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

@Felix125 I have to say I admire your restraint. I'm new to this thread but have read ever reply you've posted. You've been polite, factual and actually pretty neutral but because you refuse to condemn the right party it's a huge pile on.

But fwiw, and I say this as a woman, a police officer and a concerned parent to the current climate around trans rights and sex/gender - that I completely agree with you.

Sadly, we can only see what CF wants us to see. We have no idea what the actual complaint is, who the complainant is and what the evidence is. MN knows that there is always another side to a story. We see over and over again on threads here.

What is happening 'on the face of it' DOES sound scary and an infringement of privacy and rights. BUT... SPO's are a civil order and applied for only in cases where the risk is great. Now, neither I nor most people here actually know the full circumstances so why not just watch and see what happens. The police are not judge and jury. They don't decide, the courts do. But right now they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So they're doing their job. Gathering evidence to put before a court. In the meantime, regardless of any of our opinions about the involved parties, the police have a duty to protect. That's the purpose of the order.

I've seen comments here about prejudicing an investigation by labelling the complainant a 'victim'. Yet you are all prejudicing the same investigation because CF's version fits your narrative. Hell it fits mine too! It doesn't mean they are the full facts though. That's the point Felix is making. We don't know that CF is guilty. But we don't know she's innocent either. Because we don't even know the allegations!

I don't really care about the 'be kind' stuff. But at least recognise that you may have been conned. Or having the wool pulled over your eyes. I literally cannot count how many times in a week a police officer will see the evidence contradict a suspect or complainant's version of events. People, so many people, tell lies, bend truth, omit details, spin a story to their favour

It looks to me as if you are a child on the Autistic spectrum you should be given sex offender drugs. If you are a woman though to be on the Autistic spectrum, sex offender police conditions must be allocated.

I'm new to this thread but have read ever reply you've posted

And that's why you don't know about his habit of tediously derailing thread after thread.

Fucking hell, now we have two of them. Or is it still just one of them?

TRAs have the weaponisation of perception-based hate and offence so finely tuned, is it not a counter-offensive possibility? If the police have to investigate any allegation of offensive messages and it's their job to assess it by searching homes and impounding devices, can counter-allegations not be made? Anyone can allege anything.

It seems the police would really like people to shut up about this case 🤔

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/teen-prosecuted-after-asking-whether-17651755.amp

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/autism-spectrum-disorders

And yet, autistic people are often subject to stigma and discrimination, including unjust deprivation of health care, education and opportunities to engage and participate in their communities.
People with autism have the same health problems as the general population. However, they may, in addition, have specific health-care needs related to autism or other co-occurring conditions. They may be more vulnerable to developing chronic noncommunicable conditions because of behavioural risk factors such as physical inactivity and poor dietary preferences, and are at greater risk of violence, injury and abuse.

But at least recognise that you may have been conned. Or having the wool pulled over your eyes

Indeed. Like when a new poster providentially pops up to assure us she's a 'woman, police officer and concerned parent' and supports another force's actions and starts warning us off discussing this.

Just passing, were you?

What’s it got to do with autism?

that case if the Welsh lad was shocking

They sent four officers, who tried to barge their way into her home, within an hour of her not showing up. They didn't even try to call first.

It fills the thread up?

Thank for your post. I am new here too, and catching up with the facts of the case.

Anyone wishing to know more can take a cursory glance at google and see that CF seems to have been the victim of this kind of persecution for many years. I guess what most clever MN users will do is do their own initiative and research themselves the facts and they might be very shocked to learn what this poor woman has been through.

@Boiledbeetle I actually welcome the discussion because these issues really are important. I just think Felix was taking a bashing for having a relatively neutral stance.

I don't work for Surrey Police and have as much desire as anyone to see the police doing the right job without corruption or 'bad eggs'. But I can't see what they have done wrong yet. Because we don't have all the facts. SPO's are serious orders and relatively new. Their very purpose is to protect another. It will be very interesting to see if it is issued.

They also are civil orders and do not require the same burden of proof as criminal convictions. Civil orders like this, non mols, DVPO and CBO's require only a balance of probability

'I admire your restraint'! Jfc!

But fwiw, and I say this as a woman, a police officer and a concerned parent to the current climate around trans rights and sex/gender - that I completely agree with you.

Oh don't. We KNOW the police view since we have had it a gazillion times from "your colleague".

If you really are an officer of the law, what is it about the climate about trans rights that concerns you? is it women tying ribbons on benches? or big beefy types with face coverings screaming at women and assaulting them? How would you police those two things?

CF posted that there is ASD in her family, she believes she also has it and the children targeted at Tavistock are on the Autistic spectrum, this actually seems like it's disability hate crimes occurring.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-landmark-strategy-to-improve-the-lives-of-autistic-people

Bloody hell, even paedophiles don't have that many restrictions!

The PCC cannot get involved in a live investigation.

However if there are clear breaches in police procedure, CF should take this to the PCC. In writing. Not via Twitter.

Good to know, just gonna save this

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230607115721/www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4822305-update-from-cf?page=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230607115721/www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4822305-update-from-cf?page=1

She'll need to let her officer know about this account.

Also interesting that Lisa Townsend, who has been very vocal about GC concerns and has stuck her neck out on several occasions seems to have backed well away from this one

This part is also worrying me. It’s just bizarre. But even if there’s massive amounts of information missing from what we know, there’s just no conceivable excuse for this behaviour from the cops.

and let them know about any other sockpuppets she has on kiwifarms too as well as the one in her own name, otherwise she's breaking the law.

Huh? None of that is new information or anything not in the public domain.

So many bizarre posts on this thread! My spidey senses are tingling.

i have to say here that I don't know much about CF. I do know how all this looks. I have seen what happens at the Let Women Speak events online. I see the police standing around letting big beefy types do things that other people in the same place at the same time would be stopped from doing (loudhailers aren't allowed at speaker's corner, IIRC, but plod just looks benignly on)

I can also even understand why under certain and very limited circs the police might want to do a snatch and grab without alerting the suspect to what is going on - in order to preserve evidence.

Having said that. I still don't trust the police to do the right thing in respect of women. And at the risk of derailing i would like to know what the police think they could do to restore trust.

She has already said they aren't her, and has provided evidence of being elsewhere when those accounts posted.

Armchair detective 😂