Marion Millar

Suggest people don't engage further with MargaritaPie. This is an ongoing court case.

Marion's tweets about her arrest and the police officer are still there on her Twitter account.

I see no ''hate'' or ''phobia'', I see a woman who was terrified of being arrested because she didn't want to leave her disabled children, and she was scared she'd be held for the weekend away from them, being as it was a bank holiday.

Funny how people are so sure of her ''hatred'' and ''phobia'' (despite having no proof), yet have nothing to say about the real, actual hate and threats being directed at her. Her son was doxxed, threatened, Marion has been threatened, a Uni student posed with guns implying he was going to shoot her. And now some utter creep has photographed her disabled children getting into their carer's car, and has threatened to burn Marion and the children alive in their sleep.

And they don't even know what she's supposed to have done wrong. We see where the real hate is coming from. We fucking see you, misogynist MRA's.

All I will say is that Lily Maynard's blog and 'the curious case of Marion Millar' is your friend here.

"You might want to pop it along side the tweets such as the one wanting to burn her children in their beds."

Wasn't aware of that. Are there screenshots?

"Tweets so inoffensive that they didn't even breach twitter rules grin"

You should be on her legal team and be defending her in court

MM's supporters are making this case out to be a case of "against her human rights" or "against women" or "criminalising her for what she thinks" or things like that. But she isn't charged for what she believes, she's charged for what she's actually done.

You've missed out the word allegedly in there, as usual you are presuming guilt on the basis of being charged, thank fuck you are not in charge of the Justice system - being charged with any offence does not mean you are guilty of it, even offences as hideous as murder, evidence has to be supplied that proves your guilt and that is decided by the Court, not you, not me, not random mobs on Twitter.

You @MargaritaPie can't seem to comprehend that whatever Marion has been charged with may not actually turn out to be an offence at all, as I said thank fuck you are not in charge of the Justice system.

Do screenshot and evidence all this.

You might want to pop it along side the tweets such as the one wanting to burn her children in their beds.

Then we can talk about what malicious communications look like, and who should be in court. Because otherwise it's just massive double standards to disguise how this is actually not about malicious communications at all, it's about silencing women.

Maybe it is the ribbon, which is not linked to any 'sign' except in a Saussurian sense, but is captioned mentioning the workplace of the individual.

The 'witchs' (they're not real witches, kiddies) are holding up a 'sign.'

Who knows? But it's one or the other, not both, not the other rude comments about sex offenders, but, amazingly, two charges relating to the precious copper who was traumatised by someone commenting on her online profile which she uploaded.

The Scotsman article says the charges include "allegedly behaved in a threatening or abusive manner" in public, disclosing where a named person was working and identifying/posting false info about an officer.

No it doesn't.
www.scotsman.com/news/crime/marion-millar-scots-woman-appears-in-court-accused-of-sending-homophobic-and-transphobic-tweets-3365741

Broadly the charges relate to behaving in a threatening / abusive manner & posting homophobic / transphobic abuse.

Specifically:

It is claimed Millar posted a photograph on social media of a sign where a named Scots actor was working at the time

She retweeted a picture of a suffragette ribbon on a fence next to a road near the River City studios.

The charge alleges Millar disclosed personal information relating to a female police constable on social media.

She posted a publically available and actively promoted puff piece about the female constable.

Millar is further claimed to have communicated on social media about the officer, which contained false information.

It has been suggested that the officers involvement in this case is not unrelated to Police Scotland's relationship with Stonewall and this police officers relationship with the Police Scotland LGBT org.

The offence is said to have been aggravated by prejudice related to sexual orientation.

The individual who complained about the "noose" is gay. The police officer involved is lesbian.

"The complaint was that the ribbon looked like a noose."

Did the complainant actually say that?

It was the reporting at the time.

My understanding was that the picture of the ribbon was accompanied by a reference to the place the Scottish actor was working. The complaint was that the ribbon looked like a noose. So unless I'm mistaken, the charge relating to the ribbon still stands (along with the other two charges relating to what Millar is alleged to have tweeted about the police officer).

she's charged for what she's actually done.

You're familiar with the burden of proof being on the prosecution? She is innocent until the point that she is found guilty, this is a cornerstone of British law.

I would have thought the police esp in Glasgow would be well used to nasty comnents from people they have nicked?

Fans of Traffic Cops and Police Interceptors will be aware of how impolite and potty-muthed the criminal fraternity can be.

"It is claimed Millar posted a photograph on social media of a sign where a named Scots actor was working at the time."

This would appear to be the 'witches' photo.

She asked for the trial to be put back so she could have time to read up her European human rights (or something like that).

She was told the charges and given 10 minutes to respond. Do you think 10 minutes in court (so can't speak to lawyer i private) is adequate in order to respond to criminal charges? I think it is shocking and in no way just.

The trial wasn't put back so she can read up, the court are needing to sit first to de ide whether by placing the charges at all they are breeching her fundamental human rights.

She asked for the trial to be put back so she could have time to read up her European human rights (or something like that). I'm not sure how that can help her for allegedly identifying/saying untruthful things about an officer on social media?

Joanna Cherry, who is acting on her behalf asked for things to put back as until that court date she didn't know what the charges were. They will in addition be arguing that the case is against her human rights

All charges relating to the ribbon appear to have been dropped.

Are you referring to this?

"It is claimed Millar posted a photograph on social media of a sign where a named Scots actor was working at the time."

Links are in the old thread, somewhere.

Stripe is one of many legitimate payment gateways that provide the service of credit and debit card payment processing.

These companies charge a fee to the recipient of the money. Any credit card interest is between the cardholder and their card provider.

If I use my Bank X credit card to buy something from Shop Y via Stripe, Stripe charges Shop Y a fee. The interest rate is a matter between Bank X and myself and has nothing to do with Stripe or Shop Y.

If I use my Bank Z debit card instead, the fee Stripe charges Shop Y is the same.

Likewise, if I buy something from a shop with physical notes and coins, the shop may pay a security company to perform a cash collection service in order to get the cash deposited into a bank account.