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'm also thinking of Caroline and hope that this all resolves itself rather soon. If it does turn up to be a bunch of trumped up nonsense (ie she does not in fact present a clear danger to the complainant in the civil order) I wonder if there will be any consequences or even "lessons learned".
Probably not.

It seems to me that the magistrates have rightly thrown this out. The police decision and process has been deeply flawed, at best, from the outset.
A full investigation now needs to take place as to why there was an attempt to put such a draconian order on an innocent person. And let me be clear she is at this point entirely innocent - she has not been charged with any offence much less found guilty.

This situation absolutely stinks, and some focus is required to get to the bottom of it.

We simply can not have a police force conducting themselves in this manner, and at total odds with our justice system.

I am pleased to see the legal system is holding out well, and it’s precisely why it’s so important and imperative to have impartial courts.

GCalltheway
You are right - no one has said she is guilty of anything. That is what the investigation is for, to establish if there are any grounds for a charge or not based on the evidence presented by the reporting person.

The orders serve to protect the reporting person whilst the investigation progresses.

These are similar to a whole host of other orders that exist now - non-molestation orders, DVPO's, DVPN's etc etc. These can be imposed on people who have not been charged with anything and are in effect innocent.

You can argue to get rid of these orders entirely, but there use has been greatly received by the public in protecting people.

Not the 2 women a week (on average) who are murdered by those [men] close to them.

Felix, you appear to be denser than a neutron star.

Light bends around him.

Frankly I'm still wondering why every force in the country aren't flocking to F's force / station to benchmark how it is they manage to be the sole place in any unformed organisation in the GB (Possibly the world) with no sexism or misogyny.

It's a wonder F has any time to post here at all.

If you have been in this business as long as I have, you will be very aware that an order for a person being ‘investigated’ only and not charged with an offence will contain certain conditions that are proportionate. We might put conditions around individuals connected to the case, if vulnerable, whilst investigating at a push if the case is serious, and genuine fear has been established of further offences.

What is so startling and unique about this case is the sheer volume of onerous conditions being placed on her. The lack of information being provided to her brief and the total lack of transparency. I have never seen a case or order like it in 20 years plus.

CF now has a good case for persecution by the police. The police themselves should be under investigation for misconduct.

The optics are going from bad to worse. To the public this is increasingly going to look like an inside job.

CF is an innocent woman and hasn’t been charged with anything at all to date. There is no way that an order of this magnitude should be applied now or in the future. It has not and can not pass the high levels required when we consider proportionality. This to me looks like an order to silence, and it has failed.

No doubt the police will try to tweak the conditions in hope of a better reception in the courts, but I feel it is likely to be rejected again. We do not remove people’s rights without exceptional and evidenced reasoning, and certainly not whilst withholding vital information that should be served to the defence!

I will add the point of these orders are
mainly to protect potential victims whilst a lengthy investigation takes place. They are not there to silence and strip someone of their civil rights.

Well that's the point of them, when they are used correctly!

we're not holding our collective breath...

I imagine they might often have been / be intended for the benefit of women, escaping stalkers / coercive control.

Should there be a theoretical situation where their use is abused and potentially becomes an overreach (imagine for example via the police, for a male against a female) and a threat to personal freedom and privacy. It’s easy to imagine an outcry and the orders in general become at risk. Women cannot win in this situation. Individually or collectively.

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.

Lord. Can I suggest you familiarise yourself with some basic patterns of written speech. Like rhetoric?

Although, to be honest, it's looking less and less like rhetoric and more and more like an uncanny prediction.

You originally claimed that the public have not lost confidence in the police, despite it apparently 'hanging by a thread'.

You also claimed that the women who said to you in their own words, that you were single-handedly causing them to lose more confidence in the police, were mistaken.

Based on some spurious nonsense that they disagreed with you on the thread, and therefore they were already biased!!😆

Presumably it can't have crossed your mind, that women can feel negative towards your representation of the police from your very first post, and then even more so on your last one!

An alleged police officer not believing women who are telling him something out right.

No bloody wonder it's 'hanging by a thread'.

Seriously?!!

I thought there'd been a tacit agreement not to let this thread get hijacked by someone who has time for wild theories.

Its likely there will be nothing to add to this thread for maybe 2 weeks.

Can we keep this thread focused on reality.

And at this point all we know is that the hearing was suspended about will be reconvened.

In the meantime hope CF is doing okay, and certainly hope she isn't watching this thread.

Can you imagine being in the middle of a procedure like this and it being used as a platform by someone who is just passing the time of day.

Dont respond it only encourages them.

And at this point all we know is that the hearing was suspended about will be reconvened.

Don’t you start! 😆

But seriously, yes, I agree.

There's a woman on Twitter, Vanessa Brown, whose dealings with Surrey Police in trying to stop her abusive and obsessive ex-partner parallel the treatment of Caroline. We are in the absurd situation of a woman being harangued, having her life invaded in extreme ways, and subject to what reasonable people consider abusive behaviour yet we're supposed to "not prejudice the case" by pointing out the misogynistic abuse (yes, I can say that having seen what I've seen) perpetrated by Surrey.

The idea that they are going to keep this under the radar only for some grand announcement about how a "stalker" has been stopped is utterly fanciful. We are going to continue discussing their behaviour - in my case upon my reasonably large platforms - and there's zero they can do (no reference to, or indeed even encouragement to reference, the complainant(s)).

SinnerBoy
Felix, you appear to be denser than a neutron star.
By explaining the process....? What don't you understand?

Brefugee
I never said it doesn't exist - just not to the extremes that you were suggesting happened to you. But I have not seen any misogynistic behaviour on my shift. If it happens on my shift, please explain to me where it has happened? Can I liken this to being called a 'pig' on the previous thread and only one person objecting to it. Does that mean that everyone else was complicit to abusive behaviour towards me?

GCalltheway
DVPO's follow a similar process. "...We do not remove people’s rights without exceptional and evidenced reasoning..." - that's why it is put to a court to decide. The court giving 14 days for the defence to raise their objection to it. If CF so far has gone 'no reply' then how are the police supposed to submit her defence....guess? Her 'brief' will have been given full disclosure before the police interview in April - so her 'brief' will have known and also been present in the interview itself. Unless of course she elected not to have any solicitor involvement.

GCalltheway
I will add the point of these orders are
mainly to protect potential victims whilst a lengthy investigation takes place.
Exactly - and since we don't know what the investigation is about, we can't judge - and we do not know what protections we need to consider for the reporting person in this case.

Datun
We have been through all of this in the previous thread. I was using the ONS which show the majority of people have confidence in the police. You still have not explained how I have personal lost the confidence of 12m people though.

DrLouiseJMoody
I agree - we should discuss it, that's what this forum is all about.

Disclaimer - I am using 'we' to mean me and most others on here. I acknowledge that some on here will know or have been told the details of the complaint and I am aware that Caroline may have access to this thread or indeed people close to her. I also acknowledge that the reporting person, OIC and direct witnesses may also read the thread and hence will not be included in the term 'we'.

This post is also answering points raised by the above posters. Other posters need not comment on it. By all mean post if you want to, but I reserve my right to answer posts raised by members of this forum.

The magistrates did not throw it out. For that to have happened CF would have needed to go before the court and she stayed in a room with her DH and legal team the whole time.

From what I saw and heard the lawyers had a discussion before approaching the clerk together.

I’ll keep my view on what happened to myself, but CF & co appeared v positive whereas the police lawyer looked strained.

The court giving 14 days for the defence to raise their objection to it.

That is not what has happened. The court has not given 14 days. It didn’t go before the court.

If CF so far has gone 'no reply' then how are the police supposed to submit her defence....guess? Her 'brief' will have been given full disclosure before the police interview in April - so her 'brief' will have known and also been present in the interview itself.

If she’s been accused of stalking, then presumably she would have denied this and the police have decided that they don’t believe her. CF is hardly going to have been involved in real life stalking so this will about what she has put online and why they feel she requires the same level of supervision as a pedophile or terrorist.

"I reserve my right to "

hahaha ah come on, give yourself peace man

Yes precisely. Incredibly the orders are used to mainly protect women from persecution and further harm. So the irony now as far as I can see the very orders intended to protect appear to be weaponised to harm what appears to be a persecuted woman!

Until CF has been charged this is all just hearsay. This order is based on incredibly precarious grounds.

The brief for the police will be strained and uncomfortable as they will know as much as anyone how very unusual this is, and will be wondering in the same way as everyone else in the court how on earth this order has even seen the light of day.

I am glad the defence took that line - not even warranting it with a court presence. The order ran into trouble before it was even heard says it all.

Stop referencing me. My posts are made to counter your obscure and biased observations, to ensure others reading this thread are not served up your misinformation. Your take on all of this is heavily weighed on the side of the police/activists, despite knowing fully that the order is not worth the paper it’s written on and is an abuse of authority at best, and at worst… I’ll leave it to your imagination….

Don’t reference me again.

Thank you for your post GCalltheway

Thanks for your posts @GCalltheway I'm finding them useful and interesting. I expect others are too.

I think we all have to accept that on an open forum anyone can post freely. The only thing we control is our own words. I have in the past (in other places) refused to interact with certain posters on certain topics, mainly because I didn't want to. It can be as simple as that.

I only have one life and I wish to spend it wisely. I don't think I'll get to the end of my days and wish I'd had more arguments on teh interwebs.