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

Well if false reports have been made to the Police, taking up officers precious time and at considerable cost to the Public Purse, then I hope that there will be consequences.

If only there was some kind of person who was good at detecting things, maybe we could call them a detectivist or something? The detectivist could have detected they were being mugged off into being useful idiots for the complainer. Would have saved us all a bunch of money too.

Detectivists are a marvellous idea. Someone should talk to the Police and Crime commissioner. Maybe she could commission some.

One would hope that the police would have recourse for having their time wasted.

The 39 tweets thing is interesting because, if you're in dispute with someone, it's reasonable to log posts that are demonstrably about you, and 39 isn't a vast amount. Unfortunately, I've a folder with several hundred tweets about me and I resented having to collate them all. And if all was found on Caroline's phone was 39 tweets (I'm going by what's public), then that rather suggests she's not multiple KF posters.

You can't just say someone is on KF or doing other nefarious things because you suspect. There has to be proof, and it's not even clear that every KF post constitutes harassment. I accept, for example, that some will have views about me based upon my public profile and not liking said views is not a reason to claim harassment. Other comments, such as lying about my wife, posting my address, (old) number etc, do constitute harassment.

The police are not your personal envoy just because you don't like what someone is saying on-line.

Since this all began, I feel like a ninja. My manager has been forewarned in the unlikely event my job is discovered (I'm kept off the company page and their FB), my neighbours are briefed incase anything happens off-line (CCTV sends alerts to my phone too but it's currently detecting pigeons in the garden ...), I don't publicly interact with some I'm close to, my FB is set to mainly private, and I am probably moving, or at least spending much more time, abroad - something I wanted to do anyway but things are moving quicker due to stalking.

I cannot trust the police to keep me safe so I've taken my own steps.

Oft Louise that sounds hard. Stay safe!

I am talking in general, and in line with the College of Policing Guidelines as still implemented in practice. The police proceed on the basis of the complainant's perception, not objective evidence - which they don't investigate.

I am unfortunately familiar with another case where the specific allegations were demonstrably untrue - but the police proceeded regardless with doorstepping and arresting yet another woman on the basis of a TRA's declared perception.

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!

Good! I know it is ultimately taxpayer money being wasted but I hope it makes them think twice in future.

I am acquainted with someone who might be interested in looking into the cost issues in these cases. I think I'll make sure they're aware of this case.

I don't know if these things are accessible via an FOI but it might be worth requesting (as always, I can only speak in general terms). The final charging decision is due next month although it seems a little odd to charge someone with harassment if there's no case for a stalking order.

I don't want to comment about the complainant(s) because this really is about poor policing and how they failed to consider both sides leading to the persecution of one woman. It's anathema to justice and now Surrey have to foot a rather large bill for their failed application we should all be asking whether our money is put to the best possible use.

Thelnebriati
Is that a serious question? They can't hold suspects indefinitely.
No - but they can be charged & remanded if there is a specific risk to the victim. Or charged and bailed with conditions. DVPN's can be applied for if there are specific risks. There are mechanisms there to protect her. I was just curious as to why "...they had to let him go...". Presumably there was insufficient evidence to proceed further and based on this it has been NFA'd - perhaps after CPS advice. If that is the case what do you want the police to do?

DrLouiseJMoody
The SPO is totally separate to the ongoing investigation. The SPO is there to protect the reporting person from a specific risk during this time. It's now believed that this specific risk is not there or based on the submissions - so it has been dropped. But the primary investigation will still carry on. And we don't know what the reporting person has submitted in evidence for this. We don't know what the allegation is.

Zebracat & SabrinaThwaite
You have to be able to prove its a false report before you can consider 'wasting police time'. Presumably the reporting person has evidence to submit to back up their version of events. Hence why it met the NCRS threshold to record a crime.

BezMills
The 'Detectivists' are investigating what the reporting person has said. There will be lines of enquiry to peruse before we can get to the next stage of a charging decision. Bare in mind this will be one response cop who is dealing with this, not a team. It takes time when you take into account everything else that one response cop will have to do day to day and everything else on their crime queue.

BaronMunchausen
The police don't proceed on just a perception. They need evidence to support the allegation. If its harassment or stalking, then there are points to prove for the offence. There are stated cases as to what constitutes harassment/stalking. So, the investigation will carry on to examine these lines of enquiry. Based on what evidence is gathered (and that will include what CF has or has not said in her interview) it will be passed to the next gate, CPS, to see if there is sufficient to charge.

If the allegations can be proven to be untrue and that the reporting person has made it all up - then there are offences of wasting police time, false allegation etc to consider.

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'.

Presumably the reporting person has evidence to submit to back up their version of events.

Hahahahaha.

Stop now please, my sides are splitting.

SabrinaThwaite
Why are your sides splitting?

Unless you know what the evidence is for and against you can not make that judgement.

We don't even know what the alleged offence/crime is at this stage or who reported it - so how can we judge on what the evidence is for & against. Are there witnesses, phone records, social media records, IP addresses, GPS data, meta-data, CCTV etc etc

We don't know what CF said in her interview or what defence submissions to the offence have been made.

So since we don't know - we have to allow the investigation to proceed to examine these lines of enquiry.

Otherwise you are just assuming that no evidence exists.

Same disclaimer as before.

Yes, let's see Surrey explain this in their own words. We are not made of money.

SabrinaThwaite

One would hope that the police would have recourse for having...

And what of them wasting their own time and taxpayer's money? They seem like a total disgrace.

Yes - but equally where the police have been used in this way and the complaint found to be deliberately misleading or fabricated there should be consequences for the complainant.

SabrinaThwaite

There is - but you have to prove that

Lets not segue back into the circular argument of 'there should be consequences for serial vexatious complainants - there are but how do you tell if someone is being vexatious its a mystery' again. Its been done to death.

I wasn’t replying to you.

To me its more about the lengths and costs incurred to try to get an order in place that was never warrantied. I know its easy to say but we don't know if it was warrantied but we do know. We know because of past history, cf has never been a physical risk to any person ever and isn't now. We all know that the actions taken were because they viewed cf as the easier person to silence.

Disclaimer I'm using we as in the general we who know the history and character of cf

BaronessEllarawrosaurus
But you don't know what the specific allegation is or what the specific concerns raised are, that the offences will continue to occur whilst the investigation continues. You are just assuming.

You have to remember the police are in the middle of this. I accept that there are loads of people who say that CF is of no risk at all. But there are others that will say that is not the case because of x,y,z. So, whilst the investigation is ongoing, the risks have to be managed.

SabrinaThwaite
I wasn’t replying to you.

I was replying to you though - its a public forum

SabrinaThwaite

Yes - but equally where the police have been used in this way and the complaint found to be deliberately misleading or fabricated there should be consequences for the complainant.

Oh, I agree entirely and I think that the Police officers involved ought to face sanctions, too. They haven't investigated without prejudice, as they should have done.

@Felix125 This is from section 1 of the College of Policing Hate Crime Operational Guidance:

For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident.

The update this month sought to clarify what an "incident" is: An “incident” is defined in the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) as “a single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual, group or community’s quality of life or causes them concern”.

that the offences will continue to occur whilst the investigation continues

That statement is prejudicial. It assumes that there are offences to continue to occur. There aren't necessarily any offences at all.

An “incident” is defined in the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) as “a single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual, group or community’s quality of life or causes them concern”.

That would be every catcall I've ever had inflicted on me... if misogyny was deemed a hate crime along with racial hate etc. It's very clear who isn't granted the protection of the law here.