GL yes and I have the right not to answer
P you called her a domestic terrorist
GL because of the attack at the LGBA
P quite extreme
GL yes
P so they have the right to confront someone
GL sure
P first time you she tried you called her a groomer etc
GL yes
P you didn't explain to her why you called her a DT
GL no I didn't
P by the time we get to the final time do you agree she still had the right to ask you
GL yes - right to do anything short of crim activity
P did she have the right to film your response
GL yeah, but not to constantly follow me around
P you were asked why you grabbed the phone and said to stop him doing it
GL yes
P you didn't feel threatened
GL no
P and she had a right to ask you these q's and film the response
GL yes
P wasn't committing a crime was she
GL no - he's v careful
P no justification for taking the phone
GL there is - I had been harassed all day, and it was a reactive instinct - I thought we'd have an interaction and then I could get on with my night.
P you said you threw...
... the phone like a stone
GL it was more like a frisbee
P in throwing the phone were you aware there was a risk it might be damaged
GL I wanted it out of my face
P were you angry
GL yes
P did you want to damage SB's phone
GL no - that's why I skimmed it
P you've talked about various things Brooks had done in the past - that's your mindset - did you think SB deserved to be harassed?
GL I think my friends in the feminist movement deserve to talk to discuss their rights without people disrupting them and have a right to know...
... that abusive men are in the area.
P when you were posting about her online was it to get back at her
GL no it was purely to warn people about him and know his face
P do agree someone who appears argumentative can still have feelings
GL yes
P feelings of alarm and distress
GL yes but we have seen precisely no evidence of this in all the evidence. We only see the alarm and distress he causes in other people
P you posted to 500k followers and SB was not responding
GL not as far as I am aware. "he prefers to bully women"
P you didn't call the police or make a crime report
GL yes because the police are captured - they believe men are women people can change sex they issue wanted posters of people in the wrong sex, they are errand boys for these men
P so when you tagged in the Met Police you didn't think they'd do anything then
GL no but I wanted to put them under pressure
P the way you tagged the police was not a way to report crime
GL no but when I reported a credible death threat to the police from FW they did nothing
P did you see SB post anything to suggest she was involved in the crickets attack on the LGBA confy
GL no
P do you have any evidence
[GL draws his connection between SJB, FW and SB and the crickets]
P so they were photographed after committing the crime and didn't run away...
... when the police were called.
GL no they were enjoying the moment too much.
P wearing badges to blend in is not a unique MO is it
GL no
P so the teenagers in there could have come up with it by themselves
GL yes
P there's no rational basis at all for thinking Brooks was involved in the insect attack
GL he was there, he knew a lot about the insect attacks by the lesbian group in the past, he infiltrates events - it's circumstantial evidence sure, but it points towards his knowledge
[P is taking GL through his tweets about SB again - the pronoun-off appears to have been unconsciously resolved by both P and GL calling SB "Brooks"]
[It's actually made for a calmer atmosphere]
P you tweet "does anyone know this man?" - with a phot of SB, so you're still asking for information about Ms Brooks
GL yes
[commentator's curse]
P then you post an image of Ms Brooks and Freda Wallace
GL yeah that's Brooks and Wallace
P so when you post Brooks and Wallace - that's another photo of Brooks
GL yeah I wanted to show the connection with FW - I wanted people to remember his face so he wouldn't be able to...
... trick women and harass them.
P where did you find it
GL might have been sent it might have found it myself on FW account
[we are just going through tweets of GL's - I think P's point is the volume of them...? There's a lot of agreeing going on]
P did you think it true SB had harassed gay man
GL yes - we had a 400 page dossier in which his sock accounts went after gay men
P police took no action tho didn't they
GL yes they did - I am pretty sure the size of it was no interest to police we should have reduced the size
P could it be that there was not sufficient evidence of harassment
GL they all came from his sock accounts which he has mostly accepted operating
P there is a tweet which says "so Tarquin is making the rounds again" and you reply "more info on Tarquin pictured"
- you know he is not called Tarquin
GL yes it came from an event where he was harassing KJK at an LWS event and she said "that's enough Tarquin" and the name stuck
P so it was a term of mockery
GL yes
P in a reply you call SJB and SB scumbag homophobic sociopathic sadists - did you mean SB
GL I meant SB - that group of men and all TRAs
P so you think all TRAs are scumbag homophobic sociopatic sadists
GL yes
P did you know SB made reports to the police before
GL says he got someone arrested for someone pushing a camera out of his face... he also got someone arrested and Brooks quickly had their hands on their home address and I think the police gave it to him.
P trying to find out where she was studying - were you trying to intrude on her life
GL I was because he is a criminal - he harasses people and he's a sadist.
P you say "was interesting to meet Tarquin today - absolute psycho" - was that based on your interactions?
GL he was going round putting a speaker under a car he thought was mine - showing people photos of my wife's house
P that day he wasn't being a psycho
GL he was he was following me around all day and harassing me - I think sociopath is more accurate
P you say that on oath?
GL yeah
P that's an abusive term
GL it's accurate - what part of him going around harassing people don't you understand?
[P goes on to suggest abusing SB for being posh is abusive and uneccessary]
GL it might be but he entirely earned it
[we are still litigating mean tweets]
P you say watch how Buffalo Bill... who is Buffalo Bill
GL Buffalo Bill is based on a silence of the lambs baddie who likes to kill women and wear their skin
P Is this not aimed at SB's TG indentity
GL what is a TG identity? explain that
P do you think it's acceptable to compare someone to a serial killer because they are TG
GL when their behaviour is about harassing women
P it's very abusive
GL it is
[we're still going through the tweets - lots and lots of abusive tweets towards]
P don't you think you've abused him enough
GL he needs to be taken off the internet and stopped from attending these events
[more rude tweets - calling SB a sociopath, Tarquin etc]
P you said he likes to handle people
GL yeah sorry that's wrong - he's very careful - it was inaccurate
P it's a lie
GL a lie?! - it's inaccurate
P you say at one point he's escalating - he wasn't on the 19th was he
GL he was in a way - he was becoming less scared of approaching women and his image being shown
[I'm wondering if this is some kind of filibustering - why are we spending all this court time on stuff we've covered that the judge can read any way - I can't see how we're going to get to any of the other witnesses now - the ushers will revolt]
[not casting aspersion at all - there may be a very good reason for it but it does feel like we're going over lots of ground we've covered except once more in granular detail]
[given the whole trial was supposed to be finished by the end of today and we're still on the first defence witness]
P you're aware aren'y you that repeatedly abusing SB in the way you did was harassment.
GL he harasses people, the police won't do anything about it, the press won't cover it so I was trying to do something about
P why is you posting relentless abuse about SB ISN'T harassment
GL because if he didn't harass women and try to get people to punch them - he succeeded once he tried and failed with someone else and he's trying to do it to me
P one rule for GC people who are allowed to harass and TRAs can't?
GL TRAs hate women and I hate them.
[re-examination Defence Counsel - DC on her feet]
DC quotes tweet if you encounter T in the whilst try to resist the urge to stick his camera up his arse
GL to stop people from being provoked in to hitting him I'm only sorry I didn't take my own advice.
DC were you aiming you...
... tweets at SB
GL not really - I just wanted to warn people
DC the clips we saw from the BoI - does that represent the totality of SB's behaviour
GL that day? it was the main thing that happened that day.
J has no questions, GL's evidence ends. He asks to go to the loo.
[we are not doing KH today]
J says next day of the trial will be 29 Oct - three witnesses Julie Bindel, Kate Harris and Fiona McEnena - 2 hours each.
[GL comes back and Judge tells him that's that for now and he needs to come back on 29 Oct]
[everyone is asked to clear court so J can talk to counsel]
[we're done]
Thanks v much for the replies retweets and tips. It means a huge amount. There were no court transcribers so I don’t know how or even if transcripts will be generated. I might try to pursue them. Have a great weekend and thanks again.
@threadreaderapp unroll pls
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hello and welcome to a busy and likely final hearing day (Day 200) of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Earlier BBC Breakfast created an impromptu studio to allow Nina Warhurst to interview Janet Skinner, Lee Castleton, St John and Tim Brentnall
The Post Office barrister Nicola Greaney KC is on her feet. She gave a cursory overview of the Post Office's failings throughout the scandal. Sample quotes:
"This inquiry has been a humbling experience not only for those that gave evidence but for those that currently work at Post Office or used to and who are all equally appalled by Post Office's failures. No one who has read and listened to the evidence during this inquiry could come to any conclusion other than that the Horizon IT scandal is the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history and that its roots lay in fundamental structural and governance failings."
And: "Post Office acknowledges that the inquiry will rightly be critical of a number of individuals, not only from Post Office. It invites the inquiry to bear in mind the serious governance and structural failures that permitted their actions to be unchecked, resulting in failings to the detriment of Postmasters. Post Office raises this not to excuse but to explain the context in which those failures occurred."
[sorry that was JB]
JB: what's your take on this
JR: I'll listen to anything Alan Bates says
JB have you done any blue sky thinking on this
JR: we have sped things up, it hasn't reduced the accuracy or fairness or reduced the evidential bar.
JR: we've sped up to due more capacity and we're all keen to get it done in DBT
[JB wants to take him to the PO Horizon Offences Act which came in just before the election]
JB: what was your involvement in this
JR: large cohort of people affected - they could either...
Good morning from day 189 of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Giving evidence this morning is the "stepped back" Post Office General Counsel, Ben Foat. Foat has stepped back from his day-to-day responsibilities to focus on his work on the Inquiry. He also...
... has been suffering from ill health. As such he is appearing at the Inquiry from a remote location and we are doing 1 hour of evidence followed by a 15 min break, then another hour of evidence etc...
I am in the Inquiry hearing room on the press bencha alongside the medal-winning @Karlfl and the Law Society Gazette's @JohnHyde1982.
Good morning and welcome to the final day of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (day 174) before the summer break.
Susannah Jemima Storey is giving evidence today. She is the former ShEx director on the Post Office board...
... and is by far the poshest-sounding witness we have had for some time. Her accent is somewhere between aristocratic and minor royal (says affirm "a-fyaarm"
She is currently DCMS Permanent Secretary and has been sworn in, along with her Witness Statement (WS)
SS also raises SC raising the 2S issue - can you tell us what you spoke to PV about on the back of this note
NM no - can reflect on what I think I would have said
SS any recollection about tenor of convo?
NM not sure if this is a recollection or an imagining but...
... my reaction is that SC was being "over-emotional" - resigning over the 2S report would be "daft" - we were right to do the review. And resigning over the board meeting situation - yes it's clumsy, but it's not a resigning matter. Post Office was in a real mess.
... a lot of people would come in to a board meeting and get a hard time - Kevin, Martin, Nick... it was a robust environment. "For someone to be upset about being left in a corridor... get over it. it's not a resigning issue"
Welcome to the Post Office scandal's Hotel California. This is day 173 of the public inquiry into the various failings by multiple individuals who were either corrupt, incompetent or asleep at the wheel. Today we're going to hear from...
Neil McCausland - former Senior Non-Executive Director and Interim Chair of Post Office Ltd. It looks like Sam Stevens is going to ask the questions. McCausland is being sworn in. Live tweets to follow. You can also watch along here: