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

Mal Comms is an either way offence though, not indictable? Or does PACE treat them the same?

But the police in the Mail article said it was a request for a voluntary interview. If they had the right to force their way in and arrest her, why didn't they say that? They are muddying the waters. I suspect deliberately. Surely only a matter of time before they are reprimanded over this whole situation.

I have been following all of this with mounting horror. Just one thing. I have read quite a lot on Kiwifarms in the past and thought I would pay it a visit today, but all I get is this and nothing else happens. Any ideas?

Gurl I got that yesterday, and then when it was satisfied, it let me in,

It’s just their DDOS guard - it’s the equivalent of night club bouncer.

They used to use an external company to do that job but after a kerfuffle (long story, on the other thread!) they ended up creating their own.

A DDOS attack is basically multiple bots trying to open a website simultaneously, overloading it, causing it to crash and thus rendering it inaccessible to everyone- while that page is running they are just checking you are a single user and not part of a robot army.

Here’s the government explanation of DDOS:

www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/denial-service-dos-guidance-collection

if you wait it should let you in eventually - or you could try a refresh or a different browser. Weirdos constantly try and attack the site which slows it down (it happens to Mumsnet occasionally too).

MrsMorton

Yes mal comms is an either way offence and not indictable. Under Section 17 the definition of indictable includes either way offences.

beastlyslumber

its not something in law that police officers have to say that they can force entry although many would so it’s clear what legal power they are using and give the person the chance to come out.

It’s possible that the Officers thought that CF might close the door on them so rather than having to speak to her through the door to persuade her to come out or even force entry by kicking the door or using a door ram which causes damage, they decided to grab the door there and then and go in.

Thank you. It seems I have to be more patient!

Thank you so much. That’s a brill and very clear explanation!

I believe the Farrows' house belongs to the church and they are merely "tied" tenants.

I have two things to say. Firstly, let me make it clear that I do not believe Caroline is guilty of anything illegal.

However, I just want to point out that IF a person wanted to post things on a site like KF, Twitter, Mumsnet etc, and not be caught, that person need only have a special laptop/tablet/phone for that use, that they keep hidden in, say, a locked attic, a garage, or even a friend's house. They certainly would not post it from their child's tablet!

So taking devices still does not prove or disprove that someone posted something.

Second thing, it's about time the vexatious litigant got a taste of his own (poisoned!) medicine. Nobody in the WORLD deserves it more.

Apparently there's about to be a prominent expose of him in one of the highest circulation national newspapers. He'll be gunning for women with extra vigour once that's published.

Is that prominent paper one that the litigant has recently lost a case against?

Name changed again as I have written about some of this before.
I live in north London.
Over the years, since the beginning of secondary school really, my DC have been mugged frequently, robbed at knife point a couple of times, assaulted a couple of times completely randomly in broad daylight. The worst thing that happened was that one was dragged into a car, driven to a cash point, forced to draw out money at knife point, dragged back into the car , dumped in the middle of nowhere without phone, wallet or shoes. Walked to police station and was able to give excellent description of assailants, vehicle, and likely whereabouts of same based on level of petrol gauge and proximity of petrol stations.
In all cases the police could not have been less interested.
.
My neighbour called the police one night when a would be burglar was kicking down her back door. Nobody available to come.

Yet they can turn up and arrest a woman in her own home on the basis of spurious accusations of tweeting a known vexatious litigant with no evidence.

It does make you feel disillusioned.

I am a disabled pensioner. A few weeks ago I fell off my chair and no matter how much I tried I was unable to stand up. I called 999 for an ambulance but, because I was not bleeding or concussed, they refused to come. I rang 99 again and asked for the police. I then asked if they could send a burly bobby around to haul me up. The operator refused, and sounded angry with me, saying the police were there to respond to CRIMES and nothing else. Before I could stop myself, I blurted out "Pity I wasn't misgendered, you'd happily send six officers!" and I hung up!

The vexatious litigant has also posted on K.F.

Yes @Ladyof2022 and on more than one account. Anonymously of course.

The thing about the Farmers is that they are very good at keeping receipts. Especially the receipts that come to light as a result of legal cases.

What often happens is that if someone refuses to take part in a voluntary interview which prevents an offence being investigated, then this gives a constable a power to enter an address to arrest someone

That is a rather interesting use of the word 'voluntary'

Seems kinda ‘transvoluntary’?

Are you going to Filia Carolyn?

It's only a matter of time 😏

@Emotionalsupportviper No need to dig out the Black Books DVDs, it's on All4 here

while that page is running they are just checking you are a single user and not part of a robot army.

And to be clear, they're not doing some sort of weird ID check or something - it's just making your computer solve a hard maths problem that takes seconds to solve. (And it will be slower on less powerful devices).

It's making it computationally infeasible to overload the server - the doorkeepers get to immediately turn away clients that haven't done the necessary work, with just a quick glance.

Cartoon illustration taken from Wikipedia's Proof of Work article.

The solving only happens periodically as the "response" is repeated by your browser on all subsequent requests, so you can skip stages 1-4, until the server decides the response is "stale" (time out or overuse).

And what the diagram here doesn't show is that there are multiple "doorkeeper" servers spread across the world, which can take over from each other if one gets overloaded (there's another server monitoring the doorkeepers, changing which ones the URL points to according to their load), and the "granting service" after step 6 is actually forwarding the request through to the real server.

Fascinating techy stuff...

Oops, that cartoon was in a rubbish format that probably won't work for lots. Try again.

You may now resume the main topic. Sorry...

<chef's kiss>

👌👌👌