Carolyn Farrow taken to police station

[ScreamingMeMe]

Long twitter thread here. She's had her electronic devices seized too, and has been accused of being certain posters on Kiwi Farms and Mumsnet

@BernardBlacksWineIceLolly and @BreakWindandFire sorry to tag you but she's been accused of being you!

We all know who this will be, but as Caroline says, please don't speculate/discuss them.

twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1577092705154666496?t=Cv7tRv3YdqIogpXT_MSwZQ&s=19

Why would the police deal with truly tough criminals when a whingeing person complaining of ''Hurt feelings'' will mean the police can go round and arrest a relatively docile woman?
Easy target for them.

It's like a gardener choosing to pull up weeds in a rose~bed, as opposed to digging out Japanese knotweed, or removing Pyracantha.

An easy job to target a woman who allegedly ''Said something'' that hurt a man's feelings.
This is my take on it anyway.

Massive whataboutism going on here

I have the bingo card to hand.

So far we have:

• she's catholic
• she's anti gay marriage
• she's anti abortion
• she eats hamsters and leaves the toilet seat up
• she's right wing (dear God the horror )
• she's privileged (Run! Run for your lives!)
• you're not allowed to care about her until you've demonstrated sufficient action and virtue signalling to all of x, y and z

No one's said 'fascist' yet. <disappointed>

But basically all of this says: if you're not the Right Kind of Person you do not deserve equality under the law, or fair treatment, and other women should not help you.

Fuck that. It's morally fubar.

Yes, @KettrickenSmiled I didn't address your whataboutery and lying. Others did, however, so no need to go over it again here.

I mean, I'm not sure why I shouldn't pull out one part of your comment to respond to. You can call it 'selective quoting' if you want to, but in actual fact, it's just 'quoting'. It's not as if you said anything in the rest of your comment which altered the meaning of the words I quoted.

Surely the context of remarks about sectioning is relevant to whether the remarks were received as a threat or not? The context here is the disproportionate use of force in CF being removed from her home, her devices seized, and being held in custody. It would surely be reasonable for her to perceive the sectioning remarks as a threat rather than a genuine concern or her welfare.

Honestly KettrickenSmiled
Rocking up on a thread about CF being arrested and arguing that we shouldn't be discussing CF being arrested.
Maybe try these threads if this one isn't to your liking?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4644323-mermaids-being-investigated-by-the-charity-commission

or the legendary Fred Sergeant:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4647762-fred-sargeant-statement

Or the one about threats from trans extremists to burn down the venue for the Filia Feminist conference?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4647762-fred-sargeant-statement

Yes - even though "you can't have a thread about one person in this situation because you haven't started a thread about every person who has been in this situation" is logically unsound, it's also incorrect.

We've had countless threads about women being arrested on spurious grounds - some of them even had different alleged "reporters" than the person who summoned the police in this incident. Even this morning before I knew about CF I was reading about that poor woman who got treated horrifically after being allegedly involved in the Bristol protests (fairly old story).

Police entering a home and removing items without a warrant is ultimately a bad thing for everyone, regardless of whether one happens to agree with that person's views or not.

This, in a nutshell, Quagaar

This is extremely worrying.

Am aghast at some people here clearly feeling that this is Ok, because they think Caroline has dreadful opinions. Am less aghast at the whataboutery over what is a minor part of the story re the sectioning, as that is very par for the course on a thread like this, about a specific named woman being targeted. I can spot at least one poster who can only do nit picky sophistry, most often on threads about certain women, through whatever name change they have, and is utterly incapable of engaging with any substantive matter. Best ignored.

There is much that I disagree with Caroline about. It seems that the absolute baseline of acceptable human interaction is that she is entitled to her viewpoint, and to be able to articulate it without being persecuted.

Regardless of 'feelings' about any Women...remember it could be YOU next.
All this talk of she says he says, needs to stop.
A Women the biological type...has been arrested ...for what ?
Has she threatened death to anyone, no !

I've no idea what's going on in this Country but 'they 'have a level of power... that's terrifying.

I've been thinking that increasingly, esp as I am re-reading Handmaid's Tale as my son is doing it for English Lit A level. I told him this at the beginning - that she said that everything in the book and happended or was happening to women somewhere and he scoffed. He's not scoffing anymore.

Under his Eye.

I like Fair Cop and admire what they do but iirc they're a lobby group. I think it might be better if it was an independent iyswim.
I've started a thread in Site Stuff about it so anyone who thinks it's a good idea or has suggestions could post there. I don't want to derail here.

I am furious about this.

Not just because of the event in itself, but because of our families recent experience of police inactivity in the face of real crimes. My adult daughter was the victim over many years. When reported it took the police months to even request, yes request, the criminal's phone. Predictably it was long gone by then. I don't think they even looked for the hard drive, let alone barge into his house and look for it. Needless to say the CPS decided not to take it further.

My faith in the police is zero.

Thanks for linking that but now my anxiety is through the roof

Reasonable suspicion that the person being arrested has committed an offence, has attempted to do so or is planning to do so

Wtaf does that mean? How delayed does the planning need to be, minutes, hours, months?

'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'

That's an interesting idea. I'd like a body that women could call that could provide legal advice in the event of harassment/wrongful arrest etc.

Somehow I don’t think the police would bother with any of their views, no matter how abusive they were. They only seem to respond to a particular view point. As someone else said, it is all extremely sinister.

It's really scary, and she must have been so distressed. Poor Caroline

Of course it altered it, as another PP pointed out.

Talking of whataboutery & lying - tell us again how disliking one woman's homophobia & anti-abortion stance equals misogyny? You've created a straw man out of nothing, because you think everybody should be "supporting" Farrow, & that not to do so is somehow being against all women.

IME there is a huge amount of outrage about the conduct of the police. From young black men being shot by police, to young black children being strip searched, young gay men being murdered and police not bothering to investigate, to young ethnic minority people reporting crime and being accused of being the perpetrators, to women reporting stalking, being ignored by police or fined for wasting police time and ending up dead. Girls being raped, spiked and police telling them they asked for it by wearing the wrong clothes, being out in the evening. You name it. I have experienced a couple of the above examples and have friends who have too. We all complain, write to our MPs and so on. Unfortunately, what with being middle aged women, we tend to be ignored.

@KettrickenSmiled i think the support being asked is for a person being arrested for allegedly posting a meme. The way its been done.

Not whether they are worthy or have/not a penis or because its not a group cause. Try focusing on the what and not the who.

It's absolutely astonishing that some people can't grasp the concept of a principle that has to apply to everyone.

Imagine if we said, well, burglary is wrong, but it's only wrong if it happens to people we approve of. If some horrid anti-abortionist gets burgled, then it doesn't matter.

Apparently arresting someone on the basis of a false and malicious accusation is only bad if that person is someone we like. If it's someone we don't like, then it's fine.

I seriously wonder how it's possible to be that dim and still function on a daily basis.

I can spot at least one poster who can only do nit picky sophistry, most often on threads about certain women, through whatever name change they have, and is utterly incapable of engaging with any substantive matter. Best ignored.

Yes. Else we might get into recounting past deeds still unanswered ....

What are you on about?

Are you trying to say it’s acceptable to arrest a woman because you dislike Catholicism?

Because as far as I was aware, belief, including belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church (eg no abortion, no same sex marriage) is just as protected a characteristic as sexual orientation?

Are we about to usher in a new era of catholic persecution because the Pope is an anti SJW?

So many of these threads are good practice for spotting logical fallacies in the wild.

This is dreadful!

Heartbreaking and totally preventable death of this poor woman - and the coroner has made no bones about the failings of the Surrey Police. I hope her family sues the backside off them - there are now four children without a mother, and doubtless traumatised by what has happened.

That would be really useful.