Scottish woman told would be charged for homophobic and transphobic tweets

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

twitter.com/millar_marion/status/1396039074239164423?s=19

On Wednesday April the 28th 2021 I received a call from a PC Laura Daley from police scotland requesting i attend an interview for homophobic and transphobic tweets under the milacious communications act.

I was asked to attend that coming Friday, she told me I had to attend East Kilbride police station so I could be then transported to Cathcart police station in a police car because I would have to go to a police station where there is holding cells, I would be then processed, questioned and then most likely charged.

I told her I would not be attending any interview on that day especially with it being a bank holiday weekend because my autistic twins needed me and I was scared I would be held all weekend.

To this she told me she would attend my house with social workers for my boys.

I contacted a solicitor straight away and he was unable to get PC Daley so for the first bank holiday in May I sent my disabled twins away for fear of this officer carrying out this threat.

This absolute nonsense has been hanging over my head for a month, I can barely sleep
or eat and I still don't know what the offending tweet is, my new interview has been scheduled for Thursday the 27th May, I will find out what I am supposed to have said at that point and if I will be indeed charged, again at another bank holiday, I just want to say, anyone who knows me, knows I am not homophobic or transphobic, I am a hard working mummy who would fight to the end for the safety and dignity of women and girls and for my vulnerable twinnies.

If we sit back and do nothing we will regret it for ever. For this reason I will never
Wheesht.

#WomenWontWheesht

@Rhannion

Women in Scotland need your help please. It was bound to come to this because of the ridiculous hate crime bill and we cannot sit by and allow hard won freedoms to be trampled over and freedom of speech outlawed.

I don't think this is the HCB - that isn't yet in force, afaik? I think this is the malicious comms act.

Charge is malicious communication with hate crime aggravator.
twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1400421586319122437?s=19

• which applies to the UK as a whole, I think.

Fair point. I’ll do it.

Thanks, pure. And yes, cheers, ItsAll.

This applies to all women in the UK, then, not just Scotland.

Presumably pursuing this sort of thing is a lot easier for them, than actually catching criminals.

Are Brunel Stonewall Champions by any remote chance?

www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Brunel-leaps-up-into-top-300-of-Stonewalls-top-300-LGBT-friendly-employers

If you only do one SexMatters letter send it here. Let's get a bagful of letters in the post.

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1398655322760400899?s=21

Do we even know what the tweets were?

Pretty sure Police Scotland are too...

But of course that Brunel uni student has a gofund me

Good idea FannyCann, deluge the bastards with letters and demand a reply to each and every one.

Just reading about Malicious Communications (the punishment for which can be an unlimited fine or two year prison sentence ) and it's pretty fucking terrifyingly Orwellian. The last sentence in particular is literally chilling. And ALL of it surely pertains more to that odious wee fuck with his toy guns.

So fucking angry.

Potential Offences Under The Malicious Communications Act 1988
Under this area of law, communication is defined as any person who sends a letter, electronic communication or article of any description to another person which conveys the following:

A message that is indecent or grossly offensive
A threat
Information that is false and is known or believed to be false by the sender
This also includes any article or electronic communication that is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature.

The above only applies if the sender’s purpose, or one of their purposes, was to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The mental state of the sender is a key element of the offence and the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, they must make the court or jury sure that a person intended, or one of their intentions was, to cause distress or anxiety.

A person found guilty could face a prison term not exceeding two years on indictment or up to 12-month custody at the Magistrates’ Court.

Potential Offences Under The Communications Act 2003
Offences that fall under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 include the following:

A person sending any public electronic communications network a message or other content that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character
A person causes any such message or content to be sent
A person can also be found guilty of an offence under the Communications Act if they intend to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another by:

sending a message that is known to be false via a public electronic communications network;
causing such a message to be sent; or
persistently making use of a public electronic communications network
Similar to offences under the Malicious Communications Act, one offence under the Communication Act 2003 requires the content of a message to be ‘grossly offensive’, ‘indecent’, ‘obscene’ or of a ‘menacing character’. However, the mental element of the offence is broader as it includes circumstances where a person should have awareness or recognition that sending the message may create insult or a risk of insult to the person to whom the message relates.

A message that is indecent or grossly offensive
A threat
Information that is false and is known or believed to be false by the sender
This also includes any article or electronic communication that is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature.

The above only applies if the sender’s purpose, or one of their purposes, was to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient

If that is the case I really can't see Marion has anything to worry about.

Well, we don't know what Tweets or messages the police are referring to in Marion Millar's case.

But I can see that act covering the gun pictures.

Kavanagh's thread about how Pride Month is going for women:

Pride day 3, a change for us all to mourn the fact that casual threats of violence against women from gun obsessed lonely [X] are now apparently an unquestioned part of the LGBT movement. This is not normal or healthy, we have a lot of work to do it seems.

twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1400403094580649984

[X] is my edit because Mumsnet and I'm unsure of status of [X]

I don’t think most people know what the Tweets were, does anyone know the nature of them? Obviously don’t repeat them here as they may get Marion into more trouble. Was Marion stating Biological facts for instance?

@HermioneWeasley

Do we even know what the tweets were?

Might it be that they cannot be shared at present until the case comes to court? Otherwise there would inevitably be trial by public opinion.

Nobody seems to know, Lizzie. The police hadn't said.

If that is the case I really can't see Marion has anything to worry about.

Kate Scottow was convicted under the Malicious Communications Act for some relatively mild tweets. (Though the conviction was later overturned.)

That particular Act was designed for a different age - it is really not appropriate for Twitter. If everybody who wrote offensive stuff on Twitter was charged under the Act, the judicial system wouldn't be able to cope.

Is that the same Act used against Kate Scottow?

@Melroses

Is that the same Act used against Kate Scottow?

Yes - cross posted

According to the violence-threatening uni student’s bio, that person is a PhD student in Robotic Engineering. That homemade contraption could well be as lethal as a “real” gun.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

A message that is indecent or grossly offensive A threat Information that is false and is known or believed to be false by the sender This also includes any article or electronic communication that is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature.

The above only applies if the sender’s purpose, or one of their purposes, was to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient

If that is the case I really can't see Marion has anything to worry about.

But @Translorian might do.

Especially when you can so easily link their Twitter account to their LinkedIn account via the pinned GoFundMe Tweet.

I thought you had to be smart to do a PhD

Does that mean the Malicious Comms Act can only be used if the tweet is to or about another person? Ie, there has to be a recipient?

I don't know, pure. Although using a hashtag that lots of women are using and saying you are 'making a list' would seem to be directed at all the women using that #?