Abandon All Fear

What nobody else seems to be saying…

[Mentality] How To Be A Victim

Posted by Lex Fear on May 28, 2007

This Post Is Rated: O for Downright Offensive! It’s controversial! Get your lawyers, call the police, a blogger has commented on a hot issue and we don’t agree with his opinion.

Whoa, Alex, getting personal now?

Well, in a way yes, but no, not really.

I’ve noticed a few bloggers have started to post wanted images for a blogger named Felicity Jane Lowde (FJL) recently, regarding an ongoing legal dispute generated by what can only be described as a cat-fight, between her and perpetual victim of things like malice and 7/7, Rachel North.

After reading both blogs, and opinions of other bloggers, I decided on what I thought was the best response to the growing hysteria and lynch-mob that has resulted. I have posted a similar warning for the blogosphere. What has taken place was avoidable and unnecessary.

It’s hard to tell how it started since both women seem to have deleted comments and posts (North more evidently than FJL), but it is possible to assume that FJL began by trolling Norths blog. To read some of FJL’s early postings on her blog, you wonder how it turned so nasty. Similarly North started out simply wanting to share her story of survival.

It seems that FJL does have a checkered past with allegations brought against her (no official sources) on a couple of forums. She appears to have picked up a real stalker at some point early 2006. She was initially supportive of North and the Kings Cross United movement.

In May 2006 she posted a constructively critical piece on the KCU and Rachel North. Having read it, I can say it was in no way vitriolic or without merit. It was written as a genuine concern (one I would have shared at the time) and I think she was entitled to post this on her own blog.

The following month, FJL testifies having “problems with Rachel North“, in the form of a “plethora of angry and aggressive mails from the self appointed public enquiry head campaigner”. So big deal, right? This is the blogosphere, people have strong opinions and people are entitled to them. But suddenly what was originally a difference of ideas and opinions descended into vendetta‘s, accusations and eventually police involvement.

In my own mind (which may not be right), if you can’t take public criticism or the odd troll, you shouldn’t be blogging. But the ridiculousness of this situation and the fault of both these women, is that they obviously did not know that blogs, posts and comments can be deleted, IP addresses can be blocked, and comments can be moderated. Instead, they both entered into a pissing contest to prove who had been abused the most. One woman chose to publish it all on her blog, the other kept it low key and delete comments/posts (unfortunately -which makes it difficult for me to present her side).

It ended with confiscation of FJL’s computer and her subsequent conviction for “cyber-bullying” and harassment. FJL’s life being obviously decimated, has reportedly skipped bail and is on the run. Not satisfied with justice being done, North decided to go public, which comes across to me as simply gloating and sneering. Still not content with coming out on top, she has also spearheaded the aforementioned blog-campaign for vigilantes to find and shop FJL. The following quote is apparently a police description of FJL. Sounds a bit too bitchy for the police:

“The police are unable to release her arrest photo, but say she has aged and put on considerable amounts of weight since it was taken. Age 41 ( police say she appears older). 5’8 tall. Size 16/18 ( police say overweight for height) Eyes brown/green with unusual squinting appearance in one eye. Hair mouse/light brown, possibly some greyRachel North (Italics mine)

I had never heard of these two women till recently from a couple of other blogs I read. I’ve seen examples of trolling and flaming. I’ve even had a few trolls on my blogs in the past (though I’m not a prominent blogger or widely read). I believe that gives me a unique perspective in that I am able to look at both blogs, both sides and assess what I see.

From my point of view, it’s clear that FJL comes across on her blogs as slightly obsessed with Rachel North. She has created a number of strange defense blogs (here, here and here) when there is only need for one. In her defense, she posts a lot of evidence and exchanges that have taken place, so even if you do not agree with her- there is a method to her madness, so to speak. FJL could have a mental illness, again she appears to to be highly paranoid and suspicious. However this does not make her an evil or bad person. Mental Illness is an illness. If FJL suffers from it then she needs to be treated with an attitude of forgiveness and care.

IF FJL is mentally ill, then she has an excuse for her odd behaviour, which prompts me to question those who oppose her: what is your excuse?

“Don’t answer the foolish argument of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are.” – Solomon

On the other hand, North hardly smells of roses. FJL has accused her of “using press attention to further what are ambitious career goals in journalism rather than help other deserving people quietly get to the truth of the matter (May 04 2006)”. To be fair, FJL may not be far off the mark. Of course, I’m not saying that North shouldn’t have a career in journalism, but why write under the blog pseudonym? It’s clear she has benefited from the publicity. FJL is not the only critic that North has had on her blog and she has had no problem moderating comments in the past.

This should not have got as far as the police. This could have been dealt with by methods I mentioned above. Even persistent trolls can be dealt with and eventually tire when they are moderated, ignored and blocked. It seems to me that North was either:

a) Ignorant of online forum and blog culture and the methods for dealing with hostile posters and/or
b) Wanted to escalate the situation, possibly motivated by desire for justice revenge on one of her critics

Yes, Option B sounds strong. But why now try to turn the blogosphere against a woman who is now obviously disturbed and unstable? If it is indeed with the police, leave it for them to find her. Why not host a more worthwhile campaign on your blog, is it really worth the hyperbole?

I wonder, if Tony Blair ever decides to pursue libel against bloggers, how many of us would also end up with our computers confiscated, eh Rachel?

What hasn’t been helpful in escalating this sad affair is supporters of Rachel North. They are not innocent and are themselves guilty of the same accusations levelled against FJN. I suspect many people are blogging about this and adding the ‘Wanted FJN’ badge to their website without knowing the full story or reading both blogs. They have simply bought into the mob-mentality.

I’m convinced some bloggers out there care little about what campaigns they are supporting, but simply leap for the chance to add another 150x200px badge to their sidebar. Blog-Solidarity – Blogidarity.

As mentioned, North had her other critics, most notably David Duff (Duff & Nonsense). Last year Duff posted on his blog:

“Rachel North is a young woman from north London who was on a train hit by Islamist terrorists on July 7th last year. I first crossed ‘pens’ with her over at The Sharpener (I can’t find the link but it was about a month ago) and then again yesterday and today on her own site – although you will be hard pushed to find much because she censored me first before banning me! Apparently I “insulted” her by, amongst other things, suggesting that she was mounting a political platform on the backs of the dead and wounded.” – Rachel North from Planet Zog

Rachel responded in the comments:

“…In fact, we have corresponded once before, on one day, by email, and the correspondence relates to you querying why I did not pass a comment made by you on my blog.

I said ‘Just to let you know disagreement is fine, but personal attacks which add nothing to the debate will be binned. Your call. If you can’t manage to post without insults, then please don’t bother’

This related to a comment which you attempted to post on my blog in which you said my volunary work with survivors in setting up a PTSD support group, my writing a blog and campaigning for an independent inquiry into 7/7 was ‘standing on the backs of the dead and wounded of 7/7’. I explained to you that I found this deeply offensive and that was why I was not publishing your comment. You then apologised and sent another comment, which I did publish…”

There was then a comment from FJL which prompted Duff to intervene with a humourous but insightful retort:

“Ladies, ladies, you are at risk of resembling a pair of drunken biddies fighting outside a pub!

STOP IT, both of you!

But if you are enjoying it so much that you really can’t stop, then please do it somewhere else. The blog equivalent of ladies wrestling in mud holds no attraction for me so please do it elsewhere.”

However they BOTH paid no heed to his request and made further side jabs against each other, in the comments, until losing interest.

Recently Duff has commented on the Liberati Lynch Mob that has formed since.

Duff was right. This is nothing more than the blog equivalent of two drunk ladettes fighting outside a pub. There was no need for others to get involved. There was no need to form a lynch mob. They should have BOTH been ignored.

I realise this will not be a popular post, I don’t have a huge circulation of regular readers. I usually get about 15-20 SE hits a day, so it’s quite conceivable I’m now exposing myself to supporters of Rachel North in the form of trolling. Since I’ve linked extensively to North, I imagine she’ll see this post, and if she stays true to form, she will comment, as I have noticed on all other blogs I have viewed linking to the witch hunt.

So Rachel, feel free to comment and defend yourself, but be prepared for my response. Here.

And good luck with the new book, for which Lowde has undoubtedly brought much unintentional publicity.

Advertisements

17 Responses to “[Mentality] How To Be A Victim”

  1. David Duff said

    Perhaps I might take this opportunity to quote the last paragraph of my first post on teh subject of Rachel North which sums up my attitude to her:

    “I am sorry for Rachel North, the young woman who suffered a dreadful danger and shock; but I cannot show any mercy to a silly young woman whose agitations, encouraged and lapped up by the press in general and the BBC in particular, are likely to do our country even more damage as we struggle to fight a war the like of which we have never seen before.”

  2. lwtc247 said

    Alex.Well done for your cool and even handed solid analysis of the situation. There is so much I agree with.I think the best solution is for Rachel to call off the hunt and learn from this , including the aforementioned blogger possy.Wonder if it features in North’s book? Guess I’ve have download bittorrent to see.

  3. Lex Fear said

    David, thanks for taking the time to read and post a comment. I realise I may have inadvertently represented you as a lead opponent to Rachel, whereas you are simply someone who sees the glaringly obvious.

    lwtc247, thanks for your comment. Agreed North should call off the hunt and simply learn from the experience. As mentioned on your post, she seems to be turning into FJL with her vindictive approach of devoting every other blog post to the hunt.I feel sorry for FJL. Having checked over her blog today, she does have a few real supporters but it is clear that some of those anony comments are hers. It doesn’t make her evil, it’s not even proof of mental illness. It simply displays someone who is, as you say, emotional- I would say emotionally unstable- which is not a bad thing again.

  4. lwtc247 said

    Rachel also said that fjl was posting her own comments. But I’d caution against this.

    I’ve seem other blogs make related accuasation and I know for a fact in some cases, that it’s 100% wrong.Only one person could know the truth on the matter and that’s fjl.

    P.S. Thankfully I can re-access your site today. Hourray 🙂 I like its content and so will be dropping in once in a while.

  5. Stef said

    I have a very different take to this issue than David Duff above

    I believe that there are genuine questions arising from 7/7 and the ‘War on Terror’ that need to be investigated and aired – but I’m not attempting to grind that particular axe here.

    I, and I suspect quite a few other people, have consciously steered clear of attempting to engage RfNL in discussion about these issues because it became very clear early on that the risk of becoming embroiled in a pointless and personalised argument about nothing other than claims to some kind of victimhood was high.

    FJL, for whatever reason, rose to the bait

    Personally, I don’t give damn which one of them is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and only I’m commenting now because this corrosive nonsense has spread beyond their individual blogs.

    This campaign is plain nasty and if it helps to establish a trend it threatens to provoke a blow-back that might impinge on the freedom of expression of all UK bloggers

    I ask anyone who is currently participating in this nonsense to think very carefully about what they are doing and ask themselves if it is behaviour they can be in some way proud of. I submit that it isn’t

  6. Anonymous said

    Dear Alex,

    I have no blog myself, but I have recently been looking at both the stalker and stalkee blogs. Thing is, they both write like each other really, and I have become a bit lost on which is which, although both claim to be victims.

    I think it is imaginable that Rachel will say anyone who does not agree with her own campaign to destroy Felicity, is indeed Felicity. I guess, then, it is useless to say I am not- but I’m not! 🙂

    Ther are a number of reasons this situation arose, in my view. Most of us want to see ourselves as the good guy. I know very few people who can take ultimate responsibility and feel themselves to be acting inappropriately- we all wish to be our own hero. Both F and R both blame the other, which would be right, because they both say the same things. But if they both say the same things, then this is more like some useless unwinnable argument, which has escalated out of control, rather than something which is worthy of litigation.

    Re your point about Rachel now getting good publicity- I disagree. If anyone looks at either protagonist’s blog, it looks bad for both. Noone wins in this kind of business. Whilst I think Felicity is out of control, I also think that, as you said, the “police” description of Felicity’s appearance, makes R sound extremely bitchy. She can have as many supporters as she likes- doesn’t mean I, if in the position, would ever employ such a person capable of such malice.

    I guess I take F’s side more in this, because F has already lost in court; because R has loads of internet bloggers enjoying being virtual vigilantes; and because I think R and F are as bad as each other- but it is being seen as one good, one bad- no- it’s time for a little objectivity. I don’t see these two as women having a scarg fight either- more as children bullying- both garnering support from other kids. Felicity has missed out on the majority of the kids, but there will be one or two who won’t play. Thank god for that.

    I came across your blog because I have become fascinated with this whole thing. It’s quite interesting. I enjoy the new instalments from Felicity- her being on the run and all 🙂 She is a bit like her other fascination- Jack the Ripper- but she is a verbal ripper- one has to love that.

    You will surely get other passer-by, who are finding this saga titillating. The googlers will be going mad with it.

    As for me, I have no comments on the mental health of either F or R- they both think each other mad- that’s good enough for me. To the Rachel “supporters” with the “wanted” posters (yes, Felicity, i agree- they are superbly naff), take them down- it’s childish. Who bullies the bully? Who stalks the stalker? But it’s great reading.

    Thank you, Alex, for articulating your thoughts about this. I think you said what many have been thinking.

    I don’t know hw to sign this, given I’ll be the using the anonymous identity. I hope this works.

    Me

  7. Lex Fear said

    LW,

    Glad you can still access the blog. Unfortunately it does look as though JFL is faking some of those posts. If you look at some of the anony comments with questions, JFL answers them within the space of minutes, I even spotted one comment answered in the same minute timestamp! I’ve even read another blog in which she fakes a comment and admits it in the next one.

    This doesn’t make her a criminal or bad, it kind of makes her look a bit zany and damages her defence. But I think we can agree it doesn’t mean she deserves to be the subject of this hate a viciousness.

    Post and comments here:http://isadub.com/blog/2006/08/31/felicity-lowde-publicises-her-plight/

    Stef, conspiracy discussion is welcome here, in case you didn’t guess this blog is mistrusting of government.

    You’re spot on about engaging RfNL. I purposefully have not gone and left comments on her blog or any of her worshippers, I am expecting her to call at some point. Don’t worry, if she comes here I have some points I’d like to debate!

    Anony, I’m glad you felt you could get your thoughts off your chest here. I felt the very same way- but- as the name of the blog goes, I knew I had to say something and I like pushing past the comfort zone.

    From the way you write, I can tell you are not FJL, however she is also welcome here- as are members of the lynch mob.

    Everything you say is spot on, I share your sentiments completely as do the other guys here. However I do fear that the general-non-blogging-daily-mail reading public will be sucked in by the Rachelmania. All we can do is write informatively and share our insight to try and convince some if not all.

    You have no fear of anyone grabbing your IP address, or shouting you down here.

    Find the hamburglar!

  8. Anonymous said

    If you are going to try and be even handed, look at ALL the facts

    F has got previous convictions for stalking. 3 months suspended sentence for stalking an ex- boyfriend, which when she appealed, and was found to have continued the stalking during the appeal, resulted in a prison term. That story came out today – and not via R.

    F has also harassed others – try googling. The man you claim was a stalker has outed himself as a falsely-accused by F victim in a local paper.

    F is still on the run from the police, having been found guilty in court of harassing R. If the court decide F is stalking R, shouldn’t that be good enough?

    (If F is innocent, why does she run?)

    And R was stalked for over a year before blogging about it. She has only blogged and mentioned F’s name since the conviction.
    After posting, she says she hopes to never mention it again. But then F absconds and continues the stalking campaign. At which point R becomes afraid for her safety and asks bloggers for help. She must have known she would get stick to do so, yet she did it anyway. This is presumably because the courts and the police have failed to stop the stalking.

    Bear in mind that stalkers often counter-accuse their victims, like the wife beater who claims his wife ‘nags’ him and was ‘asking for it’.

    I expect you will now accuse me of being Rachel.

  9. Lex Fear said

    Hi Rachel,
    (just kidding, though how ironic that every Anon comment in support of FJL these days is accused of being FJL – its a like some sort of ColdBlog War)

    Thanks for commenting, seriously, I try not to deride any of the small number of commenters I have.

    FYI I spent several hours trawling google, blogsearch and forums as well as reading through both womens blogs before I posted- before that I was fresh to the situation.

    F has got previous convictions for stalking.

    I have yet to find any evidence for this apart from what is asserted by Rachel and her supporters. If you have links to police reports or documents- please post them here so we can all see.

    The man you claim was a stalker has outed himself as a falsely-accused by F victim in a local paper.

    I have read the Oxford Mail, Times etc news articles. All of these newspapers reported after Rachel had disclosed information of the trial.

    It’s a well known fact that reporters search the blogosphere looking for stories. Rachels connections to the media (being a reporter for the Times) have obviously helped to spread the word. I have yet to read an official comment from the police or investigators in any of these articles. Again, links please.

    BTW the man you speak of has a flickr account, I did a quick search and he is known to do a bit of trolling himself – deejayhart.

    If the court decide F is stalking R, shouldn’t that be good enough?

    From what I understand FJL has been convicted in absence of harassment, not stalking.

    The concept of ‘cyber-stalking’ is a complete misconception. Writing obsessively about someone on a blog is not stalking, otherwise millions of celebrity fansites would be wrong. I would even go so far as to say that emailing someone repeatedly is not stalking- it’s spam, perhaps FJL should be a convicted spammer?

    A stalker in the real world is defined as following or observing (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement. On the internet, anyone who’s ever googled someones name could be classed as this. In the real world it’s difficult to stop a stalker without confrontation and the assistance of the authorities.

    On the internet if you want to stop someone commenting on your blog- you delete or block their IP. If someone persistently emails you then set up a junk filter and ignore. I would argue that it should only involve the authorities if it crosses over into real life stalking.

    If F is innocent, why does she run?

    It’s a valid point. I for one believe she should have turned up in court to defend herself. One could argue that the retaliation sparked by Rachel’s supporters and that silly “Find Lowde” campaign could have sent her into panic. Particularly if she is a sufferer from a mental disorder, it’s not exactly a decent way to treat someone in that situation.

    After posting, she says she hopes to never mention it again.

    Yes I’ve read multiple posts by Rachel on how she doesn’t want to continue talking about it. And she hasn’t.. at least not on her own blog. A quick search of blogs mentioning Rachel or FJL, you will discover many posts by Rachel, thanking the author for supporting her campaign or having lengthly debate with anyone who would dare to question hers or the authors motives. It’s almost as obsessive as another blogger we know.

    Bear in mind that stalkers often counter-accuse their victims

    And so the vicious cycle will probably continue for some time. Which doesn’t bother me, I tune into it now daily like watching a soap opera. Like the other Anon in the comments above- it’s fun to watch FJL on the run and continue blogging. I almost feel like cheering her on.

    Finally the main reason for my defense of FJL is this-
    1) She does not seem to have much support, which is ironic if the lynch mob are to be believed that she is in need of help.
    2) Many people are jumping on this campaign bandwagon without any thought for the consequences and are using the same vitriolic language and rationale that FJL is accused of.

    Other than that, I have outlined my position in the post, I do not want to start repeating it here in the comments.

    Try to suspend your outrage and go back and read what I have posted again. I am an outsider looking in and all I can see is a mud-wrestling contest in which both parties, covered in mud, scream that the other is slinging it.

  10. Jane said

    You are exactly right, in a very strange way both women have gone too far to stop. It is embarassing and shameful to both of them. I cannot read their blogs anymore. They are just enjoying persecuting each other too much and almost revelling in each new punishment doled back in return.

  11. Anonymous said

    F’s previous convictions are a matter of public record, if you know where to look. On emagazine has now named the victim she was jailed for harassing. In the article R has refused to comment and all quotes are lifted off R’s blog. Interesting, don’t you think? Surely someone who is as you say would be giving interviews right left and center.

    ‘A stalker in the real world is defined as following or observing (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement. On the internet, anyone who’s ever googled someones name could be classed as this. In the real world it’s difficult to stop a stalker without confrontation and the assistance of the authorities.’

    Wrong. Harassment in Brit law is a course of conduct repeated on more than 2 occasions that causes alarm and distress. Lowde was convicted of harassment in April. The harassment laws are also known as the anti-stalking laws.

    ‘On the internet if you want to stop someone commenting on your blog- you delete or block their IP. If someone persistently emails you then set up a junk filter and ignore. I would argue that it should only involve the authorities if it crosses over into real life stalking.’

    It did. It included malicious false complaints to the police, the publishing R’s work address and phone number, real name and details on her family, along with repeated claims that R was a criminal and should be stopped, urging readers to take vengeance on R. F then moved to within a few miles of the victim’s home. Blocking an IP is no use if the harasser uses a router or proxy or cyber cafes. Email addresses can be changed.I can see why R was alarmed and distressed.

    People have letterboxes to receive mail. That does not mean they are up for dog shit sent through the post. Harassment is harassment under the law, whether the abuser uses obscene phone calls, hate mail, threatening texts or emails – it is all the same, and equally distressing for the victim.

    ‘If F is innocent, why does she run?
    It’s a valid point. I for one believe she should have turned up in court to defend herself. One could argue that the retaliation sparked by Rachel’s supporters and that silly “Find Lowde” campaign could have sent her into panic. Particularly if she is a sufferer from a mental disorder, it’s not exactly a decent way to treat someone in that situation.’

    The Find Lowde buttons went up a few weeks AFTER the trial, in which she was found guilty, having chosen not to attend – though she was it seems able to turn up to court. F went only to the court door – and then ran away. She then went on the run. It seems that a court treatment order is the only way for her to get the psychiatric care she needs. Meanwhile, why should her victims put up with her behaviour? Does being a drug addict excuse a mugging? Does being psychotic excuse violence? Does being mentally ill excuse a stalker? What do you suggest happens when mentally ill or addicted people commit crimes? F has now been remanded for psychiatric tests. Good.

    ‘Yes I’ve read multiple posts by Rachel on how she doesn’t want to continue talking about it. And she hasn’t.. at least not on her own blog. A quick search of blogs mentioning Rachel or FJL, you will discover many posts by Rachel, thanking the author for supporting her campaign or having lengthly debate with anyone who would dare to question hers or the authors motives. It’s almost as obsessive as another blogger we know.’

    I have only seen Rachel thanking bloggers for the link in short comments, which is what most bloggers do when someone links to their blogs. Perhaps you do not do this, but it is normal blogger etiquette. I have also seen her longer comments on a Ministry of Truth discussion about the nature of psychosis/NPD. It clearly affected her, why should she not comment? Why have you commented? Why have you chosen to attack R? Do you do this in all court cases – attack the victim?

    ‘And so the vicious cycle will probably continue for some time. Which doesn’t bother me, I tune into it now daily like watching a soap opera. Like the other Anon in the comments above- it’s fun to watch FJL on the run and continue blogging. I almost feel like cheering her on.’

    It may be a soap opera to you. That to me does not display much empathy or understanding of the situation.
    The cycle has ended because Lowde is now jailed ( again) pending psych. reports. Perhaps you can visit her in prison? Where she will at last get psychiatric treatment, we hope. R has today deleted posts about Lowde and asked people to take the buttons down.
    If you had really done your research you would see F has been blogging for a year and R only on conviction, that being the first time she mentioned F’s name.

    ‘Finally the main reason for my defense of FJL is this-
    1) She does not seem to have much support, which is ironic if the lynch mob are to be believed that she is in need of help.
    2) Many people are jumping on this campaign bandwagon without any thought for the consequences and are using the same vitriolic language and rationale that FJL is accused of.’

    The lack of support might be for a reason? One is innocent and the other guilty and was on the run from justice? Do you always choose to support the criminal and blame the victim, or just in the case of Regina. vs. Lowde?

    I agree that the language of some of R’s supporters has been unmoderated and unhelpful.

    ‘Try to suspend your outrage and go back and read what I have posted again.’

    I am not outraged, just calmly pointing out where you are wrong.

    ‘I am an outsider looking in and all I can see is a mud-wrestling contest in which both parties, covered in mud, scream that the other is slinging it.

    Perhaps you see what you want to see then, and there is little point visiting here again as I question your judgement. You seem to be in a minority with your views. Other bloggers, the Judge and the police saw a harasser, and jailed F to prevent her continuing her harassment of her victim.

    I hope R hasn’t read this nonsense, as her RL friend I am glad to see her have so much support from strangers who have a better understanding of the situation than you.

  12. Lex Fear said

    Thanks for returning anon, and staying civil.

    Having read your comments, let’s take your word for it you are a real life friend of Rachels. This means you have more knowledge and understanding of events that the lynch mob or us minority detractors.Therefore I will concede points to you based on this- especially if you can just post some links to court documents or official sources. I ask for links so that I don’t have to take the trip to Oxford myself and neither do readers here.I still will argue for FJL simply because I believe in devils advocate.

    On emagazine has now named the victim she was jailed for harassing. In the article R has refused to comment and all quotes are lifted off R’s blog.

    Link please I don’t know of this publication and you just proved my point about the press- they’ve read the blogs and used that.

    Surely someone who is as you say would be giving interviews right left and center.

    Could comments on other blogs count as interviews?

    Harassment in Brit law is a course of conduct repeated on more than 2 occasions that causes alarm and distress.

    Did I contradict this at all in my definition (incidentally lifted from answers.com)?Actually another point proven- bloggers who therefore repeatedly blog about a person or a group of people on more than 2 occassions (eg. police, politicians, christians, atheists, celebrities…) must obviously cause alarm to the subject of their blogs if it in a negative light.If people acted on that the libel and claims and counter-claims would be flying all over the press and internet.

    It included malicious false complaints to the police, the publishing R’s work address and phone number, real name and details on her family, along with repeated claims that R was a criminal and should be stopped, urging readers to take vengeance on R. F then moved to within a few miles of the victim’s home

    If this is true, and you are being honest about your relationship to Rachel and have witnessed this then I will not argue with you. I’ve never claimed FJL was innocent, was in good mental health or that she was justified in what she was doing. I simply my unique opinion on what I saw as a slanging match.

    The Find Lowde buttons went up a few weeks AFTER the trial, in which she was found guilty, having chosen not to attend – though she was it seems able to turn up to court. F went only to the court door – and then ran away.

    Does that really excuse the silliness of the campaign itself. What about terrorist suspects on the run, what about paedophiles that have gone missing- surely they are more of a danger to the public and deserve more attention than a pathetic stalker concern?

    F has now been remanded for psychiatric tests. Good.

    Agreed. I hope they treat her with more understanding than she has so far been given.BTW these are tests- not judgements. Its tests to see if she has an illness.

    It clearly affected her, why should she not comment?

    Indeed, why not? But it seems odd to me that she would say on her blog she has no more desire to cover it, then go at length in comments left on other blogs, to discuss it and the effects on her (and also argue with those who don’t agree).If it has affected her deeply, fair enough- why does she not say this, or even better start up a new blog simply to discuss FJL? Why say I have no more interest, but then continue.I put it to you that Rachel IS concerned about publicity and that she also cannot resist delving in to try to micro-manage and contain the situation. Otherwise she would not continue the discourse.

    That to me does not display much empathy or understanding of the situation.

    Where as clearly you can empathise because Rachel is your friend. How could I, or any supporters of Rachel or FJL really comprehend the situation enough to comment. Yet we do. Hundreds joined the hunting party without knowing Rachel personally. So the few that criticise it without knowing Rachel personally are somehow less understanding?

    R has today deleted posts about Lowde and asked people to take the buttons down.

    Fine. But the damage has already been done. Say FJL does undergo a course of treatment, pays her fine, does her time and now tries to re-integrate into society. How are people going to treat her as she tries to make a new life for herself? Going by the level of unforgiving hate poured out to her right now, I doubt it will cease.People still attack John Hurst (as did FJL) yet he has done his time and is back in the community blogging.FJL started her blog in Dec 2005, 6 months after Rachel. April 2006, I think, is the earliest mention of Rachel on FJLs blog, and as I said in the main post above- there was nothing in it that I could take as harassment or stalking. It was a criticism of KCU which FJL was entitled to. It was reasonable. Something went wrong after that.

    I agree that the language of some of R’s supporters has been unmoderated and unhelpful.

    Seems we are both barking up the wrong end of the same triangle.

    I am not outraged, just calmly pointing out where you are wrong.

    Which I can see now.

    Perhaps you see what you want to see then, and there is little point visiting here again as I question your judgement.

    Please come back, I need the hits.

    You seem to be in a minority with your views.

    Since when does holding a minority view make you automatically in the wrong?That’s why mob rule is so unjust. As soon as one hound gets a sniff of blood, all reason goes out of the window. That is why we have a rule of law that determines a persons real guilt, not simply because the crowd heard someone else say it and they are looking for a scapegoat.Mobs should be discouraged in all forms, unless it is one that seeks to edify rather than tear apart an individual.

    I am glad to see her have so much support from strangers who have a better understanding of the situation than you.

    I really do resent that comment. All I have done is shared my opinion of what I saw taking place. It seems to me that if I had written something like:

    “Poor Rachel, I am with you, look I posted this button on my blog, support Rachel!”

    Regardless of my state of mind or reasoning abilities I would be an understanding person.

    If I wrote something like:

    “I’m not sure Rachel has got pure intentions, and I feel sorry for FJL since she has now reaped the whirlwind.”

    I am an unreasonable nut. Actually I am probably FJL replying to herself.

    Does that really sound right to you?

    Is it wrong to show pity and mercy to someone who has done wrong?

    Is it right to not question anything that the victim says simply because they ‘wear the badge’ of victim?

  13. Anonymous said

    ‘I still will argue for FJL simply because I believe in devils advocate.’

    Fine, you can also argue for any other convicted criminal being innocent as well if you feel like it. Free speech and all that. But…FJL had a RL advocate in court yesterday. She had real life advocates for all her court cases. FJL was found guilty in a public court by a Judge. We all subscribe to the justice system in this country, so I do not think there is a point in you ‘arguing for’ a woman who was quite properly tried and given publicly funded representation, unless you simply want to be controversial and want the ensuing hits. In which case I can see why you have adopted this argument.

    ‘One magazine has now named the victim she was jailed for harassing. In the article R has refused to comment and all quotes are lifted off R’s blog.

    Link please…’

    Grazia. It has no online site. You will have to go into a shop and look.

    ‘Could comments on other blogs count as interviews?’

    Not really, no. Rachel has spent a week declining to do interviews with TV radio and press. Commenting on blogs is what bloggers do. If she was PR-mad or whatever you are insinuating, she would be straight on the phone and doing double page spreads everywhere. A few hundred blog readers who have taken an active interest in a blog campaign is hardly the Daily Mail. She has not written about all the media apparaches, presumably because she doesn’t want to look like she is milking it. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

    ‘Actually another point proven- bloggers who therefore repeatedly blog about a person or a group of people on more than 2 occassions must obviously cause alarm to the subject of their blogs if it in a negative light.

    If people acted on that the libel and claims and counter-claims would be flying all over the press and internet.’

    Funny then that they aren’t being acted on or writs flying about. Funny that the CPS decided to prosecute at once in R’s case, saying it was no differnt to obscene phone calls or swastika graffiti or hate mail letters with dog shit in. Funny that the Judge put FJL in prison.

    People are able to go and make complaints to the cops ( as FJL did about R in the first instance). The CPS decide if the Crown will prosecute. Not the victims.

    ‘It included malicious false complaints to the police, the publishing R’s work address and phone number, real name and details on her family, along with repeated claims that R was a criminal and should be stopped, urging readers to take vengeance on R. F then moved to within a few miles of the victim’s home’

    ‘If this is true….’

    Yes, and you can go and look at Lowde’s blog and other sites she has set up for yourself to check it. They are still on the internet, mostly.

    http://blogging-the-malice.blogspot.com/

    http://felicity-lowde-cyberbully-victim.blogspot.com/

    http://www.fjlathome.blogspot.com
    http://www.exposing-ryder-norder-and-wescott.blogspot.com
    http://www.thames-valley-prosecution-service.blogspot.com
    http://www.bob-hinton-corrupt-magistrate.blogspot.com
    http://www.stan-russo-author-and-maniac.blogspot.com
    http://www.felicity-lowde-innocent-victim.blogspot.com
    http://www.felicity-lowde-innocent-of-charge.blogspot.com
    http://www.felicity-jane-lowde-malice-victim.blogspot.com
    http://www.felicity-lowde-mistrial-victim.blogspot.com
    http://www.clairwil-goes-nuts-again.blogspot.com
    http://www.djh-graphics.blogspot.com
    http://exposingryderandwescott.blogspot.com/
    http://daniel-hart-commits-crimes-in-secret.blogspot.com
    http://www.philip-hutchinson-daniel-hart.blogspot.com/
    http://philip-hutchinson-liar-and-thief.blogspot.com/

    http://flawed-epiphany.blogspot.com/index.html
    http://philip-hutchinson-cheating-fraud.blogspot.com/
    http://alan-sharp-ripperologist-loser-liar.blogspot.com/
    http://blogging-the-malice.blogspot.com/
    http://tosin-vixen-ugly-malicious-liar.blogspot.com/

    http://sickert-whitechapel-murders.blogspot.com
    http://felicity-lowde-cyberbully-victim.blogspot.com
    http://rachel-north-london-vendetta-queen.blogspot.com
    http://exposingryderandwescottb.blogspot.com

    ‘The Find Lowde buttons went up a few weeks AFTER the trial, in which she was found guilty, having chosen not to attend – though she was it seems able to turn up to court. F went only to the court door – and then ran away.

    Does that really excuse the silliness of the campaign itself. What about terrorist suspects on the run, what about paedophiles that have gone missing- surely they are more of a danger to the public and deserve more attention than a pathetic stalker concern?’

    Well she was caught, a week after the buttons went up, in a cyber cafe, so yes it worked. In a way that blog buttons about terrorists were unlikely to. It also raised awareness of the issue amongst bloggers,demonstrated to FJL that what she was doing was unacceptable, and who better than bloggers to ask to look out for a prolific blogger in a cybercafe who’s wanted for arrest and sentencing?

    ‘But it seems odd to me that she would say on her blog she has no more desire to cover it, then go at length in comments left on other blogs, to discuss it and the effects on her (and also argue with those who don’t agree).

    If it has affected her deeply, fair enough- why does she not say this, or even better start up a new blog simply to discuss FJL? Why say I have no more interest, but then continue.’

    She has said that it has affected her deeply. She then asked for help, said she would update people who were interested and supporting the campaign, got a speedy result after a year of taking crap, and promptly took her posts down. I see you keep your button up, and are advertising your own blog on the Oxford Mail site.

    ‘I put it to you that Rachel IS concerned about publicity and that she also cannot resist delving in to try to micro-manage and contain the situation. Otherwise she would not continue the discourse.’

    I can see what you are putting forward and it looks to me like an attack on a blogger to get publicity for your own blog by being ‘controversial and doing a bit of victim-blaming. Perhaps you do not care to talk to readers. Perhaps you do not care about your reputation. R clearly does and fair play to her.

    ‘ How could I, or any supporters of Rachel or FJL really comprehend the situation enough to comment. Yet we do. Hundreds joined the hunting party without knowing Rachel personally. So the few that criticise it without knowing Rachel personally are somehow less understanding?’

    Oh grow up. Being found guilty in a public court and going on the run opens you up to comment by the public. If FJL would rather not be notorious she could have decided not to spend a year attacking on a woman she has never met. Not to mention other victims.

    ‘Fine. But the damage has already been done. Say FJL does undergo a course of treatment, pays her fine, does her time and now tries to re-integrate into society. How are people going to treat her as she tries to make a new life for herself? Going by the level of unforgiving hate poured out to her right now, I doubt it will cease.’

    Too bad. She shouldn’t stalk people then should she? She had every chance to stop. R ignored her. F escalated it by going to the cops. At which point R had no chioce but to hand the matter to police as they were investigating it. That F’s complaint was found to be crap and R’s case was then prosecuted tells you something That F was sent to prison at once too.

    ‘FJL started her blog in Dec 2005, 6 months after Rachel. April 2006, I think, is the earliest mention of Rachel on FJLs blog, and as I said in the main post above- there was nothing in it that I could take as harassment or stalking. It was a criticism of KCU which FJL was entitled to.
    It was reasonable. Something went wrong after that.’

    You’re only seeing the public stalking.

    Here

    http://blogging-the-malice.blogspot.com/

    You haven’t seen the email hate campaign…which F embarked on when R didn’t respond to hatemails.

    ‘Please come back, I need the hits.’

    Says it all mate.

    ‘Since when does holding a minority view make you automatically in the wrong?’

    Since when does being a convicted criminal make you automatically in the wrong? Oh hang on…

    ‘That is why we have a rule of law that determines a persons real guilt, not simply because the crowd heard someone else say it and they are looking for a scapegoat.’

    YES. EXACTLY.FJL went on the run after she was gound GUILTY in a court. What can you not understand about that? R only wrote about the stalking after conviction. She was entitled to hope for some peace. The stalker went on the run and eventuially R asked internt users to help. The media got hold of it. F was found and sent straight to jail.

    Jesus.

    ‘I really do resent that comment’.

    Ha!

    ‘Is it wrong to show pity and mercy to someone who has done wrong?’

    I don’t see pity and mercy, I see stat-chasing and victim-blaming and point-missing.

    ‘Is it right to not question anything that the victim says simply because they ‘wear the badge’ of victim? ‘

    Yes, and that is exactly what happened when the police investigated and when R gave evidence.It was all questioned.
    And R was found to be telling the truth, provable by evidence and F weas found to be a lying stalker..

    Well, at leats you fronted up about why you pimped your blog on the Mail site and how you need the hits. Try asking answers.com to define ‘hypocrite’

  14. Lex Fear said

    Anon,

    Bit tired but here we go,

    Fine, you can also argue for any other convicted criminal being innocent as well if you feel like it.

    I’ve never said FJL is innocent. In my post above I actually stated that it seems it began with FJL trolling Rachels blog.

    FJL had a RL advocate in court yesterday.

    Yes. So did Rachel- RL judge and RL police. So by your own logic there was no point in having a “find lowde” campaign!

    unless you simply want to be controversial and want the ensuing hits.

    Really. You think? I have purposely avoided commenting on Rachels blog, as I had sincere reasons for blogging this. I did not want to become embroiled but I did want to offer an alternative ‘big picture’ view. I maintain that.

    It has no online site. You will have to go into a shop and look.

    Not a great business model, how long do they expect to last? I’m sorry, call me closed-minded or whatever but I’m not really as obsessed with this subject as the North-squad so I’m not spending any time outside of defending this post in the comments.

    presumably because she doesn’t want to look like she is milking it.

    Good thinking Batman.

    saying it was no differnt to obscene phone calls or swastika graffiti or hate mail letters with dog shit in

    They really said that? They used that terminology?

    I have not outright denied the fact a prosecution has taken place, all I’ve asked for is proof ie. court transcripts.

    The CPS decide if the Crown will prosecute. Not the victims.

    CPS = Couldn’t Prosecute Satan, according to some circles. I’ve had experience myself in a real crime where the CPS let me down terribly. It’s past now but has left me with no confidence in their decision making (in bringing cases to court).

    Yes, and you can go and look at Lowde’s blog and other sites she has set up for yourself to check it.

    That’s a pretty crazy list right there. Glad you went to the trouble, saves me time.

    I know she created these blogs. I’ve never denied that either, yup they are pretty ridiculous! But a bunch of crazy 1-post blogs does not prove someone is a RL stalker. It seems to me that FJL really misunderstood the concept of blogger or she was trying to create the impression of lots of support which is sad.

    My favourite has to be http://rachel-north-london-vendetta-queen.blogspot.com
    But don’t misunderstand me, not because I think this one was good, I enjoy it in a laughable sort of way.

    It also raised awareness of the issue amongst bloggers, demonstrated to FJL that what she was doing was unacceptable, and who better than bloggers to ask to look out for a prolific blogger in a cybercafe who’s wanted for arrest and sentencing?

    My concern Anon, is that the issue amongst bloggers is state censorship of bloggers (I speak as a blogger).

    What a brilliant idea, spy on your blogger-neighbour for the government!

    I see you keep your button up

    LOL. Well FJL may have been caught but the Hamburglar is still at large.

    But I also felt it important to warn bloggers of potentially posting libel and criticism of Rachel- isn’t that what you are also arguing for?

    and are advertising your own blog on the Oxford Mail site.

    That wasn’t intentional, I only did it because I was accused of being the same person as that Gerard bloke. Also, because I wanted to demonstrate that there were rational bloggers who were not on the Racheltrain.

    I can see what you are putting forward and it looks to me like an attack on a blogger to get publicity for your own blog by being ‘controversial and doing a bit of victim-blaming.

    Again- do you see any posts from me on Rachelsquad blogs? Do you see any posts from me on Rachels blog? I am controversial- look at my other posts, I intentionally set out to take an alternative stand-point and play the devils advocate at times. If I get publicity fine.

    Victim-blaming? I notice recently that jailhouselawyer has been posting a lot of blaming of the McCanns (parents of missing Madeleine). JHL also posted one of those ridiculous ‘Find Lowde’ buttons. Of course I’m digressing but can you see the hypocrisy going on here?

    This is not a victim blaming blog Anon. But victims can also be transgressors and transgressors can also be victims.

    Perhaps you do not care to talk to readers.

    What am I doing right now, with you? I could easily delete your comments, but I choose to continue discourse!

    Perhaps you do not care about your reputation.

    If that’s the case why accuse me of trying to gain more publicity for this blog?

    R clearly does and fair play to her.

    Isn’t that what I have been saying all along?

    Oh grow up. Being found guilty in a public court and going on the run opens you up to comment by the public.

    Are you implying only people who are convicted of crimes should be open to criticism. Well I’m sure the West End would love that rule to be implemented, but that wouldn’t really go far in the blogosphere or journalism.

    I would like to inform you, Anon, that I have not been convicted in a court of law yet for any crime, so by rights, you shouldn’t really be criticising me.

    If FJL would rather not be notorious she could have decided not to spend a year attacking on a woman she has never met. Not to mention other victims.

    I heartily agree with you. Anyone can see she should have simply ceased posting about Rachel. It would have made the Northsquad look worse- but she actually cast them in a better light by doing the 20-blog-defense tactic.

    Too bad. She shouldn’t stalk people then should she? She had every chance to stop. R ignored her. F escalated it by going to the cops. At which point R had no chioce but to hand the matter to police as they were investigating it. That F’s complaint was found to be crap and R’s case was then prosecuted tells you something That F was sent to prison at once too.

    The thing is, in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m a Christian. I believe that people can be redeemed and deserve a second chance. You may not believe this yourself but I’m not asking you to.

    Remember we are on my blog, which has featured one post about the whole affair. I’m entitled to post this, unless you want to report me for harassment also.

    Being a Christian I am compelled to defend those who cannot defend themselves (FJL really wasn’t doing a good job of defending herself).

    You’re only seeing the public stalking.

    Here

    http://blogging-the-malice.blogspot.com/

    Actually blogging-the-malice was instrumental for me in weighing up FJLs side.

    You haven’t read what I said earlier, I spent hours before I posted to get my facts straight, I googled extensively. I purposefully left out blogs from the Northsquad and concentrated on Rachel and FJL.

    Says it all mate.

    You clearly don’t understand sarcasm.

    ‘Since when does holding a minority view make you automatically in the wrong?’

    Since when does being a convicted criminal make you automatically in the wrong? Oh hang on…

    Right that’s just stupid right there.

    1. You stated I was in the minority.

    2. I stated when does a minority view make you automatically in the wrong.

    Are you implying I am a convicted criminal here?

    Jesus.

    Friend of sinners.

    I don’t see pity and mercy, I see stat-chasing and victim-blaming and point-missing.

    See above. Yawn.

    Well, at leats you fronted up about why you pimped your blog on the Mail site and how you need the hits. Try asking answers.com to define ‘hypocrite’

    Sarcasm- look that up on answers.com.

    Who’s becoming a stalker now anyway? Why don’t you out yourself Anon so I know who I’m dealing with.

    IP: 81.129.132.95
    BT Broadband User

    Get your own blog!

  15. Tim said

    ‘I would like to inform you, Anon, that I have not been convicted in a court of law yet for any crime, so by rights, you shouldn’t really be criticising me.’

    Nor has Rachel been convicted in a court of law for any crimes. Why are you criticising her?

    In any case, the anonymous commenter has not accused you of committing crimes. You have misread what he said completely. I am not surprised you have put comment mod on if you can’t deal with folks arguing with you.

  16. Lex Fear said

    Tim,

    I have done what both Rachel and FJL failed to do.

    I’ve made one post about this whole affair. I’ve debated and allowed criticism (see above).

    Comment mods are on because the argument was getting away from the subject and onto a rage against me.

    FJL couldn’t resist answering her critics and went so far as to create a number of wierd defensive blogs.

    I intend to keep this under one post and restrict it to a discussion about Rachel North and FJL.

    If you don’t like Alex Fear personally, get your own blog and write criticism about him. Don’t worry I won’t be calling the police to you.

    I made this clear in my post. Trolls can be moderated. There’s no need for this to go any further than a discussion of the events that took place.

    If you don’t agree with me, state your reasons. Don’t just say you don’t agree because you’re a friend of Rachels or make it personal in some way. This isn’t the school playground.

  17. Sgt. Squarehead said

    Catfight!rofl

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: