Abandon All Fear

What nobody else seems to be saying…

[Trollfeed] No Comment

Posted by Lex Fear on June 9, 2007

Well, I guess when you post anything slighty critical of Rachel North, you can expect at some point for a member of the Northsquad to show up. I did always say they were welcome but I’m getting pretty tired of the relentlessness of one Anonymous commenter.

Despite claims, I haven’t seen a large boost in traffic coming from Oxford. Oh well, guess I won’t be picking up one of these anytime soon.

Stats… stats… preeeccciiioouus staaats!

I can’t stand comment moderation, I never thought I would have to use it, but after this comment:

“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.”

Anything involving Rachel North seems to get serious pretty quickly, so I’m taking steps to ensure this doesn’t escalate.

I seem to have suffered a bit of a comment explosion, at the moment. I may have taken on too many battles at once. I think this blog needs to cool down a bit so I’m going to be posting light humour for a while before I resume Fallible Design, Housing Market Myths and other subjects.

Regular readers, feel free to dribble away till my stats are near death. Alex Fear needs a rest before once again taking up arms against the Philistine hordes.

Moderation will be removed as soon as stupidity levels are reasonably lower.

10 Responses to “[Trollfeed] No Comment”

  1. Groig-Roy said

    Hi Alex, I just read your Rachel North thread and thought I’d leave a comment as I also came to this whole thing from a disinterested standpoint, and you purport to be neutral. Afraid I don’t have my own blog.

    Rachel does seem like someone who wears her heart on her sleeve, and puts a lot of herself into her blogs and comments on supporters’ blogs. I think she has taken to the media machine but I wouldn’t take that she’s exploited her position as a 7/7 victim in an unreasonable way. Calling for an inquiry is a perfectly legitimate in an accountable democracy and she seems to have support from other victims. Of course, that fact that she’s also politically activist (or has become so) does expose her to the standard partisan criticism. But her blog doesn’t strike me as the sort intended as a forum for political debate, it’s more of a group hug kind of environment, which is fine.

    I also formed the conclusion that Rachel at no point in the FJL affair acted viciously or mendaciously. Once she realised she was being targeted (I don’t think she initially realised that FJL was mentally disturbed) I think she exercised restraint and behaved responsibly. If you look at all of FJL’s evidence on her blog, the only communication she presents from Rachel are emails like “Please stop contacting me, I am keeping a record of your malicious comments which constitute libel and harassment”. FJL’s suggestion that she was receiving harassing messages from Rachel seems to be empty assertion and, I think, screwed up projection of her own obsessive behaviour. When viewed in the wider context of FJL’s other smear campaigns, of which plenty are still online, and of her outlandish claims (e.g. ‘Special Branch’ researcher… not something someone with security clearance would advertise on the internet) this explanation of the apparent contradictions between the two parties’ versions makes a lot of sense.

    I respect the fact that you felt more balance was needed in light of the apparent lynch mob. And it is right to question the excessive and nasty, and therefore hypocritical communications FJL received (if it’s possible to work out which are genuine) once the button campaign went up after she had been found guilty. But I don’t think it’s fair to blame Rachel for that, and I think you may have reached your view without realising that the version of events you were reading on FJL’s site was largely the creation of a delusional mind.

    I think on that particular thread you did graciously concede some points raised by her better-informed friend but continued to pursue some bad points a bit belligerently on the principle of opposing the braying masses. As you say, the CPS don’t normally do a great job, so why do you really require someone to find you court transcripts (how does one do that with magistrate courts anyway?) to accept that this was something a lot more serious, sustained and direct than normal blogging fair comment? In light of FJL’s frantic fictions and her criminal conviction, I think it’s now a bit crass to doubt that that there were hundreds of emails over several months, the smear campaign and the malicious trolling.

    Perhaps the online witch hunt was disproportionate – actually I didn’t see any of it. But I think in this case, there is good reason why there has been such a large amount of sympathetic support for Rachel across a wide spectrum of bloggers (all of whom I’m sure, fiercely believe in free speech and fair comment – I originally found the story via http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/). That is because this really was a case of an innocent party being relentlessly and destructively attacked by a disturbing obsessive.

  2. Stef said

    No surprises that you’ve picked up an anonymous stalker though you strike me as someone with the sense to not let it get to you. And this kind of stuff does help to pick out who is and isn’t playing a straight game on the Net. So it does serve some useful purpose

  3. Lex Fear said


    Thanks for taking the time to comment. Certain things have come to light since I originally posted my take on the situation.

    Some people involved have deleted posts and comments on their blogs, which to me takes away the ability for people like you to see the truth of what actually happened. I have left my post up and moderated only one comment so far (ie not letting it be published) since if people simply want to rant about me, they can sign up for their own blogs.

    I have done much explaining of my position on the post and in the comments which can be read by everyone. If people don’t agree that’s fine but I’m not going to be pressured into publishing a retraction or cower to self-appointed defenders of all things North.

    I have no problem with Rachel calling for a 7/7 enquiry, I have no problem with her doing journalism etc.

    What I have a problem with is victims that use their victim status to justify their own agendas.

    There have been times in my life where I have been a victim of certain circumstances, there are also regrettable times I have been the perpetrator of offense.

    I would be insulting readers’ intelligence if I defended every blog post with the fact I was a victim once. I have seen this form the basis of many arguments in defense of You Know Who.

    Can I just repeat for anyone else reading that I do not want all my blog posts to be about this debate. Please go to the post entitled “How to be a Victim” to discuss it there. Newer comments will possibly be rejected simply for being in the wrong place.


    There was an interesting article I read in Business Week a few years ago about anti-globalisation demos. It was written just after a man ended up being shot by police, at a Demo in Germany I think?

    The article highlighted that many of the anti-globalisation crowd were not actually anti-globalisation. There were many confessing to be city workers and workers for global companies. Their reason for going to demo marches was simply down to looking for a fight (presumably with police). It was about thrills.

    I know I can be accused of this, since much of my blog tries to highlight controversial issues, but I choose to run this blog using one recognisable avatar, and avoid trolling sites of those I do not agree with.

    I suspect there are many trolls on the Net who are just looking for the next rift they can dig their oar into. If they’re ignored and deleted long enough, they will move on (usually to someone who will take the bait).

  4. Stef said

    The article highlighted that many of the anti-globalisation crowd were not actually anti-globalisation. There were many confessing to be city workers and workers for global companies.

    Something similar happened during the Miners Strike 25 years ago. Students from well off backgrounds were putting on donkey jackets and scooting off to the picket lines for a bit of argy bargy. I’ve maintained zero respect for the SWP and other groups of mockney ‘activists’ ever since

  5. lwtc247 said


    I think Rachel North {Rachel McFadyen} has abused her position. She has ‘cornered the market’ sp to speak, as a spokesperson of the civilian side of 7-7. And she puts a lot of effort into maintaining that monopoly. She steers well clear of many DEADLY SERIOUS questions about events relating to that day. She brings ridicule to those who ask such questions, many who do not believe many aspects of the governments narrative, and believe there is merit in the possibility of a black-op.

    Recently, on her blog, when her book, “Out of the Tunnel” {http://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Tunnel-Rachel-North/dp/1905548753}, a $3.99 book, {or free if you wait for it be pdf’d on the internet!}, was being “discussed”, she was playing at “There’s a conspiracy going on”. She did this because she knows how many people there are out there, who feel there is government involvement in 7-7. As one blogger put it, she was Artful Dodger like trying to dupe ‘conspiraloons’ as she calls them, into buying her ‘tidal wave’ secrets unveiled book.

    But God help those who point this out. She also gets her squaddies to join in on the ‘destroy’ campaign. I’ve seen it on her own blog and her goons blogs.

    Her emotional state is I believe inflated for various purposes, not least to encourage her goons to go into attack mode. Secondly, her verbal hot flushes provide a great way to avoid rational debate.

    Alex was very analytical in his initial post on the matter but I guess neutrality isn’t an option when it comes to el-victamo Rachel.

    P.S. What medical diagnosis do you guys know of that says fjl is mentally ill? When did you read her medical records. Never right? Amazing how slurrs get spread so easily. I’d have thought in this day and age people would have known better.

  6. lwtc247 said

    Hi Alex.Just a quickie. What’s the relation between this post and the tag “Uncircumcised Philistines”???

  7. Lex Fear said


    1 Samuel 17:26

    I have a weakness for using biblical language to express my disdain.

    In this case I’m blending biblical language with the modern term for a philistine.

    Which I think is appropriate given the circumstance.

  8. lwtc247 said

    LOL. That reply appeals to my sense of hunour. If you didn’t mean it to be I’m sorry, but I find it quite word clever. :)Wanna comment on the theism post later.

    Glad our paths crossed. I like your blog and you logical thoughts. I’ve been lucky recently in coming across good bloggers.

  9. Lex Fear said

    No problem LW, it is intentionally sardonic and funny.Don’t feel you have to rush with comments on theism, I have a lot more to come- plus I am working on a discussion forum as an alternative to comments posting.

  10. Helpful advice said


    That post by Groig Roy was written by Davide Simonetti, a Rachel North crone. He makes up any story to get into Rachel North’s good books. He’ a libeller. He’d sell his own mother for two pence if Rachel asked him to.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: