Caroline F - new arrest / harassment ?

[catsrus]

Caroline has just posted on twitter that the police were trying to force entry - WTF going on?

Three officers saying she has to go with them.

Three.

twitter.com/cf_farrow/status/1651514281471492096?s=46&t=rbPMHI1uvxUAiQC4E1EE3A

Brefugee
our police monitor has repeatedly told me that the police will handle every complaint individually and not look to see if vindictive reporting is a pattern of behaviour.

I have said, several times to you, if you are going to charge someone with wasting police time or making false allegations - then you are going to have to present some sort of proof that the allegation is false.

But in this case - we have no idea what the allegation is against Caroline or who has made it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12027313/MP-Stella-Creasy-says-harasser-tried-children-taken-away-entitled-to.html

Interesting that the DQSH event wasn't used.

Goes to show it didn't just happen to CF.

Caroline has said a great deal about the circumstances of her arrest and the investigation into her. The police, by contrast, have said very little, almost nothing. Probably they are not really able to. Lots of people have strong opinions about what is likely to have happened and to be going on, but ultimately it seems we are all largely in the dark.

Felix, you seem to know about how the police work, or at least to know more than me. My question is: could you shed any light as to potentially when/how/under what circumstances the police would be likely to comment further on this case?

Another point is that Caroline complained the police traumatised her by arriving at her door without prior notification for a ‘welfare check’. Can you stay anything about how police welfare checks work and how you would expect them to be sensitive to situations where a person is feeling nervous or afraid of the police?

Oh please no. Let's not ask felix any questions. We've suffered enough with his police/mansplaning.

Listening to this person for post after tedious post has tried my patience beyond endurance.

I have personal reasons to think that the police do a poor job of protecting women and children and getting justice. Hobrstly we would forget about justice now and settle for making it stop.

Years later my daughter is still "logging" ongoing events with the police and much good it does her. Not going to stop though.

And felix don't say "your daughter is the same as the accuser of CF". No they are not. The history matters. The identity of the accuser matters. Look at those murders they missed. Many police couldn't put 2 and 2 together and make any kind of workable number. The police have lost the confidence of the public, ordinary law abiding people like me and that's a huge issue in a country where policing is done by consent.

If you are really in the police force then your obtuseness is very much part of the problem.

Honestly not hobrstly.

We don’t know what the allegation is, but we know exactly who made it.

Christ. Is it really true that any old baseless complaint can trigger an investigation by social services?

I mean they do know what trolls do, right?

What's weird to me is that I would have thought this was more a reason to safeguard her children.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4598610-stella-creasy-drag-queen-story-hour

In my RL experience, you have a right to say no to a request for an initial assessment, but are often advised to co-operate lest the accuser go to the press and make an allegation of preferential treatment. Everything is ‘voluntary not voluntary’.

It’s massively unfair to the children, and wastes huge amounts of time of teachers, a GP, the family, the social workers, etc.

Most allegations come from separated parents (or members of their family) against the resident parents, ie making trouble for women.

Usually, however, nothing untoward is found and the accuser is then written to, and their ‘card marked’.

It is a pity the accuser in this ongoing saga can’t have their “card marked”, isn’t it….

Yes, in the end (in my own case) I had useful assistance from the police, including a named police officer who was from a team trained in domestic abuse and harassment. She and her colleagues were very good. I also met senior officers.

(I was in a high profile job at the time, and I don't really want to say much more than that about myself, but can comment on procedures on which I have direct experience.)

If Caroline Farrow's case and these circumstances have reached the ears and the tweeting fingers of Lisa Townsend, that itself makes Farrow high profile. I hope Lisa Townsend is being properly and neutrally briefed by her officers. Personally, I think she should offer to meet Caroline Farrow and (a) listen, and (b) determine a way forward for Farrow and her force.

Lisa Townsend as the Police & Crime Commissioner is an elected representative, and everyone under her watch in Surrey is owed democracy and accountability, including the women and men watching on and feeling baffled and losing confidence in the police.

We don't know what the allegation is - so we don't know if the resources being spent on it are necessary.

@Felix125 maybe you don't know the back story to this. Ms Farrow has endured years (it may be almost a decade now) of stalking and abuse, both online and IRL, including being threatened with legal proceedings, facing legal proceedings, and having to tale legal action herself. There was a whole website set up to publish her address; address of her husband's place of work; the addresses of her children's schools, and so on. (I think it had something like "Tombstone" in the title). There were photographs of her house published on that website & on Twitter.

She has been relentlessly pursued by at least 3 separate individuals. One faced a conduct hearing instigated by their professional body; one self-represents in court and has apparently not paid any of the costs awarded against them; the 3rd was issued with some sort of injunction to stop the online harassment & website.

I don't agree with Ms Farrow's religious views, no her views on abortion, but from what I've seen of her public behaviour, I see her as a principled woman (even if I object to her principles). So, you know, from all that, I rather assume that this is another specious harassing complaint against her.

Thanks for that, autumn. Very interesting.

But does that mean that a troll, or someone with a vendetta, can get anyone to be the subject of an social services interview on no evidence whatsoever?

It sounds almost laughable exploitable.

It appears fom this website that they can do just that

When it comes to whether police can enter your house without a warrant there are also several factors that come into play. Before deciding whether to enter without a warrant or consent, the authorised officer must first consider if the object of entering can be achieved with less intrusive methods.
There must be reasonable attempts to contact the occupier for consent to enter at the time of arrival, unless doing so could harm the purpose of the visit. The officer should show suitable identification and explain in easy-to-understand language what is the purpose of their visit and their powers to enter. If the premise is unoccupied or no person is present, then the authorised officer must leave a written notice, outlining the purpose of the entry, in a visible place on the premises

https://hnksolicitors.com/news/can-police-enter-your-home-in-the-uk/

I'm also interested in the use of what the police call the Big Red Key - is its use authorised or do they just decide to pick it up on the way out? I'm sure our police expert will tell us that the 'alleged offence' was such that the police decided its use was warranted rather than just using what these solicitors call 'less intrusive methods.'

I am on side with CF, but @Felix125 is correct.

The police have a duty to investigate and if CF is to be believed, they began demanding to speak to her urgently this week which prompted her to spiral.

It is reasonable and proportionate to arrest someone to prevent a crime or if they are in the process of committing it.

It can be reasonably inferred that CF’s alleged crimes, remembering innocent until proven guilty, were not of a violent nature. CF does not seem the type to put in someone’s windows, and I cannot see her visiting anyone’s property to leave notes or objects.

What then, was CF doing? She was fervently and imprudently posting in what appeared to the impartial observer, an agitated state.

What had caused CF to become so agitated? She said that the police rang her on her birthday, wanting to interview her over new allegations that had occurred subsequent to her arrest. She also then received a welfare check.

The complainant must have perceived that her online behaviour was posing some risk to their safety. CF needed to be arrested to prevent her from continuing to commit online crimes that harmed the victim.

Lisa Townsend is coming out in favour of the police because they may have acted procedurally correctly.

That should not imply agreement with what has happened to CF or that it is just. My suspicion is that the victim claimed that CF's posts were an imminent threat to life.

CF’s Twitter feed made reference to 3 policemen and also a policewoman who would have been needed to perform the requisite searches. This makes more sense operationally.

My take is that CF is the victim of narcissistic abuse and needs to seek an expert trauma-informed professional.

The claims about the blog are wild, and the screenshots produced on CF’s Twitter feed are worrisome.

I searched on the Antipodean registry for some background on the blog to contextualise and authenticate CF's claims. Their archivists have missed a beat.

I then checked the Wayback machine and archive today (archive.ph) for the URL cited by Farrow. The results are astonishing.

As do I. I'm courteous to all whilst I silently judge them and make up my mind as to their character, apart from the ones that might as well literally have a sign over their heads saying 'I'm a wrong un' .

Still I don't automatically trust people though. And i think you'll find a large percentage of women especially think exactly the way i do.

We don't have the luxary of being able to presume most men aren't predators.

Lots of people know/are about 99% sure who the person/people behind this are. And the reasons for it.

None are stupid enough to put themselves in the firing line though. We've watched what had happened to CF and don't fancy the same.

So on this occasion if you want to know why most are looking at this from a different point of view to you im afraid you are actually going to have to do you're own detective work and go back to the beginning of it all.

Caroline started Tweeting sbout events on the advice of a feminist. I remember her tweets that she was given that advice. Caroline said she is likely on the autistic spectrum and probably thought that Tweeting like this was the done thing in that extreme social situation.

Caroline has since said that she then began to use Twitter in a way she now sees as unhelpful.

Maybe whoever gave her the initial advice can tell her that was bad advice, and coming from them it may have more impact.

The woman may be a mature adult with a gigantic IQ, if she is on the autistic spectrum that person who gave her the initial advice can help right a wrong.

What then, was CF doing? She was fervently and imprudently posting in what appeared to the impartial observer, an agitated state.

That does not warrant police investigation. But does follow a trend whereby when women become justifiably upset at harassment and police inaction find that distress is used to blame them or accuse them of being unreasonably.

That should not imply agreement with what has happened to CF or that it is just. My suspicion is that the victim claimed that CF's posts were an imminent threat to life.

If the complainant is who we suspect - the person/people responsible ongoing harassment - then it is totally inappropriate to refer to them as ‘the victim’.

I think we all seem to have a pretty good idea who it is, meaning you should do a little investigating. It really won't take long

BeReet

But we don't really know do we - we are just assuming.
And we have know idea what has been reported by the reporting person on this occasion.

DancingTortoise
Felix, you seem to know about how the police work, or at least to know more than me. My question is: could you shed any light as to potentially when/how/under what circumstances the police would be likely to comment further on this case?

Not whilst the investigation is still ongoing.

EveryWitchWaybutLoose
I rather assume that this is another specious harassing complaint against her.

It very well might be - but we just don't know do we?
We don't know what the allegation is being made by the reporting person
So how can we say the police response was not right?

Literally we are edging around with our words to avoid being the next target. Hence the lack of definite we know it is X.

Safe to say people do know who is behind this. But no matter how much you make out people are completely assuming everything no one is going to come straight out and lay it out for you.

the information you seek is out there. You will have to do what the rest of us did and go find it all and put the pieces together. If us none police can manage it im sure for you it will be no issue.

Not it isn't - you will not be able to find out at this time what this current allegation is