Abandon All Fear

What nobody else seems to be saying…

Bigger Fish Eats Big Fish

Posted by Lex Fear on September 21, 2007

I don’t suppose anyone’s seen the irony in it yet? Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads published some unfavourable commentary about Russian tyrant millionaire Alisher Usmanov and his lawyers ordered the England based webhost to take it down.

What I find interesting is the reaction of those, friend and foe alike, to the take-down. Mostly political bloggers (and mostly self-titled ‘liberal’s) who have been accusing each other and tossing about libel threats for years. Most of these people were the first to put up those stupid ‘Find Lowde’ campaign buttons and bemoan her many ‘libelous’ blog posts.

Suddenly it’s all turned from empty threats, hollow accusations, angry rants and become a little bit more real and threatening hasn’t it? Perhaps those who are quick to shout libel will now consider what they are saying before they commit.

A lot of discussion has taken place recently over at Cecilieaux’s blog regarding a post he made on Felicity Jane Lowde. I think his summary is spot on, in his own commentary on the explosive response that took place:

“Someone blogs about you and you don’t like it? Ignore it or blog back. Someone e-mails you and you don’t want it? Delete it, filter it out and so on.
People who get riled about these things need to take a deep breath and repeat after me: “This is just a hobby.” Breathe in, breathe out. Repeat three times. Feels better, no?
What is it about computers that induces this kind of behavior?
I write pretty much the way I speak. Most of you would not like me and — surprise! — I probably would not like you.
But I sense that some of the nonsense posted here by the commenters goes way beyond what they are accustomed to saying to someone on the street. For example, how many commenters would really go around referring to women as “tits” in the presence of women capable of beating them up or, at a minimum, shaming them?
Nonetheless, thank you all for providing a window into cyberobsessions that I never imagined existed.
I’m sure also that American visitors were also enlightened as to the appalling lack of liberties in Britain — my sympathies. As you rise and I go to sleep, rest assured I will honor your U.S. constitutional right to rant. Let the circus continue.” – Elephant in the Blog

It’s nice to rely on something as a weapon till it’s used against you isn’t it?

 

UPDATE: Tim Worstall has published a list of bloggers who have commented on and criticised the actions of the Russian tyrant billionaire. Whilst I stand in solidarity against this libel action, if you want to see what I mean about irony, take some random links from that list and type in the following to google: “libel site:[url of blog]”. It won’t be long before you find some who have previously threatened libel action against fellow bloggers.

Advertisements

31 Responses to “Bigger Fish Eats Big Fish”

  1. mattghg said

    What is it about computers that induces this kind of behavior?

    Well, we’ve had ‘road rage’ and ‘air rage’, now we have ‘blog rage’ or something. ‘E-rage’? There’s just too much rage.

  2. I just checked back there now…

    The ranting continues into day 4 and has devolved into wombat insults.

    Funny if it wasn’t so sad the fact there are obviously some real obsessive personalities over there.

    I suspect the few remaining commenter’s are sock puppets of one or two people, possibly from jtr forums or blogs that are not that popular, they obviously aren’t that confident in their arguments if they can’t reveal themselves (or possibly want to protect a reputation).

  3. Tim said

    1. Most of the anonymous comments – and the ‘wombat’ insults are coming from Lowde on that website, surely you can see that?

    2.’What I find interesting is the reaction of those, friend and foe alike, to the take-down. Mostly political bloggers (and mostly self-titled ‘liberal’s) who have been accusing each other and tossing about libel threats for years. Most of these people were the first to put up those stupid ‘Find Lowde’ campaign buttons and bemoan her many ‘libelous’ blog posts’

    No, it was never about libel ( civil matter) . It was about harassment ( criminal charge). So the whole premise of this post is wrong. Political bloggers are very pro-free speech and I cannot remember an example of anyone suing anoyone for libel. A good fisking is all that is required.

    Lowde was wanted by the police, for harassment, not libel. You might want to look up the difference between ‘libel’ and ‘harrassment’ and between civil court and criminal courts to understand better.

  4. Tim said

    To be clear: The Lowde case was never about libel, but about harassment.

    The craig murray case IS about LIBEL and represents an attempted civil action threatened against the webhosts. There is an understanding in the political blogosphere that you do not sue your enemies for libel, you give them a damn good fisking instead. The craig murray case has united bloggers from the Right, Left, Liberals, Conservatives, etc…. as one, in disgust at the actio of the webhosts under pressure from Schillings.

    Interesting, that the Lowde case did likewise – bloggers from all backgrounds and sides ran the buttons.

    An example of the blogosphere rising up against

    a) heavy-handed libel and a crackdown on free speech
    b) criminal harassment and running away from the law

    Can you understand the difference between libel and harassment and criminal charges and civil actions now?

    Clue: a) The Russian has HIRED lawyers to act for him as an individual

    b) The CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE has prosecuted Lowde on behalf of the general public

  5. […] am grateful to Alex Fear’s post but I don’t entirely agree with the point of his post in that I think that criminal activity is […]

  6. OK Tim, fisking it is then.

    1. Most of the anonymous comments – and the ‘wombat’ insults are coming from Lowde on that website, surely you can see that?

    I’m not really counting, just commenting on the ludicrousness of it all, and at no point have I ever claimed FJL was innocent or faultless- quite the opposite, read previous posts and comments on this blog.

    No, it was never about libel ( civil matter) . It was about harassment ( criminal charge). So the whole premise of this post is wrong. Political bloggers are very pro-free speech and I cannot remember an example of anyone suing anoyone for libel. A good fisking is all that is required.

    I agree that many are, but there are a number that aren’t (even though they say they are). Usually their anti-free-speech comment will come directly after stating “This isn’t about free-speech…”

    Lowde was wanted by the police, for harassment, not libel. You might want to look up the difference between ‘libel’ and ‘harrassment’ and between civil court and criminal courts to understand better.

    To be clear: The Lowde case was never about libel, but about harassment.

    It is not me that needs the difference explaining. Try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/32qhb3

    The craig murray case IS about LIBEL and represents an attempted civil action threatened against the webhosts. There is an understanding in the political blogosphere that you do not sue your enemies for libel, you give them a damn good fisking instead…

    So how do you explain this hypocrisy:
    1st Blogger:
    To libel: http://tinyurl.com/3bn4ab
    Or not to libel: http://tinyurl.com/3xsny7

    2nd Blogger:
    To libel: http://tinyurl.com/2jdqw2
    Or not to libel: http://tinyurl.com/2udnqx

    3rd Blogger:
    To libel: http://tinyurl.com/34su2r
    Or not to libel: http://tinyurl.com/2n9fzr

    There are others, and hundreds of anonymous commenter’s but I don’t have all day.

    Interesting, that the Lowde case did likewise – bloggers from all backgrounds and sides ran the buttons.

    An example of the blogosphere rising up against

    a) heavy-handed libel and a crackdown on free speech

    Err how was running a ‘Find Lowde’ campaign actually a crackdown on heavy handed libel? I thought harassment and libel were different?

    b) criminal harassment and running away from the law

    Wow, so what crime are our amateur detectives going to solve next? Why not have a campaign against a rapist or a murderer? Oh, no that would be a lesser crime than harassment, of course.

    Can you understand the difference between libel and harassment and criminal charges and civil actions now?

    Clue: a) The Russian has HIRED lawyers to act for him as an individual

    b) The CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE has prosecuted Lowde on behalf of the general public

    Err.. can you understand the terms irony and hypocrisy now?

    IRONY: Those who rely on authoritarian laws and complain about the words of others are now subject to the same.

    HYPOCRISY: Claiming to believe or adhere to one principle, but speaking and acting to the opposite effect.

  7. Tim said

    Alex, it helps if you read what is written carefully – I even explained it twice.

    We have 2 cases, case a) and case b).
    They are both examples of the blogosphere rising up against injustice

    Case a) =heavy-handed libel and a crackdown on free speech
    Case b)= criminal harassment and running away from the law

    You said
    Err how was running a ‘Find Lowde’ campaign actually a crackdown on heavy handed libel? I thought harassment and libel were different?

    Yes. They are. Which is exactly what I said.

    A) is Craig Murray – heavy handed libel and a crackdown on free speech – a civil matter
    B) is harassment – a criminal matter

    Now then. FJL IS demonstrably libellous – extremely libellous. If there was a libel case against her, following her criminal conviction, the claimants would likely clean up. Viz:

    North is not a psychopath nor did she perjure herself in the rape case, nor is she a stalker or psychotic.

    Hart is not a rapist or a murderer.

    Weinert of the Met is not corrupt, violent or bent

    Pierce, a lawyer, is not corrupt and evil and unprofessional

    McGarry, a CPS lawyer is not corrupt and a slave to special branch and the media

    All of these allegations Lowde has made.

    But – and this is the crucial thing – her blog is still up. *Nobody* has sued her for libel.
    She has however been booked for criminal harassment. An entirely different matter.

    Craig Murray has *not* had libel proved in a court, but has been pulled offline anyway ( along with other blogs) by his service provider.

    No court case, no justice, no fair hearing.

    FJL had a trial. In court. And publicly funded defence.

    Murray didn’t have a trial, or a court case, or any defence, he was just hoiked offline

    Comprende?

    From this we see that…The blogosphere seems to be broadly against injustice and taking the piss and unreasonable behaviour

    insofar as we have

    a) heavy handed pulling down of blogs without a court case
    b) FJL having a court case and being found guilty of harassment ( bringing blogging into disrepute) by failing to stop the harassment, failing to appear, then going on the run.

    hence campaigns to
    a) Keep murray and bloggerheads and Johnson’s sites up

    b) Find abscondee Lowde

    See?

  8. Tim said

    OK Alex, explaining it all over again – for the 3rd time

    We have 2 cases which have riled up the blogosphere. Case A
    and Case B

    Case A is about LIBEL ( civil) . Murray’s blog was taken down because expensive libel lawyers threatened the webhosts. No court case, no defence, no fair. Bloggers angry.

    Vase B is about HARASSMENT ( criminal). Lowde was given a trial and a publicly funded defence. Went on the run and mocked the conviction. Took the piss. Bloggers angry. Was found as result of campaign and sentenced. Comes out, continues to carry on as before. Bloggers interested ( and angry).

    Now then. Lowde’s blog is undoubtedly extremely libellous. But look – and take note – nobody has sued her for libel. Instead, she has been convicted in the criminal courts for harassment – an entirely different different matter.

    Libel = the defamed party has a lawyer, sues privately on behalf of themself, lower standard of proof, damages paid

    Harassment = the CPS prosecutes on behalf of the Crown, the victim is called as a witness, high standard of proof, no damages paid

    The principal witness in the Lowde case has not sued for libel, nor ever mentioned doing so. Another FJL target , Mr Hart has apparently engaged a lawyer to write to her – asking her to remove the specific blogs which she set up with the aim of trashing his reputation and business by manipulating search engines – but to no avail.

    There is no mention of any attempt to remove Lowde’s own main blog – just the ones set up to manipulate google rankings and damage Hart’s business.

    OK?

    Now, Lowde had a trial, and was found guilty under criminal law, and whilst she could also have been done for libel, no libel case has been filed.

    It is undoubtedly libellous to say

    – Hart is a rapist and a stalker and a murderer and a danger to women
    – North is a liar and a psychopath and a perjurer and psychotic.
    – The CPS are slaves to the media and Special Branch
    – The Magistrate is incompetent
    – The police are violent, bent and corrupt.

    Nonetheless, FJL’s blog remains online. Read that again. She continues to have freedom of speech. Nobody has taken her to a civil court. She was done for harassment not libel.

    (Wow, so what crime are our amateur detectives going to solve ext? Why not have a campaign against a rapist or a murderer? Oh, no that would be a lesser crime than harassment, of course.

    No, it wouldn’t. 100% straw man. When has anyone ever said that???????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Can you understand the difference between libel and harassment and criminal charges and civil actions now?
    Free speech is different to harassment, just as free love is different to rape. It is quite possible to support free speech but to abhore harassment. It is quite possible to support pre-marital sex or free love but to abhore rape and sexual assalt. The difference is responsibility, intention and harm caused.

    HYPOCRISY: Claiming to believe or adhere to one principle, but speaking and acting to the opposite effect.

    Yes. Quite. I don’t think you see the irony inherent in that statement and your recent spate of postings – do you?

  9. Tim,

    For your reference – straw man argument.

    The line you attribute to a straw man, is not, since I was lampooning.

    Wow, so what crime are our amateur detectives going to solve next? Why not have a campaign against a rapist or a murderer? Oh, no that would be a lesser crime than harassment, of course.

    To convey the amount of seriousness heaped on the crime of harassment (which triggered the ‘Find Lowde’ campaign), as opposed to other crimes which would be more worthy of a campaign.

    Now let me explain to you!

    I find anyone who demands one blog be removed (you may not have but others have- my original blog post was not referring to you, Tim), but then screams about freedom of speech when another blog is removed (regardless of reasons) to be inconsistent and therefore hypocritical.

    I have provided you examples of this in my previous comment. Examples of bloggers who have threatened or supported the UK libel law in their writings, who are now crying about a blog removed because of the threat of using those very laws.

    There is no need to be a patronising bar-steward by making 3 comments defining the difference between harassment and libel, if the liberati lynch mob understood the difference, then my post above would have been very different.

    Regarding angry bloggers, does it not seem reasonable that no matter what FJL does these angry bloggers have it in for her anyway?

    This is clearly a very emotive subject for you, I therefore take it that you feel wronged by Felicity in some way in the past and you are an angry blogger– this effects your argument and your prior convictions.

    I, on the other hand, have neither been wronged by FJL or Rachel North, therefore I remain clear headed, seeing the big picture and comment from my own perspective of justice and mercy.

    I also take issue with your insinuation that I am somehow being a hypocrite. If you had bothered to read the rest of this blog you would find that I am being very consistent in my beliefs.

    Now are we going to have a reasonable discussion or will you continue like a broken record?

  10. Tim said

    for some reason the first time I posted it didn’t come through so I thought I’d lost the comment. I reposted it – and then the first post came through after all. So I have repeated myself, kind of

  11. Overactive askimet spam filter.

  12. Tim said

    Alex said:

    ‘I find anyone who demands one blog be removed (you may not have but others have- my original blog post was not referring to you, Tim), but then screams about freedom of speech when another blog is removed (regardless of reasons) to be inconsistent and therefore hypocritical.’

    Fine.

    1. ‘That socalled example has just been downloaded by the defence, and it will be produced in Court.’

    2. The above comments remain extremely libellous, whoever might have written them.This situation is being dealt with in a Court of law, the case is not over in any shape. It is very clear indeed that I am being harassed by these characters, and this will shortly be a legally established fact.’

    3. We all know what the libel is going on about me, and there is no need to print it fifty times over.’

    4. ‘That socalled example has just been downloaded by the defence, and it will be produced in Court’

    5. ‘I wonder if Cecilieaux might feel inclined to delete this unhealthy diatribe of comments, I’d be grateful. The lawyers saw it this afternoon and printed it all off already’

    6. ‘Very good point about anonymity. Surely if they weren’t committing libel and harassment, they’d be glad to announce their identities. ‘

    7. ‘In the meantime I’ve had to unlink to would be story-follower Cecilieaux, who runs a blog called ‘Shavings from my mind’ for a) making posts that are ill advised, b) refusing to take ill advised posts and defamatory comments-postings down, c) encouraging anonymous abuse about me and d) making false and careless reports on his own blog about goings on ( which are after all plain to see). Let it be known that I advised Cec to take the post down, repeatedly’

    8. ‘Jailhouse Lawyer, it looks like you picked the wrong woman to persecute. Your time is running out. You must be pretty scared, huh? It can’t be too comfortable for you, knowing that a top legal firm are tailing you, and evidence pertaining to your recent crimes will be produced before a Crown Court judge.’

    9. ‘I’m confident that I’ve done nothing wrong in the face of this libellous and abusive onslaught’

    10. ‘More libel and rubbish.I agree with the commenter elsewhere who just asked abusive commenters to shut-up and clear off :-)’

    11. ‘I don’t feel I can delete my blog as that will be cow towing to serious bullies, and further, it’s a clear rebuttal of the libel going on about me on the web?’

    12. ‘I strongly advise the Times and the Oxford Mail to open up a new piggy-bank for libel proceedings funds. What’s going on here is clearly a no win no fee libel case that even the very best lawyers in London are happy to consider.’

    I could carry on, but go and run ‘libel’ on Lowde’s blog and see what comes up – pages and pages of it.
    http://fjlathome.blogspot.com/search?q=libel

    I have provided you examples of this in my previous comment. Examples of bloggers who have threatened or supported the UK libel law in their writings, who are now crying about a blog removed because of the threat of using those very laws.

    Have you found a single one of those bloggers who has used the libel laws to take someone to court? Or threatened to take someone to court? Screaming about freedom of speech? Saying its a ‘clear plank of their defence’? Apart from Lowde?

    No.

    North, your main obsession had every opportunity to take Lowde to court for libel, but has not done so. Meanwhile, Lowde has repeatedly threatened libel proceedings.

    Regarding angry bloggers, does it not seem reasonable that no matter what FJL does these angry bloggers have it in for her anyway?This is clearly a very emotive subject for you, I therefore take it that you feel wronged by Felicity in some way in the past and you are an angry blogger- this effects your argument and your prior convictions

    Nah. Came into it a week ago. You however have posted repeatedly on the saga since May this year, gone to the trouble fo searching out bloggers who disagree with North and linking to them, and commented over 20 times over at cecileaux blog. YOU seem to have some kind of ‘thing’ about North – want to share what, and why?

    I , on the other hand, have neither been wronged by FJL or Rachel North, therefore I remain clear headed, seeing the big picture and comment from my own perspective of justice and mercy.

    Oh really? What about all your references to the ‘Northsquad’ and ‘trolls’ and ‘disciples’ and ‘religion’ and ‘cult’ to anyone supporting North? Your linking to anyone who you think
    ( misguidedly in some cases) is critical of North? ( Are they a cult/squad/disciples/religion too?) You have an agenda, Alex. Anyone can read all your posts and comments on the subject. Broken record indeed. You’ve written thousands of words on the subject now, for months.

    There is a huge difference between someone’s site being taken down for alleged libel without any court case going ahead – and someone harassing people, being found guilty of harassment.

    [Line removed for childish imitation – Ed]

  13. Tim,

    You are starting to sound like one of those previous trolls, you’re using the same line of arguing as they did before it started getting nasty.

    Please take a deep breath, read the comments policy before commenting further or I may have to bar you.

    Do you think I haven’t read FJL’s blog? Do you think I haven’t tried to reason with her to stop? I’m well aware she corners the market on libel accusations, but that in no way dismisses others who have issued similar threats.

    Have you found a single one of those bloggers who has used the libel laws to take someone to court? Or threatened to take someone to court?

    Yes. Stop wasting my time. Go back and check those links I posted before.

    North is not an obsession for me, but why shouldn’t I speak my opinion on the matter?

    Rather it is people like you who google or find a link to my blog and go on and on obsessing about FJL and why I should join the throngs who unreservedly hate her and criticise her simply because it’s a more popular thing to do.

    I did find bloggers who had posted alternative views. I felt there was a need to show that some bloggers think. Once again, what is wrong with this, currently there are a dozen blogs that link to hundreds of bloggers right now in one post over the bloggerheads take-down.

    Is it wrong to do this? Then you really need to let them know that as well as me… if is it right to do this, then clearly your issue is with FJL and not just linking to other bloggers.

    Plus this shows I’ve done research on the issue, unlike you joining a week ago.

    I haven’t counted the words but I think there has been 2-3 posts on my blog on the subject of FJL or Rachel North, out of 250+ posts. Hardly obsessing for months as you are stupidly inferring.

    I link to many blogs, on many different subjects, and I am well aware that I’ve linked to some who are friends of North, but who have taken an alternative view of the ‘Find Lowde’ campaign.

    For the record Tim, the post above did not mention Rachel North once, the first mention of Rachel North was brought in by YOU!

    Who has the obsession with Rachel North?

  14. tim said

    Alex

    I wonder why you censor my post – ‘line removed for childish imitation’? I wrote – ‘Now are we going to have a reasonable discussion or will you continue like a broken record?’. It’s ok for you to say that, but not me, is it? I say that was childish of you, Alex, I’m afraid. Disagree, but do not censor. Not if you are going to make a song and dance about free speech.

    FWIW I found your blog through your postings on Cecilieaux blog, having come there via the FJL blog, which I have been reading since her release from jail and total inability to learn lessons became gossip amongst bloggers. There is a link in the comments from Cecilieaux advertising his post. ( If he meant the info only for FJL, then why did he not email her privately about the post?)

    I was interested to see that you are so anti-North, and wondered why. I have been reading North’s blog for a few months, since my girlfriend, who was injured on 7/7, read her book and passed it on to me. The FJL affair fascinates me, as it clearly does you, judging by the amount of posts & comments you have made on it.

    There are over 20 contributions by you on Cecileaux blog on the subject , and I was interested to see what motivated you in your vehemence against North, whose writing has helped me to understand what my girlfriend went through. I do not support North in her quest for a public inquiry into 7/7, but I know that many of the families and survivors do. I do not endorse her liberal left politics, but I enjoy her writing style and wish her well in life, especially as she has taken some hard knocks of late.( I do wonder, Alex, if you dislike her writing style, why you do not simply choose to not read her stuff, if it is of no interest to you?)

    My interest sparked, I have come here and searched ‘Rachel’ and ‘Felicity’ on your blog and read How to be a Victim. Where’s the Love Alfred the Cake, The Water in North London, No Comment, Felicity ‘s Back, and this latest post, all of which are about the FJL affair, which is quite a lot of writing.

    And to correct you, the links which you demand that I read include a link by North, so you introduced it, and by mentioning Lowde in a post about a Russian billionaire’s libel suit against a political blogger, you shoehorned in yet another mention of the FJL/North matter.

    It’s rather disappointing that you see anyone who argues against you as a troll or a disciple of North. I have read the huge comment thread on Cecileaux blog and there seemed to be a lot of different, reasonable people giving useful facts, closely argued critiques of FJL and passing on imprtant imformation about their experiences of her in the past. For you to call this trolling and infer that they were all googling obsessively is unfair , I think.

    It is clear that you have badly misjudged FJL and her campaign and her background, and having publicly nailed your colours to the mast, perhaps you are embarassed? But as you seem to have no problem deleting or modifying or censoring posts, you can always delete your supporting FJL posts and refrain from further comment here and elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, I submit that your attacks on Rachel are unfair, and ungentlemanly, and that your support of FJL is misguided – dozens of comments have explained her harassment M.O, she is quite clear that she is not reformed or rehabiliatated and wishes to continue with her twin obsessions – blogging and presenting herself, falsely as a victim of everything and everyone. It is inconsistent, Alex, to call North a ‘permanent victim’, when she clearly has suffered and yet tried to make the best of it.

    To meanwhile support FJL who calls herself a victim of malice and corruption and stalking and justice perversion and everything else, with no proof at all, and with the consequence of victimising numerous and blameless people is peculiar

  15. You have finally admitted your vested interest, now how about disclosing your blog rather than hiding anonymously?

    What would you like to see happen Tim? What is going to satisfy you enough that I don’t have to correspond with you any further on this matter?

    Do you want me to issue a retraction? Do you think that would really make me sound consistent and honest?

    I have no vehemence against North, I point out her hypocrisy, I see another woman who has few friends, has made bad decisions and is struggling to recoup from that and I offer support.

    I don’t play to crowds Tim, I own this blog, I choose what I write about, who I write about and when. Quite frankly you are being as persistent as an oil stain and what for?

    There are 8 comments from you here in the space of 24 hours.

    Word to the wise- don’t get cocky and don’t get condescending, I’m very close to banning your IP if you persist in this ridiculous line of reasoning.

    I support your right to free speech- go set up a blog and write about whatever you want.

    Commenting however is not free speech, it’s not a public service, you can’t write to your MP and demand I let your comments go unedited. If I want to edit or remove you comments, I will (read the comments policy- I will not tolerate goading).

    I have not come to your blog to accuse you of bias, obsession and hypocrisy, I would ask that you extend the same courtesy here (I will ask you only once- the next comment that does not, will be deleted).

    Finally I would add Tim, if you don’t like what I have to say, why do you continue to come here and read?

  16. Tim said

    Alex

    Please, try and stay calm. You seem to be quite het up. I have not been rude to you, I am here quite politely talking to you in the comments. I am not being insulting. I do not know nor have I ever met North, I have read her blog, but so have thousands of other people, including, presumably, her detractors.

    [Tim, are these, or aren’t these your words over at Cecileaux’s blog?:

    “Alex. You have displayed no Christian sensibility at all, and you are deluding yourself if you think that you come across well in this. You are a bad advert for the faith you profess with your inconsistent, sanctimonious and ultimately dishonest representation of your motives. At least Cex is upfront about how he is getting off on the ‘circus’. You, sir, are a poseur and a hypocrite.”

    Why have you cut and paste large chunks of my blog over there? A simple link would have done the job.]

    I do not have a blog at present, though I am thinking of setting one up, and I read many blogs. I have given you my email address and name so I can hardly be accused of being ‘anonymous’ or ‘hiding’.

    [If you are thinking of setting up a blog Tim, good for you. Why not start by cutting and pasting large parts of my blog and refuting them on your own.]

    [As a policy, if I visit a blog I tend not to insult or goad the author, even if I disagree with what they say. If I don’t like what is said, or can find nothing positive, I usually don’t bother commenting.]

    You have so far been quite rude to me: accusing me of being like a ‘troll ‘, bandying about terms like ‘cocky’ ‘condescending’ ‘stain’ ‘patronising bar-steward’ .

    [Tim, let’s be real, you have been very patronising and condescending as well as provocative. These aren’t insults, they are terms to describe your behaviour.]

    I think it would be better if you did not do this, and I ask you : why have a comments function, why remark upon the many comments generated by the Lowde matter, why ask for the hits and comments on your blog if you do not like it when people disagree with you? Why threaten to ban people and in the same breath talk of free speech?

    [I have a comment function for people to comment, I expect people who disagree not to become personal, not to hurl accusations. I let through most of the comments, but when it goes OTT I start to moderate.

    I don’t see a need to join the masses in criticising Lowde there is already enough bloggers and anonymous cowards doing that. (another tip for blogging: get out of the echo chamber

    Do you have a problem detecting sarcasm? The anonymous coward that posted back then about me asking for hits did.

    I’ve already explained the comment policy the difference between free speech and commenting here. I’m not banning you from getting your own blog- read above!]

    I think you have been presented with a very great deal of evidence as to Lowde’s true colours and I think, as I have said, that you have been unfair to North and must now realise this. I wonder why you do not reconsider your position in the light of the information you now have about Felicity’s actions and past? You do not have to support North, but perhaps you can see why Lowde was given a maximum sentence for harassment. I also think it would be fair to acknowledge how Lowde blogged about North for a year, and North said nothing until Lowde’s conviction when she finally set the record straight. I also think you could acknowledge that the ‘wanted’ buttons came down as soon as Lowde was found and anyone clicking them if they remain finds a post from North replacing the original post and asking for the buttons to come down.

    [Again this has already gone through the echo chamber.. Does Rachel North really, desperately need my support? Is no-one allowed to show mercy or forgiveness towards Lowde?]

    I am interested as to why you get so vehement on the subject of Lowde and North, and why you have made several posts and dozens of comments on the matter. I am interested as to why you call North a ‘hypocrite’ as well, as you have not explained this.

    [If I was to count the 9 comments here and add them to the comments you’ve made on Cex’s blog then how many would I have? I don’t know because you’ve remained anonymous over there.

    AGAIN FOR THE RECORD: There are over 250 posts on this blog nothing to do with FJL or Rachel North.

    With regards to being a hypocrite, I think I’ve explained it enough in the previous posts that you have cut and paste elsewhere.]

    I’ve said nothing about writing to my MP( !!!) . It is not usual practice to edit comments which you disagree with, or to ban the IP of the commenter if they are being reasonable, it is normal to respond to them.

    [Again Tim, you miss my exaggerated humour- of course you aren’t going to write to you MP, there would be no recourse. I’m not sure yet that you are trying to be reasonable. You seem to have the same argument each time. FJL = Bad, North = Good, Alex Fear = Misguided]

    You say Lowde has few friends ( ever wondered why? ) and has made bad decisions – going further, she has persisted in a coiurse of criminal conduct despite warnings and later, arrests and conviction. She is not ‘struggling to recoup’ from her decisions, or if she is, she has brought it all upon herself, and she is continuing with exactly the same attitude she had before she went into prison. She is not taking your well-meant advice to start again and she continues to blog venomously ( have you read her latest post?) and join in threads about her actions and throw about insults. She takes no responsibility and is making not attempt to rehabiliate.

    [I’m curious Tim, are you a Christian? You seem to know how a Christian should be in matters like this. Have you even read the words of Jesus?

    Hate me for being Christian, as I am responding in the Christian way to Lowde.]

    I expect she will soon turn on you, despite your attempts to help her.

    [This does not change my opinion or stance. It is not based on popularity]

    Finally Alex, if you now claim to not support North or Lowde and to have issues with both of them, why do you post so much on the subject ? And why complain when people comment back – you must know it is a hot subject? You cannot have it both ways.

    [One of your first reasonable questions. I have a lot more respect for those who already have a blog and post it when they comment. Anonymous commenter’s are hard to identify and usually consist of agitators and mob mentality. The truth of the matter is that there are only a small number of people who know exactly what went on with FJL vs North, but many simply sided with North because she is more eloquent, she has media connections and she is a victim (let’s not forget that).

    It would be far easier to throw stones a Felicity for whatever wrongs she has done, harder to draw a line in the sand and ask the question “those of you without sin…”]

    This is a polite comment and I will be disappointed in you if you do not let it through.

    [Fair enough.

    I’d like to know one thing though Tim, are you a Christian, because, begging you pardon but who the hell do you think you are to talk about being a Christian if you aren’t one?]

  17. Replied in comment.

  18. Tim said

    The thing that is just odd is that exactly the same allegations about Usmanov were made in Murray’s ‘Murder in Samarkand ‘ book which has been out for a year. So why get all pissy that they are on the web too?

    Perhaps this shows that things published on the internet are taken even more seriously than things published in books or newspapers, in terms of the damage they can do?

    If so that is a new position. ( It also links in to why Lowde’s use of the internet as a harassment tool was seen as serious because anyone could read the harassment, it wasn’t just private harassment like poison pen letters)

    It is also interesting for media lawyers – Schillings have succeeded in the website with the post coming down, but in doing so have made it a blog cause celebre and ended up disseminating the libel far and wide and making it a far bigger story than it would otherwise have been – so an own goal there.

    I cannot think of any blogger actually taking another blogger to court for libel. I think this is why although bloggers may puff and blow about libel in arsey emails to each other, few people ever bother to go through with it – because a wise blogger knows this is exactly what will happen…once bloggers go into a feeding frenzy and start linking. To some its a witch hunt, but I call call it a meme. It’s just something that happens on blogs.

    Do you feel ‘witch hunty’ when you supported the Usamov linking campaign Alex? Did you take the time to familiarise yourself before linking to Worstall or Bloggerheads?

    I I expect so, so why did you criticise the bloggers putting up the ‘wanted’ campaign buttons? Don’t you think they might have been equally as capable as you of finding out the facts before posting up a link?

  19. Tim said

    Yes, Alex, I am a Christian and a regular church-attender and communicant and extremely familar with the words of Jesus, thank you very much

    I wonder at the ‘mercy’ you show Lowde – which is fair enough – and the complete and utter lack of empathy you show North – which is unfair. I think you let Christianity and Christians down. It’s a shame you keep mentioning that you are one, TBH. That’s why I have not mentioned my Christianity before.

  20. tim said

    I mean, it IS inconsistent as a position, Alex, the support of Lowde and the attacking of the injured party.

    If someone punches a barmaid, do you rush to embrace the person who threw the punch, and shout that everyone rushing to support the injured party is hypocritical and disgraceful?

    If the punch-thrower is due in court and fails to appear, and the disgruntled regulars put up posters in pubs asking for the assailant to be reported to the police if spotted, do you call it a witch hunt?

  21. Tim said

    And if the barmaid has previously had a run of bad luck, say, was involved in a coach crash, then battered by a mugger, then had a family bereavement,would you still call her a ‘permanent victim’ for getting punched in the pub as well? After all, working behind the bar means she is in the line of fire. She must be asking for it.

    See why I find the position you hold so morally reprehensible?

    I apologise for the numerous posts, I am off work with a nasty stomach virus and bored, and also fascinated by all this. In fact, I might start a blog later. But all the commenters are over at Cex’s place. And my blog, when I get round to starting it, will likely be about digital photography and my pictures taken on London walks.

  22. Ok Tim, I prefer the way your comments are going now…

    On your 1st comment…

    I think you’re right, there probably isn’t a case of one blogger taking another blogger to court (though there has been plenty of huff n puff).

    Regards to Murrays book, it is odd. Perhaps Schillings grasp the basic concept of viral marketing and blogging, but not the ethos behind it.

    Re: witch hunts. Rachel has lots and lots of support, Usamov has lots and lots of money+lawyers, Felicity has little support and just lost her house.

    Tim, you have to accept that some people just enjoy being part of a mob. I mean, we wouldn’t have football hooligans and street gangs if they didn’t. Some of these people join without thinking and don’t care who the rivals are. I think it’s part of human mentality to simply want to be part of a larger group.

    On your 2nd comment…

    Then what do you make of 2 Cor 2:5-10 Luke 6:33, Mark 2:17 and 11:25. I take it you are not simply a pew-warmer?

    I tell you what, I’ll agree that I appear to show lack of empaphy for Rachel North (however I do know what it is to be a victim, or watch family members become victims). I simply do not see why I need to chime in support for her simply because others do.

    I believe victims can also be offenders, and visa versa. What do you make of Romans 3:23? I see more humanity in Rachel North than many of her supporters, because I see the fallen nature of humanity. The human heart is evil (Matthew 15:18-19).

    You have mocked my language on Cex’s blog, yet you say you are a Christian… that is confusing to me.

    On your 3rd comment…

    I have not supported Lowde attacking North, stalking North, writing emails to North or any other actions towards North. You’ve read through previous posts, fine- but understand that those were posted at different times as I acquired knowledge of the issues.

    I have even pleaded with Felicity to stay away from it all. My last post “Felicity is back” I hoped that she moved away from all this business. She hasn’t, but what can be said or done.

    I would not support or condone anyone attacking Rachel North. However- I don’t see a blog, comments or criticism as attacks. Just as I don’t feel “attacked” by you.

    On your 4th comment…

    Tim, you certainly haven’t had the revelation of Christ I have had. I don’t talk about my problems much, I don’t talk about my family and friends problems much.

    I believe in overcoming (Revelations 2) and living ‘victoriously’. I don’t believe in relying on my victim status to get ahead and defend myself.

    You have no idea what happened 2 months ago in my personal life that was very difficult, you won’t know either- I don’t want to use that as a defense of my actions.

    – – –

    Having said that, I hope you get well soon, and if you start a photography blog then feel free to come here and let us know.

  23. tim said

    I wrote a long reply and lost it, argh. I don;t think I can be bothered to write it again – you might check your spam filters

  24. Unfortunately it is not in the spam filters either.

    It happens.

    If it’s long I usually highlight the comment then Ctrl+C just in case.

    I have occasionally lost long comments so I know your frustration, double frustration if you’re in the middle of an argument!

  25. fjl said

    oh for heaven’s sake. Get lives for yourselves please, and shed your wombat fur. Look you go on! It ought to be perfectly obvious I am not leaving any amount of comments on that other thread.

    Alexander Fear is not in any way privy to my case or my defense, and shouldn’t be acing as if he is.

    The file contains legal documents which in principle are none of your business, though I’ve allowed people to discuss them due to a) free speech and b) the case is public.

    I had to print my evidence because police were ignoring it; therefore, it had to be a public document.

    This doesn’t excuse any of you wombatting on. Until the case outcome I strongly suggest you all shut up for fear of becoming bearded hermits. There Are Limits.

  26. Fel,

    I don’t need to be privy to your case to discuss you and defend your freedoms.

    I don’t think publishing your evidence actually does you any merit in this situation either.

    I’ve advised you what you should do in regards to blogging, I don’t imagine you enjoy getting flamed and vilified, but if it is something you enjoy… carry on by all means.

  27. Doug said

    If anything, the postings on Cecilieaux’s blog and the other things I have read here and on the net, Felicity deserves our sympathy.

    I would not at all be surprised if she used the defence ‘it wasn’t me, it was someone pretending to be me’. I would. Why? Because there are people masquerading as FJL on Cecilieaux’s blog and elsewhere.

    Despite their nasty intentions, these people may have actually helped FJL.

    Whaddya reckon they’ll think of that?

  28. That’s the whole difficulty with this debate Doug. People posting anonymously (with either good or bad intentions) make it difficult to work out how many are involved in the debate and who has a vested interest.

    Inevitably, the accusations of sock-puppetry are hurled at both sides, and really who can tell. One of the reasons I moved to WordPress was because it stamps each comment with an IP address- so if I ever got trolled again like I did before on this subject I could clearly identify if sock puppetry was taking place.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think FJL does do sock-puppetry- she is not afraid to post multiple times, and she doesn’t seem phased by the amount of support or hate she gets.

    I suspect that most sock-puppets consist of:

    • People who want to add weight to their argument and make it seem that more people agree with them.
    • People who want to antagonise or muddy the waters.

    Which is why I very rarely comment anonymously. I suspect that those who comment anonymously in support for FJL, fear retribution from those that hate her (and not without good reason- apart from the large discussion with Tim that ended reasonably, I’ve had a number of trolls come here to reason with trash Alex Fear).

    I look at some of the comments leveled at FJL and I find it disgusting. Let’s not forget, A few months ago I was a bystander just entering the fray and giving my own balanced take (it was not anti-North or anti-FJL)- the trolls are what turned me to lean towards supporting FJL, as well as pity.

  29. Doug said

    I fear retribution from those that hate her. They have stifled any debate with what I see as bullying and intimidation.

  30. Enigma said

    I fail to see how debate has been stifled. In fact I don’t see many people who hate her.

    Back on Cecilieaux’s blog there were some open questions posed with the motivation of gaining information. The defence that they relate to some libel posed against Felicity is a little odd as some of them relate to past convictions that are a matter of court record.

    I’m not trolling – just trying to listen to all sides of the argument.

  31. fjl said

    Hi Alex. Thanks for ploughing on in support. x

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: