All wonderfully expressed. I've got to stop being so sycophantic when I comment on Mr Doyle's substack, so he's just got to stop writing such timely, articulate, brilliant, socially required, intellectually apposite etc stuff, or I'm going to start sounding like a real fanboy.
I bet you haven't blushed this much since Peter Boghossian told you he loved you, and you replied "I wasn't expecting THAT". It was a great moment, cos I luvs ya too.
I was just about to say the same. It’s always hard to comment on Andrew’s articles because he manages to cover everything so eloquently, there’s little left to say.
Hope Graham is ok. Please send all our best wishes when you speak to him Andrew. Perhaps this will help to wake up a lot of people.
When Sir Mark Rowley said that his officers are hamstrung by the law, my immediate thought was that it can't be true if they are not following up rape and murder threats and genuinely violent hate speech by activists. I can't see how he can excuse this arrest when his officers ignore material that is far more vitriolic, violent and frankly terrifying for all women, and not just those poor souls being directly targeted. Very sad to hear such a disingenuous response from him. Looks as if he realises that this arrest has made the police look ridiculous, especially when so much actual criminality is going unchecked. An astonishing waste of police resources. There appears to be no sense of priority in policing these days.
"Rowley’s buck-passing is likewise inadequate. He claimed that Graham’s arrest was necessary because officers ‘had reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed’"
Gosh, he doesn't even know the law!! You can't just be arrested for anything, even if you are suspected of having committed an offence! You can only be arrested in certain circumstances. Dominic Adler explains this in his Substack today: An arrest is only lawful if the constable believes it is necessary for one or more reasons - and Linehan's tweets do not meet the test.
What continues to astound me is that this is all taking place in the country of George Orwell and “1984”. Didn’t he explicitly warn the UK (not to mention everyone else) about the dangers of establishing a totalitarian government that controls, criminalizes, and redefines speech? And what kind of barristers and judges is the UK producing when they don’t adequately defend against this outrageous governmental overreach? Andrew - it is incredibly important for you (and others) to continue bringing this to the attention of not just the UK, but the rest of the Commonwealth and the USA.
There’s a poll in the Times today asking if the law should change to stop the police logging ‘non crime hate incidents’ - so far 96% have voted ‘yes’ but despite this encouraging sign from the (Times reading) public, I doubt that this government will do anything to change the status quo.
Starmer is one of those leaders like Trudeau, who believes in putting ‘minorities’ first and having open borders.
Luckily Graham’s arrest is likely to be discussed in the US and just maybe, some political leverage can be imposed on our government to help the majority of people regain some semblance of sanity.
Andrew. You've rightly covered the way Linehan has been treated, Lucy Connolly and other victims of the lunatic fringe. But the problem with Graham's arrest is the law and not police. Your article today is great. But did you seriously ask "Why has no law been passed to enable the government to remove judges who clearly prioritise activism over justice?". Where would a failure to separate the judicial system from those that make the laws lead us? Hungary? Russia? China? This is a fundamental tenet of democracy, no?
It's a balance, isn't it? While you can't have politicians riding rough-shod over the judiciary, the latter has to be directed by democratically-elected politicians or you end up with the situation we're in now: where judges feel free to misrepresent the laws that parliament has passed and where the will of the people is actively opposed by activists within the judiciary and various international courts.
Judges misrepresenting laws parliament has passed? Not sure - they'd just get appealled. With the existing laws about what people are allowed to say or write, we have a growing number of examples where judges carry them through to the letter. At the same time, this is just because the police have given too much time to these laws over the things the public actually care about - street crime, knife-crime, burglary, shoplifting etc. And they and the CPS keep on sending them to the courts to prosecute.
There needs to be a bit of a reset here. As Streeting and Starmer have said in recent days, it's for the politicians to set the priorities. Unfortunately, the Police - via the College of Policing - and possibly CPS appear to have been captured by some activists. It's their priorities that need resetting.
Brilliant as ever Andrew and as a member of Rupert Lowes pressure group Restore Trust, I am going to lobby for the investigation and dismantling of the academy of policing. It needs shutting down and those police who consistently flout the law, whose very job is to uphold the law, should be sacked.
Well said ,Andrew ,but I just don't know what it will take to persuade the people in power to acknowledge how serious this problem is !! Our safety and freedom is in peril and the lunatic fringe just don't care. I despair. Thanks ,Andrew x
Do you think the Equality Act should be rolled back and repealed Andrew? Clearly 'gender reassignment' has been a complete disaster as a protected characteristic but the legislation has been used for example to protect people with disabilities. There is of course an argument that the various instances of preexisting legislation on discrimination can and could still be used but the EA took things to a new level.
The influence of those who are not in charge - activists of every hue - simply shows the weakness of those who are (nominally) in charge. If police chiefs and others in power are unduly influenced by fears of being accused of trivial stuff (most -isms and -phobias), then they should not be in power.
Police Officers need to join the Free Speech Union to show that they believe in policing by or with the consent of the British public - until then they’ve become a part of a two tier system & have accepted that British values have been superseded by values that don’t need consent but rather blind obedience & submission. The UK used to be a free society where laws were set by precedent & therefore more flexible than laws that are codified - the very fibre/fabric of Britain is being changed by how our laws are used & enforced by the police against it’s own citizens & does Graham have a case for being stalked with malicious intent
however i am hopeful that you could confirm or deny:
Is this absolute unit of a person (shown in the accompanying linked tweet / video) who was invading multiple women's personal space, filming them without their consent, towering over them menancingly / threateningly, and definitely harassing them the same person taking Graham to court today for "harassment" and for damaging his phone? 🫣🫣
All wonderfully expressed. I've got to stop being so sycophantic when I comment on Mr Doyle's substack, so he's just got to stop writing such timely, articulate, brilliant, socially required, intellectually apposite etc stuff, or I'm going to start sounding like a real fanboy.
I'm blushing here...
Don't blush, Andrew. What Graham L has written is simply the truth.
I bet you haven't blushed this much since Peter Boghossian told you he loved you, and you replied "I wasn't expecting THAT". It was a great moment, cos I luvs ya too.
I was just about to say the same. It’s always hard to comment on Andrew’s articles because he manages to cover everything so eloquently, there’s little left to say.
Hope Graham is ok. Please send all our best wishes when you speak to him Andrew. Perhaps this will help to wake up a lot of people.
Will do!
I am not ashamed to say I concur, whole heartedly. If only there were people in power with such clarity.
Like Angela Rayner by any chance.😂
Your comment didn't age well!
When Sir Mark Rowley said that his officers are hamstrung by the law, my immediate thought was that it can't be true if they are not following up rape and murder threats and genuinely violent hate speech by activists. I can't see how he can excuse this arrest when his officers ignore material that is far more vitriolic, violent and frankly terrifying for all women, and not just those poor souls being directly targeted. Very sad to hear such a disingenuous response from him. Looks as if he realises that this arrest has made the police look ridiculous, especially when so much actual criminality is going unchecked. An astonishing waste of police resources. There appears to be no sense of priority in policing these days.
"Rowley’s buck-passing is likewise inadequate. He claimed that Graham’s arrest was necessary because officers ‘had reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed’"
Gosh, he doesn't even know the law!! You can't just be arrested for anything, even if you are suspected of having committed an offence! You can only be arrested in certain circumstances. Dominic Adler explains this in his Substack today: An arrest is only lawful if the constable believes it is necessary for one or more reasons - and Linehan's tweets do not meet the test.
What continues to astound me is that this is all taking place in the country of George Orwell and “1984”. Didn’t he explicitly warn the UK (not to mention everyone else) about the dangers of establishing a totalitarian government that controls, criminalizes, and redefines speech? And what kind of barristers and judges is the UK producing when they don’t adequately defend against this outrageous governmental overreach? Andrew - it is incredibly important for you (and others) to continue bringing this to the attention of not just the UK, but the rest of the Commonwealth and the USA.
There’s a poll in the Times today asking if the law should change to stop the police logging ‘non crime hate incidents’ - so far 96% have voted ‘yes’ but despite this encouraging sign from the (Times reading) public, I doubt that this government will do anything to change the status quo.
Starmer is one of those leaders like Trudeau, who believes in putting ‘minorities’ first and having open borders.
Luckily Graham’s arrest is likely to be discussed in the US and just maybe, some political leverage can be imposed on our government to help the majority of people regain some semblance of sanity.
Andrew. You've rightly covered the way Linehan has been treated, Lucy Connolly and other victims of the lunatic fringe. But the problem with Graham's arrest is the law and not police. Your article today is great. But did you seriously ask "Why has no law been passed to enable the government to remove judges who clearly prioritise activism over justice?". Where would a failure to separate the judicial system from those that make the laws lead us? Hungary? Russia? China? This is a fundamental tenet of democracy, no?
Yes, we need separation. But we also need safeguards against the abuse of the judiciary towards activist ends. That way tyranny lies.
It's a balance, isn't it? While you can't have politicians riding rough-shod over the judiciary, the latter has to be directed by democratically-elected politicians or you end up with the situation we're in now: where judges feel free to misrepresent the laws that parliament has passed and where the will of the people is actively opposed by activists within the judiciary and various international courts.
Judges misrepresenting laws parliament has passed? Not sure - they'd just get appealled. With the existing laws about what people are allowed to say or write, we have a growing number of examples where judges carry them through to the letter. At the same time, this is just because the police have given too much time to these laws over the things the public actually care about - street crime, knife-crime, burglary, shoplifting etc. And they and the CPS keep on sending them to the courts to prosecute.
There needs to be a bit of a reset here. As Streeting and Starmer have said in recent days, it's for the politicians to set the priorities. Unfortunately, the Police - via the College of Policing - and possibly CPS appear to have been captured by some activists. It's their priorities that need resetting.
Brilliant as ever Andrew and as a member of Rupert Lowes pressure group Restore Trust, I am going to lobby for the investigation and dismantling of the academy of policing. It needs shutting down and those police who consistently flout the law, whose very job is to uphold the law, should be sacked.
So well said, thank you. I support Graham Linehan wholeheartedly.
Well said ,Andrew ,but I just don't know what it will take to persuade the people in power to acknowledge how serious this problem is !! Our safety and freedom is in peril and the lunatic fringe just don't care. I despair. Thanks ,Andrew x
Great piece, Andrew.
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/they-call-me-mr-tibbs-part-1
Dusty
Do you think the Equality Act should be rolled back and repealed Andrew? Clearly 'gender reassignment' has been a complete disaster as a protected characteristic but the legislation has been used for example to protect people with disabilities. There is of course an argument that the various instances of preexisting legislation on discrimination can and could still be used but the EA took things to a new level.
Stolen from a comment on Spiked:
Transgenderism is a phallus-sy.
The influence of those who are not in charge - activists of every hue - simply shows the weakness of those who are (nominally) in charge. If police chiefs and others in power are unduly influenced by fears of being accused of trivial stuff (most -isms and -phobias), then they should not be in power.
Police Officers need to join the Free Speech Union to show that they believe in policing by or with the consent of the British public - until then they’ve become a part of a two tier system & have accepted that British values have been superseded by values that don’t need consent but rather blind obedience & submission. The UK used to be a free society where laws were set by precedent & therefore more flexible than laws that are codified - the very fibre/fabric of Britain is being changed by how our laws are used & enforced by the police against it’s own citizens & does Graham have a case for being stalked with malicious intent
Apologies in advance if i am mistaken...
however i am hopeful that you could confirm or deny:
Is this absolute unit of a person (shown in the accompanying linked tweet / video) who was invading multiple women's personal space, filming them without their consent, towering over them menancingly / threateningly, and definitely harassing them the same person taking Graham to court today for "harassment" and for damaging his phone? 🫣🫣
Https://x.com/latsot/status/1921806422813167872?t=G5njR_pXPRml-iy_23z--w&s=19
That's him
https://x.com/latsot/status/1921806422813167872?t=pnvN55u4LQ5oHyNh175JRQ&s=19
(Unsure if the link posted correctly the first time)