Abandon All Fear

What nobody else seems to be saying…

The Water In North London

Posted by Lex Fear on July 19, 2007


Putting myself up for a Northsquad hit again.

It’s been hard to ignore the volume of pageviews I’ve had from “Felicity Jane Lowde” searches. I blogged on the Rachel North stalking saga back in May, and it generated the most comments I’ve ever had for a post. I’ve had links from other bloggers who, like me, took a step back and tried to see the issues from a rational viewpoint.

Sure Lowde may have been locked up and she may be in need of psychiatric care, but the fact that she is the ‘loser’ in this scenario, doesn’t actually improve my opinion of Rachel North or her supporters one bit. In fact, I’ve been surprised by how judgmental and vitriolic these self-labeled ‘liberal’ bloggers really have been towards the mentally ill. In response to one attack blog, they ganged up and created multiple attack blogs. In response to nasty comments, they made nasty comments. I don’t see the difference except that Lowde is behind bars and they are not.

I put comment moderation on this blog, when I started to get into a circular argument with a troll and it was successful in silencing the troll without silencing those that chose to voice reasonable disagreement. Which means I did not need to report anyone to the police for harassment.

Since there is still so much interest about this, I thought I’d take the initiative to try and compose a list of those blogs that have offered thoughtful analysis. If I link you below and it generates you unwanted attention, please let me know and I’ll remove the link immediately (of course if you want me to add yours, likewise get in touch). Here is a list, in no particular order, of blogs that have not been drawn into mob-mentality:

Drowning and Other Fragments

Tim Worstall
Living With The Conspiracy 24-7
Famous For 15 Megapixels
Duff & Nonsense
Libel Lawyers London (links to a good article by Craig H)
The Policemans Blog
Mike Powers Not A Blog

It’s a sad fact that with the onset of web 2.0 making it easier for idiots to publish online, that a growing number now see it as a publicity extension, rather than the great technical and informational revolution that it is.

Take for example, Brian Retkin, who I’d never heard of before (but now his recent actions have allowed me to form an opinion of him), who is suing Google for… wait for it… linking to websites that have defamed him!

“Lawyers for Dotworlds, which registers distinctive domain names, have sent Google what lawyers call a “letter before action”.

Mr Renton, 48, the company’s managing director, of Wembley, north London, said he would sue if Google did not take down the links about his company posted anonymously. “Based on what I know today, I am determined to go ahead with this,” he added.” – The Telegraph

And guess where Mr Renton is from? … North London! Something in the water, perhaps?

It’s time to seriously consider the nature and the future of the internet, because free information is under threat. Perhaps a change in the law is required, but if the world continues to allow bloggers and web-publishers to be taken to court for publishing their own opinions or thoughts then we can kiss the internet as we know it goodbye.

We’re one step away from a law companies setting up “No Win No Fee” sites for anyone who feels they have been libeled, defamed or had their feelings hurt.

Long live FJL’s blog! Not because it’s right or wrong, but because it’s an opinion, a record, and it exists.

We should not modify the past in order to fit the present.

EDIT (After a quick thought): I wonder how much revenue/incoming links Google generates for Mr Retkins site, dotworlds.net? If he is successful in his idiotic lawsuit, couldn’t Google just remove all links to any material mentioning dotworlds.net and therefore render his site ignored and obsolete?

That would be awesome… c’mon Google, your motto is “don’t be evil” now teach an evildoer a lesson!

UPDATE: Southpawpunch emails…

I see that you have listed some blogs that mention  the Lowde/North affair
You may like to consider my post –
[added above]

(towards the end)
This post generated complaint emails from North.

19 Responses to “The Water In North London”

  1. dotWORLDS said

    We understand that there are many who are rightly concerned about this case. However, what is happening to us is also happening to others and be under no illusion, it could also happen to you.

    Google and other search engines spider links and articles on the Web all day every day and can, in the USA, disseminate the information contained whatever the content, without any liability to themselves (due 1st amendment/freedom of speech laws).

    So what does this mean? This means that tomorrow morning someone with a grudge against you (maybe someone you looked at in a funny way 20 years ago) could tell the world that you are a fraudster, a criminal and a murderer (and that’s just for starters). Within days if not hours, articles containing this “factual information” would start to appear on Search Engines, under your name, probably near the top of the list, lingering on websites like Google for perhaps the next 30 years. Anyone, be it friends, family, potential employers would have instant access to this information simply by “Googling” you. Your life is about to change forever. You have no idea how much.

    Ah, but couldn’t you complain to Google – after all, you are totally innocent of all charges – except maybe for the crime of coming into contact with a complete loony. Absolutely, but Google would do nothing. You would need a court order. Google is not responsible for the content on it’s website and Google is protected by law. No, just go away and search all cyberspace. Take it up with the anonymous author who doesn’t exist. Still, at least the Search Engines will get their pay-per-click revenue.

    If, as has been pointed out that the information on Google’s Search Engine is not always 100% accurate, then perhaps Google should make this clear. Google is a phenomenal product and it is understandable that many have absolute faith in it. However, at the very least there is imbalance and this imbalance is clearly reflected in dotWORLDS case, where despite the fact that Google has published numerous withdrawal notices on Google.UK, not a word of this is mentioned in Google.COM. Why not? If there is a question on authenticity, why aren’t users in the USA told. You may not care one way or the other, but this is not a level playing field of information and as a direct result Google are putting their USA users in jeopardy.

    Repeat publicly any libel that you (or anyone else) find on Google – even if you believe to be 100% accurate – and it is only you that is at risk. If prosecution follows, it will be you that is dragged off to court and if convicted, it would be your big problem and yours alone. Unfortunately, “I found it on Google” is no defense and you can be sure that Google will not be there to help you out. Of course, Google are protected and face no liability whatsoever as in the USA as they aren’t accountable. This would not be the case in the UK and elsewhere.

    So, what do Google do in their own back yard. Well, take the case of Cnet. A reporter at CNet wanted to see how much information could be gathered on the net within a short period of time. After locating some personal information about Dr Schmidt, Google’s Chairman (amongst other things) the data was published. Google, incensed at this invasion of privacy, immediately banned its staff from talking to CNet reporters for one year. Embarrassingly, it transpired that not only was the information already in the public domain, but the same information about Dr Schmidt was also available on Google’s own websites.

    “Google’s reaction to CNet is totally inconsistent with its handling of a man who had been falsely accused as a pedophile by his wife during divorce hearings, The man’s name and photograph were posted on a police website but were removed after the charges were dropped. However, having picked up the story, Google did not remove the pictures or postings it had published on its search engine. According to Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum (WPF), the page remained accessible through Google and was only removed after a long struggle.

    There are 11.5 billion pages on Google. But really, how much of it is truly meaningful. Has this become a race for quantity over quality. Search “Google” on Google and you will find 1 billion entries. Great company – yes it is – but are there really a billion things to say about them. Spend 10 seconds on each page to find out and you will be at your computer for around the next 317 years (give or take a few days).

    Yes, freedom of speech must be preserved and protected, but there is a fine line that is often blurred. We have built up an organization with members and users in over 90 countries around the world and we feel absolutely justified in trying to protect ourselves. As far as we are concerned, Google have been playing games with us for years – responding, ignoring, apologising, removing and re-inserting to their own agenda and in no particular order. This matter could have been settled long ago, amicably and without publicity. On our side at least, we have a mountain of letters and paperwork to prove that.

    dotWORLDS neither seek to control Google nor to limit free speech as some have maintained in a few verging-on-the-hysterical (anonymous), not-so-hysterical (sometime anonymous) and reasoned (usually signed) emails that we have received. Internet law is catching up with real life and yes, there are going to be some difficult decisions ahead. However, in time solutions will be found that broadly, will satisfy all parties. dotWORLDS are simply trying to bring that time forward.

  2. Lex Fear said

    Thanks for stopping by Brian.

    How much time do you spend googling for “dotworlds” to find obscure blogs and forums to post your press release statement anyway?

    Seriously, did you even read my post? I really think Google SHOULD take down ALL references to your site (defamation and praise)! I think Google should stop indexing your site altogether, what do you think of that?

    I let your comment through so people can see how ridiculous it is that you’re conducting an aggressive PR campaign, which in the long run will destroy what repuation you have. The bloggosphere has already got hold of this and I don’t see many defending your actions.

    Oh, and installing a BHO-type object into the users browser so they can actually use your service reeks of spam (just as your press release statement which you post everywhere)!

    Good luck trying to rid the world of free-speech, dumbass.

  3. Stef said


    I know it’s cliche but,as they say, freedom isn’t free

    In the same way that I personally am willing to accept a slightly higher risk of being blown up by a nutter rather than living in a police state I personally would rather we didn’t let the actions of a few basket cases on the Internet be used as an excuse to clamp down on the freedom of expression of the many

    There are limits of course and I wouldn’t pretend that there are any easy answers

    I did pitch in with my half penny’s worth on one particular incident, specifically because the response to a situation ran a serious risk of setting a precedent for behaviour that could get seriously out of hand

    That was an honest opinion that had absolutely nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of that particular situation. I simply believe that, whatever the rights or wrongs were, it wasn’t the right way to go about things

  4. Rachel said

    *Sigh* Sorry to rain on your parade. But nobody is clamping down on freedom of expression, are they? Lowde’s blog remains online. So does your blog, and all the other blogs you have linked to, and 73 million other blogs worldwide. ( A thought. If there are enough dissenters taking your side to add to the list and supporting the criminal not the victim of crime, will they be a ‘mob’ too – or is that just people who are sympathetic to me?)

    Lowde was prosecuted by the CPS, (not me personally, I was just a witness), in a normal court by a normal Judge for a depressingly common crime, harassment, section2, a course of conduct designed to cause alarm and distress.

    Blogging continues unabated since Lowde’s jailing for an offence she had committed before. The post service runs, even though people use it to send poison pen letters. The phone service runs, even though people make silent calls or text death threats.

    Sending death threat texts, dog poo through the post, poison pen hatemail letters and making silent or harassing phone calls are all forms of harassment. So is sending dozens and dozens of threatening or venomous emails, making false complaints to the police, etc etc harassment. I don’t think Lowde’s blog was much mentioned in court in fact, it just provided proof of her intentions and obsession with me, rather than being the main evidence.

    I do think some of my detractors are being hugely unfair, and in many cases,extremely inaccurate in what they say. Many have their own agenda. Southpaw for example calls all police ‘pigs’. Other bloggers out themselves as conspiracy theorists, and it is well known that I have little patience with conspiracy theorists who deny mass-murder by 4 7/7 bombers and seek to exonerate the murderers who did so much to damage an ancient and beautiful religion with their twisted ideaology posing as Islam. So I’m unsurprised that they rise up to have a go.

    FWIW I DID ignore Lowde, just as I ignore all the other trolls and abuse I get sent, which many bloggers will be familiar with as sadly-presnet hazard of blogging. Ignoring Lowde made no difference at all, which made her unusual. The harassment began in April 2006 and went on with almost-daily private and public attacks until June 2007, despoite arrests, warnings, and finally her conviction

    Let’s get a few facts straight. Lowde, not me, was the one who went to the police, choosing to make false complaints about me – thus getting them involved, so I then had to talk to the police as they were already investigating.

    She was asked to stop harassing me and others by the police,who explained that her behaviour was harassment – and she carried on. She was arrested, and questioned, and still carried on. She was given free legal representation from the moment of her first arrest in autumn 2006, who advised her to stop, and she carried on.

    I said nothing, for over a year. I never wrote about her relentless attacks, never mentioned her name. Finally she was convicted in April 2007. *Only then* did I mention what had been going on and name her. I hoped it was all over. It wasn’t. She proceeded to go on the run, and escalate the harassment, moving to 4.5 miles away from my flat and becoming increasingly threatening, not just to me but to my family. Here’s an example of her communications

    ‘You will suffer for your spite. Slowly’

    ‘Bitch.In your wedding picture you look happy to have got away with it. But time is ticking and you’ll wind up in jail with the stupid grin wiped off your evil face.’

    And so on.

    There was by then a bench warrant out for her arrest and the police wanted to find her as the court had ordered she be found and sentenced. The police have limited resources. It seemed she was blogging and using cyber cafes. So bloggers were asked to look out for her in cybercafes. An accurate description was circulated, and she was caught within days, by someone who recognised her from the blog campaign. So it was a success. I then immediately asked everyone to take the banners down and removed most of the stuff about her on my blog.

    I am not responsible for what people write and think on their blogs, any more than you are, but I was grateful that someone who had used blogging and the internet to calculatedly try to attack me and many other people was shown by other bloggers that what she was doing was unacceptable. Maybe it got through to her. That’s the best way to self-regulate IMO – we don’t need new laws and cyber codes of conduct. Lowde was convicted under a ten year old law, proving that online harassment is the same as any other kind of harassment, and abusive criminal behaviour and tactic making people’s lives a misery is treated the same whether it is online or offline.

    As to whether she is mentally ill, I just don’t know. The court didn’t seem to think so. She had previous convictions for stalking, so why didn’t she seek help then? I suppose all stalkers and harassers are disturbed to some degree but it doesn’t stop their criminal actions having real victims and causing real misery. I have always said I hope that she gets treatment, if she is ill. But whether she is ill, or simply malicious, which the courts seem to think, does not change the fact that for over a year she used every weapon she had to try to destroy me, personally and professionally, in a campaign of targeted psychological violence. And it wasn’t just me. One man ended up on Victim Support for 2 years. Another man was falsely accused of being a rapist and murderer by her, and his business and livelihood was attacked. A third man became depressed and suicidal after several years of being stalked by her. Dozens of people were defrauded on ebay by her. Numerous hate blogs were set up by her about entirely innocent people. I knew all this, I talked to the other victims and the police and that is why I said I would take the case forward, knowing that it would probably escalate the harassment until she was stopped. What I didn’t expect was a series of ignorant and graceless personal attacks from fellow bloggers who seem to go in for victim-bashing in order to increase their stats by being controversial.

    But I’m not going to go to the police about it. Free speech and all that. I can tell the difference between free speech and criminal harassment, and so can the CPS and the courts.

    It’s a shame that you, apparently, can’t.

  5. ‘Victim-bashing’? But *you’re* the only ‘victim’ in this village.

  6. Rachel said

    I will try again as I can’t see any reason why my previous comment has not been allowed. Especially as the blogger Alex Fear repeatedly states that he welcomes comment and debate, and asked me to comment in an earlier post about me. Perhaps there has been some kind of technical problem, Alex?

    Louise, as you have addressed me directly, I will answer. Of course I am not the ‘only victim in the village’. Not, sadly, in the case of rape, or 7/7, or crime in general, or Lowde is particular. I don’t know whether you are obliquely making a point that Lowde is a ‘victim’ too – or whether all convicted criminals are also ‘victims’ – or merely being snarky and inferring that I think I am the only ‘victim’ of any importance, which is quite evidently and provably not the case at all, if you have ever read anything I have ever written, or met me, or know anything about me or my work at all. I don’t actually know *what* you are getting at in your comment, so I will assume that you are saying Lowde is a victim too? (Or perhaps that you are? Or something else??? in which case do please explain)

    Anyway. All I can say is that I continue to hope that victims of crime get help, and justice, and people with mental illness get help, and justice, if they are indeed a victim themselves, and this position is congruent with everything I have ever said, ever, anywhere, including court.

    I do not accept, however that victims of distressing crimes should be asked to simply endure frightening and escalating attacks from strangers on the grounds that the stranger may, or may not, be ill. I dare say you could make a case for a terrorist, or a mugger, or a rapist or a wifebeater, or a workplace bully, or a stalker being of abnormal psychology – but it doesn’t take away the fact that their actions hurt people. The mitigating plea of mental illness is I understand, perfectly normal in the court systems, and we have psychiatric hospitals & mental health workers as well as courts to deal with those who fall into that category, should it be proved to be the case.

    Lowde was given legal representation and a trial, and if she, or her defence wished to make the case that she was ill, they have had ample opportunity to do so. They didn’t.

    I remain unconvinced that failing to appear at your own trial, getting rid of your publicly-funded defence and threatening your victim make you a ‘victim’ yourself. It seems that the court made up its own mind on that too, and if you have a problem with it, I’m afraid that’s tough. We have a justice system in the UK and we all agree to abide by it. Lowde is appealing, and we will have to go through it all over again. I suppose you could see it as her last weapon against me; it can also be seen as a perfectly fiar way to challenge the legal situation, and I will be there, giving evidence all over again as a witness when called, because that is how the justice system works.

  7. Rachel,

    I’ve only had 2 comments come through for moderation- I’ve let them both pass.

    Since you have bothered to post and defend yourself, I can respect you for that.

    I can understand you’ve suffered some great trials in your life. I can’t begin to know what an ordeal rape is.

    However, I don’t think you have an understanding of what mental illness is and what it is to live with it, or live with someone who suffers from it. There are different forms: Schizophrenia, Bi-polar disorder, manic-depression, even sufferers of PTSD can exhibit the same symptoms of someone suffering from psychosis.

    The worst forms of psychosis can cause the sufferer to lash out even at loved ones, in the most horrific manner- far worse than you have suffered from Lowde, trust me.

    Rachel, you may not be directly responsible for some of the vitriol levelled at Felicity, but you condoned it by omission. I think the blog buttons were irresponsible. You might be intelligent enough to show some grace in the situation but many of your supporters were/are not. All was needed was a sniff of blood for them to come out baring tooth and claw.

    I must state emphatically that this DOES NOT work with sufferers of psychosis. It simply feeds the disease and will only escalate out of control.

    Anyone can be a victim, Rachel, but it takes courage and strength to choose not to let our circumstances define our character- to choose not to wear the victim badge.

    It also takes strength of character to rise above the hate and malice. To see the log in our own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s.

    As REM said, “Everybody hurts…” but Gandhi said “An eye for an eye makes everybody blind”.

  8. Rachel said


    Interesting. As you accept PTSD is a debilitating mental condition, why do you not show any ire at the targeted psychological violence levelled by FJL for a year at someone who was suffering PTSD? The deliberate cruelty of FJL’s targeting PTSD symptoms of guilt and grief and depression in a calculated and venomous way, again and again and again? Looking for signs of vulnerability, zooming in on it? Driving another victim to the edge of a breakdown, trying to destroy a man’s business, leaving a trail of victims who were depressed and despairing after being the subjects of relentless unwelcome attentions from a stranger?

    You know nothing of whether I understand mental illness or not. You don’t know, since I have never mentioned it, that I spent a year doing a psychotherapy MA. I am part of a group of PTSD sufferers.I am in contact with numerous other FJL victims and so are the police. I have been through PTSD twice, and through depression. It took 3 years to get out. And I will tell you now that FJL’s campaign of abuse pushed me back to the brink.

    There is no proof at all, by the way, that FJL is schizophrenic, psychotic, bi-polar, delusional, NPD or anything else. The court did not seem to think she was mentally ill at all. The court saw her as entirely responsible for her actions, and saw her as targeting someone who was vulnerable, and then as the CrASBO showed, having a long list of victims. They saw her as a malcious woman committing crimes, Alex. And then trying to escape the consequences of doing so.As someone who lied in court, and who had previous convictions from which she seemed to have learned little apart from how to alter her modus operandi from threatening phonecalls to threatening emails and cyber-hate campaigns.

    Do you not think the question of why she was in court for harassing people and whether she was in fact severely mentally ill had not been asked before? This was not the first time she had been found guilty of harassment. Nor the second, Alex. Nor the third.

    She used the internet as a bully’s playground to torture and attack people psychologically. Then over a hundred bloggers rose up and showed that this was unacceptable. It might have been rough music, but the actions of her peers showed her something, and it also meant she was found within days and could be brought back to court, since the blog campaign and accurate description of her in a cyber cafe in E London led to her arrest in a cyber cafe un E London .

    As the daughter of a vicar I am well aware of motes and beams, I wonder if you can see the inherent illogicality of your own position?

    There is no attack on free speech here. None. In fact this case proved that harassing behaviour is just that, harassment, whatever tools the perpetrator uses to harass. It was prosecuted under a 10 year old law. There is also the issue of tormenting people with mental health issues that you might want to re-examine. I was not the only person with PTSD, or who had an illness, or who depressed, or vulnerable that she went after. But to protect her other victims who did not think they could cope with a court case, but who were named in the CrASBO as needing protection from her, I will say no more.

    Anyone can be a victim, Alex, but it takes courage and strength to choose not to let our circumstances define our character- to choose not to wear the victim badge. FJL relentlessly attacked strangers whilst claiming, falsely to be a victim herself. Few were taken in. You apparently were. Meanwhile you seemingly accuse me of letting my ‘circumstances define my character’, and ‘wearing the victim badge’ which is so very far off the mark with regard to everything I have done and said and written and been, that I am starting to laugh.

    Motes and beams indeed, Alex, motes and beams indeed.

  9. I don’t know Rachel,

    I got the impression from your disciples that FJL had some sort of mental illness.

    I got the impression from your blog that FJL needed some kind of treatment. Are you now denying that is the case?

    I guess Louise was right, you seem to be the only victim in the village and you seem to be pretty good at it.

    As for studying psychotherapy that actually says nothing Rachel. Historians study history, it doesn’t mean they were lived through those events, you don’t need to be a soldier to study warfare, you don’t need to be a sufferer of a disease to be able to treat it.

    Rachel, why is it so important that people love you and agree with you? Why is it anyone who disagrees somehow has it wrong, does not understand the facts or is just a conspiraloon?

    If you don’t think you are defined by your victim-status take a look at newspaper headlines. They usually start with “7/7 bomb survivor Rachel North…” How long are you going to be identified as a bomb survivor, rape victim or victim of stalking?

    I have a close friend who was molested and sexually abused as a child. She has done some amazing things, and she has preached at a number of churches. She isn’t introduced to the stage as “victim of sexual abuse” every time she speaks.

    The temptation for those who choose to continually associate themselves with their victim status, is to use that victim status to justify their every decision in life and use it to manipulate others into guilt or silence.

  10. Rachel said

    I do not know, Alex,(and nor do you) whether FJL has a mental illness or not. The court apparently think not. I have always said if she is ill I hope she gets treatment. You can quite easily check this for yourself. You assume she is ill, as if that exonerates her criminal harassment: I point out that it is not proved that she is ill at all. She certainly claims not to be ill. And she has a history of being prosecuted for exactly the same offence of harasment going back many years. Meanwhile the fact that I have PTSD, and that it was worsened by her psychological war games is medically-proved.

    You’re being disingenous about the victim thing. When I order a takeaway, pop into a shop, hang out with friends, work in an ad office, I don’t introduce myself as a survivor of rape or 7/7 or PTSD. When I campaign about rape, 7/7 or PTSD I do, for reasons which should be blindingly obvious. When I’m asked to be spokesperson for a group of survivors and bereaved I’m introduced as someone directly affected by 7/7. It would not be much good if I campaigned in any other guise, would it? Look at Rose Gentle, spokesperson for Military Families Against the War. Look at the de Menezes family, campaigning for justice for Jean-Charles. They are introduced as campaigners who have lost their sons, who have a direct link. That, Alex, is how it works. It is common for most campaigners to identify their personal connection to the subject that are campaigning about when campaigning.

    ‘Only victim in the village’? Can we drop this tiresome straw man? Look on my blog and you will see 9 other 7/7 bloggers right there on the side bar, many of whom have written and been interviewed in the press. A quick google will turn up dozens of 7/7 survivors speaking out, same as bereaved families, and a further google will reveal rape survivors speaking out, and indeed victims of many crimes expressing their thoughts and opinions. The book was written to raise awareness of PTSD, which can be fatal, and about which there is little understanding. The campaigning, with other survivors and bereaved families is with the aim of saving lives and sparing suffering in future. I make no apologies for trying to do something positive with my experiences. I took a walloping 80% drop in salary to do so, and for some reason I take a lot of abuse from a few people for it. It will not silence me. I speak out because others would like to speak out, but can’t. It is important to me that having been given this new life, I do something meaningful with it.

    I will however, on ocasion, defend myself when attacked. I do not see why I should have to endure the venomous attentions of a serial criminal, nor the ill-informed attacks of fellow bloggers in total silence, all the time. I raised the fact that I have studied psychotherapy and have PTSD and am part of a group of PTSD sufferers because YOU said

    ‘I don’t think you have an understanding of what mental illness is and what it is to live with it, or live with someone who suffers from it’

    You posted about ‘the nature and the future of the internet,’ and claimed that ‘free information is under threat’ and I pointed out that Lowde’s blog remains online and nobody is being stopped from publishing their thoughts at all. This is not China.

    You then attempted to make out that FJL could simply have been dealt with by being ignored, and that I was her only victim, both of which statements are provably not true.

    If you support free speech, you should have no problem with me explaining to you here why and how you are inaccurate in your posts and debating with you. Do you feel maipulated into guilt or silence when anyone disagrees with you regarding a subject on which they have more knowledge than you due to personal experience and involvement? Why so?

    The person who is still raising the issue of FJL and her harassment is you. I deleted most of the stuff on it weeks ago and asked bloggers to take the buttons down, refused all interviews, turned down money to talk/write about it. You admit that talking about it drives traffic to your site and set up a load of links to other sites that you seem to think support you.

    I don’t seek to make everyone ‘love’ me, and I wrte, like 73 million other bloggers, about a range of subjects. Like most people though, I find it irritating to be the subject of multiple posts by complete strangers taking me to task for having been at the sharp end of a hugely distressing experience which affected my health, my work and my life for over a year, and for doing as the police asked – trying to stop it, legally, rather than rising to her repeated bait.

    ‘Why is it anyone who disagrees somehow has it wrong, does not understand the facts or is just a conspiraloon?’

    Well….in this case, I’m afraid – You are wrong. You don’t know the facts. You could quite easily check the facts, but you choose not to, it seems in order to drive traffic, or something. I’m at a bit of a loss as to why you keep posting about me and have gone trawling round for people whom you think are of similar mind.

    I don’t know whether you are a conspiracy theorist or not. I find people who attack me for pointing out that their claims that ‘the four 7/7 bombers were innocent’ crop up with depressing regularity when there is an opportunity to slate me and there some of them are, linked in your blog. Though I think having a go at someone for being stalked is low even for them.

    You seem to think there is something Christian in taking the side of someone who was convicted of harassment on the ground that they may, or may not be mentally ill. But how Christian is it to ill-informedly condemn the person that was being harassed, who I have pointed out, was dealing with mental health issues herself? You can love sinners, but I don’t see much evidence of hating the sin around here. Do you think repeat offenders should ‘go and sin no more?’ There is much about justice, as well as mercy in the gospels: I suggest to you that justice was done, and that you choose to not accept it sets you at odds with most people in the UK who accept the findings of the courts. You can always write to or visit FJL in prison. You could also try understanding the effect she had on her victims, and trying to walk in their shoes for a mile or two as well. I was not the only one she attacked, as has been made clear. And there were a lot of relieved people when she was finally stopped from committing her cruel crimes – for three months at least. I wonder whether you would like FJL in your life, Alex? Or if she reported you to the police, called your employers, accused your father of child sex abuse, spent a year trying to trash your faith, personal and professional repuatation and to rouse your personal demons and activate your nightmares of the screams of the dying, what you would have done? Have you wondered Alex? I hope that you never have to find out, nor anyone else whom you love.

  11. You correctly surmised that I am a Christian, you seem to know a bit of scripture.

    Since you assert your authority as a Vicars daughter, you must know that Christians strive to forgive those who persecute them (Matthew 5:44, 6:14), that Christ chose to befriend ‘sinners’ (Luke 7:39) and that all have sinned and fallen short (1 John 1:10).

    So there is no need to come here pontificating with Pharisaical inferences that one person is more deserving of punishment than another (Romans 6:23).

  12. Rachel,PTSD is not an inherent mental illness. My first reply to you I listed some forms of mental illness, I then said…”…even sufferers of PTSD can exhibit the same symptoms of someone suffering from psychosis.”You may be a rape victim, a bombing victim, a stalking victim and God knows what else-victim but you are not mentally ill, despite trying to claim otherwise.When I asserted that PTSD sufferers can suffer the same symptoms, I was appealing to your empathies, not trying to give you another victim complex to add to your list.

  13. Rachel said


    No, PTSD is not a mental illness – but it is a serious and debilitating mental health disorder. And the fact is that Lowde deliberately targeted someone with it, in a vicious, vindictive and vitriolic manner for over a year.
    And this was proved to be the case in court. Yet you do not seem to be able to accept this fact. Instead you say she is to be pitied and that she is ill. Maybe. But there’s no actual evidence for it.

    Lowde, let us not forget, makes no claim whatsoever to suffer from mental health issues herself, and has never introduced this as a defence. She is in fact quite adamant that she is not ill, and states that I am. She, meanwhile, has previous convictions for harassment.So she’s had the opportuniuty to learn from her mistakes/seek help/get treatment. But she hasn’t, has she? And where is your sympathy for her other victims?

    Still think Lowde is the only victim here? Why? Why do you think you know better than the Judge in court, who met her, questioned her, heard her defence and looked at all the evidence objectively?

    You are silent on this point, as you are about all the other rebuttals I have made of your inaccuracies and, I’m sad to say, downright snide remarks. Instead you go on the attack yet again, albeit with diminishing reserves of material to put your rather feeble case. I wonder why?

    You previously castigated me because of what other bloggers who supported me wrote. Yet you link to someone who calls all police pigs, another who refers to people several times as as ‘c*nts’ ( and without the asterisk), a well-educated troll, two conspiracy theorists who deny the culpability of 4 mass-murderers, a police officer who SUPPORTS the jailing of FJL, amongst others. Am I to assume you share or endorse their views? No? Then why do you assume I endorse everything everyone has said when commenting on the FJL case or displaying a button?

    Yes, Alex, I have a degree in Theology, if you want to play Bible ping pong, pointless though it is. But we are talking of the laws of the land, not having a ‘who is more the marvellously forgiving and holy Christian?’ willy-waving competition, are we not?

    ‘So there is no need to come here pontificating with Pharisaical inferences that one person is more deserving of punishment than another…’

    Quite a spectacular misreading of the Epistle, here! Try again.

    Alex, it the case that if one person has committed a crime and the other person has not, that it is the criminal who is condemned, not the victim of the crime. You do understand that don’t you?

    You are not the one who has been persecuted here, though you now seem to be indulging in a little persecuting of your own
    ( like the comments and traffic do we?). Perhaps if you were the victim of a year long harassment from Lowde or any other criminal, you might choose to ‘forgive’, (irrespective of what the police and the other victims urged you to do to help them). However, as you have not actually been pursued in this way, you don’t really know how you would react and it is, in my opinion, a little arrogant of you to say loftily that you would behave as you claim.

    You are the one who introduced the subject of your Christianity, and you are the one as far as I can see has incorrectly interpreted the message of the gospel, and the epistles, as well as the laws of the land. You are the one who has wriggled and failed to answer my points, nor apologised for your inaccuracies. I would expect a Christian to have some degree of humility and self-awareness, as well as an interest in truth and justice, but I haven’t found it in you, here.

    In my opinion you are a rather poor advertisement for the faith which you so sanctimonously profess. Where in the Bible is the justification for heaping opprobrium on people who have been attacked on the grounds that you, personally, feel that you would be able to turn the other cheek? Looks like a lack of humility as well as a lack of empathy to me.

    Is it important to you, Alex, to cling to the idea of yourself as someone who would ostentatiously pity or forgive – rather than condemn – Lowde? And to repeatedly advertise this speculation about yourself on your blog? What did Jesus say about those who flaunt their supposed superior holiness whilst pursing their lips and failing to display any empathy or compassion to those less fortunate? ‘Whited Sepulchres’ ring any bells?

    Lowde’s crime is not actually yours to forgive, (unless you are going to introduce some Messianic secret about yourself at this stage.) And I might have studied Theology for 15 years and been brought up with a very detailed knowledge of the Bible, but I do not profess to be a Christian myself. Not any more. Running into your commentary reminds me why.

    Still, you claim to be a Christian. So I’m sure you’ll do this: Forgive me. And I’m sure you’ll feel better about yourself for having done so.

    Especially as it will allow you to have the last word, which I can see is terribly important to you. And why not? It’s your blog after all! I’m sorry that I won’t be popping in again, but I think there isn’t much point. Or indeed, any point, at all.

    In fact I doubt you’ll put this through. Well, at least you’ll have read it. Ad if you find it objectionable, please remember that I took a hundred times worse on a daily basis for 400 days, sent publicly and privately, and that I have said nothing here that I would not happily, and quite calmly, say to your face, in public or in private.

    I have replied to your posts about me, at your own request. And now I will leave you i the hope that you might read, or re-read what I have said, and to think about it. It will require a leap of imagination. But I am hopeful Alex: I always have hope.

  14. Rachel said

    Did you get my previous comment, Alex? Would you like me to send it though again?

  15. Rachel,

    I had 50 visitors yesterday, nearly 20 of them were you.

    I guess I do get the last word… but things just seem so… unsettled between us.

    15 years studying theology, yet you don’t know Christ? Sounds like such a wasted life.

    I can easily forgive you for being ignorant of personal events going on in my life right now (which prevent me from sitting on my inbox perched waiting for your next comment), however… I really think you need to forgive yourself.

    So much rage. Rachel, why are you so angry… let it go.

  16. Alfred the cake said

    [This post has been edited by blog author]

    I’m not surprised she’s a tad pissed off mate, after being patronised by muppets like you on top of being attacked, bombed, stalked and dealing with PTSD.

    Still, fair play, she’s thrashed you into the ground with the arguments!

    And you’ve come across as a smug humourless empathy-free little c********! Loving that free speech!…it’s all you need to hang yerself sometimes!

  17. And the Northsquad has arrived!

    Your comment has been let through because you have just made my point for me.

    At least Rachel has some degree of intellect and can argue from a reasonable standpoint.

    Shame the same can’t be said of some of her followers, who struggle with civil discussion and instead resort to name-calling.

  18. Alfred the Cake said

    Hey Al, you were so waiting for this moment, weren’t you?

    So one person is a ‘squad’? Uh huh. Ok honey.So what’s…

    1.Drowning and Other Fragments
    2.Tim Worstall
    4.Living With The Conspiracy 24-7
    5.Famous For 15 Megapixels
    7.Duff & Nonsense
    8.Libel Lawyers London (links to a good article by Craig H)
    10.The Policemans Blog
    11.Mike Powers Not A Blog

    That must be an Alexsquad! A wee battalion! A monstrous regiment! You must agree with all of them? You just linked to them, hmm? Yes? Yesssssssssssssssss!

    At least Rachel has some degree of intellect and can argue from a reasonable standpoint. She even has a goddamn degree in Theology, bummer for you.

    Shame the same can’t be said of some of her followers, who struggle with civil discussion and instead resort to name-calling…

    ‘I’m so craptastically sick of reading libel and counter-libel claims being slung back and forth between immature British bloggers (who shall remain anonymous), who get far too much attention for their drivel’

    ‘Good luck trying to rid the world of free-speech, dumbass’

    ‘Do your lips ever get chapped from kissing Dubya’s ass?’

    Keep on keeping on, Christian boy! You’re sure as hell converting me to your example!

    And no WAY will you let this one through – it makes you look bad! never mind sweety – it’s all on screengrab.

    Coffee? No, you’re still sleeping through the alarm, intcha?

    Never mind babe, never mind

  19. Cakeman,

    Why would I need to convert you? You seem to already know how a Christian should think, speak and behave. As does Rachel (I find atheists and agnostics tend to be the more informed on the Christian faith than Christians usually- strange though it is).

    Why do I worry about looking bad? You quote my own words. All that means you have spent more than 5 minutes looking at my blog.

    Ha Ha, yes Rachels 15 year degree in theology! So technically she second only to the Pope! Well, that speaks for itself doesn’t it…

    Alfred, your comments bore me, but I just know this is going to go on for while isn’t it? I’ll finish this comment- you’re hanging around to see if I responded and then you’ll post another comment goading me by saying something like “bet you won’t post this one”.

    So why not post something on your own blog- and then let us have a link here so we can all visit it. Or otherwise get a blog. But it’s hardly worth the effort when all you want to do is trade insults and keep issuing the challenge for me to allow your comment.

    It gets a bit boring and its a baseless tactic to simply get your comment published.

    For the record, I don’t necessarily read all those blogs I linked or even agree with everything they say. What they did say about North V Lowde made sense to me. Compared to the long list of Rachels supporters this small collection of bloggers pales in comparison.

    You continue to prove the point btw that no-one can offer criticism of Rachel North without suffering the wrath of her followers (and even herself on occasion).

    So come on, bring on the next test and let’s see if it’s worthwhile posting.

    I promise to try to read all of it without rolling my eyes.

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: