Police withdraw stalking protection order application against Caroline Farrow

Goodness! I’ve just been deleted. And I can’t even remember what I posted. Oh the joys of menopause. The womanly version.

That should say Is it illegal
fat fingers me

It illegal to impersonate a police officer online?
Something to ponder on- assuming that the site concerned, and the great pretender, are both based in England.
Hmmm

As a retired High Court Judge, and someone called as an expert witness on Kryptonite Politics in the trial of General Zod I have to encourage posters to remain sceptical about claims to authority on the Internet.

Bez, there are people who claim to be lawyers....and I heard, who claim to be women.

Thanks Bez. I am struggling to believe that police have such a recruitment problem. Surely there are some basic proficiency tests.

That's it. I am now off to rescue some hostages in some wild and lawless part of the world. No, not Surrey.

I am not saying that. Are you not able to understand or are you being deliberately dense.

I am saying:

1. You could have done some of your own research Google/The Farms/MN and picked up enough history to suggest that it was not just black and white and that there might be more to this than the complainants version.
2. The police could have done a lot more to look at the background/context. Caroline/Louise and too many more could have pointed them in the right direction.

But hey. That would mean listening to women, something you and your fellow policemen don't seem to do.

What are you getting out of this?

We don't have any evidence that one police officer is like that.

I say this as one of the surviving Apollo 13 crew, "the first rule of Internet safety is, do not assume people are telling the truth about who they are. Especially the ones pretending to be cops, SAS veterans, or elderly astronauts"

I know you can't.
I'm pointing out the fact that you have missed an important part of the caution out if you were trying to quote it.

Aoutsch! Burny hot!

Needmoresleep

So you're making an assumption then. So, it may be someone completely different.

But you expect the police just to make that assumption anyway and be happy for them to do so in this case. 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.

And you would be happy for the police to do this - rather than investigate it properly.

It may be Hayden - it may not be - we just don't know - we can not just assume it is at this stage.

And what does assuming do.............

😂😂😂@Pixiedust1234

I'm not the one pretending to be a cop.
You can't really caution a user name on t'internet.
True.

I think it's safe to assume that Hayden was the second complainant.

https://twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1650926025352568833?s=20

DrLouiseJMoody
As we all know who the complainant is, they publicly identified themselves on Twitter and this is now recorded in a court case

That was in October 2022 - how do we know it's the same person who made this recent report to the police? Or are we just assuming?

Same disclaimer as before....

Oh FFS.

Yes I am making an assumption. I am an observer, not the investigator or judge. However there is a long pattern of behaviour which the police, and indeed you and me, are able to take into account. It is a reasonable assumption.

There is a whole lot more stuff in court records, in police files involving this claimant and a number of women which Caroline, Louise and others would have been able to point the investigating officer towards. We have been saying that much has been archived on the Farms, so available to you if you were interested. But no. The men are right, the women wrong.

Felix, I was always quite pro-police, not least because my father was a Detective Commander so I grew up very aware of the work police did. You single handedly are putting me off. Are all police offices so obtuse and patronising.

It's fine. Lark is only pretending to be a police officer. Plenty of people do.

😂

LarkLane
You've missed an important section of the caution out.

I had assumed it was this person that Louise was talking about. I also assume MN will allow PinkNews links.

Lawyer Stephanie Hayden came forward to Vice News on 6 October, saying that she was Farrow’s accuser.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/10/13/stephanie-hayden-caroline-farrow-arrest-kiwi-farms/

😂
You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence. When asked questions you do not have to answer those questions if you do not want to, but anything you do say may be written down and read out in court. If you do not understand this right then you should say so, and it will be explained to you.

That's why I said "It may be a case of....."

Baggmo is just posting something that is in the public domain. It'll be a poor do if it's deleted.

Don't tell him, Pike.