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

Lisa Townsend's a coward. She doesn't have to "interfere in the investigation" to start a separate inquiry into who's calling the shots at Surrey Police.

I'm sure she already knows but has already decided she's not going to do anything.

GCalltheway

The investigation is still ongoing - its just the application for the order which has been withdrawn.

Why should the reporting person be charged with harassment - when we don't know what the evidence is which they have presented? We also don't know if CF has made a counter allegation.

We also don't know what CF has said in her interview - perhaps disclosures to her defence team after she was released from police custody have now been submitted. And now the police are aware of her submissions and what they state, the order is withdrawn.

The orders are there to protect vulnerable people - both men & women - from further incidents of harassment etc etc. whilst the primary investigation is ongoing.

DVPN's & DVPO's are commonly used now against people involved in domestic incidents who have not been charged with anything - and are effectively innocent. Are these to be withdrawn also?

We also don't know what CF has said in her interview - perhaps disclosures to her defence team after she was released from police custody have now been submitted. And now the police are aware of her submissions and what they state, the order is withdrawn.

That's absolute rubbish, as was reported at the time of the previous hearing. The Police got a bollocking for not providing CF's defence team with whatever risible crap they were basing their so-called case on.

Now that CF's team have ripped it to pieces, with less effort than a Labrador puppy with a roll of wet toilet paper, the Police have dropped it.

Because it never stood any chance at all.

Just an example.

Anyway, I'm delighted for Caroline. But the police need bringing to book for their actions.

Oh, apparently we still don't know!

SinnerBoy

Not so. The police put their proposals across for the order. CF's defence submissions were not submitted - why?

Well - perhaps that's because there were't any to put across. If she has gone 'no reply' in interview - what are the police supposed to submit?

Do you want the police to guess them?

Felix, since you remain confused about the case despite churning out thousands of words in this forum “discussing” it, might I courteously suggest that you let the people who aren’t confused, do the talking?

I recognise that you must be meeting some kind of deep seated emotional need with all of these repetitive, deeply confused posts. So let me reassure you that you are seen, Felix.

There, there. We see you, don’t worry.

Just about to say the same.

And what am I confused about precisely....?

Felix125 · Today 18:02

Not so. The police put their proposals across for the order. CF's defence submissions were not submitted - why?

Well, as you know, the Police didn't pass their material over, so she was unable to respond. Honestly, we've been through this scores of times.

The Police, as the magistrate said, were at fault for not providing their evidence in time for them to respond meaningfully.

Absolutely everything Felix, but it's OK as we can all just scroll on by

There, there. You are seen.

The orders are used for DV and usually without a shopping list of conditions, usually an agreed area that can not entered and not to contact x, y and z.

Not once in my multiple decades of experience have I ever seen one like this under these circumstances.

The order was dropped - thrown out because no court in the land would enforce such a blatant violation of human rights without a shred of evidence to support the need for such onerous punishment/conditions, especially when there isn’t even a charge much less a conviction.

The police have not charged anybody Felix, and I don’t see it happening now. The case is losing steam and appears baseless.

It’s already a miscarriage of justice to put an innocent person through this. absolutely outrageous. Heads will roll.

SinnerBoy

The police put their side of the order across - that's what the conditions were.
What wasn't submitted was CF's defence submissions.

If the police didn't pass their material over, where did the police's proposed conditions come from?

If the police didn't pass their material over, it would not have been passed to the court at all.

GCalltheway

You don't need to be at the point of charge to apply for DVPO's & DVPN's or similar orders.

And it wasn't thrown out at court - it was adjourned. The court could have dismissed it straight away - but didn't. They adjourned it. So they must have thought that there is a case for an order application.

Given that the request for the order has now been withdrawn by the police, someone in the organisation has decided that their action was not the correct route. The fact that this woman has had weeks of worry over this, appears to not be of concern to her local force.

@DarkDayforMN 😂

I hope Caroline is raising a glass tonight, it's one step closer. This case is certainly shining a light into the dark recesses of manthink.

😂

I see the same old ( well not really that old in real life ) name keeps appearing whenever mumsnet discusses the police harassing women.

plus ça change

And PUBLIC money has been used to pay for this enormous waste of time. WTF are the police thinking of?

This is BS.
Orders are not usually handed out without a charge, they are usually used as we await trial. It’s unusual to use one without as much as charge!!

Secondly the court gave the police a chance to amend the order, hence an adjournment, it will have been plain to all that it was not going to be approved in its current form.

The fact the police have dropped it altogether tells us a lot, mainly they have zero confidence in the order, and no sign of a charge.

Gotta keep the Stonewall ratings up. So they can never say no to one of the sacred caste.

No, no. They must prostrate themselves before that pink and blue altar.

Thank you for your clarity GCalltheway

How many times does this need to be spelled out?

As one who was there:

IT DID NOT GO BEFORE THE COURT.

Clerk agreed to adjourn/relist. Not the bench.

The clerk won’t have made that decision alone.