@nickwallis: Morning. On the way back to We...

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.

P as to criminal damage - she changed her cover that day and didn't see any damage - it's the sort of thing she would notice. GL threw the phone onto a road. It is likely there would be damage. There is no reason to...

... disbelieve her account. When SB challenged GL that was not a crime - nor is recording it - given the context. So there is no crime that GL was attempting to prevent. It was not to prevent crime but an act in anger and indicative of his dislike to the complainant.

- it tallies with his tweet about being proud of throwing the phone across the road.

[P ends]

DC - just on that last point - GL's note on being proud was in response to Julie Bindel's point about SB being a bellend and harassing women all day.

DC it is falacious to say that a consideration of the available defences cannot be considered by the court now. Finally what I would observe about the last recording is that there is a point when what might be described as provocative becomes harassment.

J am going to rise for a few minutes to gather my thoughts. also need a comfort break. We will resume at 12.15pm

[court rises]

Sorry to keep you waiting. During the break Sarah Vine (Defence Counsel) and Julia Faure Walker (prosecuting counsel) were watching something on SV's phone. They had quite an intense discussion and then tipped off the clerk they were going to put something before the judge...

... on the judge's return. Judge duly came back at 12.15pm and SV told the judge she had received some potentially relevant video footage from a non-legal but trusted source, which may need to be examined before any ruling on the application to strike out the case.

There was a bit of chit chat as it's not completely clear what the footage shows, so what the judge has ordered is that the court is completely cleared of all but non-lawyers whilst they view the footage and decide whether it does show what it purports to show.

And if so whether witness statements and possibly evidence is given in court.

The reason to clear the court is so they can watch the footage on the big screen to see what it actually is.

I've been given a link to the footage that is apparently being viewed in court - it is publicly available so I'm sharing it. I don't KNOW for certain this is what the court is viewing or whether the footage itself is legit or relevant. Treat accordingly

View Tweet

Also the mobile reception outside court is worse than it is in court, so apologies for the sporadic tweets. we're still shut out of court. It's going to be lunch soon.

[we're back]
J - I wanted to look at some evidence in private and I am now able to explain - there was an applicaiton made by DC to adduce a further video clip take about a yeaer before the relevant period in this case said to show the C at a LWS event.

J That evidence if it were to be addcued would require C to be recalled so it could be put to the C. I have ruled that the footage is NOT admissable it falls into category of bad character evidence - it did not meet the requisite test so the C will not be recalled.

J also I am not going to allow a strike out of this case. There is a case to answer on the evidence.
J are you going to call D
DC yes
J and five others?
DC we're going to try to whittle it down
J so we're likely to go to another day
DC reluctantly yes - would you adjourn for

... submissions on another occasion
J yes

[so it looks like we're going to have GL give evidence and get all the Witness evidence done by the end of the day - then there will be another day for submissions - J not keen to sit late just to squeeze it all in...]

[which is understood - so the plan is to try to get all the witnesses in before end of play, but that might not happen. SV raised the prospect of getting them all done by 3.15pm which might change the game a bit - J intimated we'd cross that bridge if we came to it]

[we reconvene after lunch]

Just to be clear - the next day will not be at least until October, which likely means @Glinner will have to fly back from the US for the hearing to attend court for closing submissions after which judgment MIGHT be reserved. Will check this.

Thank you to the kind person who, just before proceedings began today, gave me a snack (pictured) to tide me over lunch. Accepting food from strangers may not be the wisest idea, but she looked v trustworthy. I have just eaten the gifts. If this thread starts to...

... meander and then stop half way through proceedings...

If you are finding this tweet thread useful (not the stuff about my lunch, obvs, but the court-reporting), please consider a small donation so I can buy my own food and cover my costs. But only if you can afford it. This is the link to my tip jar:

store29806256.company.site ...

I'll put you on my mailing list and be very grateful. Unless I already have something already booked I'm happy to commit now to attending the third day of this trial (assuming it will happen in October) and any separate handing down of the verdict.

I forgot to say - I do run a blog on gender - it's not exactly teeming with content and has had to take a back seat whilst I focus on my PO book, but I'm hoping to crank it up as soon as I get that done.

If you want to have a look at genderblog it's here - all comments welcome. The posts on neovaginas and neophalluses I think are eye-opening!

genderblog.net

This was intended eventually to be funded in the same way I fund the PO blog - through crowdfunding so any excess from your generosity today will go into a pot allowing me to work on content and IT costs of the platform - speaking of which...

... my web guru says he'll try to get all the live-tweets up from these two days on genderblog asap.

[we're back in court]
[J is managing another case before we go back to Crown vs @Glinner]

[DC on her feet]
DC I call GL
[GL takes the witness box. His hands are shaking as he pours his water. He says the affirmation]

[GL invited to sit by J]
DC how old are you
GL 57
DC you live in Arizona
GL yes
DC how long?
GL six months something like that

DC before that?
GL London
DC before that?
GL Norwich
DC and that was before the break up of your marriage
GL yes
DC was that connected to the sex and gender debate
GL yes

DC when did you recognise the conflict between ideas of sex and gender
GL I can't remember exactly I just saw a lot of people being bullied and a lot of the people being bullied were women and they couldn't speak up, no one was reporting on it BBC wasn't reporting it...

.... the BBC continually lie about this and so I thought I start talking about it
DC when did you start
GL I saw a piece which was quite balanced about being kind to TG people but also pointing out that there were boundaries and problems. I was asked about my thoughts on TG...

... things so I linked to the piece as I thought it was reasonable and since then my life has been made hell by TRAs and the media.
DC when did you first have contact with the police
[GL starts talking about Stephanie Hayden and his criminal behaviour
DC stops him and refocuses]

GL When you create a sacred group it attracts bad actors and trans activism is very male and engages in patterns of behaviour which
[sorry got lost - GL is talking fast and passionately about definitions of trans, the damage to young women of medical transition - DC refocuses]

[DC summarises GL's position on the danger of transactivism]
GL agrees - trans is something I don't understand - being trans used to mean being a transsexual now it means anyone who says they are trans
[starts to talk about how the Guardian has twisted his words to besmirch...

... his career. Says media organisation have beaten him up in the dark. "When I refused to stop talking about it that's when they went after my wife... the police visits... I was losing all my income... the pressure drove us apart". Says he had to leave the country...

... lost his friends.
DC when did you become aware of the person we now know as SB
GL became aware of him at a LWS even wearing a mirrored-mask - he was jostling people and trying get a reaction - he was a typical TRA misogynist, he was abusive he was snide and he relied on his..

... anonymity to do this and I really wanted to expose his identity so he could be stopped.

DC how many people spoke to you about him
GL loads - got someone arrested, bit similar to this - I'm in a group of 8 people who've suffered from various forms of harassment

DC this is a toxic debate
GL I'll tell you why - TRAs have a very low bar for offence - the idea you can't correctly sex someone without causing offence is a completely concocted taboo - and it requires you to lie

DC had you tweeted about SB before QEII conf in Oct 2024
GL yes
DC an image of him
GL probably
DC shows image GL has tweeted many times of SB in a suffragette coloured scarf at an LWS event. Why tweet it on 11 Oct 2024
GL cos the MO of the kids who released the crickets at...

... LGBA conference which I do think is a form of domestic terrorism was the sort of thing that Freda Wallace (FW) would get C and others to do. Sarah Jane Baker tweeted a pic of a cricket in his had and he's a violent criminal
DC sorry we cannot introduce previous criminal...

... behaviour into this trial which hasn't been agreed.
GL sorry
DC your use of language. terorrism is an emotive term. why call this domestic terrorism - do you believe it is
GL yes, 100%
DC why use this language
GL most people are terrified of talking about this until...

... recently - particularly women who value their social circles more than men. So if something causes terror in their targets - it's terrorism. You could see how frightened Maria McLaughlin was when they targeted her in that video and they were LOVING that.

DC how many followers did you have at the time?
GL 500k
DC did you intend to incite any violence on anyone
GL no all the violence and threats of violence come from their side - I just wanted to stop him from targeting women

DC so your tweets about him - there are references to and tagging in the Met Police... - what was your intention apart from warning people about the risks he might pose - what did you want info for
GL we don't know anything about him - we don't know his real name, how old...

... 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