Thread Truncated (Cap Enforced)
Only the first 20 tweets are unrolled into slides to ensure reliable PDF exporting and high server performance.
Canvas & Ratio
Choose your destination platform format
Layout Template
Choose a content structure for your slides
Preset Themes
Typography & Sizing
Brand Kit Customization
AGENCYConfigure brand assets for headers & footers
Outro Slide CTA
Customize your closing call-to-action slide
Background Pattern
Build Your Carousel
Drag and drop any post card below onto a slide, or use the quick buttons to insert content/images instantly!
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 <a target="_blank" href="https://x.com/GrahameParkGirl/status/1963868753810059544" color="blue">x.com/GrahameParkGir…</a>
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]