Page 12 | Carolyn Farrow taken to police station

ScreamingMeMe · 2022-10-04T07:10:34+00:00

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 {mention:Bernard}BlacksWineIceLolly and {mention: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. https://twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1577092705154666496?t=Cv7tRv3YdqIogpXT_MSwZQ&s=19

OrangePumpkinLobelia · 04/10/2022 14:55

DifficultBloodyWoman · 04/10/2022 13:09

@MNHQ
This is a brilliant idea.

Please could you do this? This is something that EVERYONE should know, not just women.

Remember - when you teach a man, you have taught a man. When you teach a woman, you have taught her whole family.

Show quote history

This is indeed a brilliant idea.

Emotionalsupportviper · 04/10/2022 14:55

Sophoclesthefox · 04/10/2022 13:27

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.

This.

I don't agree with much of what CF apparently stands for,, but she's entitled to her opinions.

Hugocat1 · 04/10/2022 15:00

It doesn’t matter if people find her views unpalatable it’s still unacceptable what happened. And she has my full support.

But society, lately has been turning the other cheek when injustices have been done because it’s people they don’t align with or agree with politically.

One day it maybe you on the receiving end and how will you feel then?

By the way - half of my family are Irish catholic. I’m not. Doesn’t make them monsters that they have a protected religious belief. We are not all the Borg with hive think.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 04/10/2022 15:00

MelodyPondsMum · 04/10/2022 12:55

I wonder if we could get MNHQ to do a webchat with a QC about women's rights concerning arrests/cautions/vexatious complaints, etc. They could provide a detailed checklist on what to do when faced with a police officer at the door; an officer determined to gain entry; an officer casually referencing sectioning, etc because this thread shows that some posters seem to think random Googles are the same as understanding the law and their rights. It isn't.
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.

A thread has been started in site stuff regarding this.

If anyone else thinks it is a good idea, please could you add your comments to that thread.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4647904-web-chat-suggestion-qc-on-rights-when-approaching-or-being-approached-by-police?reply=120487797

Thanks!

SarahShorty · 04/10/2022 15:02

This country has a veneer of freedom, in truth it's a dystopian shithole. I'm really sorry this happened to Carolyn.

SnapeAlways · 04/10/2022 15:09

CF here. Changed name because I had been posting on another school/ASD thread that could be outing and because I’ve been listening to HP6 with DD.

I thought I was legally well versed but I was led up the path in terms of giving passwords so help would be useful.

I gave the passwords because I was told I have no choice. I didn’t want to make their job any easier but actually I am really relaxed about the police having my devices, although my daughter not so much.

If the police needed to seize devices they should have issued a warrant to search during the day when most of the kids were at school & invited me in for interview.

Arrest was totally unnecessary. My solicitor is on the case.

I disclosed I had an anxiety disorder when booked in. I think on discharge I believed sarge had asked whether I intended to self harm when I got home, but I heard “are you going to have self harm thoughts when you get home.”

So when I said yes, he thought I meant I was going to self harm. It was late, I was discombobulated. I was really upset because when I was leaving the house, my DD was beginning to get distressed and I just felt so awful for her and hopeless.

He got very cross and said in that case I am
going to section you and I said well I was giving an honest answer. He said right take her back to the cells and to me he said “you need to think about your answer, if you are telling me you are going to harm yourself.”

I said that no I wasn’t going to harm myself, but of course after what’s happened I might well have thoughts but I wouldn’t do anything and anyway my husband was at home…

Then he let me go.

Igmum · 04/10/2022 15:11

This is terrifying. I disagree with many of CF's opinions too, but in this country you don't get arrested for disagreeing with me. I'm not sure what the Police are playing at here because I don't think that simply having unpleasant or contentious opinions should be a Police matter. Death and rape threats absolutely but anything else no. This is high inappropriate

XSnoe · 04/10/2022 15:12

she's anti gay marriage

This glosses over it a bit. Of course this doesn't mean she should be treated unfairly, but at least call it what it is. She isn't just "anti gay marriage" she is anti gay people being parents, thinks gay people are sinful, thinks Disney had a gay agenda, thinks kids will somehow be harmed by learning that being gay thing (remember how outraged she was about the gay penguins at London Zoo). It's not as simple as "Oh I just don't want gay people to marry" she's be quite happy if gay people just didn't exist at all.

And yes she's Catholic, but so is my partner with an Irish heritage and he doesn't hate gay people

picklemewalnuts · 04/10/2022 15:13

@SnapeAlways

TheClogLady · 04/10/2022 15:13

XSnoe · 04/10/2022 15:12

she's anti gay marriage

This glosses over it a bit. Of course this doesn't mean she should be treated unfairly, but at least call it what it is. She isn't just "anti gay marriage" she is anti gay people being parents, thinks gay people are sinful, thinks Disney had a gay agenda, thinks kids will somehow be harmed by learning that being gay thing (remember how outraged she was about the gay penguins at London Zoo). It's not as simple as "Oh I just don't want gay people to marry" she's be quite happy if gay people just didn't exist at all.

And yes she's Catholic, but so is my partner with an Irish heritage and he doesn't hate gay people

Does the pope hate gay people then?

XSnoe · 04/10/2022 15:14

But yes, I do think it's commendable that we should not "throw her under the bus", even though she would throw many of you under the bus.

picklemewalnuts · 04/10/2022 15:14

There are a few people getting trapped in whataboutery again.

People shouldn't be arrested and their devices seized because someone doesn't like them.

Ever.

BitossiBlues · 04/10/2022 15:15

@SnapeAlways I am so sorry for what you have endured. Please don't let this drop. Many many women are willing to contribute to a legal fund should you decide to take legal action. Please take care of yourself, and I hope you and your family are recovering and taking comfort in all the support you have out here. 💐

BloodyHellKen · 04/10/2022 15:15

Sophoclesthefox · 04/10/2022 13:27

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.

Indeed. I am reminded of the recent threads regarding Toby Youngs cancelled PayPal account and the right wing woman who had her bank account closed because her beliefs didn't sign with the banks ethos.
There were people on here who thought that was okay too 😳

Helleofabore · 04/10/2022 15:15

I am sorry that you have been through this CF. I hope resolution will be quick.

XSnoe · 04/10/2022 15:16

Does the pope hate gay people then?

If he thinks they are deviant and wrong and sinful, I'd say yes. If he thinks they are not wrong and deviant, then no.

Womblesgash · 04/10/2022 15:18

I might have missed it but it would be worth knowing exactly what comments or behaviour is being investigated as a harassment and if this was widely shared or made privately to one person. Harassment covers a large range of behaviours.

Some posters have raised some points which could do with clarification.

If what CF said or has done is seen by the Police to come under harassment that causes alarm or distress (in a nutshell the test applied by Police here is would a normal person feel alarm or distress) or if it’s malicious communications (grossly offensive or threatening) then the Police are duty bound to investigate it. Yes, there are loads more important issues for them to deal with but they have to be impartial and not show bias by deciding what not to investigate so their hands are tied really.

Say someone reports CF for such an offence, they will have to show some proof of it like emails or actual evidence to back their complaint up which would then give the ‘reasonable suspicion ’.

The comment the Officer made about finding the evidence is more to do with proving what the person who made the report said by looking at CF’s laptop/computer.

Entering an address. The Police do not need a warrant to enter an address if they are there to arrest someone for an either an indictable or either way offence which harassment is, so yes they can use reasonable force to enter.

Police do need to have what is called a ‘necessity to arrest’ someone (as opposed to asking them to attend a station to be interviewed voluntarily) so in these circumstances seizing laptops as evidence would give them that necessity to turn up and enter CF’s address to arrest her. If they rang CF in advance to say they wished to interview her then it’s possible evidence can be destroyed or concealed.

ImherewithBoudica · 04/10/2022 15:18

Even if he does, it doesn't successfully dehumanise him. This is like sitting in a bad 70s sit com with a toffee nosed Margo Leadbetter sniffing about how people Like That shouldn't be allowed and bring down the tone of the neighbourhood.

What did slavery, naziism, colonialism - you know, all the stuff virtuous people love to witter about how they're so very woke to the evils of - all have in common ?

Every single one of those movements had decided that a characteristic made someone 'not one of them', beneath them, and thereby dehumanised them, to the point that what happened to that person, no matter how evil and horrible and wrong, was not something to mind about . And that good people would not sympathise or care or be caught even showing concern about this.

Ffs how bloody stupid do you have to be to not realise this?

'Right side of history'..... most of the proponents of this political movement wouldn't know about their own history or world history if it bit them on the bum.

PerfectlyPreservedQuagaarWarrior · 04/10/2022 15:19

There are a few people getting trapped in whataboutery again.

Aren't there just.

XSnoe · 04/10/2022 15:20

Even if he does, it doesn't successfully dehumanise him

I'm not trying to dehumanise anyone. Someone being homophobic isn't an excuse to treat them unfairly. But just thought it's more than "anti gay marriage" as a pp said.

TheClogLady · 04/10/2022 15:21

XSnoe · 04/10/2022 15:16

Does the pope hate gay people then?

If he thinks they are deviant and wrong and sinful, I'd say yes. If he thinks they are not wrong and deviant, then no.

Is it not possible to both believe someone is devious, wrong and sinful without actually hating them?

what with all the hate the sin/love the sinner shit an all?

ImherewithBoudica · 04/10/2022 15:23

I'm not trying to dehumanise anyone. Someone being homophobic isn't an excuse to treat them unfairly. But...

Oh doesn't the 'but' say it all.

Emotionalsupportviper · 04/10/2022 15:25

Womblesgash · 04/10/2022 15:18

I might have missed it but it would be worth knowing exactly what comments or behaviour is being investigated as a harassment and if this was widely shared or made privately to one person. Harassment covers a large range of behaviours.

Some posters have raised some points which could do with clarification.

If what CF said or has done is seen by the Police to come under harassment that causes alarm or distress (in a nutshell the test applied by Police here is would a normal person feel alarm or distress) or if it’s malicious communications (grossly offensive or threatening) then the Police are duty bound to investigate it. Yes, there are loads more important issues for them to deal with but they have to be impartial and not show bias by deciding what not to investigate so their hands are tied really.

Say someone reports CF for such an offence, they will have to show some proof of it like emails or actual evidence to back their complaint up which would then give the ‘reasonable suspicion ’.

The comment the Officer made about finding the evidence is more to do with proving what the person who made the report said by looking at CF’s laptop/computer.

Entering an address. The Police do not need a warrant to enter an address if they are there to arrest someone for an either an indictable or either way offence which harassment is, so yes they can use reasonable force to enter.

Police do need to have what is called a ‘necessity to arrest’ someone (as opposed to asking them to attend a station to be interviewed voluntarily) so in these circumstances seizing laptops as evidence would give them that necessity to turn up and enter CF’s address to arrest her. If they rang CF in advance to say they wished to interview her then it’s possible evidence can be destroyed or concealed.

Thank you.

I have always thought that even if the police were going to question/interview someone they needed a search warrant to to enter the property and take stuff away. (You can tell that all of my legal trading is courtesy of The Bill and Law & Order UK0

yourhairiswinterfire · 04/10/2022 15:26

or if it’s malicious communications (grossly offensive or threatening) then the Police are duty bound to investigate it. Yes, there are loads more important issues for them to deal with but they have to be impartial and not show bias by deciding what not to investigate so their hands are tied really.

I'd believe they were impartial and unbiased if they did something about the transactivists threatening to rape and murder women. I know women who have reported such threats and were advised by the police to just come off social media.

Yet a certain group of people can go crying to them over silly memes and the police jump into action.

It's ridiculous.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/10/2022 15:31

I was in a similar position, before even interviewing me, I was offered a 'deal'.

I was in one country and the computer I was accused of using was on a different continent.

I had to explain tot he police what an IP address was.

No matter how appalled you are you cannot know what it feels like to be in a police station with a person interviewing you who isn't actually listening.

That's shocking @sashh was it about trans stuff or something else?