Will the police now re-focus on crime?

[vladi]

The recent incident at Heathrow, when 5 armed police arrested  Graham Linehan for his tweet on X, makes many of us wonder about the priorities of the police

In  2024, just under 130,000 cars were reported stolen and many of these were shipped over seas or stripped for parts. At Felixstowe, Britain's busiest post, there is only a singe police officer who monitors out-going containers.  Going out of the post also was some of the 116,000 mobile phones stolen last year.

Then there's shop lifting.........

[Sephiroth]

So if I assault you, punch you in the balls, perhaps with permanent damage, you will tell everyone “bigger crime mate. Don’t worry about this guy “

sure 

culture war nonsense 

[vladi]

There's no comparison.

Linehan's tweet is, at worst, a "non-violent hate crime". What you have speculated  about is clearly a physical assault or GBH.

[Sephiroth]

Punching people in the balls in bathrooms is non-violent now is it? 
 

because that’s what  Linehan tweeted 

[malumbu]

It's standard procedure when a suspect arrives at the airport.

It was obviously a quiet news day.  And it wasn't funny what he said.  Why did he feel compelled to say anything at all?

We will let the adults sort it out, Chief Constables, Commissioners and the government.

[ianr]

53 minutes ago, vladi said:

The recent incident at Heathrow, when 5 armed police arrested  Graham Linehan for his tweet on X, makes many of us wonder about the priorities of the police

The Met Commisssioner is quoted in today's Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/03/met-police-chief-calls-for-review-of-law-after-graham-linehan-arrest

“Most reasonable people would agree that genuine threats of physical violence against an identified person or group should be acted upon by officers. Such actions can and do have serious and violent real-world implications.

“But when it comes to lesser cases, where there is ambiguity in terms of intent and harm, policing has been left between a rock and a hard place by successive governments who have given officers no choice but to record such incidents as crimes when they’re reported. Then they are obliged to follow all lines of inquiry and take action as appropriate.

“I don’t believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates and officers are currently in an impossible position. I have offered to provide suggestions to the Home Office on where the law and policy should be clarified.” [end]

In this case, even taking into account the "obliged to follow all lines of enquiry", I do wonder whether initial enquiry could have been satisfactorily conducted (and then maybe concluded)  without arrest.

Hopefully, whatever,  his input will help tuning the system.   There are circumstances that come to mind -- perceived over-enthusiasm of police in one force to crack down on travel during the early Covid days, or excessive reaction to a tweeter in earlier days -- where their responses have, after public reaction, shown signs of becoming better informed, restrained and regulated.  I think that'll likely always be a possible pattern.

 

[Moovart]

Wasn't he making an ironic remark?..after all if you have a punchable pair of balls, you probably shouldn't be in the women's loos.

I think we can agree that five armed police for such a remark on X by this man who, as far as I know, has never been considered a violent threat to anyone, was inappropriate and a worrying development about the policing of speech in this country.

[Sue]

46 minutes ago, Moovart said:

Wasn't he making an ironic remark?..after all if you have a punchable pair of balls, you probably shouldn't be in the women's loos.

I think we can agree that five armed police for such a remark on X by this man who, as far as I know, has never been considered a violent threat to anyone, was inappropriate and a worrying development about the policing of speech in this country.

I don't think they were armed specifically  to arrest him.

I think airport police are routinely armed?

However I agree the rest of it was absolutely ridiculous and completely out of proportion to the supposed "crime".

The Met commissioner had it right.

[malumbu]

It's standard procedure by all accounts.  Airports are very different to routine policing.  Obviously they may reconsider procedures particularly due to the negative publicity.

Sadly social media (and streaming) has facilitated fake news, mistruths, toxic behaviour and hate crime.

As for banter and irony, I know too well that what I think is a funny comment on this site may be misinterpreted.  Lineham has quite a long history of saying things that many will find offensive.

[Moovart]

26 minutes ago, Sue said:

I don't think they were armed specifically  to arrest him.

I think airport police are routinely armed?

However I agree the rest of it was absolutely ridiculous and completely out of proportion to the supposed "crime".

The Met commissioner had it right.

Being armed is very different. 

I know a couple of people erroneously stopped by armed police in London and it was extremely scary for them, much more so than being stopped by unarmed police.  One of them was given a leaflet afterwards to explain why armed police had the right to randomly stop and search them and their vehicle so that made everything alright!

So I don't think it should just be minimised by saying they all carry guns in that area so it was ok.  It was a ridiculous bit of policing which we clearly agree on.

 

 

 

[malumbu]

They carry guns at the airport.  It may not make it ok but that is a fact.  In France and America they all carry guns.

[ianr]

2 hours ago, Moovart said:

I think we can agree that five armed police for such a remark on X by this man who, as far as I know, has never been considered a violent threat to anyone, was inappropriate and a worrying development about the policing of speech in this country.

I'm not sure it's sensible  to presume any agreement from interlocutors, but if you do, then I do agree that it's the right thing to say so.

My own guess -- it's nothing more -- is that the officers were acting just to effect an arrest on arrival, as requested, quite possibly without any knowledge of the content of wretched tweet at all*, and that their being armed was absolutely incidental.  But I don't know any reliable facts.

I do think the turning up (5?) en masse to do so was possibly complacent and unthinking, if there was no reason to believe the arrestee was a threat.  If they had  been doing so for good reason, I guess they could have had at least one weapon trained at him, and had  him hands above head or on the ground in no time.  But I know no reliable facts of the incident whatsoever.  Perhaps they were Father Ted fans -- seriously -- and trogged along, on a quiet afternoon, to see the man himself.  Perhaps they and/or their CO will get a severe bollocking from above.  I don't know.

* But even that with some reservations.  The last time I looked up cases on wrongful arrest, years ago, I think I remember there being held then to be at least some onus on the acting arresting officer to be satisfied that  the required grounds for a lawful arrest  did exist.  And I don't know any of the facts of the present case. 

Edited 15 minutes ago by ianr
syntax corrs.