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

"a certain TRA has posted a tweet about having cause to celebrate with a fish and clown emoji they like to use to describe CF and the tweet had been liked by a notorious GP."

What a disgusting pair of misogynistic arseholes!!

DifficultBloodyWoman
Neither - they will be investigating what ever the initial offence is which was reported by the reporting person.

Whilst this investigation progresses, they applied for a SPO to protect the reporting person. Its still unknown if CF went 'no reply' in her interview - if so, the police could not present any defence submissions, as there were none to submit. Now they have been submitted by her defence team (which was the purpose of the adjournment by the court) the police have withdrawn the SPO application.

It will depend on what the defence submissions were and how they contrast the allegation and the SPO conditions.

Now PC Plod, what word is missing from this sentence?

"they will be investigating what ever the initial offence is which was reported by the reporting person"

1. alligator
2. allegory
3. alleged

Next question. Complete this phrase (failure to answer correctly is symptomatic of constabulary amnesiac syndrome):

Presumption of - - - - - - - - -

1. indigestion
2. ingrowing toenails
3. innocence

If I had wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it.

I was seeking the opinion of a particular poster because her particular background.

Kindly back the fuck off.

@DifficultBloodyWoman ,

I think it is both, although there does seem to be bias from one particular officer who, having made some outrageous claims (e.g. Caroline made public that the police said her having saved 39 tweets constituted evidence of "stalking" when the reality is we've been advised by counsel to log anything pertaining to us), sought to frame Caroline as a religious lunatic on a mission against the poor, vulnerable transgender community. That angle fell apart once the same officer considered her submissions.

The original application didn't include anything from her and there were some pretty easy to prove lies (were I allowed to say what, I would). The day before the hearing the police said they hadn't even read her submissions but blundered ahead anyway. At court, it turned out they hadn't even heard of the Scottow case.

I think the police, and certainly one officer, took the complainant at face value, failed to do any background research or speak to others, and they thought that Caroline's religious views would make it easy for them to show she's motivated by "hatred." It read to me that they thought this would be a nice win for their statistics and they could say they are cracking down on "hate" against minorities (insofar as men are minorities). It's rather more difficult to use that line against me as an out, left-wing, lesbian and they know it.

I've been shocked that the police proceeded on the basis of the complainant's say-so. You'd think it a general principle that you cannot simply take someone's word absent corroborating evidence. Caroline was able to provide such evidence in her submissions leading to the case collapsing.

I realise this is frustratingly vague (I'm not trying to pull a Felix!) but I can't say anything that's going to invite further complaints ("Dr Moody is a proxy" whinge whinge) or lead to another claim against myself. We'll know in a month whether the criminal case is proceeding and, if it doesn't, I'll be saying considerably more.

But yes, I think the police were, until they read Caroline's submissions, prejudiced against her and had formed a view largely because of her religious views. Their entire tone has now changed.

Thanks @DrLouiseJMoody

So the police had literally not done their homework!

@DrLouiseJMoody

Thank you for answering.

I am both stunned and yet not surprised by what you have described.

I wish you and Caroline both the very best in your fight against this.

You may not have realized just quite how brave you were when you raised your head above the parapet. I’m sorry for all the shit you have and are going through.

But thank you for supporting women.

@DrLouiseJMoody I guess you can’t say anything about the weird reaction of the Surrey PCC? It sounds like someone should really have had a quiet word with some of the cops involved, not saying that is directly the PCC’s job, but it just seems so strange the cops blundered on for so long apparently in total ignorance of what the complainant is like. I’m sure you can’t say anything, I’m just so aghast at this nonsense and looking for answers.

(I guess the cops didn’t give even a cursory glance to the fruit farm thread that was complained about at one stage! They’d have learned a few things if they had.)

I'm sad to see that the police force were so easily duped into becoming useful idiots, having their chains yanked by the complainant. That must surely be quite irritating to the officers involved. I mean nobody gets up in the morning and thinks "today I am going to go into work and be a useful idiot".

I’m sure that CF said she didn’t “no comment”, because she was being accused of things on the fruit farm she could prove she hadn’t done.

If you go back to Surrey police’s statement after her arrest, they said she was suspected of posting grossly offensive material, which was the fruit farms stuff.

I cannot imagine CF staying quiet after the amount of harassment she was subjected to.

It’s hard not to think that because she had made them look terrible, they had decided that they were going to find something to nail her over to justify their heavy-handed treatment.

I that's true then there should be serious disciplinary consequences.

Without fear or favour.

Bring in the team from Line of Duty.

The letter! The letter of the law!

I wonder if it's a case of the PCC giving the coppers and the complainant enough rope to hang themselves? <not a death threat>

Bit hard on Caroline, if it were.

Taking the complainant at face value, and not doing any background research, is fundamental to how the police operate when a TRA tells them they're upset. The complainant can say things that are clearly untrue, but they will not look into it - the sole basis for proceeding is the perception of the complainant.

It's deeply irrational and unjust, and disproportionately affects women, but is a good fit with their institutional misogyny.

I agree that religious prejudice probably made this look like an easy win for hate crime statistics, while at the same time this reveals a shocking lack of well, investigation. If you google Caroline Farrow, she is NOT obscure. She posts under her REAL NAME on the site that shall not be mentioned. Nobody does that! She has never been anything less than publicly forthright about her opinions. The suggestion that a 40 something vicar's wife is some dark web Banksy meme lord is genuinely hilarious in itself, but her public and consistent online life makes it so unlikely as to be completely dismissable. This is just more of the projection her adversaries peddle in every day.

I hope Caroline is okay. She is utterly stubborn on this and it's glorious, but I can imagine it taking a toll.

@Backstreets agreed, fully

Thank you for the kind words :-]

It's a little frustrating knowing the things I know and keeping quiet, but we've only a month to go until a charging decision is made.

The PCC reaction is odd. I've personally had no dealings with her and have just seen what everyone else: namely, she blocked Caroline, made some unprofessional remarks about people not knowing the facts, and then sought to distance herself once it emerged that the facts were the very things not considered by the police.

As for KiwiFarms, I read it via the Orbots app. I find it very revealing that those who want it shut down have committed documented crimes and other misdeeds. Yes, some comments stray into abuse but I personally find it a useful resource given the extent TRAs often go to to conceal their pasts. It's not speculation and claims are always evidenced. Like Caroline, I occasionally post as me because it demonstrates that we're not hiding. Indeed, most of the people I've been accused of being have messaged me, and in one case, someone sent me a KF t-shirt after my address was posted (I know who is behind that but will not publicly say).

Watching everything play out with Surrey Police has made me, I'm sorry to say, wary that some officers are gullible, dishonest, and in the worst case, will abuse their power to punish women. I no longer trust them to help victims and now actually have a physical response of anxiety whenever I see an officer. :-/

@DrLouiseJMoody I don’t have any words of wisdom but you’re not alone, you are amazing and things will change

The Met have informed Lawrence Fox that he's not committed a hate crime for burning the bunting in his garden. Well, that got wrapped up quickly. Wonder what's different.....?

But yes, I think the police were, until they read Caroline's submissions, prejudiced against her and had formed a view largely because of her religious views. Their entire tone has now changed.

I'll add my thanks to you, @DrLouiseJMoody I'm a bit shocked by what you say here. I have no truck with some of Ms Farrow's views, but religion is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act. It is shocking that assumptions were made on the basis of what the police believed about Ms Farrow's views.

There's also such a lack of joined up thinking between police forces re this case. (Wasn't that how the Soham murderer wasn't tracked because there's little communication between regional forces?) As I understand it, there's a back story about vexatious litigation (including court statements by judges on the public record).

It's interesting that many of us saw Ms Farrow's Twitter thread and knew exactly what was going on. And we were correct. So one has to wonder, why were the police so off-base? (rhetorical question )

Meanwhile a friend spend yesterday hanging out in a fast food joint because the police had to let the ex go, and everyone knew he was driving around trying to find her. She couldn't go home until he was arrested again late last night.

BaronMunchausen
That's what the investigation is for - which is still ongoing.
"...The complainant can say things that are clearly untrue..." - yet you don't know what has been reported - so how do you know its not true?

IcakethereforeIam
The Met have informed Lawrence Fox that he's not committed a hate crime for burning the bunting in his garden. Well, that got wrapped up quickly. Wonder what's different.....?
That you don't know what the complaint is against CF

pickledandpuzzled
Why did they have to let him go?

Is that a serious question? They can't hold suspects indefinitely.

In general terms, it's quite plain that, if a stalking order is binned once the police finally bother to read the police's submissions, then the complainant's evidence is defective. And, having seen what Surrey Police owe Caroline today (they are liable for her costs having binned the case), I imagine that there is considerable explaining to do!