9 September, 2025
First of all, a disclaimer.
Nothing I say in the following piece is to be interpreted, or imply, that I in any way support acts of violence, race hatred, discrimination or exhortation to use anything other than a peaceful expression of one’s views.
Following on from my last letter explaining the dangers of working with/on social media in the UK, I was preparing a new piece when news of Graham Linehan’s arrest came through.
Linehan is a well-known Irish comedy writer and anti-transgender activist. He created or co-created the sitcoms Father Ted, Black Books, The IT Crowd and Count Arthur Strong. On his arrival at Heathrow airport last week he was arrested by five armed police (OK, at LHR the police are armed, but the local plod could have sent a copper on a bike from the local nick to go and meet and greet him).
We are in danger of using the process as the punishment when flimsy cases are not proceeded with.
What is even more concerning is the fact that the comments Graham Linehan made were made whilst he was in the US (Arizona). He is an Irish citizen and was arrested in the UK for an alleged crime apparently committed in the USA.
As a NZ citizen, this concerns me about what I can write, either in the UK or in NZ. The US is taking a very dim view of this application of the law and it has been noted at a very high level (VP, Mr. Vance).
For the avoidance of doubt below is the comment made by Mr Linehan, and I in no way agree, disagree or condone it, but report it as a matter of record.
The post, from his X feed, said: “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.” Linehan is a professional comedy scriptwriter, and this was meant as a joke. In my opinion, it would have been funnier and more hard hitting (am I allowed to say hard hitting?) if the last phrase were “punch HER in the balls”.
Moving on to other matters in the UK that are definitely laughable.
Tomorrow sees the start of the process of electing a new deputy leader of the Labour party following the ‘resignation’ of the incumbent Angela Rayner from her post and also from her position of Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
It is interesting if we look at recent resignations of Labour party members from the Keir Starmer government.
Angela Rayner
The housing and communities secretary, as well as the deputy prime minister, resigned on Friday in the biggest exit yet for Starmer’s Government.
Rayner stood down after the prime minister’s ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, found she had breached the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on an £800,000 seaside flat, even though Magnus said she had “acted with integrity and with a dedicated and exemplary commitment to public service”.
Rushanara Ali
The homelessness minister resigned after it emerged tenants of a property she owns, who had not had their lease renewed because she planned to sell the property, had seen the same property back up for let with a substantial rent increase shortly afterwards.
Her spokesperson said the property had been put up for sale and the tenants offered the chance to stay until that process ended. But Ali said she stepped down to avoid “becoming a distraction” from the government’s work.
Andrew Gwynne
Sacked as a health minister and suspended from the party after it emerged he had sent messages in which he said he hoped a pensioner who did not support him would die before the next round of elections and made racist and sexist comments – including some about Angela Rayner and Diane Abbott.
Louise Haigh
Haigh resigned after it emerged she had pled guilty to a fraud offence after wrongly reporting a mobile phone being stolen to the police. Haigh was told to resign by No. 10 for a possible breach of the ministerial code.
Sources said she had declared the conviction to Starmer upon becoming a shadow minister in 2020.
But a No. 10 source said they did not believe she had been fully transparent and that her departure was more to do with that than with the original offence.
Tulip Siddiq
The anti-corruption minister resigned over claims that her family ties to her aunt Sheikh Hasina – the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh accused of corruption – were harming the government.
While an investigation found no evidence Siddiq had broken any rules, it was suggested she could have been more alive to the reputational risks. She resigned, saying that to stay would have been a “distraction from the work of the government”.
Source: the Guardian 5 September, 2025
The trial of Labour MP Tulip Siddiq over corruption allegations has formally begun in Bangladesh.
The former minister did not attend the hearing, where investigators from the country’s corruption watchdog set out the case against her and 20 other individuals, including her aunt, her mother, her brother and her sister.
She is accused of influencing her aunt Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted as Bangladesh’s prime minister last year, to secure a plot of land in a suburb of the capital Dhaka for her family members.
The MP for Hampstead and Highgate, who denies the allegations, said the “so-called trial” was “a farce” built on “fabricated accusations and driven by a clear political vendetta”.
Hasina fled Bangladesh for India last August after being ousted amid a crackdown by government forces on student-led protests which saw hundreds killed.
A copy of the case alleges that whilst she was a serving MP Ms Siddiq “forced and influenced her aunt and the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina using her special power to secure [a plot of land] for her mother Rehana Siddiq, sister Azmina Siddiq and brother Radwan Siddiq”.
As per Bangladeshi law, if an individual has any plot or flat in or around Dhaka, they are not permitted to receive any plot in the lucrative Purbachal project, prosecutors said.
Source BBC News, 13 August, 2025.
I don’t think I need to say more, but there is a similarity between the government positions they held and the type of allegations made against them.
I won’t comment on the above but just show the information as a matter of fact.
