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

Dumbo12

Of course I can see the difference - and i have said if there is no justification for the police to attend then its wrong.

If the police are continuously taking the word of the reporting person and not gathering any evidence to back it up before visiting the home of the person complained about - then its wrong.

If the police are visiting the home of the person complained about with a view of arresting them for a non-crime related issues (views & opinions on Twitter or 'hurty words') - then its wrong.

But - online comments can have real harm attached to them:
"I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AND I'M COMING AROUND NOW TO BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN"

"I CAN SEE YOUR CAR IS ON THE DRIVE SO I KNOW YOUR HOME NOW"
"MY MATE DAVE THE THUG IS ON HIS WAY NOW"
"NEXT TIME YOU TAKE FOOT OUTSIDE YOUR HOUSE, YOU'RE DEAD"
"DON'T DARE GO TO SLEEP TONIGHT!"

And similar threats - whether its DV related or not (believe me I've seen loads and they are horrible for some to endure)

It depends what the comments are and the level of risk attached to it in order to grade the level of police response to it. It could be filtered out at the call taker stage, but the risk might be seen as to serious to do that.

I did indeed acknowledge that we did not know the alleged offence that led to the arrest, we do however know about the previous bad faith allegations.

Precisely - so we don't know yet if the two are linked.

If it is linked, then of course it should have been taken into consideration and the previous history is very relevant.

But we don't know yet if it is.

So are you saying that we do know what this current call is about...?
Because as far as I know - we have no knowledge about it.
So we can't yet judge if the police have been right or wrong on this occasion.

😆😆

The disingenuous attempt at mudslinging by the resident metsplaining plod, towards the woman this thread was in support of is very illuminating. To use the type of communication which generally is used against women, as his example of malicious communication, says all that needs to be said about him.

Dumbo12

What mud am I slinging - since your accusing me of it:?

And the examples I have given above can be used by both men and women.

Are you still of the opinion that online threats should not be taken seriously?

I was never of the opinion that online threats should not be taken seriously. The woman this thread is about has no hosiery of making on line threats.

Dumbo12
The woman this thread is about has no hosiery of making on line threats.
And I have never said she has.

In fact I have a said a couple of times on here, that we do not know what this current call is about.

But your post on the previous page, that online comments can not possibly pose any harm to anyone, is not true. Even if no direct threats are made, the sheer volume perhaps or the constant contact can cause serious anxiety & depression issues for people. Maybe not physical harm, but the affect it has on people can be just as bad.

This risk & harm needs to be taken into consideration.

I was never of the opinion that online threats should not be taken seriously.

So should we just wait and see to what this current allegation actually is, before we judge the response by the police?

And reinforces that women are right to mistrust the police. We have no way of knowing who wearing a uniform is a Wayne Couzens, an Iftikhar Ali, a David Carrick, a Hussain Chehab, a Jack Addis, a Jeremy Layton or indeed anyone of the 161 current officers with convictions in the Met police https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11944321/Metropolitan-police-force-161-serving-officers-criminal-convictions-ranks.html or one of the numerous other police officers convicted and those who should have been convicted of crimes against women and children but one that continues to metscold women after being told No is definitely one to be concerned about

Please find and quote where I said that online comments cannot cause harm.

The dv allegations do not have equivalence with online comments (which contain no threats), one could have real risk of physical harm, the other does not.

I also added "..Maybe not physical harm, but the affect it has on people can be just as bad..."

You keep saying 'we' don't know. You do realise one of Carolines good friends has been on this thread don't you.

Try saying 'I' don't know from now on in your posts.

Because some of the royal 'we' do actually know.

So you can't find a quote. The part you quoted, was my comment about online comments which did not contain threats,perhaps you failed to understand that.

Boiledbeetle

Go back to page 15 - it was discussed then.

Yes - I know. And they will know what has been alleged from Caroline
But the rest of us don't

And you also acknowledged that too "....No. None of us can. Well one poster could but she very rightly isn't going to..." P14

If we did know - we might be able to judge if the police were right or wrong.

But I respect that this is an ongoing enquiry and such information will probably not be disclosed at this point in time.

No - that's why I added the additional quote. I acknowledged that you said that online comments cannot cause physical harm - but there are other forms of harm to be considered. And anxiety & stress that these online comments can cause can lead to suicide attempts.

So I agree with you that "....online threats should not be taken seriously."

So, should we just wait and see to what this current allegation actually is, before we judge the response by the police on this occasion?

By the way - you still haven't shown me where I have been 'mud-slinging' since you accused me of it.

Where did I say that online threats should not be taken seriously?
I am well aware of the psychological harm of online threats.
Where has Caroline F made such threats.
I do hope that you are not a serving officer, given your tendency to make up what people are supposed to have said.

Dumbo12
Ah sorry - the beginning bit of that quote fell off

It should have read that I am agreeing with you - "I was never of the opinion that online threats should not be taken seriously."

I agree with you - they should be taken seriously as they can cause harm & risk

Where has Caroline F made such threats. - exactly my point. We don't know. We don't know what the allegation is to establish if a threat has been made or not. We don't know if it is related to online messages. We don't know if its related to the back story. We don't know if its a totally separate event all together. We just don't know.

And I appreciate I am saying we. I mean 'we' as in anyone who doesn't have direct knowledge of this current enquiry - which is the majority of people on here.

Felix just shut the fuck up and listen. Women are angry, Women no longer trust the police and you are demonstrating exactly why we don't or at least one reason why. You will not brow beat us into submission. You will not make us shut up. We know Caroline, we know the serial complainer, we know why the police over react, there is absolutely no reason to believe this time is any different from the numerous others. If this was a woman making false dv claims over and over they would have been charged with wasting police time by now, if this was someone making suicide threats over and over they would have been sectioned by now. Read the history and the room

This 👆

BaronessEllarawrosaurus
We are going in circles again & again

I am not trying to shut anyone up and i know people are angry

If you know the serial complainer - do you know 100% that they are involved for this current enquiry?

You can only 'charge' a person with making 'false claims' if you have enough evidence to do so. So constant calls alone to the same DV victim will not result in that; you will need supporting evidence to show that it is malicious.

Constant suicide threats often do not result in a person being 'sectioned'. Being 'sectioned' is a complex process and just because a person makes a threat of suicide it doesn't mean they get sectioned.

This

Who has the clicker

TrainedByCats
Its probably spinning like a turbine because people keeping throwing the same argument back time and time again........

True but somebody seems to want the last word.

I think felix has a cunning plan to make this forum unusable by normal sane people. It's a novel approach and semi successful. His posts certainly make me want to run away screaming.

I think I've got carried away with the clicking it's like a fidget toy