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

Whoosh.

😂

I do wonder why the resident apologist for the process doesn't talk about the process for a "stalking order", rather than a domestic violence order. We seem to be hearing false equivalence here.

I’m dying 🤣🤣🤣

Dumbo12
I have said that it is the process which is similar (or more or less the same) to that of a DVPN

We can just refer to the stalking order from now on if you want to.

The point is - they are obtained pre-charge. Not at the point of charge - as bail conditions would be placed on the suspect at the point of charge - making a such an order not necessary.

And hence, if they can only be applied for at the point of charge (as GCalltheway suggests) then these orders would not exist at all - but they do.

MissMissive
All this information about DV - you’d almost think these orders are generally to protect women, not be used against them by…. oh, wait.

No, they are there to protect vulnerable people and victims of crime - both women & men - from further offences being committed against them whilst the investigation is ongoing. They are there to protect them when there is still insufficient evidence to charge and hence bail conditions can not yet be imposed.

Really sounds like they need to be very carefully considered before making an application for then. To avoid using such a powerful tool unethically.

Well, quite. If only it weren’t women who were disproportionately victims of DV, perpetrated by men.

MissMissive
Really sounds like they need to be very carefully considered before making an application for then. To avoid using such a powerful tool unethically.

Absolutely - they have to be authorised by a Superintendent or higher and passed to a court. Its the court which makes the final decision if the conditions are to be imposed.

MissMissive
Well, quite. If only it weren’t women who were disproportionately victims of DV, perpetrated by men.

I agree - that's why most of them have a male as the subject of them and the male having the conditions imposed on them.

I genuinely wonder how many get passed to the court and how many get rejected.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/management-information-stalking-protection-orders/review-of-stalking-protection-orders-accessible-version#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20apply%20for,other%20person%20from%20that%20risk.

Here some data for the first year they were introduced.
Approximately 80% are granted

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, the prohibitions that seem to have been applied for in CF’s case are hugely more invasive and restrictive than those generally listed in the report. The link refers to not contacting the person directly and similar, whereas those mentioned by CF would be extreme and life impacting for both her and her family.

MissMissive
It will depend on the risk to the reporting person, what was reported and any other evidence to suggest any ongoing risk, harm, threat etc

Like bail conditions, each one has to be justified and proportionate, we can't just add conditions for the sake of it. Who ever signs them off (Superintendent or Custody Sergeant) will be accountable for them.

That feeling when you click on a thread, see who has posted, and move on.

I'm sure the Germans have a word for it. They always do.

BezMills
Well, if you have nothing constructive to add, probably best you move on then!

The facts are these:

• The police applied for an order without considering Caroline's submissions.

• Once those submissions were reviewed, the case collapsed.

I know what those submissions were (and have no intention of helping the unknown complainant by being more specific). As I've said before, I very much consider my friend the only victim in this case and the collapse of the case at the first challenge does rather suggest the police now finally understand that pursuing anything is hopeless.

Yeah, there's a reason why some people end up talking to them selves.

While the actual conversation is being carried on elsewhere.

@BezMills there's an ancient Irish phrase for that. It originates from times past when one would enter a pub and sit at the bar only to find an annoying person sits down next to them and starts talking.
" Not this gobshite again" complete with eye rolling and hasty grabbing of ones beverage and quick departure.

Father Jack in Father Ted episode 1. "Is that gobshite never off the thread telly"

😁

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, the prohibitions that seem to have been applied for in CF’s case are hugely more invasive and restrictive than those generally listed in the report.

Presumably in most cases the stalking protection order is protecting someone from actual stalking. So the content of the order boils down to "stop stalking Person X."

But how do you apply for a stalking protection order to "protect" your designated victim, when the alleged perpetrator hasn't actually done anything wrong?

To a Surrey cop the answer is clear! You have to stop the perpetrator from doing anything at all. Genius.

What might happen in a world where they’re used as a preemptive punishment vs a deterrent.

Felix125 · Today 13:56
BezMills
Well, if you have nothing constructive to add, probably best you move on then!

Oh the fucking irony from our resident copy & paste expert.

We all unfortunately know why someone is motivated to unjustly harass Caroline Farrow. But, in your opinion and based on how this unfolded at court, are the police involved being useful idiots to the harasser or do the police involved share those motivations?