and I thought oh it's over - then he came back [3rd vid - i instinctively grabbed it I put it behind my back - he looked furious so I threw it across the road and said "there's your fucking phone" [DC goes back to unpick this] DC did you think he wanted a reasonable discussion

GL no their mantra is literally no debate [reveals: "I once actually had a secret meeting with Stonewall where they tried to persuade me men were women, women were men and I just couldn't buy it"]

DC going back to the phone throwing incident - could you have moved away? GL what was I going to do - run away DC why grab his phone - GL to stop him DC why not take his phone GL because that would be theft DC why not give it back GL that would seem like surrender

DC why throw it GL it was actually the first time he backed off so it was quite nice DC did you want to damage it GL no

DC how hard did you throw it - GL not hard - just skimmed it across the road DC was it an act of revenge GL no it was instinctive - "in fact as soon as I did it - I thought - that's a mistake"

DC what happened GL he followed us for about 20 minutes saying he had destroyed my phone and eventually we got a police officer to talk to him so we could move on without him. I wish we had then reported him for harassment [GL now talking about his lack of trust in the police..

... references DS TW calling him a trans-activist - and that he was asked what he was assigned at birth when he was recently arrested on the info from another TRA - he says the police are working with TRAs and taking advice from them DC is there a conspiracy here GL no - the cops

... just don't understand this. DC you were interviewed in Feb voluntarily GL yes DC and you were charged GL yes - we submitted a 400 page doc on SB [?] to the cops they decided in one day they weren't going to pursue it. It took them...

... two weeks to decide to charge me. DC you said the police are doing their job in hoc with TRAs GL yes DC am I? GL without knowing it DC so I'm subsumed in this GL you're using female pronouns for men, so yes

[SORRY!!! THE ABOVE TWEET WAS ALL P - GL is NOW BEING CROSS-EXAMINED AND THE Q's ABOVE WERE Prosecuting Counsel P]

GL the police are an absolute joke for the way they've followed this idelogy P you've spoken at BoI before 2024 GL yes P there are talks of you at the Battle of Ideas on the internet GL yes

P before the event they publish a programme GL yes P so the images of the people speaking at these talks are not private GL yeah P so someone speaking at BoI is harassment GL not necessarily - but SB was filming the attendees too

P well you say that GL he was! it's in the video P is it wrong to take images of attendees at an event GL depends on the context - he was trying to ruin peoples' lives P is publishing attendees of an event okay GL why would you want to do that?

P is it okay GL it might not be P is it harassment to take video of people at the BoI event GL it might be P who published photos of BoI attendees online GL well I published photos of him

P you posted a 3m video online which pans round showing BoI attendees GL yes P who took that video GL Julie Bindel took one and someone else took the other P so she was filming attendees GL not to try to get them to punch her

P she filmed it, you posted it - that's okay if you do it is it GL she was filming a person trying to disrupt an event P did you have permission to post up the images of those attendees? GL no

P so you accept it's okay to do it GL not if you are using a camera to try to intimidate people

[Tech time... we're aiming to watch a video]

[P asks GL to listen really carefully to the BoI internal confrontation video between Kate Harris (KH) and SB.]

GL is this where SB keeps telling people to fuck off P just listen [sadly the sound is not working] [yet]

[not working yet] P did you listen to this video before it was posted on the internet GL yes P did you listen to what's being sasid GL yes

J - do we have a transcript? P the defence transcript doesn't have this part of it. [okay we have sound] P do you hear SB saying "you came up to me and took a photo of me" GL he's lying P he's lying? GL yes - as soon as people on the panel started mentioning trans people

he started taking photos. P so it's not possible GL it might be [there is a bit of back and forth about whether KH approached SB twice - the pronouns between P and GL are all over the place and GL gets confused as to who we are talking about - P says she will revert to Ms Brooks]

P when Ms Brooks says that "you took a photo of may" - that may have been true GL sure, but that's not compared to walking around aggressively and threatening to send photos of them to their employers P did that happen?

P was she saying that? GL no - but it's how he operates in the group I'm in I know he's contacted employers calling people paedophiles and bigots P has she ever done that to you? GL might have - through a sock account

[there's an epic pronoun-off happening in an argument about what SB is or isn't doing - P's argument is that SB was photographed first. GL says he was TOLD SB was photographing photo]

[sample: P so was "SHE" doing so-and-so-and-so? GL no, "HE" was doing so-and blah P but "SHE" was not doing blah]

P there are much more disruptive things SB could have done GL of course - she didn't get naked or set the place on fire P but you say it was harassment - taking photos. GL yes P what is harassment GL in this case taking photos with the intention to doxx them or tell..

... their employers. P so basically H is whatever transactivists do that you don't like GL no but this is their playbook - harassment and doxxing - where are those photos going? no one's ever seen them - you'd think he worked for Reuters the way he talks about it

P you've never seen them GL no one has - he's using them as an implied threat. [P turns to SB convo with MM] P they were having a discussion about who was assaulted GL MM was assaulted, the guy was convicted P SB's assailant was convicted too - do you only believe people...

... on the GC side when they say they've been assaulted. GL MM is of good character. SB was being assisted by a disgraced ex policeman - so I trust the conviction of MM's assailant more.

[Long discussion about whether SB was at the QEII building at the time of the crickets attack - GL is convinced SB was there when it's I think been accepted by the court SB turned up at 1700 after the attack]

P you called SB disgusting, a groomer, an incel P SB disgusts you SB he bullies women - it is disgusting P incel? SB shut in people who don't have relationships

P the expression sissy=porn watching GL that was something I feel a little bit of regret about - because that was a guess. I think he does what he does is because he's a sadist. P there are all manner of insults you could have used GL yes P but you chose siss=porn

GL it's sissy-porn P you must be more familiar with it than me GL Oh I am - I really am [P calls SB female. GL asks her if she thinks SB really is female - asks her how P thinks SB can be female. J intervenes to tell him this is not what we are here to discuss and P is there...

... to ask questions. also admonishes the gallery for making noise] GL the problem is we're talking in two different realities - she seems to believe that men are actually female - and she's trying to make me out as a bigot J yes I know and it makes it quite hard to follow

... but we really are not here to discuss this. You're talking over each other. We need to calm it down and you must just answer your questions as best you are able. P asks about the language GL used re trans people GL says I don't know how many trans people you know - I have ...

... several trans friends and they hate this movement what these activists have done. [we are running out of court time - it looks like we'll be sitting late but not too late - however they want to get GL finished so he is allowed to talk to his lawyers after giving evidence...

... and there is an issue in that the next witness Kate Harris is moving country tomorrow, so her availability is limited today (though of course video-links do exist in the outside world that was not raised yet)] [The plan appears to be everyone have 5 mins to calm down...

... then finish GL and try to get KH done. Then set a date for the remainder of the trial. Which I wouldn't bet won't run into two more days]

[Please note GL speaks v quickly and fluently and I have missed a lot - this style of court reporting really only gives a flavour of what is happening - NOTHING is a direct quote unless in direct quotes]

[P resumes GL's x-e] P do you agree on 19 Oct you referred to a "17yo sociopath who think's he's a girl" GL I did, but I don't think he's 17 P you wrote "17yo sociopath on 19 Oct 2024" GL but at that stage I was going by his word - don't believe that now P But you did at the...

... time. GL yeah he's been in this a while tho P we have a driving licence with a birth date of 2007 GL and a female name - if you can lie about your name and sex you can lie about everything P when SB approached you outside the BoI do you agree she was asking you to account...

... for what you had said about her online GL yes P did she have the right GL yes and I have the right not to answer P you called her a domestic terrorist GL because of the attack at the LGBA P quite extreme GL yes P so they have the right to confront someone

GL sure P first time you she tried you called her a groomer etc GL yes P you didn't explain to her why you called her a DT GL no I didn't P by the time we get to the final time do you agree she still had the right to ask you GL yes - right to do anything short of crim activity

P did she have the right to film your response GL yeah, but not to constantly follow me around P you were asked why you grabbed the phone and said to stop him doing it GL yes P you didn't feel threatened GL no P and she had a right to ask you these q's and film the response

GL yes P wasn't committing a crime was she GL no - he's v careful P no justification for taking the phone GL there is - I had been harassed all day, and it was a reactive instinct - I thought we'd have an interaction and then I could get on with my night. P you said you threw...

... the phone like a stone GL it was more like a frisbee P in throwing the phone were you aware there was a risk it might be damaged GL I wanted it out of my face P were you angry GL yes P did you want to damage SB's phone GL no - that's why I skimmed it

P you've talked about various things Brooks had done in the past - that's your mindset - did you think SB deserved to be harassed? GL I think my friends in the feminist movement deserve to talk to discuss their rights without people disrupting them and have a right to know...

... that abusive men are in the area. P when you were posting about her online was it to get back at her GL no it was purely to warn people about him and know his face P do agree someone who appears argumentative can still have feelings GL yes P feelings of alarm and distress

GL yes but we have seen precisely no evidence of this in all the evidence. We only see the alarm and distress he causes in other people P you posted to 500k followers and SB was not responding GL not as far as I am aware. "he prefers to bully women"

P you didn't call the police or make a crime report GL yes because the police are captured - they believe men are women people can change sex they issue wanted posters of people in the wrong sex, they are errand boys for these men

P so when you tagged in the Met Police you didn't think they'd do anything then GL no but I wanted to put them under pressure P the way you tagged the police was not a way to report crime GL no but when I reported a credible death threat to the police from FW they did nothing

P did you see SB post anything to suggest she was involved in the crickets attack on the LGBA confy GL no P do you have any evidence [GL draws his connection between SJB, FW and SB and the crickets] P so they were photographed after committing the crime and didn't run away...

... when the police were called. GL no they were enjoying the moment too much. P wearing badges to blend in is not a unique MO is it GL no P so the teenagers in there could have come up with it by themselves

GL yes P there's no rational basis at all for thinking Brooks was involved in the insect attack GL he was there, he knew a lot about the insect attacks by the lesbian group in the past, he infiltrates events - it's circumstantial evidence sure, but it points towards his knowledge

[P is taking GL through his tweets about SB again - the pronoun-off appears to have been unconsciously resolved by both P and GL calling SB "Brooks"]

[It's actually made for a calmer atmosphere]

P you tweet "does anyone know this man?" - with a phot of SB, so you're still asking for information about Ms Brooks GL yes [commentator's curse]

P then you post an image of Ms Brooks and Freda Wallace GL yeah that's Brooks and Wallace P so when you post Brooks and Wallace - that's another photo of Brooks GL yeah I wanted to show the connection with FW - I wanted people to remember his face so he wouldn't be able to...

... trick women and harass them. P where did you find it GL might have been sent it might have found it myself on FW account [we are just going through tweets of GL's - I think P's point is the volume of them...? There's a lot of agreeing going on]

P did you think it true SB had harassed gay man GL yes - we had a 400 page dossier in which his sock accounts went after gay men P police took no action tho didn't they GL yes they did - I am pretty sure the size of it was no interest to police we should have reduced the size

P could it be that there was not sufficient evidence of harassment GL they all came from his sock accounts which he has mostly accepted operating P there is a tweet which says "so Tarquin is making the rounds again" and you reply "more info on Tarquin pictured"

- you know he is not called Tarquin GL yes it came from an event where he was harassing KJK at an LWS event and she said "that's enough Tarquin" and the name stuck P so it was a term of mockery GL yes

P in a reply you call SJB and SB scumbag homophobic sociopathic sadists - did you mean SB GL I meant SB - that group of men and all TRAs P so you think all TRAs are scumbag homophobic sociopatic sadists GL yes