Marion Millar on trial today

[ArabellaScott]

Solidarity to Marion and all the witches out to support her.

Who's the Sherriff, anyone know?

"What have you done wrong? We'll think of something and tell you at a later date."

Meanwhile, I hope no Weegies are being beastly to PC Plod who is clearly a highly sensitive soul.

The Polis of Auld, it is not.

You are detained and questioned by the police who then put a report in to the procurator fiscal, they then formulate the precise charges and the complaint is then served on the accused.

Today was just a hearing to tender a plea. The actual trial, if it comes to one, won’t be for ages

@yourhairiswinterfire

I thought you are told what you are charged with on arrest.

I'm struggling to imagine how the police interview went, tbh, if they wouldn't tell her what she was supposed to have done wrong

Maybe one could speculate that they didn't exactly have something with which they could charge her. One could speculate that maybe they needed time to put something together, since some of it only came after the long arm of the law saw fit to visit MM.

Some people may think that the intention might have been to frighten and harass women. To make an example to the rest. Some people might think that.

@littlbrowndog

Paisley leaving !!

“It’s all about meeeeeeeee!” It must be really grinding his gears that the coverage isn’t hating on Marion, quite the reverse.

Interesting to read the actual charges brought in court.

Jury trials are only for very serious crimes in Scotland

Surely tweeting a picture of a ribbon is very very serious?

Seriously, though, the whole case is clearly flimsier than the gossamer wings of a tiny wee fairy, so hopefully the sheriff will have the sense to chuck it out on 4 Oct.

@dyslek

I read on Craig Murry site the case of an elderly resident of one of the scotish isles who reported the family of an SMP to the police for going to their holiday home for lockdown (totally against the law) and the police showed up and... wait for it...arrested the old guy, for harrassing the politician. Scary stuff indeed. A politics friend explained to me that there is something in the scotish gov set up that has not seperated the courts/justice system sufficiently from parliment, so it can be used inappripriatly by the state. Sorry I should have paid more attention to what he was saying.

Yep. That'd be Craig Murray, the journalist imprisoned for posting info that might lead to identification of complainant. While various other media outlets published the same, but weren't troubled by the police. No fan of Murray on some issues, but he's been treated appallingly and his case should raise MASSIVE red flags for freedom of press.

I recall the case about the politician. The old guy was exonerated, in the end, you'll be glad to hear - but of course the stress of being accused of harrassment etc was not minor.

Govt that is too close to the judiciary; police who are too political; media who are threatened with prison; women who are taken to court over tweets ... what does this picture look like to you?

@RoyalCorgi

it says she was charged under the Malicious Communications Act

There is no longer a Malicious Communications Act - it was superseded by the Communications Act 2003.

She was charged under Scottish Law of an offence contrary to

Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.

No plea was made. This isn;t the trial yet.

www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/38

Threatening or abusive behaviour

(1)A person (“A”) commits an offence if—

(a)A behaves in a threatening or abusive manner,

(b)the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and

(c)A intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.

(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that the behaviour was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

(3)Subsection (1) applies to—

(a)behaviour of any kind including, in particular, things said or otherwise communicated as well as things done, and

(b)behaviour consisting of—

(i)a single act, or

(ii)a course of conduct.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine, or to both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

Is it definitely the ribbon tweet? I'm not sure if I've dreamt this but was there another tweet with someone standing next to the studio sign?

We need Rebus on the case.

Wow can't believe the charges have only just been made clear today. I thought they must have been known some time ago.

Why were so many people happy to unthinkingly and unquestioningly support a defendant and champion them when they no idea what the charges were against them?

Worrying times, isn't it.

....We need Inspector Taggart.

...Except that today I have this image of him demanding, semi-comprehensibly: "Eh! Youse! Son! Mah pronouns are They/Them. You misgendering me?"

Oh I've found the one I thought I dreamt and there's no studio sign ignore me! Just supposed to have been taken there.

Taggart, there's bin a ribboning

re: the CPS, Scottish version. I went to a talk about hate crime by Sussex and Surrey lead prosecutor. He was very proud of the local record for including hate as an aggravating factor in an offence and had won an award. If they thought hatred was a factor they go through someone's social media to see if they can find evidence. Essentially the cps actively look hard for a "hate crime" angle, that may be what's happened here.
Listening to him made me uncomfortable. Yes, some offences are provoked by hate and that should be taken into account. But the way it was described seemed insidious.

Why were so many people happy to unthinkingly and unquestioningly support a defendant and champion them when they no idea what the charges were against them?

Because we're very used to the malicious tactics used to try and teach defiant women a lesson. We know what certain people think is ''literal, actual violence'', and it's stuff like a bookshop selling books, a dictionary definition of a word, a woman saying ''no'' etc.

Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Yeah...that's why.

I thought you are told what you are charged with on arrest.

Yeah, don't they say 'I'm arresting you on suspicion of....' when they arrest, and then when you are charged they tell you exactly what you are being charged with... Precisely so you can build your case for court?

I've thankfully never been arrested nor charged, so have no idea but its weird that she only found out today! Is that a Scottish thing, is it to do with this new hate crime bill?

Wow can't believe the charges have only just been made clear today. I thought they must have been known some time ago.

Well it turns out they were known some time ago, because apparently there is nothing else! Quelle surprise!

@walkingthedog1 so fishing for anything that can subjectively be branded hate? Great.

@suggestionsplease1

Wow can't believe the charges have only just been made clear today. I thought they must have been known some time ago.

Why were so many people happy to unthinkingly and unquestioningly support a defendant and champion them when they no idea what the charges were against them?

Worrying times, isn't it.

you realise a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, yes?

So you could quite as rationally ask why so many are happy to unthinkingly and unquestioningly condemn someone accused of a crime.

Having watched a few Rumpoles, I am therefore an expert in these matters, so I'm guessing there might be a meeting with the judge in chambers in which Cherry or some other defence council says to the prosecution brief, in best legalese, Are you Fucking Serious?

@WouldBeGood

You are detained and questioned by the police who then put a report in to the procurator fiscal, they then formulate the precise charges and the complaint is then served on the accused.

Today was just a hearing to tender a plea. The actual trial, if it comes to one, won’t be for ages

How can you tender a plea moments after hearing the charge/s?

I've never been charged but surely that isn't how it works, anywhere in the UK!

Because we're very used to the malicious tactics used to try and teach defiant women a lesson. We know what certain people think is ''literal, actual violence'', and it's stuff like a bookshop selling books, a dictionary definition of a word, a woman saying ''no'' etc.

Yes, I remember seeing DP himself during another one of his 'campaigns' accusing Sarah Phillimore of 'threatening to burn down a synagogue' and 'comparing Jewish people to dogs' with screenshots attached where she was quite obviously saying no such thing. It's like they think people don't have eyes or something?

Have seen today on Twitter people posting 'quotes' from Marion Millar and claiming that she is talking about trans people - when actually she was referring to the teenager who raped and murdered Alesha McPhail. They had just conveniently cropped that bit out.....

So yeah, we are used to malicious tactics.