Update from CF

[DerekFaker]

This sounds horrendous. How can the police do this.

And yes, it was exactly as we predicted in the previous thread.

Should a certain police officer pop up in this thread, please try not to get drawn into protracted, repetitive arguments with him. Please!

https://twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1666337645427847169?t=LWaRDewlk7r_8pVTdkE_tw&s=19

I was thinking of donating to CF's crowdfunder and saw

Your donation will go 100% to aid Caroline in her time of danger, to sue the Surrey Police for its unlawful procedure during the arrest, and to expand our crusade against the dark forces of abortion on demand, gender ideology and sickening LGBTQ perversion of children.

So that's a nope. I will not support an organisation that undermines abortion rights and LGB youth.

Take your threats and go shove them.
How utterly repulsive and yet so typical.

So, she's breached an order, or something?

She’s referenced a supposedly spent criminal conviction.

I don’t understand the rules about this, I thought that if you are convicted in open court then there is no expectation of privacy.

Better not to speculate on the conviction even though it is on here.

A Crown court conviction is a matter of public record. The press are allowed in. You can't expect privacy about such a conviction, so I don't see how referencing it can possibly be illegal, but then I am not, nor do I identify as, a lawyer. Perhaps a solicitor could advise?

This has all basically come from the 'lessons learned' book.

Reporting people are often further targeted by the subject whilst the investigation is ongoing. So when the subject is released on police bail after their arrest, there is very little protection offered to the reporting person whilst the enquiry is ongoing or the case is sent to CPS. Police bail conditions are a toothless tiger unless you have the primary offence to the point of charge.

So these orders were brought in; DVPO's for instance. For example: a domestic violence incident occurs and the subject is arrested but after their interview we are not in a position to charge (statements required, phone downloads, CCTV etc etc). Subject gets released but we have no real means to keep them away from the complainant. So DVPO's can be applied for. They are a separate entity that the subject can be arrested for and sent to court, remanded etc.

Its a similar scenario with Caroline. Bare in mind we don't know what she was arrested for, what the allegation is or who the complainant is. But if the OIC feels that we need to have something in place to protect the reporting person, then this type of order can be applied for whilst the investigation goes on. Then a court will decide if it is appropriate for it to be issued.

Hence the subject (Caroline in this case) is not charged with anything or convicted of anything, but this measure is used to protect the reporting person.

Its a well used 'tool' to protect reporting persons. If you have a better way of doing this - and it has to be a universal thing for various cases - then I am all ears. DVPO's & DVPN's have been hugely successful where we are.

Kiwifarms has a thread on this pinned to the top of their site, it's got all the backstory including their involvement. Some enlightening reading there if you skim past all the comments full of slurs and other nonsense.

Its a well used 'tool' to protect reporting persons

Well ussed tool? I bet all those women who have been stalked amd sufferered REAL harrassment would disagree.

Your mistake there is thinking that the police classify women as 'people'. We are not, we are support humans who sometimes malfunction and the default humans must always be protected.

The conviction referred to above is common knowledge. Many people have referred to it. The person who was convicted even incorporate it into a 'joke' where they tweeted about visiting where Caroline lives and her husband's church.

A broken watch is right twice a day.

I agree with her on this issue, but the rest of her crusades leave me cold.

It's not the LGB she needs to be concerned about, after all.
And there's definitely a whiff of homophobia about her.

The 'faggots' comment made that perfectly clear. She can pretend that she meant it in a different context, etc, but she knew full well what she was saying. The naïveté didn't wash with me.

And everything Felix posts about police procedure and how these orders SHOULD be used just further convinces me that the police are pandering to certain demographics and neglecting the rest of the population.

"Without fear or favour", huh?

Exactly. The police don't even get off their arses if you've been raped, but when it's time to investigate a woman for so-called being mean on the internet - Surrey Police all turn into Kojak and Columbo.

Yep. Whilst i fully agree it looks like her treatment at the hands of the police has been extreme, no way is any of my hard earned going in her direction nor will i be waving banners outside a court for her.

One of the really challenging things about this dog fight is having to be very vigilant about who you are standing beside. CF appears to be one of those people where we agree on some elements of one issue, but would be diametrically opposed on other very important issues.

I question whether she is actually transphobic (as in genuinely bigoted against trans identified people as opposed to thinking you can't change sex) and homophobic.

I suspect she has been treated really badly by the police and is being hounded by a very dedicated person. I also suspect that she is a bigot, and things will come out in court that we currently dont know that will make it alot harder to see her only as a victim.

I hope she gets justice, but this one i wont pay for.

I agree there.

But of course you shouldn't have to be a perfect human to be treated fairly and proportionately by the police.

Being a bigot isn't in itself illegal.

Meanwhile, on average 2 women a week are murdered by domestic partners or ex- partners and the rate of rape convictions is at an all time low.

And women are still not paid the same as men.

But Ms Farrow is a dangerous extremist. Yeah, right.

He either knows something we don't, or he's talking a load of bollocks?

I don't know which one to plump for.

Such a hard decision... let me think... I suppose it is possible someone could know something AND still be talking bollocks!

To be honest, even if I DIDN'T agree with Caroline Farrow on this issue, her treatment by the police is still appalling and needs fighting. I am pro-choice, but I wouldn't celebrate pro-life types being hounded, or harassed for their views. I agree though that I wouldn't want to put my (extremely limited) savings into a pot that could be used for active anti-abortion campaigning.

@DerekFaker Of course not, cos I'm pretty certain that none of us here would make the cut if we had to be model citizens in every which way.

Whatever she's done, doesn't merit this draconian treatment, I'm convinced.
Aren't these measures usually put in place for sex offenders??

I welcome this and can see a place for it- we see women on here driven to live abroad, moving multiple times, having no SM presence because of abusive controlling men they struggle to get protection from. All too common and too little done about it. Statistics show how much danger women are in in these situations and how dangerous the men are.

Statistics do not suggest CF is terribly dangerous. Churchgoing mothers who play the organ are statistically unlikely to be causing havoc, let alone actual harm. An organathon to raise money for pro life charities is about as bad as it would get. Irritating but legal.

I would be hugely surprised if she was dangerous and this step was considered appropriate.

There's another person I've seen tweeting implied threats who seems far more dangerous, yet nothing seems to happen.

Oh wow! I hadn’t seen this. It has changed my stance a bit tbh :/ What the police are doing is terrible, but I don’t think I could publicly defend her with those abortion views and LGB views :/ A terrible shame that she’s against abortions and LGB people - no wonder the mainstream media aren’t touching this

people with strong religious beliefs often have views that I personally disagree with. CF seems to be one of them. Her religious beliefs don't seem to be the issue at hand though, rather her alleged online behaviour and interactions with a certain vexacious litigant who we are deliberately not naming.
Today could be interesting, or it could be yet another non-event, just delaying any actual evidence and sunlight.
More process, more punishment.

I think only supporting people whose views 100% align with yours is a dangerous road to go down,and is probably responsible for a lot of this mess in the first place.

Let's also not forget that religion is also a protected characteristic. If you truly believe in equality for all, you can't pick and choose.

Absolutely Derek