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

She was arrested in April and would have been interviewed then. In that interview is when the evidence is put to her. But the accusation is known about at the point of arrest as the circumstances of the offence are outlined to the custody sergeant.

Unless there was a further interview last week.

But the accusation is known about at the point of arrest

CF said she was arrested in April for failing to attend an interview - she said there was a mix up over confirmation of the appointment.

Are you saying that she was arrested over new charges?

She isn't charged with anything yet - that's what the investigation tries to determine.

But we don't know what the offence is or who the reporting person is yet.

Genuinely dim, or deliberate obfuscation? My money is on the latter.

But we don't know what the offence is or who the reporting person is yet.

CF said she was arrested in April for failing to attend an interview, not on new charges or a different reporting person.

Why do you think that there are new charges and a new reporting person?

Felix disagreed, on a massively long thread a while back that the public had lost confidence in the police.

He also disagreed, on a thread last week, that the women on the actual thread had lost confidence in the police, despite them saying that he was almost single-handedly responsible for them losing more.

I can't remember what his reasons were, because I skim over his posts given they are eye bleedingly repetitious, but the women were clearly mistaken apparently.

@Datun I keep trying to ignore it, but the incoherent ramblings,pretending to be informative about legal processes, just keep getting to my nerve ends!

@Felix125, it is very true that you have consistently said that we don’t know the details. You have said this so consistently that you have driven me to the point of insanity. Why are you doing this? Do you have a cohort of allies cheering you on? You cannot possibly believe it is helpful to so tediously repeat yourself on this thread, so I really would like to know if it is to just send the less stoical amongst us, like me, crazy with frustration, or if there is some other reason, that I am missing. You seem a lovely reasonable public servant, so surely it can’t just be that you want to wind us up?
I can no longer believe that you are genuinely seeking to engage with the public in order to explain the role of the Police and increase positive perceptions, because if that is so, you are failing so badly, you are coming across as an insensitive and rather pompous mansplainer, and you are damaging my perception of the Police.
I am telling you now that if you reply to me by repeating that we just don’t know, I will not be able to retain the shred of possibility that you are acting in good faith. I am a mother, I can tune out a child endlessly repeating itself to wind me up. But you, by all accounts are not a child, and certainly not mine, so why should I have to?
I did think of counting all the times you have repeated yoursef on this thread, and suggesting to Mumsnet that whilst not wanting to hunt for trolls, this behaviour in not indicative of a sincere engagement, but I just can’t be arsed, yet.
There is a woman who is currently in legal jeopardy and very scared that she and her family will not be able to live a normal life. Lots of other people are really worried that she should find herself in such danger and we do want to be able to hear updates, send support, discuss the implications of this for our beliefs and behaviour, and for the direction of our democracy. It is not a game. So please tell me why do you keep endlessly repeating yourself?
I promise you that , if it emerges that this woman has behaved in ways that would justify this draconian order, I will apologise to you. Meanwhile, why , Felix, why?

@Zebracat Well said.

Can we all just post about what we know, or have heard. Or even ask a question.

But nobody is obliged to acknowledge or engage with everyone.

Once you see them its easy to skip time wasters.

At the moment it sounds like there wont be news for 2 weeks.

She isn't charged with anything yet - that's what the investigation tries to determine.

But the police still think she’s guilty which is why they have applied for an SPO, which as any serving police officer would know, is a civil, not criminal process.

It would be the police’s evidence in this civil process that would have been withheld, which would presumably include things like witness statement(s) that she wouldn’t have seen at interview and also they would need to attach her responses in interview.

He adds absolutely nothing. And, in my considered opinion, he just craves all the attention.

A vote for genuinely dim. The repeated use of “bare in mind”. Perhaps a literal description.

😂

One of the reasons we were so mistaken and silly was that we had to be educated on how there’s no misogyny in his police force. I, for one, felt so soothed by that. Silly me, worrying about the police!

AlisonDonut · Yesterday 21:49

,She got the evidence of what she was accused of last week.

It's almost as if some posters are studiously ignoring the linked reports explaining that and the fact that the magistrates were extremely unimpressed with the behaviour of the Police in not supplying details to her solicitors until two days before the hearing.

We'll see what comes of this extremely long punishment by procedure process in the end

Might be we end up with the same as with the trumped up charges against KJK. A lot of time wasted, no crime detected. Nobody was ever found to be at fault for hauling a mother of 4 with no previous convictions through some ridiculous procedure, to no judicial effect, because of some shit talk on the internets.

And then what, does anyone think all these post 'maybe she's done something really violent, we just don't know, I have no idea and won't do any homework either' will be apologised for? Do we heck.

"Trust in police hanging by a thread, Inspectorate says"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65845463.amp

"trust in police, I'm hanging out in a thread" is what my brian read to me.

SabrinaThwaite
There is no such offence of 'failing to attend an interview'. So there must be an offence attached to it. That offence will be the reason why she was arrested. There are also no charges yet - we are not at the point of charging - that's what the investigation tries to establish. And like i said before I don't know if the reporting person is the same or a different person.

Datun
My explanations were on the previous thread. You also suggested that I had single handily lost the support of 12 million - which is pushing it a bit.

Zebracat
The reason why i keep repeating the same response is that posters keep throwing the same argument back. They assume that its all related to the previous reporting person and its all to do with CF's views on line or 'hurty words' against this person.

And i am not hear to wind anyone up and there have been some good points raised by posters on here which i have tried to answer. But also mixed into this are people calling me names such as 'pig' and 'splainer' which i don't think is very helpful. Its a discussion forum at the end of the day and i am replying to people's posts. But if they keep asking the same questions or raising the same arguments I am going to reply with the same answers.

And I fully understand that CF is in a horrible position and that its not a game. But perhaps the reporting person is also in a horrible position. The reporting person has contacted the police and stated that they have had an offence committed against them. So that needs to be investigated and if they are at risk, then they need to be protected. If the court agrees, then this order will be put in place whilst the investigation continues.

You don't need to apologise to me , I am as much in the dark as to the ins and out of the enquiry as you are.

Confirmedwitch
The police don't think she is guilty - the police present evidence to the court for & against. Its the court the adjudicates on guilt. We are not even at the point of a charging decision yet. The statements obtained would have been presented in the police interview and this police evidence would be what is presented to the court for this SPO. Its CF's submissions/defence which has not been disclosed - but if she has gone 'no reply' in the interview - there is nothing to disclose. She might have gone no reply on the advice of her solicitor which is fine & perfectly normal. So for the SPO hearing the court have allowed more time for her defence solicitors to make their submissions.

SinnerBoy
Her solicitors would have been told about the offence when she was arrested in April. They would have had the evidence disclosed to them before the interview at that time. So her solicitors would have known the details of the offence a long time before the hearing.

I wonder how any intelligent professional could conflate an original offence and the process, with a much later civil process?

Felix125

There is no such offence of 'failing to attend an interview'. So there must be an offence attached to it. That offence will be the reason why she was arrested.

And yet if you fail to attend a voluntary interview the police can decide to arrest you so they can carry out a standard police interview instead.

I would have thought you’d know this?

Her solicitors would have been told about the offence when she was arrested in April.

That's 151° proof bollocks. We know this because CF told us and the magistrates confirmed it and adjourned for two weeks, specifically for them to address the allegations.

The magistrates criticised the Police for not offering the evidence until far too late.

You'd know that, if you followed the links on this thread and didn't get your news from The Beano.

Dumbo12
I'm not. You have the original offence, which was what she was arrested for in April. As part of that ongoing investigation, the police have applied for a SPO as part of that enquiry to safeguard the reporting person whilst the investigation goes on. The SPO is a civil order, but will use the evidence from the enquiry in the submissions.

SabrinaThwaite
You still need to have an offence is which to investigate. So if you fail to attend a vol interview for that offence, the OIC has to decide if there is sufficient necessity to arrest. If there is, then that has to satisfy the custody sergeant. Failing to attend a vol interview in itself does not lead to an arrest.

SinnerBoy
I've explained all of this. When she was arrested she is asked if she wants a solicitor - its part of her three rights. If she has elected to have one, then the reasons for the arrest are disclosed to the solicitor on the day of the arrest. Disclosures are also given to the solicitor prior to the interview so they can advise their client. Even if she has elected not to have a solicitor, she can still make a 'no reply' interview and disclose nothing at this stage - its perfectly within her rights to do so. She can also speak with a solicitor after the interview.

If they have elected a 'no reply' interview - what can the police disclose to the court for this SPO?

There is no such offence of 'failing to attend an interview'

Well there's also no offence of 'being untoward about paedophiles'. There's no police power to 'check your thinking'. Or any of the other billion instances of the police overreaching on their treatment of women at the behest of TRAs. And yet, here we are.

nothingcomestonothing
I know there isn't - and no one has been arrested for such an offence