Police withdraw stalking protection order application against Caroline Farrow

I forget to mention you also cherry pick and choose what you respond to.
What seems like your personal bias against GC.
Would you treat others sharing your bias the same?
Proportionality.

Felix. As others have said, I think the best way for me personally, is just to argree to disagree with you, and to not engage with you any more. I never get the feeling that you are coming from a position of good faith. I think you probably are the reddit Felix, a young guy desperate for whatever internal reasons to represent the whole of the law to gain some authority through that. But you come across as so closed minded unable to acknowledge or see why others get so frustrated with you.

Brefugee
But again - we are not 100% certain its the same caller

If it is the same caller then - when do we start ignoring them, after the 4th call, 5th call - 10th call?

And is that the same for other incidents - say DV incidents, harassments, ASB

So for Gracie Spinks - yes each of her calls should have been examined/investigated properly and not just 'written off'. Warnings could have been given (and should have been given) to the suspect at the very least.

If they wanted to prosecute her for vexatious complaints - then they should have evidence to support it. For example the suspect could prove that it was not him doing the things she reported.

I don't know what that evidence is as i am not privy to that enquiry - but what if there is evidence to suggest that the first few reports made by Gracie could be proven to be vexatious? Where does that leave the police? Were they right to ignore any further calls from Gracie? Putting 2 + 2 together as you say.

lechiffre55

I do explain the challenges we face and the complexities of the job. A couple of pages back, people where aghast about the OIC being away from the shift for 7 weeks and why their team can't progress the investigation in their absence. So, I explained what the 7 weeks could be (annual leave & a course perhaps) and why we can't simply pass the case on to another colleague.

Vol interviews - the thread about KJK attending for an interview. Yes my advice would be to attend. In fact most solicitors we deal with advise their clients to attend. Otherwise it the complainants word against nothing and off to court it goes. If you give your 'side of the story' we at least have a defence to examine if the person can provide an account or alibi. That way the case can be resolved without it going to court.

If you were the victim of a crime - theft, common assault etc. Would you be happy for the police to advise you that "The suspect has refused or been advised not to attend for an interview so we are not pursuing the case any further". If there was no power or necessity to arrest - what would you want the police to do next?

If Dennis Noel Kavanaugh was the one who suggested that anything said in a police interview can not be used in court and that we don't investigate defence statements & alibis from a suspect - then I personally would question his advice.

A man makes dozens of complaints about someone he doesn't like on twitter - Again we are not 100% certain that it is the same person at this stage if you mean the CF case, but if it can be shown that the complaint if false and vexatious, then it will be ignored and the reporting person pursued for making a false statement. Lots of similar calls do. But then you get the ones where it can't be determined at this stage. Its the cry wolf scenario. There are loads of reports we get from the same callers - ASB for example where, when the police get there, all is quiet and nothing going on or any damage etc. When do we start to ignore those calls? Or DV cases where the reporting person declines to provide details of any assaults/crimes. Do we start to ignore them after the 5th call they make?

Each call has to be taken on its own merits. They are also assessed by the initial call taker, dispatcher, management unit before they get passed out to a cop. And are all assessed for threat, harm, & risk.

Each crime has to be investigated. Nuisance calls to some might just be ignored and seen as a bit silly. To others it might seriously be affecting their lives & mental health. Yes, they will not be seen as a priority such as DV cases, burglaries, missing from homes etc - that's possibly why CF's enquiry is sat on the OIC's job queue - along with the other 15 jobs that fall into the same priority category. It will just be progressed when the OIC can. I know not ideal, but we don't have endless resources and cases have to fall into a priority list. With limited resources & officers I'm not sure how else you would want this to happen.

There are lots of rules that i would love to change in the police - cell watches, hospital watches, missing from homes, mental health cases, the length of time CPS take to provide a decision, the fact that CPS want a full file before they act, the amount of file redactions, BWV and its data storage, training - I could go on and on. And yes, we could look at ignoring calls from people who have made the same complaint 10 times about the same person. But would society accept this when the 11 call turned out to be a serious assault or murder.

.

Nowhere do you ever address things like proportionality in police investigations.

Well. I have asked about this on several occasions and over several threads going back a fair while.

I have asked, given we know that it is the same complainer every time (afaik the complainer has said this, and it has also been iterated elsewhere that it is one person making several complaints) when the police will put 2+2 together. And the answer is that they treat all the complaints separately (and my private impression given how often i get this answer is: they don't care to stretch the grey matter that far in some cases)

We have often brought up the case of Gracie Spinks to ask why when a woman goes to the police (and we know from various studies that this rarely happens the first time they are attacked/threatened) because her ex was stalking her, and did this more than once because the police did nothing so he carried on - why the police don't have a quiet word, at the very least, with the stalker. Especially given that this woman went several times. Answer here, comes their none apart from vague "they make mistakes they're only human" type answers.

And when we point out that this young woman - say her name: Gracie Spinks - was prosecuted for the very crime we believe Caroline's complainant is up to, we get waffle.

Just to remind everyone: Gracie was stalked by her ex. When she made several complaints of this to the police she was prosecuted for vexatious litigation. And then her ex killed her.

Low. Hanging. Fruit.

I don't read F's answers now. Even when directly adressed to me.

Noting the comments of Judge Gerald Clifton (above) regarding the alleged "willingness" of the 14 year old boy.

The same Judge Gerald Clifton who heard the Rochdale grooming gang case I assume?

One shouldn't openly speculate of course, but privately speculating, perhaps using the date that article was published, the name and age mentioned, the birth record search on FreeBMD, and company officer searches for names of interest on the Companies House website, plus also considering the last two digits of a certain Twitter handle, might be okay.

Count down to when bobble hatted Becki Babe threatens to sue MNHQ in 3 2 1

Is it acceptable to post this with no commentary? It’s been posted to a Twitter account.

A Twitter account called “Love Your Pockets has a fascinating pinned tweet from 14th June 2023 which has had 27.9k views.

I suppose Anthony Halliday is a common name around those parts and therefore in order not to get Mumsnet into legal trouble, posters should not speculate as to which Anthony Halliday this might be, in the event it’s an unfortunate coincidence.

I don't remember the details but there was that young girl who was fined for her complaints about her former boyfriend (who later murdered her). Obviously, they can, or could, do something. Though I could see why they might be reluctant to.

It's now against the rules on this parenting forum to post a newpaper article about a person having committed, and been convicted of, a sexual offence against a minor?
A new low.

The police should prosecute Hayden for a malicious report just based on that assumption. Even though he might have nothing to do with this current allegation.

ooooooo @FeIix125 have you just misgendered someone?

Out of the mouths of babes, and all that ....

And it has been. Some people are very sensitive.

Can you see how from another person's point of view it sort of looks like it might be you? Desperate to join the police, same username.

I find the way you communicate on MN strange. If I was police officer I'd want to make the process of policing more transparent to the users of Mumsnet. The police get a lot of stick, some of it justified but definitely not all, but it must be a very difficult job. The very context of being a police officer must mean coming into contact with some very unpleasant people, lots of conflict, even the chance of physical violence on a daily basis. The powers of arrest of the police are there because of the job. The legal use of violence can be necessary in some cases to do the job. I can only imagine how tough and stressful a job it can be when things could kick off at the most unexpected of times.

Given how hard the job is, if I was a police officer I'd want people to know that despite the sensational stories in the press we're not all bad. To do that I'd try and explain the process, open it up a little so people can see how it works, and why it's necessary. Obviously I couldn't discuss live cases, but I could explain how things work generically, the challenges the police face, and how the police try to be fair to everyone under difficult circumstances.

But with you I get this wierd feeling when I read your posts. They always seem to revolve around arguing. I'm not sure what word to use but your motive/ethos always seems to be to go against the grain/GC women. Just one example the thread talking about KJK being asked by the police to attend a police voluntary interview, you were arguing why she should attend and talk to the police. The reality is any legal professional would always advise their client not to attend ( Dennis Noel Kavanaugh entered that thread and did ). It literally can only go badly for the person attending the interview. A police officer would know that.

It also seems you always take the anti GC side in any thread involving any GC person and the police. It sort of like you want to argue with GC posters on this board but never just do so directly, always using the police as a proxy to argue through. I'm curious if a TRA who comitted violence against a GC person and was recorded on camera was invited to a voluntary police interview if your advice to attend would be the same? "Sure how else are the police going to get your side of the story". CF facing a lengthy protracted drawn out investigation over several years, yep that's police in action. Nowhere do you ever address things like proportionality in police investigations. A man makes dozens of complaints about someone he doesn't like on twitter with a clear political motive driving his complaints, serious investigation time. At some point a rational human would just ignore them as nuisance callers. But you say the police have to investigate every one when in some areas zero burglaries get investigated.

If what you say about the police is true, then we live in such a dystopian society with such a shit police force that the whole lot should be sacked, and a new police force built from the ground up. I don't accept that the police are that bad. I agree there needs to be some serious reforms, but I can't accept that you represent the police as a whole, and I don't think that you do.

I've just figured something out while writing this. Where I was saying above I'd try to be open about what it's like to be a police officer, one of the things I'd do is explain how the rules I had to operate under sometimes forced me to deal with things in a way I didn't like, but I had no choice. I have to follow the rules. From you I don't ever get that at all, the rules always seem to be your friend, the rules and procedures always seem to support your argument. It feels like you like the rules.

No. Not at all.

So this also isn't you on the police recruitment forum wanting advice on joining the police?
https://www.reddit.com/r/policeuk/comments/kl34u8/mdp_career_paths/

The deletions were inevitable but glad a post containing good wishes towards a 14 year old boy who was sexually abused is still here.

This caught my eye from the Pink News article.

“(Hayden) also alleges that the anti-LGBTQ+ activist described her online as a “paedophile” and accused her of stalking her daughter.” 🤔

DrLouiseJMoody

Just to confirm - that post is someone else on a different forum who has used the same user name. Its not me at all. I am not a Biomed graduate and have never wanted to be in the RAF. And I am not mid twenties (unfortunately)

'Felix' is a popular name - on here I think several of them had been used before I found '125' worked.

DrLouiseJMoody

That's not me.
Is it a different forum?

The two other posts either side of your last one are not me either.

I don't think that's quite the big reveal you think it is.

Perhaps there's another 27 / 28 year old (given the age of the post) droning on on police reddits with your username who sounds like, and has a remarkably similar history, to Felix.