Marion Millar on trial today

[ArabellaScott]

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

Previous thread here which has a lot of background info for those new to this

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4251696-Scottish-woman-told-would-be-charged-for-homophobic-and-transphobic-tweets

So that's the evidence, then? No smoking gun tweets? Just what we knew about.

Fucking hell.

The next two 'charges' seem to relate to the same person? a woman police officer?

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

and

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

As far as I know its not actually illeagle to say things about another person, unless you are harrassing or defaming them?
If MM had been harrassing or defaming this person she should have been given the opportunity to remidy her public statements (thinking of Dr Christian and Arelene Foster) but how could she have if she has only just learned of the 'charges' against her.

The whole situation seems remarkable. How can it be legal to not know the charges against you untill you get to your court hearing? Its incredible!

As far as I remember one of the police officers involved was highlighted by the police as an LGBT officer with a puff piece about her etc. I can only think this is what that is referring to.

Odd thing is though, that was all after the actor said the ribbon threatened his life. Almost as if they are trying to bolster a weak case.

So:

1. You are nicked by PC Plod.

1. You tweet: "I was nicked by PC Plod."

1. You are nicked for disclosing the identity of a police officer.

And am still that Marion only found out this is what the charges were in court today.

Is there any recourse for a citizen who is maliciously prosecuted by a police officer with a vendetta? I don’t know what they are going to claim the “false information” was, but it is quite clear who the female police constable is.

But, but, but, we were told that she had been tweeting nasty things for years and that's why she was arrested.

@Jaysmith71

So:

1. You are nicked by PC Plod.

1. You tweet: "I was nicked by PC Plod."

1. You are nicked for disclosing the identity of a police officer.

You tweet: Here's a puff piece on PC Plod coming out.

1. You just added "aggravated by prejudice related to sexual orientation"

It's the very definition of a witch hunt.

Sturgeon should be deeply ashamed. She won't be but she should be.

This is so bizarre it's ridiculous. I had the impression from early reports that there were lots of tweets - about 15 or 20.

But now it seems there were only 3?

The one with the ribbon, which supposedly gave a hint as to Paisley's whereabouts.

One mentioning "personal information" about a police officer. What on earth was the personal information supposed to be?

Posting "incorrect information" about a police officer. No further clues here.

And then the whole thing supposedly "aggravated" by "prejudice related to sexual orientation" which, frankly, seems unlikely.

The Police officer one is really baffling me. I genuinely didn't realise it was illegal to tell people which police officer had spoken to you.

Apparently she has entered "no plea" and her trial will be Oct.

Yep, no plea because arguing:

1. She didn't know what she was being accused of until court today.

1. The charges didnt meet guidelines so not valid.

1. The charges interfere with her human rights.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Is threatening to fuck off to England really such a good look in SNP circles in Scotland?

Does he say 'England' though? He might be defecting to Afghanistan?

One can only fucking hope.

The Letter of the Law:

38Threatening 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.

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

The magic word there is "and," which means the prosecution must prove a, b, and c, beyond reasonable doubt, to secure a conviction.

@Jaysmith71

The Letter of the Law:

38Threatening 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.

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

The magic word there is "and," which means the prosecution must prove a, b, and c, beyond reasonable doubt, to secure a conviction.

Wrong Act I think, I think it's under the Communications Act www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

@SheldonesqueTheBstard

I was accused of several things at work by a male colleague. Some of it (if it had been true) would have seen a long term prison term or indefinite secure accommodation.

I was told verbally about some of the things I was accused of. In error it turns out. Despite the accuser bad mouthing me to many colleagues and everything being common knowledge, they refused to tell me officially. To protect him.

They have never gave me a written statement detailing the contents - but they investigated me fully for it.

This is on my file and has damaged my reputation irreparably.

What happened to MM happens to others.

To accuse someone of wrong doing knowing that it is untrue is inexcusable.

To make women try to defend themselves without informing them of the full extent of allegations is unforgivable.

That's terrifying.

My son was falsely accused of something by a fellow pupil. She reported him to the school, the police and social services.

The school couldn't even phone to tell me as the complaint was private information about the complainer

I'd actually never have known if she hadn't started spouting shite on social media like an absolute attention seeker.

The one with the ribbon, which supposedly gave a hint as to Paisley's whereabouts.

But everyone knows which TV show he is in (I think it was in his bio for a long time?) and surely a quick bit of googling would tell you where it was filmed, so how is that a threat to his safety if its already public information? And I have seen claims that its supposed to be a 'noose' but its just looped around some wire fencing and doesn't even look like a noose!

Is this seriously it? It can't be!

And it really feels like DP is reacting now to the fact that everyone is going to find out exactly what a woman has had her life turned upside down over.

This is making me really angry actually. Think of all the tweets of males with guns, baseball bats, knives, t shirts with 'punch a TERF', banners at pride with #killjkrowling, the 'inaugural hanging of the TERF' photograph. And outside of this issue, think of all the women who have been stalked and harassed, who have begged the police for help and been told there is nothing the police can do because its 'not this' or its 'not that', some of those women have actually ended up dead. Think about what the Plymouth shooter was putting out on YouTube while the police knew he was in possession of a fucking gun.

And THIS is what a woman gets hauled into court for? WTAF?

I think this is the timeline.

1. MM allegedly tweets in a way that the police describe as "homophobic and transphobic" between Oct 20 and June 21.

1. MM allegedly tweets a photo of a ribbon which is allegedly located close to the workplace of an actor, which appears to be the trigger for police intervention (charge one)

1. MM is questioned by a female police officer.

1. MM tweets about female police officer. (Charge 2 & 3).

It is usual for additional charges to result from questioning?

"The complaint alleges she directed threatening or abusive behavour at three people, including a police officer, via social media between October and June, contrary to Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010."

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19547978.scots-feminist-hate-crime-case-continued-consider-human-rights-issues/

surely a quick bit of googling would tell you where it was filmed, so how is that a threat to his safety if its already public information

The BBC even offers exciting studio tours of the location....

So what about all those other zillions of tweets that another poster has confidently claimed were part of the prosecution?

[quote Jaysmith71]"The complaint alleges she directed threatening or abusive behavour at three people, including a police officer, via social media between October and June, contrary to Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010."

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19547978.scots-feminist-hate-crime-case-continued-consider-human-rights-issues/[/quote]
Interesting, in this article from June www.thenational.scot/news/19350530.marion-millar-activist-charged-hate-crime-twitter-content/ it says she was charged under the Malicious Communications Act . I wonder if one of the article is wrong, or if they have been shopping around for the best way to make the charges stick.

Does DP have friends or family in the police? I'm just wondering how he gets them to take action with something like this, when rapes and assaults arent prosecuted and if you are robbed the most you get is a crime number.

It really is something to get the police involved in this nonsense when they claim they are so stretched for resource