Page 4 | Transwoman cleared of threatening Joanna Cherry

ArabeIIaScott · 2023-07-12T09:47:04+00:00

[[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d42d2a9c-1f41-11ee-97d4-77262736e260?shareToken=17827238e30d669bd67b20a14c32f2de https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d42d2a9c-1f41-11ee-97d4-77262736e260?shareToken=17827238e30d669bd67b20a14c32f2de]] 'A woman who posted an alleged threatening comment about the SNP MP Joanna Cherry online has been found not guilty. Eve Shaw, also known Adam Shaw, was said to have made the comment about the MP for Edinburgh South West during a Twitter conversation with a friend. Shaw, 28, replied to a news article post about Cherry with the comment “STG [swear to God] I am gonna pop Joanna Cherry” at 5.23pm on January 22 last year, Edinburgh sheriff court was told.'

GrannyAchingsShepherdsHut · 12/07/2023 21:01

JacquelinePot · 12/07/2023 18:42

Perhaps it's my feeble lady brain but I don't understand how one can be cleared of an offence when one has been caught red-handed. Is it that the offence was deemed not to be an offence or that the offence isn't actually an offence because of the person doing the offending?

Quite. And even admitted to writing it in court.

According to the article the defence was it was not meant as 'pop' as in hit, but 'pop' as in Cherry. Apparently even admitting to a rape threat doesn't mean you've done anything wrong.

JacquelinePot · 12/07/2023 21:08

GrannyAchingsShepherdsHut · 12/07/2023 21:01

Quite. And even admitted to writing it in court.

According to the article the defence was it was not meant as 'pop' as in hit, but 'pop' as in Cherry. Apparently even admitting to a rape threat doesn't mean you've done anything wrong.

Show quote history

Wow, even worse than I thought! I'm so glad the judiciary isn't completely captu... oh, wait...

Boomboom22 · 12/07/2023 21:53

Actually I think it's only a threat if you intend to carry it out. So the judge isn't saying they didn't write it or intend it to be kill or rape,just that they are not convinced it was an actual threat that they were really going to do that. Which I think is true. Better to sue for hate speech except its somehow legal to hate sex but no other protected characteristics.

AuntyBumBum · 12/07/2023 22:47

JacquelinePot · 12/07/2023 18:42

Perhaps it's my feeble lady brain but I don't understand how one can be cleared of an offence when one has been caught red-handed. Is it that the offence was deemed not to be an offence or that the offence isn't actually an offence because of the person doing the offending?

You need a "guilty act" and "guilty mind" for criminal liability. Being caught red-handed is not enough. The prosecution also needs to show your state of mind - that you had the relevant intention.

(Again, I've not read the judgment, but I'm guessing that this was probably the reason for the acquittal.)

NotTerfNorCis · 12/07/2023 22:56

Transwomen are women

In what way is a male person female?

JacquelinePot · 12/07/2023 22:56

Isn't it interesting how you need to show intent or whatever the terminology is, when a Certain Type of Person is doing the saying, but when that same Certain Type of Person is complaining about someone else doing the saying, it's not about intent but that complainant's perception. I know one is regular crime, and one is the nonsense hate crime balls, but still...

Heads you lose, tails I win.

JacquelinePot · 12/07/2023 23:03

'I think it's only a threat if you intend to carry it out. So the judge isn't saying they didn't write it or intend it to be kill or rape,just that they are not convinced it was an actual threat that they were really going to do that.'

Wouldn't that make it awfully easy for people to get off when they actually did intend to follow through? You'd just say "I didn't mean it". I'm not really sure how you'd prove or disprove intent?

'You need a "guilty act" and "guilty mind" for criminal liability. Being caught red-handed is not enough. The prosecution also needs to show your state of mind - that you had the relevant intention.'

How does that square with "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Or have I been watching too many American films and shows?!

I am obviously very much not a lawyer!

Boomboom22 · 12/07/2023 23:19

Quick Google gave me this so guess it's more about the perception that they could / would do it?

Transwoman cleared of threatening Joanna Cherry

DragonsCrisps · 13/07/2023 08:50

ArabeIIaScott · 12/07/2023 17:09

Outright libel.

Show quote history

What are you saying is untrue?

Forwarder · 13/07/2023 09:36

Poor reports in both papers. At least The Times mentioned the name Adam, but apart from that. As no conviction it isn't a male crime chalked up to women but coming closer and closer to utter garbage crime stats.

Isn't this guy also a member of the SNP or was that another transvestite who threatened Joanna Cherry?

AuntyBumBum · 13/07/2023 17:12

JacquelinePot · 12/07/2023 23:03

'I think it's only a threat if you intend to carry it out. So the judge isn't saying they didn't write it or intend it to be kill or rape,just that they are not convinced it was an actual threat that they were really going to do that.'

Wouldn't that make it awfully easy for people to get off when they actually did intend to follow through? You'd just say "I didn't mean it". I'm not really sure how you'd prove or disprove intent?

'You need a "guilty act" and "guilty mind" for criminal liability. Being caught red-handed is not enough. The prosecution also needs to show your state of mind - that you had the relevant intention.'

How does that square with "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Or have I been watching too many American films and shows?!

I am obviously very much not a lawyer!

Fair questions.

The defendant is quite at liberty to say "I didn't intend my actions to have that consequence" and probably will. But that's not a cast iron defence! It's up to the jury (applying non-lawyer common sense) (or in this case I think a judge sitting alone, I'm not very familiar with the Scottish system) whether they believe that.

And ignorance of the law is definitely no defence. The issue is not whether the defendant knew the legal definition of the offence and the elements of any defence as matters of law. It's about whether the jury, having had the legal requirements explained to them, think the defendant's behaviour fell within them.

DerekFaker · 13/07/2023 18:28

DragonsCrisps · 12/07/2023 17:07

Notably, Cherry has in prior cases like this advocated for free speech here.

She chose to represent as a political choice, a woman who had been very scarily abusing her colleagues and political opponents, saying "I will stop at nothing" and going to their places of work and tweeting pictures of herself there in sinister masks mocking them. (Marion Millar, who had also directed a significant amount of abuse on the lesbian police officer who arrested her, including saying she must be biased against her by virtue of being LGBT.)

Cherry has also chosen to promote and politicise this -- she used the assumption of guilt here in her column to attack her colleague Mhairi Black last week. She has attacked her colleagues in the past for expressing support, sympathy and condemnation of threats. She has subsequently claimed that no colleagues offered support, sympathy and condemnation for those threats. She has claimed this is terrible while being conspicuously quiet on threats received by those she disagrees with, including those who expressed support for her.

Security should never be politicised. It's really disappointing that Cherry has done, many times, as well as allegedly putting in false security threats against SNP staff which were leaked to the press. I am incredibly glad she is okay and all threats should be investigated. It is interesting to see this described as "a very serious attempt on her" under oath, when it clearly was no attempt.

The Millar case shows her to be utterly hypocritical here. She's attacked her colleagues on this a lot. She literally prevented the police from acting on malicious communications in the past

Show quote history

Somebody's got a shiny new username.

The obsession with Marion Millar and the lies told about her remain the same though.

DerekFaker · 13/07/2023 18:33

GrannyAchingsShepherdsHut · 12/07/2023 15:27

Random man threatens violence.

'who cares, anyway, what about this completely different man in a completely different situation that has nothing to do with this? Huh? Well?'

Utter irrelevant horseshit. By all means start a thread about GL and toilets. If anyone is remotely interested I'm sure they'll talk to you. This however is not about GL, and not about toilets. It's also, and this may come as a shock, not about you. HTH.

THIS.

Ireallydidntseethiscoming · 15/07/2023 19:49

ManuelBensonsLeftBoot · 12/07/2023 16:38

You seem to be aware here that one or some women can't consent to a man/ men entering women's single sex spaces on behalf of all women.

You are so close, just the last few dot to join.

Show quote history

😎

ThomasinaLivesHere · 16/07/2023 18:03

Boomboom22 · 12/07/2023 21:53

Actually I think it's only a threat if you intend to carry it out. So the judge isn't saying they didn't write it or intend it to be kill or rape,just that they are not convinced it was an actual threat that they were really going to do that. Which I think is true. Better to sue for hate speech except its somehow legal to hate sex but no other protected characteristics.

While I love Joanna Cherry I also don’t read this as an actual threat. For a start it’s ambiguous as pop can have different meanings and just reads like a lame tasteless joke especially as it was said to a friend and not to her. I’d be uncomfortable with others being trialed for similar tweets and have been against people being fined for saying things in the past.