Carolyn Farrow taken to police station

There are thankfully other individuals on the channel that are more in tune with people who do not behave in the same manner as Mark. It is useful to step out of one's "comfort zone" from time to time to access other opinions :)

I do love it when kiwi farms viewers come and tell silly women not to read kiwi farms.

i can't even be bothered to take this apart

have you got any evidence to back up what you say?

nah, course you haven't

There is ample proof of kiwi farm's association with bullying vulnerable people to suicide (something it openly celebrates as its raison d'etre and at one point had a counter on its front page celebrating the number of suicides attributed to it), and its association with the christchurch mosque shooter, and its recent involvement in swatting incidents (for anyone who doesn't know "swatting" is where someone makes a fraudulent call to the police claiming there's an active shooter at an address they've doxxed in the hopes the police will overreact and shoot someone). There is no innocent reason to be posting on a site like that, it's one of the most vile places on the internet and Farrow will not be the only kiwifarms user under police investigation.

Good to see Lisa Townsend is on it.

Yes AnotherDayAnotherView he came across as a dick having no engagement in the actual story in front of him. Still, it's a style of media I don't normally see and it's good for me to step outside my comfort zone and it's good for this story to be picked up by all kinds of different audiences.

Voicing the reality that humans don't change sex, I presume. Not being cowed enough so that you feel compelled to lie through your teeth about it. And, not being 'nice' and 'validating' about it all for those who are promoting this belief.

Having seen the abysmal figures wrt Surrey Police's efforts on child rape and sexual abuse, it appears to me they'd rather send a swat team to hammer down the door of a woman in front of her children without even having evidence she wrote the 'hurty words' being alleged.

Contrasting their performance for both of these, and sadly for women and children, it strikes me that Policing in Surrey must provide a very comfortable environment indeed for certain types of men.

I watched the interview, Mark Stein does not come across as a sympathetic interviewer, rather an individual with his own agenda i.e. "all police are bad". He repeatedly cut Caroline off mid sentence and missed some of the more salient points Caroline raised to push his own view of policing in the UK.

Caroline if you read this, your grace and poise in the face of what came over as hostile questioning was a sight to behold. God bless xx

Thanks @nauticant

Putting the link in double sets of square brackets removes the MN site messing up the link:

twitter.com/_lisa_townsend/status/1577369416173588480

Can you pm me - I'm on the app but I'll charge the laptop up - if it still
Works ....

It's difficult to do so here. I'll see if I can point you towards somewhere on Twitter.

Statement from Surrey PCC

https://twitter.com/lisaa_townsend/status/1577369416173588480?s=46&t=r5vCZ8w4BT-f3ZL0T2j6Ig

I guess they share some common passion.

I found myself speculating about the Freemasons earlier, maybe their day hasn’t passed after all? Then I thought of the considerably worse alternative explanations.

I'm a bloody expert on mal comms - as in I regularly close those jobs down because the offence is not made out .

Someone explain to me please what's happened- factually .

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
...
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

Because (a), (b), and (c) are alternatives, then as I read this key part of the Communications Act 2003, a person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

Hi - this sounds ludicrous to me . Absolutely. What has she been accused of ? Can anyone E tell me - who is it making the complaint? Can anyone fill me in ? (So to speak ) ? Without prejudicing whatever is happening? There's clearly a back story I'm not aware of .
What has this woman meant to have done that warrants arrest ? Can anyone clarify?

Some forces need to get their heads out of their arse and start saying no !!!

Feed that version of "grossly offensive" into the Communications Act 2003, section 127(1)(a), and then there's automatically an offence.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

Section 127(2) is arguably even broader.

The complainant must have quite good connections to key-players in the Surrey police to get them to respond to a random suspicion.

I guess they share some common passion.

X post!!

Malicious comms has to be made out and ensure it complies with the test in R V Scottow.

Bearing in mind the complainant has significant of litigation, one wonders if Surrey police are doing this "by the book" in case he were to sue them.

Bearing in mind this "grossly offensive message" had to be directly targeted at the "victim" so that it was the main purpose of sending the message, I am struggling to see how this was made out.

From CF's twitter account the officers involved seemed to be embarrassed about the case (taking the custody sgt and his comments out of it)

What an absolute waste of public money, a total betrayal of womens confidence in the police and will no doubt entail further litigation and cost to public purse.

For the sake of one serial complainer

Feed that version of "grossly offensive" into the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1(1), and you then find that to have committed an offense you need:

if [the sender's] purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending [the electronic communication] is that it should, so far as [being "grossly offensive"], cause distress or anxiety to the recipient

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

Last time I checked, Caroline Farrow hadn’t ever called the police on me, regardless of how much our views on certain topics might differ 🤷🏻‍♀️

If I disagree with views she holds, that she’s legally entitled to hold but that I think may be a threat to my rights, I’ll debate them and try to make a more persuasive argument than she does so people are swayed by my opinions not hers. Or isn’t that how adults are supposed to do it any more? Is it all “no debate” and straight to deploying your pet attack police now?

Saying that men have penises?