And who was responsible?

Hi all

I'm writing this mainly to say hello and thank you to all the Post Office scandal secret emailers who saw my newsletter on Saturday and kindly decided to get involved in the Gender hoo-ha. It was a happy accident (based on my own technical incompetence) that I have been able to introduce those interested in sex realism to the Post Office newsletter and vice versa.

There seems to be a significant number of people who took an interest in the Post Office scandal who harbour similar concerns about gender ideology. There are common themes between the two scandals - injustice, state overreach, multiple court cases and a sense that the consensus is wrong. I am happy to pull both apart and am glad you are here.

That said, a newsletter just to tell you you're great would be pointless (you know already, right?), so I've also got some news about things I'm working on which I hope will be of interest. But first...

I have not got 893 subscribers in the last five days

If you kindly donated over the course of the last 5 days to the payment portal which now powers my GenderBlog donate page you may have noticed you were designated a donation number (eg 893).

For the record that donation clock did not start at zero. It didn't even start at 850. Obviously it would be wonderful if 893 people had donated in the last few days, but they haven't. I would hate for you to think I am rolling in donations after doing a few live tweets from the Glinner trial and then asking the lovely Post Office secret emailers if they fancied signing up to this newsletter. I'm not.

That said - a select but wonderful few have donated over the last couple of weeks (either via the original paypal tip jar or via the new portal), and now you're here reading this. I am grateful.

Why did the police decide to go after Glinner?

To try to give you some value beyond saying thank you, I have been given access to a few verbatim transcriptions of tiny, but important elements of what was said in court on 4/5 September during Rex v Graham Linehan.

Because I don't want to pre-empt the decision of a judge, I am not going to comment on the charges faced by Linehan (harassment and criminal damage of a phone), but I am going to explain what they are and pass on a bit of reportage which highlights how they may have come to court.

The harassment charges relate to a series of tweets about a young trans-identifying male and former police cadet called Sophia Brooks made by Linehan between 11 and 27 October 2024. The criminal damage charge relates to a confrontation between Linehan and Brooks after the Battle of Ideas festival in London on 19 October 2024, during which Linehan admits snatching Brooks' phone and throwing it across a road, allegedly causing £369 worth of damage.

As things stand I have not had sight of the source documents from which the following quotes are drawn - I am working on that. However, I am confident they are correct based on the credibility of the source who passed them on.

So what happened, dude?

At some point between 19 and 22 October 2024, the Metropolitan Police received a complaint about Graham Linehan from a(n apparent) male called Michelle-Louise Burrows. The police record of the complaint is as follows:

"On 19 October, the former comedy writer, GRAHAM LINEHAN, approached a young transgender woman by the name of SOPHIA, outside a venue used for the "Battle of Ideas" conference. Linehan was extremely threatening towards Sophia, who is only seventeen (born 2007), accusing her of [being], and I quote: ""…a disgusting little sissy-porn watching scumbag…", and had he not been dragged away there is no doubt he would have assaulted Sophia. Since then, Linehan has found out where Sophia is studying in an attempt to doxx her and persuade one of his thousands of followers to physically assault Sophia, all because she had the temerity to call Linehan out on his behaviour. I have the screenshots for your perusal as evidence of this. Graham Linehan is a man with a well documented murderous hatred of all trans people, who is repeatedly and obsessively trying to doxx a transgender minor so that she faces inevitable violence.... I respectfully demand Linehan is arrested AND charged over this before a transgender woman is seriously attacked or worse by either Linehan or someone acting in his stead."

This was followed by a complaint on 22 October 2024 from another male called Lynsay Watson (a former police officer), who wrote:

"Linehan has been targeting Ms Brooks for aggravated harassment for many month online, because she is transgender. Linehan hates Ms Brooks because she is transgender. Linehan has a genuinely murderous hatred of all transgender people. Linehan continually tries to dox Ms Brooks, to locate her location so that she can be confronted by hostile people. In this toxic climate, I genuinely fear Ms Brooks may be assaulted or killed... Please act with haste, this is an emergency safeguarding matter that is rapidly getting out of hand."

On the same day, Brooks called the police. Brooks' contact with the Met was noted thus:

"Victim has contacted [Met Police] his [sic] is a Police Cadet and being assisted by a former Police officer. Phone was tossed into the road and damage he has been advised not a Robbery Common assault by beating and Criminal damage under £5000. The Complainant had GL’s full name, date of birth, home address and mobile phone number... The victim has obtain the suspects address (would not disclose how) and it is only just over a mile away from her [sic] address."

So far, so basic

I know! I'm getting to the good bit. On 7 Nov 2024, Watson followed up his 22 Oct post with a chummy email to a Metropolitan Police officer who I am told is called PC Elle Caves. Watson wrote:

"Good afternoon Elle! Hope you are well. Just wondering if there was any update but I have managed to get in touch with Sophia (the complainant). Sophia reports great confidence in your ability in this matter (the aggravated harassment and the assault) so I think I'll not push you for an update. I will just mention on closing even though I'm sure you know, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, offers unlimited fines.

This is important, as Graham Linehan is 100 [sic] certain to crowdfund away the impact of any fine that might be imposed on him. He can crowdfund £100,000 a week and will literally scoff at any normal level of fine. However, the PHA 1997 also allows the judge to award an unlimited amount of damages to the victim on successful conviction - now this WOULD have a huge effect on Linehan and those who he radicalises.

And finally, the ability (again provided for in the PHA 1997) to seek a broad Injunction that would stop Linehan harassing trans people (or those perceived to be trans) by any means, ever again, is surely a thing to seek. Linehan is placing so many transgender people in great danger and he must be stopped, or something awful will happen. I will help any way I can, and am ready to send a draft text for a remote MG11.

Kind regards & stay safe,

Lynsay Watson"

An MG11 is a police witness statement.

Between 7 November and 14 November 2024, the Met Police decided there was no case to answer and closed the investigation.

On 14 November, Sophia Brooks contacted the Met. An anonymous officer recorded Brooks went in "via the Victim Focus Desk, wanting update. They are unhappy with report being closed and not being recorded as stalking offence. I have advised I cannot make those changes and report has been reviewed by DS... who has authorised closure."

On 9 December, Brooks got back in touch again:

"Good morning, Could you explain by what it means that there are "no further evidential leads of enquiry"? I have provided the suspect's home address, full name and telephone number as well as his date of birth. I have also provided the evidence in a PDF file which is easily verifiable through a search of the suspect's Twitter/X account. If needed, I can provide links to every single offending tweet. In my opinion, there are sufficient lines of enquiry to proceed and if anything has been removed from police systems such as the Axon Evidence Portal or Connect I am more than happy to provide it again. I have not been contacted by the OIC yet despite requesting to be contacted. Please reopen the report and urge the officer to contact me immediately instead of closing the report without trying to resolve any issues. If the report continues to be closed without good reason and without contact being made with me I will complain to professional standards, escalating to the IOPC or Judicial Review where necessary. The Metropolitan Police has breached my rights under the Victim's Code which came into effect on the 1st of April 2021. Particularly the rights to;

1. To be able to understand and to be understood.

2. To have the details of the crime recorded without unjustified delay.

3. To be referred to services that support victims and have services and support tailored to your needs.

4. To be provided with information about the investigation and prosecution.

5. To make a victim personal statement.

Kind Regards,

Sophia"

Brooks had refused to tell the police how he came by Linehan's home address and telephone number. The very next day Detective Sergeant Sari reopened the investigation into Linehan Detective Constable Thomas Wells (who gave evidence in court on Fri 5 Sep this year) was appointed as investigating officer.

On 13 December 2024 - DC Wells told the Met Police media desk he was calling Linehan in for an interview, noting "it is likely to spark a reaction as Linehan is a well known comedy writer, having written Father Ted, Black Books and IT Crowd, amongst other things. More recently he has become known for his strong anti-transgender views".

Linehan was charged and the trial started on 4 September. It's due at least one more hearing date on 29 October.

Path of Least Resistance

My theory about human beings (which, over the years, has served me almost as well as the essential advice to "Follow the Money") can be articulated thus: 95% of the time, when presented with two choices, people will take what they perceive to be the easiest and least consequential for them.

The activists seeking to ‘get' Glinner utilised this theory - suggesting to the Met they were going to make life more difficult if the Met didn't do what they wanted.

Relaunching a criminal investigation on the basis it would be more hassle to drop it feels ... unjust. If the Met are going to take up cudgels against Glinner for a few mean tweets and a phone-chucking, they should perhaps consider the number of women’s rights campaigners who have complained to them about the regular and plentiful death and rape threats they were getting from trans rights activists. In most of these cases the Met did not launch criminal proceedings, let alone do a reverse ferret when it might be suggested they were going to get complained about.

Throughout my career I have met dozens of people charged with criminal offences. It is a very serious situation. A prosecution can ruin your life. A conviction is much worse. A decision to set the process in motion (with no control over how to stop it or where it ends) is a big deal. But the Met saw fit to do it over Linehan's tweets and an admitted rash act which may or may not have caused £369 worth of damage. That's potentially understandable, but there are many people who can tell you far greater crimes have been ignored by the same police force. Why the inconsistency? Is it that the police supports a particular ideology over another?

Of course not.

So there you go. I wouldn't do anything with what I've told you above until I've seen the source documents and reported this properly, but I wouldn't tell you the above in verbatim quotes unless I had been assured by a reliable source they were all true.

Best regards, Nick

This is the GenderBlog newsletter. If you have been forwarded it and would like to join the mailing list so each newsletter and GenderBlog blog post drops, freshly-baked, directly into your email inbox, please consider making a small donation via the donate page on my GenderBlog website. Thanks.

© Nick Wallis 2025

Gender Blog | Unsubscribe