Marion Millar case discontinued!!!!!!

[Owwasme]

Shocking it went this far, but great news nonetheless!

link

[quote PostingForTheFirstTime]Article on the case in the Herald. Makes her sound like a really appalling person.

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19678238.prosecutors-discontinue-hate-crime-case-scots-feminist-marion-millar/?fbclid=IwAR3Gkr7OojwoebkxW5c0XcetQBZR1lxDBh35YWxN4aBfFN4uxvOV1p93OHA[/quote]
Sometimes it's hard to support her when she posts things like this, doxxing is never acceptable.

I meant that it's not dropped, Errol. If it had been she would be able to talk about it?

Though, clearly, IANAL

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

We don't know Felix.

And, because the case is still technically open I don't suppose she can talk about it.

Smart move, prosecutors.

We don't know what she said then - so she might have said something really bad and offensive.

I thought we knew what the tweets in question were? People thought that there might be more to it, but when Marion found out the charges a few weeks ago, it turned out it literally was just the 2 or 3 tweets that everyone originally knew about?

Yes, Felix the tweets might have been "really bad and offensive".

Only, Marion is a middle aged mother of four, as a group we are not usually known for nasty trolling online behaviour. Or for violence. Or for sex crimes. Plus, if you have a look at Marion's tweets, "really bad and offensive" would be quite a departure from her usual comments.

Unless women who are middle aged and direct and take no nonsense are inherently "bad and offensive"?

I think I've seen some of the tweets, and they were strong GC stuff, plus one about a child murderer that was taken out of context to make it sound like it was about a trans person.

It depends what you mean by "really bad and offensive"

If she has crossed the line into an offence - such as malicious communications or harassment - then it doesn't really matter if she is a middle aged mother of four, not usually known for nasty trolling online behaviour or for violence or for sex crimes.

If an offence has taken place then that offence has to be investigated and if there is sufficient evidence to pursue it to court by a prosecuting body (such as CPS) then that is the process.

@NotTerfNorCis

I think I've seen some of the tweets, and they were strong GC stuff, plus one about a child murderer that was taken out of context to make it sound like it was about a trans person.

It was particularly grim how those tweets about Alesha McPhail's murder were taken out of context and framed as being about trans people.

One would question why that has to be done, if there is so much awful material from Marion about trans people?

If an offence has taken place then that offence has to be investigated and if there is sufficient evidence to pursue it to court by a prosecuting body (such as CPS) then that is the process.

And it looks like there isn't, and given that any such evidence would have been published on a mass communications platform, it would be readily available.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

If an offence has taken place then that offence has to be investigated and if there is sufficient evidence to pursue it to court by a prosecuting body (such as CPS) then that is the process.

And it looks like there isn't, and given that any such evidence would have been published on a mass communications platform, it would be readily available.

Exactly - but that's for the court process to test and not the prosecution body. The prosecution only has to present a case to answer that meets a threshold test.

Its also depends on why the case was dropped. Discontinuance may mean that the prosecution witnesses are now not willing to attend court so their evidence has to be withdrawn.

If she has crossed the line into an offence - such as malicious communications or harassment

An extremely broad and catch all offence which seems to be rather disproportionately applied to people critical of gender identity ideology, rather than say, people who make death and rape threats to women they don't agree with.

The definition of mal comms is:

Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive, a threat or information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender.

So, if the message crosses into that definition then the offence is complete - regardless whether if it is critical of gender identity ideology or death and rape threats.

Thumping good article here by Joanna Williams on Spiked which lays out who Marion Millar is, what she did and what happened to her; the role of police; the tweeting of ribbons on a tree; the ordeal she endured; the support from women around the world; the dangers of so-called 'hate' laws and the pressure and the warnings to women not to say what we think, which we must reject and declare that women won't wheesht:

"The shameful treatment of Marion Millar

The police pursuit of this gender-critical feminist shows how fragile free speech is in Britain."

www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/28/the-shameful-treatment-of-marion-millar/

Link here:
www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/28/the-shameful-treatment-of-marion-millar/

The article says "....for this and other tweets Millar was charged"

What were these other tweets then - I'm guessing that these are the ones which have tipped the balance as apposed to the ribbons tweet.

And why can't 'one of the alleged victims' be a police officer?

The language used is a bit imprecise - "....And incredibly the police took the complaints seriously and treated the tweet as a hate crime"
The police receive a crime complaint from a member of the public. That gets investigated and the evidence gathered put before the prosecuting body (CPS). If this passes a threshold, then it is deemed that there is a case to answer at court.

You missed my point, Felix. I thought I had made it clear enough. Obviously not. Selective application of this extremely broad offence, garnished as "hate crime". Threatening anyone with murder is a crime. But time and time again the police have told women they should just log off and look away. Even more seriously credible threats. But they have pursued women for some frankly lame reasons.

then it is deemed that there is a case to answer at court.

Which there isn't, any more.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

You missed my point, Felix. I thought I had made it clear enough. Obviously not. Selective application of this extremely broad offence, garnished as "hate crime". Threatening anyone with murder is a crime. But time and time again the police have told women they should just log off and look away. Even more seriously credible threats. But they have pursued women for some frankly lame reasons.

And you're missing my point. What are these 'other tweets' mentioned? How far into the offence does this go? And can you give me some examples of where the police have told people to look away when murder threats have been made? And if that is the case, do we use that as a bench mark not to prosecute anyone for this offence ever again?

And again, it depends on what the discontinuance was for as to why or if there is a case to answer still at court.

”If she has crossed the line into an offence - such as malicious communications or harassment.”
— An extremely broad and catch all offence which seems to be rather disproportionately applied to people critical of gender identity ideology, rather than say, people who make death and rape threats to women they don't agree with.

Yes. And I’m so glad the police don’t have any real crimes to investigate, such as violence actually carried out against women. If those crimes ever happened, they might distract police from their important work of stopping women offending men.