Can someone explain the Miranda Yardley prosecution?

[MrsFogi]

I've seen lots of threads about this in Twitter however I am not entirely clear about the case and would like to be so that I can raise in in RL conversations.
From what I understand (and please do let me know if I am right or fill in more detail):

• MY was charged with Harassment (I don't think that transphobic harassment is a "thing"?)
• The harassment was about publishing photos of a Mermaids' employee's child (or was there more listed? Where was the publication - twitter only or elsewhere)

There you go. This is the case as it unravels. Enjoy.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3521122-Miranda-in-court

Thanks IDoN0tCare I've seen that but still don't "get" the underlying charges and evidence/arguments that were presented by the prosecution.

I've seen that but still don't "get" the underlying charges and evidence/arguments that were presented by the prosecution.

Neither did the judge.

MrsFogi I haven't seen anything concrete about what Miranda was accused of beyond 'tweets'

twitter.com/joaniwalshi/status/1101509848515125248

I found this tweet

twitter.com/ScouseJayne/status/967309651955060736

also here

twitter.com/parkertrondelta/status/965221365082140673

I don't really know what Miranda specifically was involved with, except that variously I recall:

• a link to the photoshoot Helen had done about her son's transformation being linked to on Twitter (referenced in the second link there - the photoshoot appeared in an image search for Helen Islan as the images were named something like 'helen_islan.jpg' and the blurb said 'my cousin' and 'Helen' and the (real) name of the son). This was not first linked to by Miranda but it seems that possibly Miranda linked to it there? I also imagine that Miranda would have used Helen's full name, which Helen originally had on her Twitter account for several years but later removed the surname.

• at one point Helen's child's posts on thestudentroom were screenshotted on twitter (minus identifying details) in that they contradicted what Helen was saying publicly about puberty blockers. At some point after this I think said child actually was encouraged by Mum to post on Twitter (using a new account) that they didn't mean what they said on the studentroom, or to stop using it against Helen or something like that? The child's twitter account was quite shortlived basically a few people engaged (including I think Lily Maynard?) and then said 'wait you're 13? sorry i'm not talking to you, this is not appropriate'.

I don't know if Miranda was or was not involved with retweeting about the child.

Those are basically the two things that I can think of that Helen got upset, and she may have cited neither, one nor both against Miranda.

No wait I think I DO recall.

AIR Helen had a Pinterest account, and Miranda tweeted the family photo off there.

See this status:

twitter.com/bespinuk/status/967319803764625408

i.e. Helen Islan's profile photo.

Quiet - is that Twitter account the same as the erstwhile FWR poster Bespin? (I say erstwhile because I've not seen them on here for a while, tho I'm terrible at spotting name changers)

As I understand it (no first hand knowledge).

Helen Islan works for Mermaids. She is regularly on twitter geeing on very creepy characters to attack anyone who is GC. She makes some pretty unpleasant comments herself, including to GC transwomen about them not being real women, being perverts etc.

Miranda Yardley (a transwoman) had the temerity to refer to Helen's transdaughter as male and to link to an article by Helen online which featured her child.

Helen reported Miranda for doxxing (revealing personal information) and harassment. For some bizarre reason the CPS prosecuted- leading to the irony of a transwoman in court for transphobic harassment of a woman.

The judge pointed out that the doxing was merely a link to Helen's own article and the harassment was using descriptions Helen herself had used about Miranda. The case was dismissed with no case to answer (indicating there was never a crime- rather than a mere not guilty). The judge found the CPS's conduct to be so egregious that he awarded costs to Miranda (v.unusual).

[Please do correct me where I have made any errors FWR]

twitter.com/EuLexit/status/967307189269430272

I can't recall details but something like Miranda either inadvertently re-tweeted a pic of the child (a thumbnail), or deliberately re-tweeted something without knowing their age.

Islan and a bunch of TRAs instantly leapt on it as a gotcha.

I have no idea what would occupy two hours of cross examination though.

But whatever it was that Islan was objecting to, the magistrate disagreed.

I imagine it was a series of screenshots of Miranda disagreeing with Islan and saying why.

Also Islan had previously enlarged and posted a photo of one of Posie's sons, that was in the background of one of the videos Posie had done. Which is a hell of a difference from MY posting their photo, which had been part of an article Inlan and kid took part in for a daily news site, I think.

The judge's eyes rolled when it was revealed that the main prosecution witness had blocked Miranda on Twitter, but a third party had told her about the 'offending' tweets.

The charges were for such things as harrassment and malicious communication ..... and this was supposed to be her evidence.

Do you think that CPS put this nonsense before the magistrates and into the public domain, deliberately? I suspect that they did.

Miranda tweeted a link to an article Helen herself had written.
Helen took her to caught for transphobic' harassment.
Everyone looked on in horror at a TRA playing the system over hurt feelings.

Court*

It mad no sense because it was senseless.

Helen thought she would be anonymous and use this as a way of getting Miranda some bad press.
The Judge saw right through it.

My thanks to the OP for asking the question in the first place: I was confused, too, and to the posters who took the time to answer the question constructively.

Glad to see the judge / magistrate understood the issue and dismissed the case.

Do you think that CPS put this nonsense before the magistrates and into the public domain, deliberately? I suspect that they did.

I too think this. The fact the Police: I’ve read it’s West Yorkshire, took this complaint seriously, is so pathetic. The CPS must be utterly fed up with such lunacy and I’m sure they saw this as some kind of Test Case.

Do you think that CPS put this nonsense before the magistrates and into the public domain, deliberately?

Yes, it seems likely. This is a very public embarrassment to the police that put it forward and to the CPS. I would imagine internal review meetings are held as standard about cases thrown out like this and where CPS went wrong in putting them forward? I can't see the CPS putting themselves in the firing line by accident when, as so many have pointed out, they won't put forward serious evidenced cases because they don't feel they're likely enough to go through. So there must be a reason they need the evidence that cases like this do not stand up in a court room. Really, seriously, as in case dismissed and costs awarded do not stand up.

Actually re reading what I just put, it's obvious isn't it?

The CPS are needing hard evidence that their decisions are not influenced by 'transphobia'. Whether they need that to defend themselves against complaints from internal voices, voices above them, or to stand up to the accusations of the TRA lobbies I don't know.