The Arrest of Graham Linehan—Everything That Stinks
Brass tacks of Britain's latest free speech scandal.
We’ve seen yet another speech arrest that has utterly shamed our nation.
Yesterday, Irish comedian and Father Ted-creator Graham Linehan revealed that upon arriving to Heathrow airport from the United States, five armed officers from the Aviation Security Operational Command Unit arrested him.
His suspected crime? Three tweets. The worst of which said that if a trans-identified female (a biological male) committed abuse or violence in a female-only space, “call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls”.
Another post read, “a photo you can smell” attached with an image of a pro-trans protest and “I hate them. Misogynists and homophobes (likely referring to certain radical trans activists). F*ck em”.
To be clear: Graham is an Irish national living in the U.S. He was arrested for tweets he posted four months ago, from foreign soil.
After five officers detained him, they seized his belt, bag, and devices.
The Metropolitan Police, which controls the Aviation Security Operational Command Unit at Heathrow, later confirmed the reason. They suspected him of intentionally stirring up hatred, under Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.
This is an “either way” offence that can be tried either in the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court.
On summary conviction in the Magistrates’ Court, the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine. If the case proceeds to the Crown Court, Graham could face seven years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
That’s if the Crown Prosecution Service—led by Stephen Parkinson, a chief prosecutor known for backing Black Lives Matter and promoting “anti-racist” authors—prosecutes Graham.
Magistrates first determine if the seriousness of the offence exceeds their sentencing powers. If they conclude it does, the case is automatically sent to the Crown Court.
If a magistrate accept jurisdiction, the defendant has the right to choose whether to be tried by magistrates or to elect for a jury trial in the Crown Court.
Many might not know but the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Public Order Act 1986 to include offences of “stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation”. It came into force in 2010.
Gordon Brown, Tony Blair’s former understudy, was Prime Minister when the amendments were passed and added.
Of course, the curious part is that Graham did not reference any sexual orientation in his posts. He was referencing men who claim to be women—decisively not a matter of sexual orientation but gender.
So if this goes to trial, the Met Police and CPS may end up with egg on their face. Unless a judge also misreads or misapplies the law, as has happened many times before.
In the police interview, which Graham released a recording of today, officers used pro-trans language. As he recalled:
He (a male police officer) mentioned “trans people”. I asked him what he meant by the phrase. “People who feel their gender is different than what was assigned at birth.” I said “Assigned at birth? Our sex isn’t assigned.” He called it semantics, I told him he was using activist language.
At one point, Graham’s stress pushed his blood pressure past 200—stroke territory. A nurse was called, he was taken to hospital, where he was kept under observation for eight hours.
But the worse part was yet to come.
To secure bail, the Metropolitan Police gave Graham an ultimatum. One that most people in Britain, or anywhere in the West, would likely not consider lawful.
They declared he could be released if he promised not to post on X while the case was ongoing.
In short, they arrested him at an airport like a terrorist, locked him in a cell like a criminal, and silenced him like a dissident, under threat of being held on remand for an extended period—all because a comedian made jokes, statements, comments, whatever you want to call it, online.
To understand the culture that allowed such blatant free speech rights violations, we need not look any further than the Met’s current chief, Sir Mark Rowley (of course he’s already a Sir).
He’s faced serious criticism for authoritarian and reckless behaviour.
Among his past actions? Rowley was filmed grabbing a journalist’s microphone and reportedly breaking it after being asked a question about “two-tier policing”, recklessly branding a group of protestors as “far right” with next to no evidence, and even seemingly threatening foreign nationals with arrest over online posts—something he has since sadly made good on.
Notably, Rowley and his team haven’t arrested Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Despite the fact he not only joked about pushing a Daily Mail columnist, Jan Moir, under a train but also Dutch politician Geert Wilders back in 2009.
In fairness to Streeting, he has condemned the arrest, suggesting that existing legislation is not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, he was also quick to deflect blame away from the Met Police.
As commentator Chris Rose wittily quipped on X, “Graham Linehan should have joked about pushing people ‘under a train’ like our Health Secretary, Wes Streeting”.
The Free Speech Union has today announced it will help Graham sue the Met for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and violating his free speech rights.
As for Britain, it’s hard to say anything other than, unlike Linehan’s actually arguably comical joke, we as a country have become a sick one.
They’ve kept pretty quiet about this but Starmer is currently pushing through new legislation that could make the sort of censorship Graham was subjected to more common.
His new Policing and Crime Bill introduces something called a "Respect Order". Police and potentially other authorities would apply for them through the courts.
Such an order can force someone to do or stop doing "anything described in the order." The threshold? Minimal. A judge simply needs to believe, on the balance of probabilities, that the person “has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”
So, in theory, police could persuade a judge that an online post caused someone “distress”. The poster could then be legally compelled to delete it, avoid the topic entirely, stay off social media, or even hand over their device passwords.
And to think Starmer had the temerity to say we have a long history of free speech in front of President Donald Trump nearly a month ago. Behind-the-scenes, he’s laying the groundwork to undermine what we have left of it.
If you want to see more of what Labour is up to:
Do you believe our best days lie ahead?
Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?
If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can (genuinely) make a real impact.
In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 120 million people on X. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up and put a dent the uniparty’s monopoly.
I doubt they care if they can actually prosecute him: the process *is* the punishment
Breaking...Irish Comedian brings Labour government to its knees !