Police interviewing Caroline Farrow under caution and threatening to arrest her for "misgendering"

[Pimmsnlemonade]

twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1107787009614065664

And, as she says in the thread:

"Meanwhile a group of people have terrified and harassed my family. Doxed my children, made violent and sexual threats, signed me up to porn accounts, did the same to my husband, threatened to visit here. And tumbleweed..."

Kafka is going to start getting more mentions than Orwell if this continues...

Carowiththegoodhair

Surely you can make a complaint about the tweets being in the media during an ongoing investigation.

Ah, okay. So it's not that. I think this is symptomatic of SG being so totally out of her depth. I would dearly love to know what those legal bids they hired are working on. Are they just there to bring cases against people who have rubbed SG and HI (and their fan club) up the wrong way on Twitter or are they doing anything worthwhile with the money?

Anyone else think it's pretty outrageous that Caroline herself only found out which tweets they were through seeing them in the media? Surely she would have a right to be told first?

It does seem to be bizarre that the whole of BBC2 Victoria Derbyshire fandom now knows what the tweets in question are, but Surrey police haven't passed this information on to Caroline.

Of course Surrey police will drop this now. Because it is nonsense and always was nonsense.

However, if there was any merit to the case then Susie Green could have wrecked a criminal case. With the help of the BBC.

Green putting that evidence into the public domain while the case is being investigated would have had serious implications for the criminal prosecution of that case.

If someone makes a complaint to the police, and then withdraws the complaint once the police have started an investigation, does that automatically stop the investigation? Or is it now a police matter and up to them whether to proceed?

I'll point out that withdrawing the complaint is perfectly in line with Green's aims here - she doesn't need to go to court, she just needs to provide enough intimidation by illustrating that the police do her bidding.

BBC Editorial Guidelines
Section 18: The Law
18.6.1
Contempt of court is the body of law which protects the integrity of the legal process from outside influence. Contempt can take many forms but the most serious for the BBC is publication of prejudicial material when legal proceedings are said to be "active".
In most criminal cases, the "active" period starts with the granting of an arrest warrant, the arrest of a suspect, the issue of a summons (in Scotland a complaint) or indictment. This may be well before a person is charged.
Once a case is "active", anything which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in those proceedings will be seriously prejudiced or impeded will be a contempt of court. This is the case regardless of intent. A serious prejudice might include, for example, the publication of previous convictions.
These rules apply to all courts and tribunals exercising the judicial authority of the state. However, the risk is highest when the case is due to be heard by a lay jury (for example, in criminal trials) and particular care should be taken with coverage immediately before a jury trial. Reports of the trial itself are generally safe so long as they are fair and accurate and no reporting restrictions have been put in place.

In most criminal cases, the "active" period starts with the granting of an arrest warrant, the arrest of a suspect, the issue of a summons (in Scotland a complaint) or indictment. This may be well before a person is charged.
Once a case is "active", anything which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in those proceedings will be seriously prejudiced or impeded will be a contempt of court. This is the case regardless of intent. A serious prejudice might include, for example, the publication of previous convictions.

So not likely to be an 'active' case as such?

Anyone else think it's pretty outrageous that Caroline herself only found out which tweets they were through seeing them in the media? Surely she would have a right to be told first?

Absolutely, but I find it fascinating that the harassment ended as soon as Caro went public, almost as if it was linked to SG or the police in some way.

This whole thing needs investigating.

So not likely to be an 'active' case as such?

I have no idea invited for interview under caution comes in that list. It seems to be a nowhere land.

• where

It is strange that the content of the (four?) tweets in question was not shared.
Could be all sorts of reasons for that I guess and might be be very pertinent if the police refused to share that information rather than just ommitted the information.
Especially given the subsequent events.

I thought Hayden said that the CPS had learnt from their mistakes, and will not be making any mistakes in this case?

Like being involved in a spurious complaint and police demand for an interview under caution? Followed by advertising the basis of the complaint on a telly show before the defendant knew anything about it?

Good to know the CPS are on top of things.

CPS aren't usually involved until Police have investigated and the decision is whether to prosecute.

I do wonder if her aversion to the word castration is because men will find it viscerally shocking. The TRA talk about ‘bottom surgery’ which sounds so cutesy, but castration as a word leaves no doubt.

Little experiment for you all. Go and have a chat with the men in your life today and use the word castration in a sentence. I bet you every man you say that will wince, and quite rightly so.

castration will catch the attention of men. and what have we said fifty million times? When this affects men, it will stop.

Excellent point Bowl.

Little experiment for you all. Go and have a chat with the men in your life today and use the word castration in a sentence. I bet you every man you say that will wince, and quite rightly so.

Its extraordinarily visceral for many males (in ways that are quite silly sometimes).
We have a male dog. He was castrated. My male partner made sure he was away, wouldn't talk about it, much crossing of legs. I presumed for a while this was done in jest.... it wasn't, a number of his male friends' reactions were similar.
I asked at the time would they be the same if we had a female dog and she was being spade.... answer there came none!

However, over 90% of these men who claim to be women have fully intact male bodies and have no intention of changing that. A small proportion go to the extent of obtaining the cosmetic procedure of installation of silicon implants in their chests to simulate breasts.

Surrey Police are looking ever more ridiculous by the minute, the image of them at the moment is that they are SG/Mermaid's puppets. This whole travesty will only serve to further erode public faith in all police. The only way for the police and CPS to regain any credibility is to start treating the cabal of publicity hungry, harassers who keep making these type of accusations as the vexatious litigators they are and investigate them.

Late to the thread.

I dont understand, why is FGM (rightly so) illegal and even taking a child abroad to undergo it subject to prosecution but you can take a child abroad, have them fully castrated and deliberately rendered infertile with no repercussions?

I do wonder if her aversion to the word castration is because men will find it viscerally shocking. The TRA talk about ‘bottom surgery’ which sounds so cutesy, but castration as a word leaves no doubt.

There is a great deal of deliberate use of euphemisms in transgender medical treatments.
Sex-change surgery (genital surgery, breast implants or mastectomy. Humans can't change sex)
Chest surgery (elective double mastectomy)
HRT (its cross sex hormones, not replacement)

FFS Facial feminising surgery (plastic surgery including ear pinning, nose jobs, forehead, adam's apple shaves etc)

'Euphemism Definition
The term euphemism refers to polite, indirect expressions that replace words and phrases considered harsh and impolite, or which suggest something unpleasant. Euphemism is an idiomatic expression, which loses its literal meanings and refers to something else, in order to hide its unpleasantness. For example, “kick the bucket” is a euphemism that describes the death of a person. In addition, many organizations use the term “downsizing” for the distressing act of “firing” its employees.

Euphemism depends largely on the social context of the speakers and writers, where they feel the need to replace certain words that may prove embarrassing for particular listeners or readers in a particular situation.'
literarydevices.net/euphemism/

I didn't realise quite how far this story had spread.

twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1108432741467652096

CPS aren't usually involved until Police have investigated and the decision is whether to prosecute.

Yes. Which is why it's all the more weird that Hayden decided to invoke them at that particular point.

Plus, their endorsement of GIRES rank sexism, including, presumably, that transitioning cures autism, makes me wonder.

What were they doing getting involved in propaganda in schools in the first place? Is that normal?

mermaid

Because until very recently, the idea that you’d need specific legislation to deal with that would have been met with open mouthed horror. FGM, sadly, is an old practice so the need for the legislation was obvious. But this? I mean OF COURSE it should be illegal, but it’s like asking why we don’t have a specific law against, say, beating someone to death on the third weekend in May with a stuffed Muscovy duck while singing rule Britannia. Because nobody was doing it, and the very idea of it wasn’t on our radar.

Just like until very recently the idea of permanently stopping the puberty of a child would have been seen as a mengele-like (and I do not use that lightly) experiment. The sort of thing that would appall people.

But now it is happening, and the chances of having specific legislation to prevent it are scuppered by the relentless pushing of the brave and stunning line, threats of suicide and apparently our entire state apparatus.

What the history books will make of it is anyone’s guess.