Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Update from CF

1000 replies

DerekFaker · 07/06/2023 08:28

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

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
AlisonDonut · 07/06/2023 10:17

We know who they are. They have spies reading all our words. And some writing other words telling us we are wrong about all the things we see.

AmbleInAnnBoleyn · 07/06/2023 10:19

DrLouiseJMoody · 07/06/2023 10:03

Hi All,

Caroline's lawyer was informed of this on Monday afternoon (you may infer our private response). Of course they are dealing with it. Surrey are also denying having received her submissions.

I'm not going to discuss the parties involved or answer detailed Qs for obvious reasons. My general view is that my friend is now being abused, and made an example of, by Surrey Police who are behaving, if not unlawfully, certainly unethically and deliberately making it very difficult for her to defend herself.

Nothing is stopping me from drawing attention to their behaviour so I will continue to do just that.

L x

Thankyou for posting. Solidarity with Caroline x

SabrinaThwaite · 07/06/2023 10:21

In other news, a statement has been put out (not by CF) claiming that CF has withdrawn her application for an Extended Civil Restraint Order against a particular individual.

MsRosley · 07/06/2023 10:22

This is completely fucking mental. I just hope in the long run it helps Caroline's case.

GCalltheway · 07/06/2023 10:27

The only thing I can add is the tide has truly turned with the public, and when this hits the headlines Surrey police had better have followed the book to the letter, the backlash is going to be fierce.

Original poster
DerekFaker · 07/06/2023 10:27

NotTerfNorCis · 07/06/2023 09:57

You've not read about this before?

I know she's been aggressively stalked by a group of men, including one who knows how to play the legal system. But what she's saying now sounds so bizarre I thought I didn't understand it.

Ah right! Yes it sounds absolutely crazy doesn't it?

OP posts:
Felix125 · 07/06/2023 10:29

GCalltheway

If the court believes that there is a genuine probability that further offences will occur to the detriment of the reporting person.

It all has to be justified and the conditions imposed have to be justifiable by the court.

It might not be granted - but from the reporting person's point of view, the police can tell them that we tried to obtain a court order, but it was rejected.

Many DVPO's get rejected. But again, from the reporting person's point of view, it can be seen that the police are trying to protect them from further offences.

Original poster
DerekFaker · 07/06/2023 10:30

AlisonDonut · 07/06/2023 10:11

CF usually means Cheeky Fucker so it took longer than usual to get the signal out.

Show quote history

Yeah...I did try!

OP posts:
Felix125 · 07/06/2023 10:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I'm not pretend - 20+ years in the job

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 07/06/2023 10:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Becles · 07/06/2023 10:34

Solidarity Caroline!

Gardening this coming weekend.

SinnerBoy · 07/06/2023 10:35

If the court believes that there is a genuine probability that further offences will occur to the detriment of the reporting person.

Please clarify which offences she's been convicted of, in this series.

Felix125 · 07/06/2023 10:36

MrsDanversGlidesAgain

I work shifts - so I have quite a lot of time off in between shifts.
The large gaps between posts will be when I'm at work or out or busy doing other things

GCalltheway · 07/06/2023 10:39

Felix125 · 07/06/2023 10:29

GCalltheway

If the court believes that there is a genuine probability that further offences will occur to the detriment of the reporting person.

It all has to be justified and the conditions imposed have to be justifiable by the court.

It might not be granted - but from the reporting person's point of view, the police can tell them that we tried to obtain a court order, but it was rejected.

Many DVPO's get rejected. But again, from the reporting person's point of view, it can be seen that the police are trying to protect them from further offences.

It seems to me like a grotesque misuse of the order - and I do hope the court sees it the same way I do. If it gets that far even.

Trying to slap orders on innocent individuals is not going to increase public confidence in the police is it?

Felix125 · 07/06/2023 10:40

SinnerBoy · 07/06/2023 10:35

If the court believes that there is a genuine probability that further offences will occur to the detriment of the reporting person.

Please clarify which offences she's been convicted of, in this series.

I have said she hasn't been charged with anything.

But the reporting person has reported offence/s which are currently being investigated.

If the court believes that there is a genuine probability that further offences will occur against the reporting person to their detriment (on the balance of probabilities) they they can impose this order. They may not. Who knows at this stage.

Felix125 · 07/06/2023 10:42

GCalltheway
Trying to slap orders on innocent individuals is not going to increase public confidence in the police is it?

Seems to work with DVPO's and similar orders.
And it came off the back of a 'lessons learned' scenario to protect victims/reporting people

dimorphism · 07/06/2023 10:44

TrainedByCats · 07/06/2023 09:50

This is chilling and insane, poor Caroline.

Designed to stop other women speaking out due to fear of it happening to them as well

Yes, and it's working for me! Absolutely terrifying. Been speaking up more about biological reality but if this order is granted, I probably won't any more. Despite my multiple science degrees.

dimorphism · 07/06/2023 10:45

Trying to slap this order on someone for saying men can't become women (which is factually correct) seems a little much.

PurpleBugz · 07/06/2023 10:45

I wonder how many other Caroline's there are who have been silenced without us knowing.

dimorphism · 07/06/2023 10:46

She's never threatened or committed or even been alleged to have committed any violent acts.

Yet men who've done all of the above don't get these orders.

Couzens actually committed a crime (flashing) which witnesses reported and the police did nothing.

ShimmeringShirts · 07/06/2023 10:47

Is there no way for Surrey Police to be investigated for their conduct in all of this? What would trigger that kind of investigation?

GCalltheway · 07/06/2023 10:47

Felix125 · 07/06/2023 10:42

GCalltheway
Trying to slap orders on innocent individuals is not going to increase public confidence in the police is it?

Seems to work with DVPO's and similar orders.
And it came off the back of a 'lessons learned' scenario to protect victims/reporting people

I think we are supposed to avoid using the word ‘victims’ until there has been a conviction.

Secondly, there needs to be significant sufficient grounds to impose any order. The courts certainly do not impose orders lightly and under the circumstances, utmost care and consideration will be given.

Pixiedust1234 · 07/06/2023 10:48

@DrLouiseJMoody appreciate you putting it right that her lawyer is all over it, although it actually makes this more worrying. Just think how bad she could be treated if her lawyer wasn't that great (thinking of other women). It truly is frightening. Solidarity to Caroline on this matter ❤

I'm now starting to wonder who is "friends" with the top police in Surrey. I don't mean the complainent but some one/group who is chatting in his ear. Does he go to the same club as the Stonewall boss for instance. The puppetmasters at the top need an investigative journalist looking at them imo

SinnerBoy · 07/06/2023 10:48

Felix125 · Today 10:40

- -Please clarify which offences she's been convicted of, in this series. - -

I have said she hasn't been charged with anything.

No, I didn't say that - you said it was to prevent her from committing further offences:

If the court believes that there is a genuine probability that further offences will occur to the detriment of the reporting person.

GCalltheway · 07/06/2023 10:48

ShimmeringShirts · 07/06/2023 10:47

Is there no way for Surrey Police to be investigated for their conduct in all of this? What would trigger that kind of investigation?

Media attention. Formal complaints:

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.