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

the comment above relates to a previous occasion when the police were used to harass Caroline Farrow

ScreamingMeMe

making a comparison like this is too wide.

Many complaints are dealt with by a force’s Professional Standards Department who are Police Officers themselves but they certainly don’t show any favourable treatment towards other Officers and will not hold back in pursuing them.

Hundreds of complaints without misconduct action being taken does not necessarily prove that there is something going wrong or something corrupt happening.

One significant reason why many complaints don’t go anywhere these days is because the introduction of Body Worn Cameras which Officers wear throughout incidents can easily disprove what someone is accusing them of.

All this fuss because a woman called someone “ Him”?
Why even waste police time on that!
Go solve some real crimes.

They showed their true colours through the advice given by the Met to scared women in the wake of the Sarah Everard tragedy. And then their ridiculously heavy-handed response to her vigil.

This eroded what faith I had in the police previously. Given any choice in the matter they are the last people I'd want to call upon for help.

It's stuff she allegedly posted on KiwiFarms, a far right troll site recently in the news for a swatting incident. The site is associated with doxxing, harassment, suicides and terrorism. Farrow admits to having been a poster there though she denies making the specific posts she's been accused of. It's a deeply unsavoury and dangerous site and she's unlikely to be the only kiwi farms user police are keeping an eye on.

Just watched, and had a thought. They've taken the priest's work computer. It will have sensitive material about parishoners on it. Can they get the local Bishop or similar to pull strings to get at least that back.

They didn't pull any punches on the term for parting a male child from his genitals in that article!

So many times when reading accounts of true crime police investigations into, often eventually, convicted murderers and rapists, there are accounts of how the police couldn’t access phone, bank or computer details due to the high bar needed - even when doing so might help prevent further attacks occurring. I’ve often felt and understood their frustration.

But here, for this, they seem to have had no trouble at all?

Ditto!

The site is accused of such things, not associated with. To be associated with, there would need to be some actual proof.

Saying that men have penises?

Discussion of that here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4622276-apparently-mumsnet-is-next

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4620584-antipodean-fruit-grower-statement

Last time I checked, Caroline Farrow hadn’t ever called the police on me, regardless of how much our views on certain topics might differ 🤷🏻‍♀️

If I disagree with views she holds, that she’s legally entitled to hold but that I think may be a threat to my rights, I’ll debate them and try to make a more persuasive argument than she does so people are swayed by my opinions not hers. Or isn’t that how adults are supposed to do it any more? Is it all “no debate” and straight to deploying your pet attack police now?

Feed that version of "grossly offensive" into the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1(1), and you then find that to have committed an offense you need:

if [the sender's] purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending [the electronic communication] is that it should, so far as [being "grossly offensive"], cause distress or anxiety to the recipient

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

Malicious comms has to be made out and ensure it complies with the test in R V Scottow.

Bearing in mind the complainant has significant of litigation, one wonders if Surrey police are doing this "by the book" in case he were to sue them.

Bearing in mind this "grossly offensive message" had to be directly targeted at the "victim" so that it was the main purpose of sending the message, I am struggling to see how this was made out.

From CF's twitter account the officers involved seemed to be embarrassed about the case (taking the custody sgt and his comments out of it)

What an absolute waste of public money, a total betrayal of womens confidence in the police and will no doubt entail further litigation and cost to public purse.

For the sake of one serial complainer

X post!!

The complainant must have quite good connections to key-players in the Surrey police to get them to respond to a random suspicion.

I guess they share some common passion.

Feed that version of "grossly offensive" into the Communications Act 2003, section 127(1)(a), and then there's automatically an offence.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

Section 127(2) is arguably even broader.

Hi - this sounds ludicrous to me . Absolutely. What has she been accused of ? Can anyone E tell me - who is it making the complaint? Can anyone fill me in ? (So to speak ) ? Without prejudicing whatever is happening? There's clearly a back story I'm not aware of .
What has this woman meant to have done that warrants arrest ? Can anyone clarify?

Some forces need to get their heads out of their arse and start saying no !!!

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
...
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

Because (a), (b), and (c) are alternatives, then as I read this key part of the Communications Act 2003, a person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

I'm a bloody expert on mal comms - as in I regularly close those jobs down because the offence is not made out .

Someone explain to me please what's happened- factually .

I guess they share some common passion.

I found myself speculating about the Freemasons earlier, maybe their day hasn’t passed after all? Then I thought of the considerably worse alternative explanations.

Statement from Surrey PCC

https://twitter.com/lisaa_townsend/status/1577369416173588480?s=46&t=r5vCZ8w4BT-f3ZL0T2j6Ig

It's difficult to do so here. I'll see if I can point you towards somewhere on Twitter.

Can you pm me - I'm on the app but I'll charge the laptop up - if it still
Works ....