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

On Brexit threads we refer to certain posters as 🐿 but here seems more 🤖
in how A.I. ie algorithms;

• Are extremely literal and do not process ‘context’
• Are myopic
• Focus only on the data at hand
• Operate ‘below consciousness’
• Are difficult to challenge
• Reinforce particular values that are embedded in the pursuit of algorithmic management (Rachello 2018)

So if you think of the possibility that some posts may be created by a chatbot, it suddenly makes perfect sense.

The posts are carefully constructed as to appear neutral and informative whilst very carefully crafting a certain narrative.

The continuous use of the word ‘victim’ when no victim has been identified.

The careful but constant reinforcement that these orders are used like this every day, that is simply not true in the sense that orders of this nature with so many invasive and punitive conditions are NOT used barely at all, awarded very rarely for cases such as terrorism or other high level crimes.

It appears to have the motive of sowing doubt, and giving the impression that all is above board, when it that does not appear to be the case.

We have to keep this thread especially clear of dishonesty and misinformation, clarity and good faith is important, vital even to a woman that is fighting to hold on to her human rights, her right to defend herself against a wall of well organised and resourced activists that seem hell bent on muzzling her indefinitely. I admire her courage and conviction, and her fearlessness.

We need an independent investigation into the conduct of the police. I also think she should consider who is orchestrating this persecution and consider reporting them (all) in due course.

I don't think anyone on here has had a seed of doubt planted by the postings of a certain poster. I don't even read the posts.

If he is who and what he says he is, he has confirmed that my concerns about police conduct are absolutely justified.

Can anyone - except Felix, whose posts I skip, please explain what state this is at now? Will it be heard in 14 days from application or has it been thrown out already? Quite hard to find the sense on this thread.

It’s not been chucked out. CF is waiting to hear what the police are going to do next. If they want to bring this back to court they will need to issue another summons and date.

Many people are taking a greater interest now and may not know. It’s great you are aware of it, but not everyone will be.

@GCalltheway I fully support you putting your points over and you are one of the few people who appears to have some direct expertise - I mean what do I know specifically about this bit of laura norder, nothing, right?
The FWR folders have a long and storied history of patiently and repeatedly debunking repetitive and incorrect posts, and I see your contributions as part of that. Thanks.
I take people as I find them, and I consider their contributions in a context including their demeanour, repetitiveness, posting rate and the facts per square inch, if you like. Someone that bores on and on and on and on, and repeats themselves a lot, adding heat but little light, and always seems to want the last word. Well I value that a little less, that's my personal view.

Thanks Bez I appreciate both of your comments.
I don’t have much time sadly but I couldn’t let some of the posts stand unanswered. I don’t know about bots, but I would say he is a professional with enough inside knowledge judging by the measured posts - the way they are written they can actually be very misleading.

We have to keep coming back to the point that CF is innocent, not charged with anything at all so far, and her treatment by the police has been staggeringly unacceptable and unfair. Those facts remain agreed on here.

The police and judiciary need to hold out and not slip down the rabbit hole of my truth politics and wokery.
We need to stick with the facts, concrete evidence and justice. The police need an overhaul of the entire force top
to bottom to root out the misogyny and activists. They policy by consent - and that should not be assumed.

@GCalltheway I think you're absolutely right on this and that is why I'm following this thread (well most of it, if you gnomesayn).
We have one of the best judicial systems in the world, imperfect as it is and always will be, and I have to have faith that we see a just outcome, when all the facts are disclosed and so judged.
So far I'm not impressed by the police but of course I don't know the full facts and that is another reason I follow the threads, because I'm waiting for the full facts to come out.
I'm reminded of KJK, who wasn't even allowed to say why she had been summoned to interview, and many on here were gleefully speculating about how naughty she'd been and how much trouble she was in. It turned out to be an utter bag of trumped-up shite, when it all came out.

Confirmedwitch
It did go before court - there was an update saying it was adjourned for 2 weeks. CF did not have to stand in the box as such, being heard before court can just be the legal arguments between the solicitors and the bench. That is still classed as being 'heard at court'

We don't know what CF has been accused of and we don't know if she has denied it - she might have gone 'no reply' to all questions asked, which is neither an admission or denial. If we don't know what the accusation is, we don't know what the risks are to the reporting person. We don't know who the reporting person is. So we can't really judge at this point if the order is justified. It might not be, but there again it might be. Best let the court decide when they reconvene.

GCalltheway
I can reference your posts, that's not the way a forum works. I can't see how you can say that i am biased when I have consistently said that we don't know what the allegation is, who the reporting person is or what the risks are. I have said that at this stage we cannot judge.

Where others on here seem to know its all to do with tweets of hurty words only and it involves the same reporting person as before and its all connected to the back story. Therefore this order can not possible be justified.

I am keeping an open mind and saying - we just don't know at this stage.

That's not the way these orders work. You don't have to be charged with anything or guilty of anything to have an order imposed.

They are very similar to DVPN's in that respect. The subject there does not have to guilty of anything or charged with anything to have them imposed with a long list of conditions.

That is something that needs remembering, Caroline is innocent, has not been charged (unlike a certain other person previously) it very much feels like we want to shut you up because a certain other person scares us.

One might imagine with such a lack of transparency or police accountability that we have woken up in Shanghai when it comes to this case.

If only the police spent this much time and resources on improving the rape conviction rate one might add. It’s astonishing how little they are doing for women and girls. I try not to take it personally and charitably chalk it up
to utter ineptitude,
but given the steep decline and the onerous experience of rape survivors in our courts, it’s hard not to feel we are currently very much second rate citizens in the eyes of the police in England 2023.

I won’t even comment on what happensin
Scotland - and rapists in female prisons.

Enough is enough.

@Confirmedwitch Thank you. Effectively the courts refused the police application then and told them to do better if they want to try again.

Yes exactly. As we put it sometimes the order didn’t even get past the first post. It speaks volumes and is very rare occurrence / most courts will trust the police have acted in good faith and beyond a few questions will support 99% of orders unless they are deemed unreasonable in some way.

It looks like Surrey Police might have a choice of millinery when this all comes out, if they have indeed participated in harrassing an innocent woman on behalf of the complainant.

They can select the Useful Idiot Beret or the Willing Accomplice Stetson.
Let's see which cap fits.

Not a bobble hat?

The Bobble Hat of Fear and Favour?

It did go before court - there was an update saying it was adjourned for 2 weeks.

Some of us were there. It did not go before the court at all. The court clerk adjourned it upon request from both sets of lawyers in order for evidence to be considered. I spoke to the clerk who confirmed this and also said there was no return date. The court has not yet considered any element of the claim much less struck it out.

Please don’t mansplain what you think has happened or ought to have happened. The 2 week period is likely an internal deadline for evidence to be submitted.

Felix125 · Today 07:59

What don't you understand?

Why you keep repeating the same old cack. And more, why you haven't bothered to read any of the linked stories and continue to assume that CF is probably a criminal and that the complainer ISA "victim."

And now, why you are gainsaying women who were at the court. You seem to be obsessed with one point and not able to comprehend that things have progressed and that the situation has now changed.

Confirmedwitch
So it was adjourned then - not kicked out. That's what I have been saying.
The 2 weeks thing came from a post earlier from DrLouiseJMoody I believe, perhaps no date has been set

SinnerBoy
I've not said she is probably a criminal - what I have been saying all along is we don't not know. We do not know what the complaint is or who the reporting person is. So what are you getting from that, that I assume she is a criminal. the investigation is still on going and innocent until proven guilty.

I will only note that, even if the order is somehow granted, I will - based upon what I have seen - continue referring to Caroline as innocent and a victim of how procedures can be abused.

Yes quite! The order in itself is not part of the investigation or charge if there is one. Even if they charge her she can still be found innocent. CF is a long way off any firm conviction currently.

It’s imperative that we consider any one, particularly those not even charged with an offence as innocent. Our entire legal system is based on a presumption of innocence - and the onus is always on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty.
It is rightly a high bar.

@GCalltheway
Thank you for providing your valuable insight and clear explanation. It is much appreciated.