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

Good for you. Are you ok now? Did someone come to help in the end?

The C of E seems caught up in it, though (but still disapproves of homosexuality, even though there are many openly gay priests).

I'm a Christian and licensed lay minister myself, and there are many contradictory aspects.

The C of E tries so hard to be a 'broad church' that they have forgotten their core beliefs or even that it might be a good idea to have some. But belief was alway secondary in the church where first sons inherited the estate, second sons bought a commission in the army, and third sons were given a living in the church. The church developed as much as a form of local government as a religion. And of course was set up in the first place because the king wanted to remarry.

Not to say there aren't a lot of Christian's in the C of E with strong faith and extremely devout. But it seems optional.

The Catholics also believe in salvation and penance - you can sin, and still be accepted back.

Gender Ideology doesn’t have this, once you’ve out, you’re out, and are a TERF ie Non-Person

Oh fuck, my dog is looking at me like I lost the bonios. Cannot stop triggering st bobble hat.
You win the internet today ( or yesterday depending what time you posted)

Bobble hats?

Ah fuck, I had managed to forget about bobble hats.

I am not drunk
Sigh
Sniggering and at

There really isn't enough mindbleach in the world.

This article explains in a sort of "paint by numbers" way how the police have ended up being the attack dogs and enforcers for the most vulnerable and oppressed.

Interesting, given some of the comments here about CF's religious beliefs, that the earliest examples cited are of Stonewall calling for the conviction of Christians who were protesting for free speech and religious freedom - on the grounds that this was in itself evidence of "inciting hatred against gay people".

It all sounds horribly familiar!

Stonewall’s cop coup backfires
How an institution betrayed its own ideals
Malcolm Clark
15 September, 2022

Most people know the gay lobby group Stonewall took a pivot for the worse in 2014 when Ruth Hunt (now Baroness) turned it into a trans-obsessed organisation that undermines women’s single sex spaces and redefines gay people not as “same-sex” but as “same-gender” attracted, which basically means gay people fancy anyone — rather calling into question the point of being gay. Hunt inherited a charity not only in rude financial health but with unparalleled networking nous. She was also bequeathed an astonishing project to undermine police independence initiated by Stonewall but backed by the two governing political parties and the civil service.

The project began with Hunt’s predecessor as CEO Ben Summerskill, who had a passionate interest in changing police attitudes. Before he became CEO, he had advised the first openly gay police officers when they set up the Gay Police Association in 1990. It was just one response to long-running and often justified complaints about police homophobia. In 1990, for example, five gay men had been murdered in quick succession, and police inactivity seemed in sharp contrast to the resources expended on the harassment and entrapment of gay men. This historical legacy no doubt gave an edge to Stonewall’s approach to the police under Summerskill which was marked by a distinct haughtiness.

In 2007, for example, when a group of Christians protested outside the House of Commons against clauses in a law they said would impact their religious liberties, Summerskill denounced the protest and said he was “shocked that the Metropolitan Police gave some fringe protesters permission to demonstrate outside Parliament … carrying posters inciting hatred against gay people”.

Weren’t fringe protestors allowed to protest any more? Luckily, the Met was not quite as supine as it has subsequently become and ignored Stonewall’s performative shock. The protesters complained that their posters didn’t say anything homophobic. They were right. BBC coverage showed placards defending free speech and religious freedom. The clauses being protested were later declared unlawful by the High Court in a Judicial Review. Stonewall should have read the room. It didn’t.

The year before, Ben’s friends at the Gay Police Association had expressed the same tin-eared arrogance and got themselves into trouble with an advert which showed a Bible beside a pool of blood under the slogan, “In the Name of the Father” which claimed, “In the last 12 months, the GPA has recorded a 74 per cent increase in homophobic incidents, where the sole or primary motivating factor was the religious belief of the perpetrator.”

Full article:
thecritic.co.uk/stonewalls-cop-coup-backfires/

Archived:
archive.ph/thecritic.co.uk/stonewalls-cop-coup-backfires/

ps. I can't make sense of this bit above - maybe someone else can?

"The clauses being protested were later declared unlawful by the High Court in a Judicial Review."

Thanks, Bosky - that's an interesting article by Malcolm Clark:

From 2015 onwards, the trans lobby swept through Stonewall’s HQ. Soon the charity’s vast and complex matrix of connections and power began to pump out not pro-gay sentiment but its toxic, biology-denying opposite. Gay people had hoped Stonewall would silence homophobes in the police. They found, to their horror, that the people being silenced weren’t the homophobic cops, but gays — and it was the cops doing the silencing.

"The clauses being protested were later declared unlawful by the High Court in a Judicial Review."

I think it means the protestors were vindicated and ultimately got what they wanted, when a judge agreed with them.

I’m a bit scared to ask and maybe it can only be answered in code, but what do bobble hats have to do with it?

Yes, that reference baffled me, too!

Thanks, I was puzzled too but thought it was just me 😳

There was a posing picture of said person who was wearing a bobble hat at the time.

I'm none the wiser, but fresh out of mind bleach after this week's Mermaids revelations, so probably just as well.

I have now seen the the pictures that include the bobble hat and truely that is enough internet for the year 😵

I would not have seen the bobble hat had not a certain someone sent the police after Caro and driven a whole new bunch of interested readers to the 🥝 Farms for a sticky beak.

Im absolutely pretty sure this newest legal attack is not going quite the way it was intended by the person who initiated it. Shame not

Ok I'm sorry I'm derailing again a bit, just thought it would be of interest particularly to Stillvicar.

On the thread regarding waving down police in their vehicle if you felt their behaviour was intimidating would you wave them down?

269 people voted:

20% YABU - I would feel completely comfortable flagging down the officers in the vehicle.

80% YANBU - I would not feel comfortable waving down the officers in the vehicle.

The ratio of YABU/YANBU has fluctuated a few points (21% was the most I saw) in favour of YABU, but since posting the voting has remained at approx 80% YANBU.

I am not surprised. Confidence in police from women is at an all time low. What happened to CF and has happened to others is just another reason why we have no confidence in them.

Yes, wasn't the Met's advice to wave down a bus if approached by an officer? FFS! www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58757375

Yup!

I think in another episode of the sitcom 'Bad Advice Given To Women By The Wonderfully Clever Met' was - run away?

Oh! Or stay at home where violence never happens effectively curfew yourself

Or just identify out of womanhood altogether sigh...

In my case

• There was no bus and probably wouldn't be one anywhere even sort of close by till the next morning.
• Anywhere I ran to would be either darker and quieter or straight towards the houses with hopefully someone home, street lights, & police.
• I can't curfew myself because my dog wonderful as he is cannot use a human toilet and I don't have a garden
• and finally we all know just how ineffective identifying out of the struggles of woman hood is.

ps. I can't make sense of this bit above - maybe someone else can?

"The clauses being protested were later declared unlawful by the High Court in a Judicial Review."

Worked it out!

(Apologies for this diversion from the specifics of Caroline's case, although it is interesting to see the particular concerns voiced in 2007 and consider where we are today re: freedom of speech, "hate speech", causing "offence", ability of women, gay men and lesbians to express their views on sex vs gender identity without being physically attacked and tarred as bigots, the role of the Police, College of Policing, Judicial College, CPS, Stonewall, etc. and actual legislation.)

That sentence, "The clauses being protested were later declared unlawful by the High Court in a Judicial Review" refers to this page, which is linked in the article (my bolding):

Memorandum submitted by Revd J. George Hargreaves (CJ&I 155)

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmpublic/criminal/memos/ucm15502.htm#_ftn1

Dear Sir/Madam

I understand that the above mentioned Public Bill Committee is considering a possible incitement to homophobic hatred offence. Such a law could have alarming implications for free speech.

I have a particular interest because Stonewall called on the police to ban a demonstration that I helped to organise along with other leaders of the Black Churches. (See Ben Summerskill email below.) I am concerned that if Stonewall get their way Black Church Pastors like me could face up to seven years in jail for speaking publicly about our Christian beliefs.

The demonstration which Stonewall wanted to ban took place outside Parliament on the 9th January 2007. We were protesting against the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations.

Speaking about our protest, Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall, said that he was "shocked that the Metropolitan Police gave some fringe protesters permission to demonstrate outside Parliament...carrying posters inciting hatred against gay people".[1]

I was involved in making the posters. Whilst Mr Summerskill typifies the protest as inciting homosexual hatred another gay journalist did not. Nicolas Chinardet, (who was there) wrote in Pink News: "People were singing and brandishing placards reading 'Cry Freedom', 'Christians Awake' or 'Back the Bible'".[2] Some Stonewall supporters turned up and sought to engage some of the protesters in argument. Mr Chinardet referred to the "mostly good mannered debate".

The BBC report of the protest shows other placards including "Freedom to Believe", "Freedom of Conscience" and "Freedom from Persecution".[3]

I am at a loss to know which of these posters Mr Summerskill believes was inciting hatred against gay people. Perhaps he objects to us quoting the Bible, singing hymns or saying prayers.

Ours was a peaceful protest conducted in accordance with all the instructions of the Metropolitan Police. Those of us who were present were expressing our concerns regarding free speech and freedom of religion.

We were protesting against the Northern Ireland Regulations which contained a harassment law which severely impacted on religious liberties. This part of the Regulations has now been declared unlawful by the High Court. The judgment given in the recent judicial review launched by Christians was that the Regulations "will result in instances of material interference...with the applicant's freedom to manifest the religious belief in question".[4] So our concerns were fully justified.

Back in January we were protesting against what even the High Court accepts was an unjust law. Yet Stonewall believe we were inciting hatred against gay people. This, apparently, is their definition of the sort of thing they want to see outlawed under an incitement to homophobic hatred offence. They do not want to ban hatred. They want to ban dissent.

We condemn all hatred and violence. As Black Church leaders we are clear that we are commanded by Jesus to love people. Yet we also have to believe the Bible, which teaches us that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, including homosexual practice. We want the freedom to continue to preach the Bible and to protest against laws which restrict our religious liberty.

We preach that people need to repent of their sins (including sexual sins) and turn to Christ for forgiveness. This is the essence of our Christian faith.

Mr Summerskill says the new law will not prevent people "expressing their religious views in a temperate way".[5]

It seems that the protest I was involved in does not meet this very low threshold of acceptable speech.

Freedom of speech, if it means anything at all, must include freedom to offend. Last year the Black Churches vigorously campaigned against the proposed incitement to religious hatred law so that Ben Summerskill and others had the freedom to attack our religious beliefs

We defended the rights of those disagree with our Christian faith. How about a level playing field? Please reject the proposal for an incitement to homophobic hatred.

I note that the Public Bill Committee is to hear Mr Summerskill give evidence on Tuesday in a 45 minute session.

I hope that your committee will consider the other side of the argument. I be will present in the public gallery on Tuesday and would be very happy to present evidence before your committee in person.

October 2007

[1] Stonewall Ebulletin, 14 February 2007

[2] See pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3460.html as at 3 October 2007

[3] See BBC News report, 9 January 2007, news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/video/73000/bb/73241_16x9_bb.asx as at 12 October 2007

[4] The Christian Institute & Ors, Re Application for Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 66, para 69

[5] Daily Mail, 9 October 2007

----

So, the Black Christian protesters who were against criminalisation on the basis of "direct and indirect discrimination and harassment on the ground of sexual orientation" in the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 had earlier campaigned against legislation prohibiting "incitement to religious hatred", as they believed this too would impede freedom of speech and expression.

The reason the court ruled that inclusion of "direct and indirect discrimination and harassment on the ground of sexual orientation" in the Northern Ireland Regulations was unlawful is that the Government had not included this in the Equality Act 2006 and "primarily on the ground that they were radically different from those originally envisaged in the consultation paper, which had indicated that the First Minister was minded not to legislate on harassment at that time."

(Sexual orientation: judicial review of Northern Ireland goods and services regulations: PLC Employment)
uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-376-3735?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true

So the Government of the day (Labour) had tried to sneak in an extra provision under the RADAR without proper consultation. Sounds familiar!

A specific offence of incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation was not created until 2008, a year after Ben Summerskill, Stonewall CEO, accused the Black Christians of "inciting hatred against gay people".

(The Public Order 1986 was amended by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, creating a new offence of stirring up hatred against people on religious grounds and in 2008 by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, creating a new offence of stirring up hatred against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation with intent.)
www.inbrief.co.uk/discrimination-law/inciting-hatred/
---
Malcolm Clarke's article focusses on the police but he also notes the key roles played by the Civil Service, Home Office, Governments and "liberal politicians" in both Labour and Conservative Parties:

"Hunt inherited a charity not only in rude financial health but with unparalleled networking nous. She was also bequeathed an astonishing project to undermine police independence initiated by Stonewall but backed by the two governing political parties and the civil service."

"(Stonewall’s first Gay British Crime Report of 2008) marked the official start of a decade-long cohabitation between the police top brass, civil servants in the Home Office, liberal politicians of both parties and the LGB, soon to be LGBT, lobby."
-----
Apologies again for the diversion - back to Caroline!