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

I've just realised that I know who Felix really is. He's Colombo - "Oh, just one more thing".

Apart from Columbo, who knew things. Because Felix just doesn't know anything.

Read the history and the room

He doesn't want to. He's enjoying himself. That's why, although we don't know him, we all recognise him.

I remember watching an episode of Columbo years ago. The story was an unexplained suicide by a teenager. Turned out she was pregnant through being sexually abused by her father. But nothing seemed to happen with the dad as it was suicide. At the end we saw him back in the family home heading for the younger daughter’s bedroom and the mum stood up in front of him saying ‘not her too’. There didn’t seem any suggestion that he should have been jailed for abusing the older daughter, or removed from the family home. Columbo just shuffled off after figuring it out. It was only the mum who stood up for her.

I don’t normally remember the plots of detective programs decades later but I did that one. I couldn’t figure out how it was ok.

Shades of…

When there is some news about Caroline, can someone please start a new thread to update us? I am unsubscribing from this one; it's so tedious.

Sounds like a plan.

Why do posters keep engaging, though? I don't get it.

Personally, It's when I'm bored.

It's light amusement for me.

You've got to find a little fun.

@Felix125 all this time telling everyone why they should give the police the benefit of the doubt, could have been spent doing the research.

There’s no doubt the complainant is the same and it’s related. None whatsoever. You know you aren’t going to get any official confirmation.

Women have become impatient with you because they are telling you what they know to be truth and you refuse to believe them and investigate. You are placing the reputation of the police above the first-hand testimony, fears and concerns of women. Instead of thinking with an open mind, going off to do a little reading, your knee jerk defence is to the institution you serve.

Because the majority of us are mothers that are used to dealing with determined toddlers. Muscle memory.

I feel like doing this nooooooooOOOOooowww!

"In other words it’s in Townsend’s best interests to say that there is nothing to see here and imply CF is motivated by a desire to grift money from the police as opposed to being genuinely distraught or unfairly treated."

That is a really odd allegation against LT, which manages to smear both LT and CF.

This is what LT tweeted:

"A word of caution: don’t believe everything you read on Twitter. Consider whether it sounds plausible and if it doesn’t, what does the person tweeting it have to gain by making you believe it? It’s rarely black and white, especially when one side doesn’t have the ability to reply"

https://twitter.com/_Lisa_Townsend/status/1651550659424993286

Assuming that LT's tweet has anything to do with CF's situation:

First, there is the equation of "gain" with "money".

There is nothing to suggest that the hypothetical "gain" would be financial. In context, it is more plausible that it refers positively to "moral support", "sympathy" or perhaps negatively to "casting the police in a bad light".

Is it projection that you interpret "gain" as "financial grift" rather than, say, "emotional solace"?

Secondly, if financial gain was the intended meaning then LT's tweet would be implying that the "grift" involved CF seeking to "gain money" from the people reading her tweets, not the police.

Unless we are to believe that LT mistook public Twitter for a private channel dedicated to cryptic messages from her personal Twitter account to Surrey Police?

Makes no sense.

Finally, if we assume that LT is not delusional, what we have left is a bizarre allegation that that LT has publicly issued a semi-literate, unprofessional and thinly disguised accusation that CF is "motivated by a desire to grift money from the police" and that LT also imagines that people reading CF's tweets might be persuaded to assist her to this end.

My impression, Mycatwantsmedead, is that you are ill-disposed towards both LT and CF and that maybe you also have a fixation with making a fast buck via "compensation" and are projecting this on to CF?

Cross my palm with silver and I will see if the spirits can tell me what exactly your cat has in mind for you.

LT is well-disposed to Surrey’s new Chief Constable who she appointed. She has likely had a discussion with him. He will have been briefed by his officers who will have told him of CF’s alleged crimes. A Chief Constable will always be on the side of his officers and be looking to protect the reputation of the police.

LT is likely going to be inclined to believe him because he’s her personal new appointment and she wants him to succeed. She’ll get credit and it makes her job easier.

The victim is very experienced at putting together cases against women and will have put together a convincing case against CF. Their MO is to fling as much shit as possible in the hope that some will stick.

The victim’s case is what will have been communicated to the Chief Constable and LT.

Mycatwantsmedead · Yesterday 21:41
@Felix125 all this time telling everyone why they should give the police the benefit of the doubt, could have been spent doing the research.

There’s no doubt the complainant is the same and it’s related. None whatsoever. You know you aren’t going to get any official confirmation.

Women have become impatient with you because they are telling you what they know to be truth and you refuse to believe them and investigate

You don't know that for certain though. Even people on here have acknowledged that - so I am not alone in suggesting that this current case may not be connected. So there is nothing I can research or investigate at this point as I don't know if its all linked.

It probably is - but I'm not going to bet my mortgage on it at this stage until I know for certain. And until that time I can't see how we can criticise the police action. And I am not refusing to believe anyone on here - I just can't follow their logic in assuming that its definately linked at this stage when we just don't know.

I can well believe Caroline's back story is horrendous and she has been falsely accused in the past and people have used the police to this end - and as I have said before - this is wrong and if it can be proven to be malicious it needs taking further. But what I am going to gain though by reading the entire back story if this current incident is not related to it?

You mention having an open mind - surly to do this you need to know the whole facts first as opposed to just believing one side of the incident. We know nothing about what the reporting person has said. Surly having an open mind is to look at the incident as a whole. Or do we just ignore the reporting person (regardless of who it is) because they are accusing Caroline?

But instead, people on here are assuming that this current incident is another false report concerning social media/email against Caroline from the same accuser and the police decided that day to arrest Caroline for no reason at all, being bored they have decided to send 3/4 cops to smash her down and arrest her for no reason or for missing her vol interview. As current incoming emergencies are too hard to deal with they will tie 4 cops up for the day on this.

But if you know 100% that's its all related to the previous incidents - then contact Surrey Police and provide a statement and stand in court to support Caroline. If it ends up going to court, she will need witnesses to support her under oath.

Just consider that you may not be making the case for police impartiality that you think you are.

By saying that we need to know the facts from both sides before we can judge?

How is that not being impartial?

If, hypothetically, it eventually transpires that the majority of posters were correct about the alleged offence/s, then do you believe that the police response was proportionate and correct?

THIS. I am so godamned sick of the repetitive, obtuse, sealioning.

Dumbo12

If, hypothetically - this is nothing more that a reporting person making a report without any evidence to support it or is merely disagreeing with Caroline's views - then no - the police's response was not proportionate or correct.

DerekFaker

No one is forcing you to come onto the thread.
Its a forum - you either post or you don't. You either stay involved with it or not.
If you are sick of it - don't come on to it.

Felix does a service though. He demonstrates why there is such a huge probem with the police, how they operate (protect colleagues at any cost) and why you should never speak to them without a solicitor present.

Also a wee warning, I've been warned by MNHQ for telling him to fuck off.

So if the report is of comments that are disliked by the complainant, no threats, with the evidence of the comments, do you believe that their action is proportionate and correct?