Carolyn Farrow taken to police station

AND dislike the fact that MN is on the warpath for a privileged woman without single other comment about wrongful arrest & power-abusing harassment frequently happening to less well-off women.

This is extremely stupid. There are plenty of threads on here about how the police mistreat women. This thread is about how they’ve mistreated Caroline Farrow. Perhaps if you have nothing germane to say here you could make a thread about one of the other cases you’re purportedly concerned about?

dislike the fact that MN is on the warpath for a privileged woman without single other comment about wrongful arrest & power-abusing harassment frequently happening to less well-off women

So posting about this woman is 'on the warpath' and you dislike that we don't post about different women.

Have you started threads about other women yourself or are we just doing this all wrong again?

dislike the fact that MN is on the warpath for a privileged woman

There you go. You dislike the fact that women are standing up for a woman you don't like.

So you're right @KettrickenSmiled - no cognitive dissonance for you, just pure misogyny and saying anything you can think of to try to justify it.

I wonder if we could get MNHQ to do a webchat with a QC about women's rights concerning arrests/cautions/vexatious complaints, etc. They could provide a detailed checklist on what to do when faced with a police officer at the door; an officer determined to gain entry; an officer casually referencing sectioning, etc because this thread shows that some posters seem to think random Googles are the same as understanding the law and their rights. It isn't.
Also, is it possible to have a group litigation order against the police? Women need to mobilise collectively around these particular issues with the police.

ScreamingMeMe · Today 12:42
Photos showing the police officer pushing his way in.

twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1577251885962391553?t=ly-9U1mPvH4E4VP8S66vvg&s=19

wow!! That must have been so scary. Hope he loses his job over that.

I assume someone has contacted Lisa Townsend the Surrey PCC.

I don’t know the full extent of a PCC’s powers but I hope they go beyond extracting an apology.

Just seen this; oh my goodness.

I hope she's ok

Don't be silly @beastlyslumber. It's possible to dislike Farrow, dislike police high-handedness, AND dislike the fact that MN is on the warpath for a privileged woman without single other comment about wrongful arrest & power-abusing harassment frequently happening to less well-off women. That's not cognitive dissonance, it's just the ability to consider more than one concept simultaneously.

I spent yesterday talking with a friend and ww were musing on how the police - all forces, it seems - have gone from being notorious for cynical, unreconstructed homophobia, racism and sexism, etc to absolute staff carriers for a movement that is based purely on people's feelings. They happily leave reports of violence, burglary, etc uninvestigated but move at the speed of light when unevidenced allegations are made of hurt feelings.

Of course, it's a movement that is dominated by men and has misogyny at its core, so...

I'm just trying to understand.

You said 'imagine the fuss if he released her and she did harm herself and maybe died. He'd be well and truly in the shit then.'

She was honest told him that she'd thought about self harm and only said otherwise after being threatened with more time in the cells and being sectioned. If she self harmed and died after being coerced into giving a different answer, would he not be well and truly in the shit for that?

@ancientgran you should be aware there are different types of section and section 136 where the police can hold someone for the safety of themselves and others due to mental health issues is one. Using it in this situation, they way it was done was wrong.

No I'm not. I'm talking about the facts of what he is duty bound to do, you are saying by using reading comprehension you know what he really meant. You don't and I don't know how he said it, he can have said the right thing in a threatening way but there is no way the reading comprehension can tell us that.

No he detained her in a place of safety under Section 136.

MIND's explanation of being sectioned

What does sectioning mean?
If you are sectioned, this means that you are kept in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. There are different types of sections, each with different rules to keep you in hospital. The length of time that you can be kept in hospital depends on which section you are detained under.

I think MIND know what being sectioned means.

’(A) man who thinks the police can be summoned upon demand’

As someone has already said, it seems that the Surrey Police can be summoned on demand. It’s amazing how anyone can get this level of response from them. This woman couldn’t get them to investigate properly.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10857503/Coroner-slams-Surrey-Police-failing-protect-mother-four-murdered-estranged-husband.html

If the police now act on memes, they're going to be inundated with reports about the death threat memes that women receive on Twitter and who 'might' be behind anonymous accounts that have posted them.
Then there were the threats against FILIA. And what about the paedophile apologists and academics? Will the police investigate them because of their online posts? They're going to be busy.

But so are you?

You obviously lean towards the police being correct whereas, from experience on these boards, the rest of us do not.

It doesn't make you any more right than anyone else.

Reading comprehension is nothing to do with it. She hasn't given a verbatim report, you know nothing about attitude or tone from either her or the officer.

You are reading what you want to see into it.

Actually sending her back to the cells was sectioning her. Using a section at that point was a way of holding her in the cells for longer. I suspect you are not familiar with the police powers to section someone

That Custody Sergeant was indeed issuing threats not offering help with his reference to sectioning.

Of course, had Ms Farrow not changed her answer, he’d have been a bit stuck. As this helpful guide from Mind explains (emphases mine):
A police station can only be used as a place of safety if your behaviour poses an imminent risk of serious injury or death to yourself or another person. The decision must be authorised by an inspector after consulting with a registered medical practitioner, a registered nurse, an appropriate healthcare practitioner, an occupational therapist or a paramedic.

So, while no warrant is required for an S136 & she was in a location where it can be enacted, a potential anxiety disorder (am unclear as to whether this is diagnosed/was declared to the police) wouldn’t meet the “appear to have a mental disorder” threshold; & expressing an inclination towards self-harm is worlds away from “in need of immediate care or control”. The police officers do not, themselves, have the power to section, it is always a decision made by clinicians.

As Caroline was leaving when she was asked, there is no excuse for the attempt to use the police station as a place of safety, either: A police station can only be used as a place of safety if your behaviour poses an imminent risk of serious injury or death to yourself or another person.
The police must review at least hourly (or every three hours if you’re asleep)
whether you still need to be kept at a police station rather than some other place of safety. If you no longer need to be at a police station they should transfer you to another place.

If there had been genuine concern for Caroline’s wellbeing they could have enacted a S136 at the nearest hospital or even at her home - or the home of a willing friend. Threatening to lock her back up was exactly that - threatening to lock her back up.

It suggests quite heavily to me a failure to adequately complete the necessary risk assessment (as per PACE Code C) - at no point while Caroline was being held did they consider that risk much less take additional steps to mitigate against it; so on finally asking her she was threatened into changing her answer.

Tangentially connected, but I’ve always found it fascinating Dante only gave the 8th Circle of Hell - where those who’ve committed fraud (not in the modern sense, but any kind of deception to benefit themselves) reside - an actual name. The Malebolge, or Evil Ditches. So Dante would have people deliberately making false reports spending an eternity aflame, I think, though I don’t know if he had any scope for multiple torments - they just wandered about, IIRC, so I suppose one of the stabby demons might impale them every now & then.

All of this - this is what happens when nebulous, badly worded and ill-defined "perceived hate crime" legislation is abused and used to persecute people.

ALL legislation needs to be clear, concise and as tight as a fish's *rse to prevent either innocent misinterpretation of deliberate misuse.

Just read her twitter thread - it's chilling!

And surely , Yes - the police DO need a search warrant to enter premises and especially to seize personal property. Are there any lawyers on here who could clarify this? (Sorry if it's already been addressed)

How the hell have we got into this situation? It's abuse of process surely?? Real sledgehammer-to-crack-nut stuff - it was a not-very-veiled threat to terrify her into submission.

The problem is - if there is an allegation then part of the investigation is to gain the evidence to prove or disprove an offence.

So @Felix125 do you always seize someone’s electronics if you get a baseless allegation they’ve been posting an offensive meme? Or in this case a barely offensive meme?

If so, what police force do you work for please? I haven’t got an enemies list made up yet but I’m sure with a handy attack dog like yourself to hand I could let the power go to my head a bit.

If not, what’s the secret sauce to get you to harass people for me? How can I weaponise the police against my enemies like the complainant in this case? Thanks!

Anyone can see this was an implicit threat. That observation is less a case of 'dramatics' than simple reading comprehension.

If that's aimed at me I worked in a large regional police force for 15 years. I spent the last 20 years of my working life working in mental health.

Why don't you focus on the complain that was made against her and if the arrest was justified instead of making spurious allegations against the custody officer who was making a decision, as he is required to do, about if it was safe to release her. I'm pretty sure you would be fast to lay blame at his door of he'd immediately released her and she self harmed.

So you think she should have been held for longer? I mean how long after she says she's OK, she isn't going to harm herself?

You weren't there, he is a trained custody officer and he made a judgement, that's his job.