Fr Ted creator/writer Graham Linehan Arrested over posts on Transgender issues

Linehan was arrested for making jokes about trans activists and activism because of a complaint. There may be people who think this should be seen as normal and justified but what next, stand-up comedians being hauled off stage to 'help police with their enquiries'?

Some posters seem to be justifying it by saying Linehan supports this or that and shows a lack of empathy which is irrelevant to the arrest. He wasn't arrested for supporting Israeli actions in Gaza or ICE's in America.

This is from the judgement and why Graham Linehan's charges were dismissed.

115. However, it is an important factor to consider. I do not find that the complainant was as“alarmed and distressed” as they portrayed themself to be by these messages and this courseof conduct. That is for the following reasons.

116. Firstly, the complainant did not describe the effect that this conduct had on them in anyway other than to simply say that they were “alarmed and distressed” and they used this phrase repeatedly. I accept that the complainant was 17 at the time, 18 at the time that they appeared before me and a young witness. I accept that it is sometimes difficult to articulate oneself when appearing before a court and that is a stressful experience. However, it was striking that no matter what was asked of the complainant, this was the answer. I counted at least eight occasions in their evidence in chief when they were asked how they felt in response to an action of the defendant and that was the answer that they gave. On occasions they were able to explain why that was and one of the answers was that the defendant had a large following and they wereconcerned that anyone could see the post and cause grave harm to them.

117. Secondly, despite expressing such concern, the complainant attended the BOI conference on the 19th October 2024 where they must have known that there would be a largenumber of people in attendance who held opposing views. Furthermore, whilst the complainant may not have known that the defendant would have been present, having seen the defendant was present, they approached the defendant on more than one occasion, filming the defendant, engaging with the defendant, responding to the defendant’s unpleasant comments to them,calling him an incel too. In one of the videos in which the complainant films themself and the defendant whilst calling him an incel, the complainant in my view looks visibly happy and not distressed. These in my view are not the actions of someone who was alarmed and distressed in the way that the complainant sought to portray.

118. Thirdly, the complainant did not report the posts immediately and when they were reported, it was not by the complainant. The complainant’s evidence was that by the 11th October 2024 they were aware of the posts of the defendant about them. Yet on the 19th October 2024 after the BOI when the complainant does contact the police, they report what is described as an assault, what I have described as the phone incident. The complainant does not report for example that this man has also been harassing them online and they are upset, harassed, alarmed, distressed (or whatever form of words might be chosen) about that. In fact, the first person to report the harassment was not the complainant at all. It was reported by Michelle Louise Burrows and Lyndsey Watson. It was only later that the complainant then engaged withthe police about the harassment allegation.

119. Of course, whether the complainant was alarmed or distressed, is not the sole determinative factor. However, I cannot be sure that that conduct was oppressive and unacceptable beyond merely unattractive, annoying or irritating for the following reasons:

120. Firstly, context is key in a case such as this. It is right to view the messages in the context of what was taking place at the time and the reasons for the posts. The defendant’s case is thathe was seeking to “de mask” the complainant or destroy their anonymity as in the defendant’s view, the complainant was responsible for the release of insects at the LGBA conference,infiltrated other GC events and was causing disruption. His evidence was that he wanted to warn others in the GC community of the complainant’s identity to prevent the complainant from being able to take such action. There is no evidence that the complainant released the insects at the LGBA conference. However, for whatever reason, logical or otherwise, the defendant took the view that the complainant did have involvement in this. I accept the defendant’s evidence in this regard. He may have been wrong about this, but I accept that he genuinely believed the complainant was involved. He was not wrong however, that the complainant had attended a GC event purporting to be aligned with that movement. There is a photograph of the complainant at a LWS event. The complainant is wearing a scarf which, whilst the complainant was reluctant to accept this initially, was associated with LWS and the GC movement. The complainant accepted that they did not make their opposing views known when attending this event.Whatever the complainant’s motives for this, the defendant was not wrong about this, and further I accept his evidence that he believed that the complainant was deliberately infiltrating GC events.

121. Some of the messages posted by the defendant whilst seeking to “de mask” the complainant were deeply unpleasant, and he could have achieved the same result without theinsulting comments that accompanied those messages. However, it is clear that he was gathering information about the complainant and with a view to taking it to the police asevidenced by his post of 13th October 2024 at page 12 of the trial bundle “GC peeps I’m preparing a document on this guy to give to the police. In the meantime block all these accounts they areall him”.

122. Secondly, I view what the defendant was posting about the complainant in the context of what the complainant was prepared to say about others and to others online. It is relevant to consider the world in which the complainant was living virtually, what they were prepared to say to others. In Hayden v Dickenson [ 2020] EWHC 3291 (QB) Nicklin J said that the court can reasonably expect a person who is the subject of unwanted communications to engage in a degree of self-help before seeking to obtain a harassment injunction from the court. The first step is self-resilience. This is all the more important if a person intends to engage in public debate. The complainant was engaging in such a “debate” if calling someone a ‘nonce’ can be considered a debate. But Nicklin J said that even outside the arena of debate most people will encounter occasional online comments which are offensive and upsetting. I accept that Hayden was decided in the context of a civil injunction, but the court in Hayden was considering section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act which is what I am considering. As such it is important to consider the sort of interactions that the complainant was having online. The complainant called one X user a “**** weirdo nonce” and in a post asking about an X user said “does anybody have any information on this shameful terf? She took a photograph of me exiting a court room in connection to the QRT which is a crime”. A post seeking information about someone similar to the way in which the defendant sought information about the complainant. The complainant also referred to Thames Pilgrim and said they “regularly harasses 16 year old girls and obsesses over them online. Thames Pilgrim also attends court to intimidate said 16 year old girls.”. The complainant posted a picture of what seems to be Thames Pilgrim making comments about them and tagging them into the post. Posting a picture of Maria Mac Lachlan the complainant says “I keep a record of absolutely everything, including yourderanged and obsessive tweets. Now baiiiiii! Go lie about tour assault more”. As outlined above,29 the complainant responded to a post about Posie Parker having soup thrown on them, which someone says “Thank god it wasn’t acid” and the complainant said “really wish it was though”.

123. Part of the allegation against the defendant is that he was seeking details of the complainant in the posts that he made. However, the complainant, as above was doing the same of others and in relation to the defendant, was able to find the defendant’s name, address,date of birth and phone number. The complainant provided an explanation as to how they did this yet in a recorded audio with an unknown person was heard to explain that they had a facility to enable them to find such information before it was “patched”. I am not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, however, this is something which goes to resilience and therefore is relevant.

124. Thirdly, I bear in mind that in all bar one of the posts by the defendant, he does not tag the complainant in the post. He must have tagged them in the post in which he listed their“socks” as he described them. However, all other posts made by the defendant did not tag anyof the accounts which the complainant was responsible for. It was the complainant’s evidence that they did not become aware of the posts until another unnamed person either told themabout the posts or sent the posts to them. Therefore, whilst the conduct was targeted in thesense that the messages over this charged period were all about the complainant, they were not targeted directly at the complainant, and he did not direct them specifically to the complainant.

125. Therefore whilst I am sure that the messages when brought to the complainants attention probably were concerning and upsetting, and viewed objectively are deeply unpleasant and insulting and even unnecessary in the sense that the defendant could havesought to de mask the complainant without using such unpleasant language, I do not find that they were oppressive and unacceptable beyond merely unattractive, annoying or irritating and do not cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable

So long and short of it both Graham and Sophia say terrible things online about other people. Sophia claimed to be scared and upset, yet was deliberately going to women's rights conferences to disrupt them. The phone damage was a claim made up at a later stage when the case was closed to reopen it. It was clearly a coordinated attempt to rile up people at the conference and then get charges against if they took the bait.

Trans activists would travel miles in the hope of being distressed or offended.

Sex matters have a long list of very unpleasant harassment and assault on their website - director Helen Joyce was the subject of a vile death threat for which the obviously mentally ill perpetrator got a suspended sentence.

Incidentally, I've posted that Sex matters litany at least twice previously. Based on the to and fro earlier on the thread, we can logically conclude that since on those occasions none of the Linehan condemners went through the list condemning each incident in turn, that they are supporters of violence and harassment against women.

Why?