Police withdraw stalking protection order application against Caroline Farrow

I would hope the Officer (Wiggum is a she BTW) has been reprimanded in some form.
She as in biological woman.
She as in not biological woman.
She as in non binary but you can use she pronouns, but could still be a biological woman.
She as in the cat's mother. (If yes, then it's a whole new set of questions regarding furries).

?

The nub of it in these cases, ( I'm speaking generally, not about the case in the OP ) is that we have misogynists, some with serious criminal convictions, some in the police service itself, who know how to play the law to shut down women.

There are a lot of bit players in supporting roles in this, including on this thread. Smoke and mirrors. Step over the diversion.

Most women of FWR know as fact that there is a serial litigant ( amongst others) who sets up company after company as part of a grift.This person's criminal convictions preclude them from being listed with the Law Society or Council of Licensed Conveyancers (for example). So the generic term "lawyer" is used to befuddle those who don't know these things.

In my view, frustrated by a criminal record from getting a proper job, the cunning plan B was to adopt a protected persona as a means to hide the past by name change (unsuccessful), and as means to gain financially. That's how Bobble Hat lives. Always attempting to silence those who are brave enough to highlight the murky past, question thinking and behaviour, and highlight exploitation of that protected characteristic. Quite simply, there is money to be made, women to silence. There is no genuine concern about minority " rights" that I've ever seen from that person.

Punishment by cop appears to be part of BH's modus operandi. The weakness, stupidity, pomposity, and complicity, in this broken policing system, is an effective tool. Knowing the system and using it. This person hides behind the skirts of an adopted persona relying upon Officer Dibble to be over enthusiastic, poorly trained in this area, and over stretched. One who hates women is doubtless a jackpot bonus.

101 is full of callers claiming to have been "disrespected on Facebook" who never get anywhere except a "nob off" - to use a local unofficial police term.

Why the exceptional treatment if we go back to the cases FWR are familiar with? Because those complainants know how to exploit the system, and are aided in doing it, both knowingly and unwittingly, in my view.

The only way to deal with this type of person is to let the sunlight fall on what lives under the stones. Know the law, know your rights. Complain about what's happened to you. Make as much noise about what's happened as you can. Certainly don't take advice from someone purporting to be a policeman on FWR recommending a voluntary interview on your own without a solicitor.

As ever, it's left to women of courage to speak out as they've done for thousands of years. They are still paying a heavy price.

We are with you, we go to your meetings, we listen to you, we learn, and we are proud of you, and we know how hard this road has been for you.

A she? That is disappointing. Have you met her? Is ‘she’ her chosen pronoun or the pronoun that you and I would naturally and automatically use?

It is outrageous that taxpayers have to pay for this. The only thing worse would be Caroline paying but she is already doing that in other ways. Very unfair!

Which begs the question. How far upwards does this toxicity go?

@Pixiedust1234, that's a question I really want to find out the answer to. I had high hopes of Lisa Townsend the Surrey Police & Crime Commissioner when she very publicly binned off Stonewall, and was then the co-operative subject of a cracking article in the Mail on Sunday by Jo Bartosche two years ago (linked). She subsequently fought off a challenge from the Surrey crime panel that included the odious Crispin Blunt MP.

A number of other English PCCs came out in public support of her position.

Townsend knows the dangers of 'capture'. So I'll bet my pocket money that somewhere along the line she has been briefed by someone that has misrepresented the reputational risk to her office in a disingenuous way. That position has to fall apart at some point, as it's not a stable situation - her officers cannot keep their PCC away from the facts forever.

Meanwhile I'm wondering who she has been spending most time with, as she's not normally swayed by 'alternative facts'. She'll have a weekly briefing with the Chief Constable and senior officers - that's routine - so I'd be looking at them as a pretty big problem in putting her at reputational risk like this if I were ever asked to give an opinion.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9915637/New-Surrey-Police-Commissioner-attacks-Stonewall-promoting-dangerous-transgender-ideology.html

There was, in my view, some extremely biased language in the application, mainly trying to frame Caroline as some mad right - wing fascist transphobe. Once her submissions were looked at, the case disintegrated, so what does that tell you? Clearly the order shouldn't have made it to application stage

Coutts Effect strikes again

Fair play, in that case, I don't read all of them.

@DifficultBloodyWoman 😂

I would hope the Officer (Wiggum is a she BTW) has been reprimanded in some form.

Just before the Stalking Order went to court, they said they had not read Caroline's submissions, i.e. evidence was on their desk which was not looked at whilst, oddly, the complainant's was included. There was, in my view, some extremely biased language in the application, mainly trying to frame Caroline as some mad right - wing fascist transphobe. Once her submissions were looked at, the case disintegrated, so what does that tell you? Clearly the order shouldn't have made it to application stage.

And now, people who pay taxes have to foot the 7000 plus bill that Surrey ran up all because they couldn't be bothered to look at one party's evidence.

Awww, you’re spoiling my fantasy of incompetence being punished!

Althoug, I’m not going to completely give up hope as while I set my own out of office message for holidays, other people have done it for me (and me for then) in cases of illness when we haven’t had access from home.

You are right about things being doled out in multiples of two. That is interesting, why do we do that? I haven’t thought about that before.

Perhaps it was 8 weeks and there are 7 left to run? One week’s delay in setting it up?

[Fine, ok, there may be explanations other than stress leave.] <pouts>

@BezMills - “Sorry Police” 🤣🤣🤣

The chances are - it won't go to a very serious manager to investigate.

Very senior managers are responsible for managing departments. So you may have a Chief Inspector who is responsible for the response teams. But they will not become the OIC for any inquires. It will get passed down to the OIC to investigate. And if all the cops on the team have similar case loads, it will stay with the OIC.

As I said before, you may have an officer who is on light duties who may be able to do bits of the case papers - but they tend to get inundated with other similar request from the other cops on the team.

yes, good question. And one that Sorry Police will need to answer, sooner or later. This whole mess is their doing, and they need to close it down.

Just a quick look at the recent ones I have posted on:

Police asking for an apology from ds
Mould from cannabis farm, what to do?
Police response times
Driving while on Nitrous Oxide
Diversion for the man who face punched an elderly lady
Pregnant police officer
Why would an ambulance have blue lights but no sirens on
Motorbikes in pedestrian areas and parks
Car stolen... weird

Pixiedust1234
I have explained this a few pages back.
There is often no-one to pass their case load onto.
Everyone on the shift will have their own case loads to do.
And mix into this all the other incoming jobs coming in.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain
Probably - if I think I can make a contribution to it.

Agree to getting this back on track. It's funny how it's mainly hers and KJK that get derailed so much. The women that open up the sunlight on abusive men 🤔

Anyway. Whether the 7 weeks are caused by holibobs, sick leave due to stress or a suspension or whatever, normally their caseload would be handed to someone else. Where the case is costing that particular constabulary thousands of pounds in court costs and publicity then one would assume a very senior officer would be assigned it rather than have it getting dusty on a desk. Unless of course they want to drag it out for further punishment of Caroline. But surely not. No decent human being would do that, or be supportive of that.

Which begs the question. How far upwards does this toxicity go?

In my experience as an expert on sick notes, it seems unlikely.

Normally if you have time to set your OoO before going off sick, you would leave it open-ended, no? 7 weeks seems like a weird duration for a sickie authorised by sick note. For a first sick note, I would expect 1 or 2 weeks, then subsequently maybe 4 weeks, before giving a longer duration.

Administrative leave or being suspended maybe, although again 7 weeks seems wrong to me. Things tend to be doled out in 2s and 4s and 6s, don't they?

Felix - genuine question. I can't ever recall seeing you on threads about speeding or drink driving where your expertise as a member of a police force would be appreciated. Have you ever contributed to those threads at all?

DifficultBloodyWoman
What do you think he/she is getting a 'dressing down' for exactly?

Person contacts police and makes a report, they provide evidence to substantiate that report, its crimed, investigation commences, statements obtained, other party is arrested/interviewed, defence raised is investigated.

If there is insufficient to pursue it further - it gets NFA'd

If there is sufficient a file is prepared for CJU/CPS.

For that file to go to CPS - evidential reports.downloads have to be applied for and compiled. It takes quite a while for them to come back.

SPO applied for to protect the reporting person, but is rejected by the court (it often happens). The primary enquiory will still continue.

Brefugee
Because that is the usual reply.
I say: why not actually check when a woman reports harassment more than once?
Felix says: oh but should we treat all complaints as vexatious?

I haven't said that at all

I have always stated that each report should be investigated. I think its you that are suggesting that we should put 2+2 together.

"......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...." Brefugee · Today 06:38

Each report should be taken on its own merits and investigated. If there is evidence to suggest its vexatious, then it gets dropped - but there has to be evidence to show that it is. Its not a case of putting 2+2 together. And in this case against CF - we don't 100% know its the same complainer.

Each of Gracie's reports should have been investigated. Similar to the reporting person's reports in CF's enquiry.

Disclaimer - I am using 'we' to mean me and most others on here. I acknowledge that some on here will know or have been told the details of the complaint and I am aware that Caroline may have access to this thread or indeed people close to her. I also acknowledge that the reporting person, OIC and direct witnesses may also read the thread and hence will not be included in the term 'we'.

So going back to Caroline….

I wonder if the Officer in Charge is not actually off on 7 weeks of holiday?

I’d like to think that he has realized he fucked this up quite a lot and it will cost Surrey Police quite a bit and his superiors have given him a dressing down and now he is off on ‘stress leave’ to recover.

In fact, I think my explanation might even be more likely.

MrsOvertonsWindow
I'm not making any allegations - I am saying 'what if'. Which is why its in bold and underlined.

So were they right to ignore any further calls from Gracie? Putting 2 + 2 together as Brefugee says? I would suggest not and each report she made should have been investigated properly.

lechiffre55
I respond to things I want to respond to - similar to the rest of us on here.
And I do have an interest of police issues since I have been operational for 20+ years. And if there are things posted which are not quite right or do give a full picture - I will post something to counter it. Its a public forum at the end of the day.

What bias do you think I have?
I have consistently said that we don't know the specifics of the enquiry, who the reporting person is or what the report is. How is that biased?

The initial thread started with concerns about CF being arrested at her home address and why it took 3/4 officers to do so - which I replied to.

Would you question other people's bias's on here. How about all the posters that have been abusive towards me? The posts yesterday from someone assuming my name and posting abusive comments? The posts from someone calling me a pig - and only one other person accepting that it was wrong - does that mean the rest are complicit in the abuse?

I am not the poster of reddit - its just someone who has used the same user name.

And how exactly am I closed minded. I have consistently said "we don't know" when we talk about this case. Others have seemed to assume its one in the same person making the initial report to the police even when they admit they can't be 100% certain - I have an open mind at this stage.

"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."

Sometimes it would be nice to read these threads and not see a man poring over the murder of a woman by her stalker looking for "evidence" to prove his own prejudices about other matters. I know that women being persecuted by the police are fair game for you (judging by your posting history) but please stop making allegations about Gracie Spinks.

i can see Felix has replied. I scrolled quickly past the wall of text.
Has he come here and said when they should "ignore all the calls"? When it is clear that with the slightest investigation Gracie Spinks and other stalking or harassment victims could be saved a lot of heartache and bother and maybe their lives?

Because that is the usual reply.
I say: why not actually check when a woman reports harassment more than once?
Felix says: oh but should we treat all complaints as vexatious?

which completely misses the point. But makes my point for me.