As I begin to write this, there are 176 comments to my post on Monday, the first 20 or so more or less in response to what I wrote, the other (amazing!) 150-something representing digressions upon digressions that have taken on a life of their own.
Fascinating to watch, although at first a little scary. The vehemence of the messages had the ring of insanity that people I know detected right away. "Crazy shit" one called it.
But then it became interesting to watch, to wonder how soon they would tire of going endlessly in circles round the same non-issues.
What drives people to such obsessions? Who are these people? What do all these messages tell us about them? Why are they not tired of this after four days?
Let's look at the data.
I counted 75 discrete commenters, including 27 Anonymouses. Among these Felicity gets the gold medal for the most comments (44), although several seemed to be continuations of the previous one the minute before and perhaps should have been grouped as one. RNM, whose vehemence and persistence in debating Felicity persuades me must be Rachel herself or a very close surrogate, comes in second (34).
Assuming that the ubiquitous Mr. or Ms. Anonymous is not one person, no one else came close to commenting even 10 times -- Wombat (if all the variations are one person) came close (6), then Alex Fear (5).
I know for a fact that three commenters, plus myself, are American. One is Australian, One French. The rest, by their syntax, their spelling and their references to British arcana, are most likely Brits.
Thirteen commenters I either know or more or less safely assume from their nom d'internet, to be women. Only five are identifiably men -- one by his pejorative reference to women.
Observing the hours comments were posted reveals something else. Overwhelmingly, the comments came in between 4 am U.S. Eastern Standard Time and 6 pm -- that's between 10 am and 12 midnight London time.
There was fairly heavy traffic for what would be 10 am to noon for the Brits and then it picks up again around 4pm to 6pm, British time. Obviously many commented from work -- or are they all unemployed?
Another thing I know from the logs is that the bulk of visitors from Britain came from servers in towns that are from about north of London to somewhere in the Midlands, although there are a few aberrant Ulster folk out there. Clearly, all small town folk who are bored to tears watching the rain fall.
The truly amazing thing reading through these comments is that they are so repetitive, so artless, so concerned with minutiae of little or no transcendence.
No one will be converted to any great new ideal by these comments -- sorry, Alex. Nor will anyone gain an insight worth remembering.
Some writers display flashes of cleverness. I particularly liked some of the nicknames. My personal favorite: "My 9/11 is bigger than your 7/7." A few others were bitingly funny.
On the whole, however, there was a tad too much trite whining and loads of absolutely boring faux legalese. Lighten up, folks!
Importantly, aside from the principals involved (and even then the tiff borders on pointless obsession), these issues have no real impact on the personal lives of the commenters. Certainly not on mine.
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.
114 comments:
Er....
My comments constituted defending myself in the face of nutters and their mad allegations. Quite simply. And I have not left any anonymous ones.
You seemed to think it was an issue in your original posting C, or else why would you have bothered posting it?
Interesting how you are chickening out of taking sides now you see there is a lot more to this debate than you ever imagined and are trying to boil it all down to mere comment 'statistics'.
But you are right about one thing - sadly FJL DOES bring out the worst in people - not least those whose lives she tries to wreck. Then there's all the fascinated observers who cannot believe her socio-kamikaze type behaviour and feel compelled to comment, and lastly the wacko contingent and the fact that wackos like FJL invariably attract other wackos to them (which begs the question which contingent are YOU C? Why were YOU attracted to FJL and even more intriguingly, whyever did you assume FJL was on the side of *right* here?
Interesting that you no longer seem to be rooting for FJL's right to more freedom of speech than anyone else. But that's the downside of freedom and rights - one person's freedom and rights when pushed to an extreme are invariably at the (big) expense of someone else's.
I guess this is why Britcoms are so ticklishly hilarious to me...btw, friends overseas...they are a great import, do not stop sending them to our tvs.
This was British comedy in the flesh!
Ah, but you statesiders never see original Brit comedy - just the humour-extracted dumbed down remakes your networks broadcast for the US market.
Bizarre really as some of yours such as the Larry Sanders Show and Frasier are brilliant and actually quite intelligent!
I think you're right Cex, I've attempted over and over to reason with the best of them but no avail.
The fact is we all have personal prejudices, some of us get offended by someone or something and carry it as a burden in our hearts, never letting it go and seeking every opportunity to let our bitter hate spill out.
Others draw a line in the sand, admit they can't effect those events that happen outside of themselves and move on, they may even learn to forgive and gain a greater understanding of humanity.
You did the smartest thing but staying out of the comments and allowing them to wear themselves out.
Yes I do feel ashamed of some fellow Londoners (perhaps because I am not a born Londoner), but rest assured there are plenty of us Brits who don't have a stick up our arse. They are the ones who export the comedy- the ones who can look at life and laugh, who can take a knock on the chin.
Not those who get offended from the outset, return vitriol and/or issue legal threats (I'm looking at you TOO Felicity).
Sorry but I reckon it's a bit cowardly to start something you can't finish.
Cecilie shouldn't open a hornet's nest like FJL and then back away from all responsibility for so doing.
Not that you probably knew just how much of a hornet's nest you were opening C granted, but the confidence and cockiness with which you held forth with your case in the original posting were something else, considering you knew jacksh*t about it.
Be nice to each other!
You're scaring the Americans.
A.
What? No websites defaming C as worse than Hitler and only marginally better than Pol Pot, Fel? And what about all those serial killings C must surely be guilty of, not to mention the kiddie fiddling every Friday.
At bloody last is all I can say - if you're finally learning anything whatsoever.
Would it be enough to ask that this comment thread doesn't degenerate into another FJL versus Anonymous debate again.
Not to mention it's all over the place- victim North, victim Hart, Jack the Ripper, Victim "she wrote a nasty comment on my blog once..." - Frankly this is all tiring and who really gives a sh*t!
Perhaps more on topic would be discussing the phenomenon that happens when someone decides to write a post about FJL (rightly or wrongly).
Let's not turn this into another thread to hurl abuse and argue with Felicity, perhaps there are people on both sides that can take a step back and look at what is actually going on here- as Cex has already implied.
We are letting the British side down.
Alex,
...leave them to expose themselves. It is literally being printed off at legal offices every time they do and it's quite funny actually.
Funny and deplorable?
Oh yes.. and the fact that it's wombattery that they enjoy so well.
http://www.uq.edu.au/research/images/rr2005/wombat-ways.jpg
Halleluj fjl they have wombatted off at last. Is this the explanation.
http://www.uq.edu.au/research/index.html?page=37233&pid=0
FJL they have wombatted over here look at the comments box.
http://streamsofutternonsense.blogspot.com/2007/09/im-cured.html
can't see anything there except the name 'meerkats'.
Just let them wombat on they are a spectacle.
Felicity, you seem to be labouring under a serious misapprehension about your appeal.
The person in the dock (the defendant appealing the guilty verdict for the crime of harassment, in other words) in the retrial will be YOU. Nobody else.
YOU are being tried all over again re YOUR criminal harassment of Ms North.
North will, one presumes, be giving evidence against you, (again). And there may be other witnesses called.
Your barrister will have the opportunity to cross examine North, just as the CPS brarrister will cross examine you.
North will be a witness, in the witness stand, and you will be in the dock, as the defendant.
Nobody else is in the dock, Felicity. Just you. ( Assuming you turn up and don't run away and hide like you did before)
Are you clear on that now?
No case is being brought against any other blogger or commenter. The appeal concerns YOUR guilty verdict and sentence for criminal harassment, nothing else.
Ok, Felicity?
If you think JHL, or any other person has committed a crime, (such as harssment of yourself), then you need to start by reporting it to the police, & getting a crime reference number. The police will then pass it on to the CPS who will decide if it is in the public interest to prosecute.
Meanwhile, at the retrial (which is YOUR appeal against your guilty conviction and maximum sentence, remember) the Judge, and 2 Magistrates, will be be judging YOU, and you alone.To see if you are indeed guilty as you have been found.
If they find you guilty again, you may be ordered to pay costs. You are unlikely to go to jail as you have already been given the maximum sentence and as is usual, have served 50% of it before being let out on licence for the remaining 50%.
You are also bound by your Anti Social Behaviour Order and the Restraining Order which prevents you from contacting various people. The restraining order is for life, the ASBO for 5 years or until it is altered following judgement of the appeal hearing.
I hope that is clear to Felicity, and the other readers.
@ cecileaux: Apologies for using your blog to communicate with Felicity, but she will not let comments such as this through on her own blog. That's why you have had such a large influx of comments. This has become a place to try to communicate with Felicity, who bans all comments which ask direct questions, or are critical, or which disagree with her, or challenge or correct her, even if the comments are polite and factual.
The only reason people are here engaging with Felicity is quite simple - because this is the only place they can do so.
Normally it wold be seen as very bad manners to take over someone else's comments section on their blog to do this.
Especially as the blog owner in question clearly has minimal understanding or interest in the events and people involved, or the background ( legal or other wise) to the story.
However, in Cecilieax' case, the sheer sloppiness, arrogance, unfairness and inaccuracy of the original post - combined with its tasteless dismissal of the murder of 52 on 7 July 2005 - perhaps meant that normal rules did not apply so much. After the mistakes he made had been pointed out to him, and after people had explained why the found the post so offensive, and inaccurate, he made no attempt to apologise or engage, just continued to treat the whole thing as a joke and the characters involved as a 'circus' and the commenters are 'trolls'
Therefore, I think the blogger who wrote the OP deserved the takeover of the comment thread. It served a useful public function for real people whose real lives and real health had been really impacted by the real actions and the real consequences of Felicity Lowde.
To an outsider, it may look completely puzzling, that s single post about a single issue should generate so much heat ( and traffic).
But as Cecilieaux was warned, he was poking a stick into something he knew nothing about.
(I don't think it is appropriate to attempt to address Felicity in any other thread however, or run riot over the blog - that really would be trolling.)
A to the 'lack of liberties'/free speech argument. You will note that Felicity's blog remains online. Nobody has forced it to come down, even though it is full of spite and lies.
Nobody has closed down the internet nor stopped Felicity using email.
Nobody has stopped Felicity freely expressing herself on her site, or here. All that has happened is that Felicity who refused to stop harassing certain people is now banned from doing so by a criminal court.
(You have to be pretty serious about your harassment to get to that stage in a UK court, to have the Crown decide to prosecute in the public interest. Even more serious to get the max sentence rather than a fine or community sentence. Have a think about that, Cecilieaux and Alex)
It is Felicity who bans all comment on her website, and who demands the removal of comment that she does not like. It is Felicity, who, if you do not follow her bullying demands, quickly goes on the offensive - and goes wildly over the top. Your crime can be something as small and simple as expressing an opinion on your blog that disagrees with her own. Example:
'I don't agree, Felicity, that the 7/7 survivors and families should stop asking the UK Government for the equivalent of ther 9/11 Commission'
From that, you can expect comment bombardments, followed by email bombardments. Block them, you may find a spate of anonymous communications.
If she can find out where you live, she *may* then move to silent phone calls, goods ordered that you have to pay for on their arrival, and if she can find out where you work, your employers may start to get communications alleging that you are a pervert, rapist, abuser and so on.
Next up: False complaints to the police about you, claiming you are engaged in criminal activity - such as being a stalker with violent anti-women fantasies who has been harassing Felicity - combined with threats of civil legal action against you for libel ( oh, the irony!)
. At the same time, websites with your name or business in the title will be posted alleging you have done all sorts of things, so your name, when typed into google, by, say, a prospective employer( a common UK practice) comes up with blogs claiming you are an abuser of women, or severely mentally ill.
At the same time, dozens of anonymous comments and sock puppets will appear on other people's websites, and high-traffic sites such as newspapers comment boards, continuing the allegations, posted as if they are from dozens of concerned members of the public.
Friends of yours and people on your blog roll may be contacted and 'warned' that you are not what you seem and the police are investigating you.
That's a run down of Felicity's modus operandi and her favored tactics. It is likely to go on for years.
You can ignore and block all comments and emails, stop blogging, explain to your friends and employers, and hope they believe you, and try to ignore the damage done to your reputation on google.
You can explain to the police that you are not at fault whilst they investigate you, and hope they believe you. You can give statements with your side of the story. You can hire a lawyer at personal expense to write to Felicity and ask her to leave you alone.
It won't make any difference at all.
Nor will the police warning her that they are not taking her complaints seriously - and instead consider her to be a harasser. Even being arrested won't stop her. Even being charged won't stop her. Bail conditions are broken at once and ignored. Meanwhile, the threats and lies about you, and to you, continue and escalate.
Finally, a year later, still having said nothing publicly about the whole awful business, you go to court to tell your story as a witness for the prosecution. You don't have a lawyer, you are called and prepared to be cross examined about what has been going on.
Everyone is there - thd court staff, witnesses, police, Judge - all except for Felicity. Felicity has run away.
The evidence of the harassment is examined by the Judge and Felicity is convicted in her absence; the court treats her no-show as if she has decided to stand in silence and not defend herself.
You come home, and for the first time in a year, you tell the story of what has been going on. Bloggers and friends are shocked. You hope it is all over.
But Felicity stays on the run and homeless, continuing to publish and send spiteful and threatening communications, taunting the police who have a warrant for her arrest.
A police-approved 'find Felicity' campaign starts. The internet and blogging,which she used as a weapon, has turned against her. She's caught,& sentenced to the maximum, because of the offence, the ignoring bail conditions and the previous history of being charged for the same offence.
She is let out on licence after 3 months, the norm in the UK for a 6 month sentence - and immediately starts blogging again, claiming she will be vindicated at her appeal against sentence and conviction.
Has she learned anything? No, it seems not. Will she let comments through that disagree with her or even discuss the last few months with other bloggers, show any remorse or moral development? Nope, she will not.
Instead she turns up on Cecilieaux blog.
And the opportunity is seized by UK bloggers to talk to her, to point out her lies and inconsistencies, her threats and her abuse and to ask why she does it. And to correct people who for some reason are attacking the entirely blameless victim in the case, (who has now stopped blogging.)
Sorry Cecileaux.
That's what has been going on. You stepped into it, stirred it, and unleashed it.
It's not about free speech you see. It's about bullying and spite and harassment and tormenting someone, something as old as human nature. 21st century tools were employed, but the behaviour is the same - and unacceptable.
It's not funny, it's just nasty. It could happen to anyone, even you. And as you clearly couldn't be bothered to research it, don't know the people or the law involved, I really don't know why you bothered to post it in the 1st place. The rest of your blog is quite interesting and well written.
- Jane
I really hope you read that comment above, Cecilieaux (and Alex and others), and that now you can see that what Felicity does is really nasty. Crimes does have victims. Felcity seems to pick people to torment almost at random, or perhaps because she sees them as vulnerable.
Deliberately going after someone who had already had a hard hand to deal with in life: almost killed by a stranger-rapist, almost killed by a suicide bomber, obviously dealing with PTSD - is pretty low.
As you can see, this goes far, far beyond 'free speech' and it is not a 'circus' or a freakshow or a 'hobby' or a 'pointless obsession' or 'trite whining'. Dismissing the murder of over 50 people on 7/7 as you have is also likely to cause enormous offence.
People deal with hard things in life in different ways. North dealt with her traumatic experiences by writing about them, as many bloggers do, and by campaigning to try to make things better for other sufferers. That she, because of that, should be targeted by the vile attentions of Lowde is particularly abhorrent. That she should be attacked herself by other bloggers after enduring Lowde's harassment in silence for over a year, even called a harasser herself by finally explaining to the police what was going on ( after Lowde made false complaints about her to the cops) leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
That's why you got so much heat.
None of it from North herself, by the way. North is in Norwich ( SE England) dealing with her mother's effects after her mother passed away a few weeks ago. She has stopped blogging and is barely answering emails any more.
- Jane, a RL friend of Rachel
Jane wrote a brilliant post, I have just come to this, and Cecilieaux, I think you need to make an apology - you are clearly a sensitive, perceptive person of some intelligence, based only on your previous posts.
Do the right thing.
Dan
I wasn't going to read all the comments but I couldn't resist...after all, I cut my eyeteeth on British novels...unabridged thank God since now I know Monty Python and all were dilluted delusions.
This is going well with my morning coffee!
Cheers (from one who doesn't have a gripe.)
Jane,
So sure you've been a victim, haven't we all at some stage? Road rage, cheaters and liars, violent assault, thieves, mental illness, abuse etc, etc...
Great you are a friend of Rachel, isn't everyone these days? But what gives Rachel North the monopoly over victimhood above everyone else? What does Rachels rape have to do with stalking?
Jane, you seem to not understand the internets! A blog is not a public service for people to voice their gripes. It's not an entitlement or a right, if the blog owner allows you a space to disagree with his post it's a privilege, it speaks of the generosity of the blog owner and their ability to take criticism.
FJL is entitled to moderate comments if she wishes, again it's not a public service- what are you going to do, write to you MP demanding that FJL is forced to allow comments through. Get with it, you sound like someone who thinks spam is something you spread on sandwiches!
Get off your high horse, Cex owes no-one an apology, he is quite entitled to blog about whatever he wants and think whatever he thinks.
Saying you approve of free-speech does not mean you actualy approve of it, especially when you go on to demand apologies for what was said.
If you have an opinion about Cex, go start your own blog and write your opinions of Cex, Felicity, me or anyone else who you disagree with. Don't come onto someone else's comment thread and dictate like it's some sort public service offered by a government department.
....Jane,
naff off. You are telling more lies than you have false teeth- I expect.
We don't know you, do we? ;-)
You may be a wombat posing as a tranny for all we know.
That 'Jane' is a little bit suspicious. There's a Rachel North loose about this hoose!
Have the guts to admit who you are, 'Jane'.
(Silence.)
>
There is no point in living on the internet, always desperate to have the last word.
<
Mmmm.
Any irony there, Felicity?
You can acccuse fjl of a lot of things. Individuality, independence - but you can't accuse her of running away. She's very brave. Very. She never displays self pity. She gives. The abuse bounces off her because she's got beauty and brains. She'll win through.
Her only fault was to have too much chance for success. There are some jealous people on this planet.
Well, OK. To be fair she only runs away from direct questions or courtrooms.
And responsibility for her actions.
And the many, direct and very pertinent criticisms of her 'research'.
Apart from that her bravery is remarkable.
Hi! I’m 103 yrs old. See, I know what funny is.
Now a lot of you may be thinking that I’m just a crass and insensitive shit-stirrer who has unnecessarily barged into something I don't understand in a way that shows I have nothing to add to the debate and have absolutely no interest in the detail of what I’m talking about.
Well, you’re wrong. I know what funny is because my specialist subject is ethics. Yup. So I know what is a tragedy and what isn’t. And 7/7 wasn’t a tragedy, it was FUNNY! Because it happened in Britain. And Brits are crazy.
I’ve proved that too. I counted up all those comments on my posting about an entirely British subject, and guess who posted comments? Yes, that’s right, British people. And mostly when they were awake! See, I do do my homework sometimes.
And that ethics thing that’s just been hanging arount the net, y’know. that thing nobody has been able to crack? Well - I’ve SOLVED IT. Yes I have. Here is the answer - http://cecilieaux.blogspot.com/2007/09/values-vs-ethics.html. Anything that promotes my survival is GOOD. Whooda thunk it. So I am a genius too and my ethics are an utter wonder.
I like the subject of ethics because you can study it without actually doing any reading. And I like that - it’s a regular technique of mine, invented by me to get quicker results. Also, you can just sit and make stuff up in ethics. Boy, do I like that.
But mostly I like ethics because it has allowed me to invent a theory that justifies everything I want to do, for ever. Yippee! Tell me that’s not good news.
Now, some suspect me of xenophobia but that’s not fair. It’s only Brits I dislike so much, especially since the hilarious death of Diana caused them to lose their stiff uppers. Well, that’s what I said in a very witty comment I left at Ministry of Truth (http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/02/narcissus-has-turned-to-a-flower-a-flower) last summer.
So, Rachel vs Felicity? As I said, dunno. I am completely neutral about something so trivial and distant. Which is why I blogged about the whole thing at length and with such vehemence.
Anyway, it’s obvious that Rachel is awful - my buddy Alex told me and he should know, being so holy. We don't agree about everything but I'm taking this one on trust.
Anyway, back to funny mad people. I just want you all to know that I live in WASHINGTON. So I can’t have small town hicksville attitudes to foreigners. I am sophisticated. Sheesh, even French people comment on my blog. And we all know what they’re like. Yeah, intellectual. Props to me.
Which brings me to why I am here. See, more people read this blog than read mine, so I thought I’d better put my explanation here. Not because anyone asked me - I am not answerable to you lot. And not an apology, either. I don’t apologise. Because I‘m in charge of ethics now.
And I’m funny. See, I have a club and they canonize me because I curry popularity with them (an observation that is key to my ethics which are beautiful). I tell the club what’s funny and they believe me and laugh.
So, I have a way of justifying my preferred mode of behaviour at all times, and I am also able, rather conveniently, to distance myself emotionally from the consequences of my actions. I guess that is why I admire fjl so much. We are kindred spirits, wouldn’t you say?
This kindred in genius and superiority and unaccountability is why I support fjl’s campaign against the Regina Queen (or as you so delightfully put it ”The Crown”) for restricting her freedom of speech. Felicity says that is what the case is about and I believe her, because I am very clever and she isn't very British. Sort of more Irish, really.
I don’t need to read anything she’s written. As I say I don’t do reading. You wouldn’t expect someone who has surpassed Buddha, Aristotle and Kant to READ, would you? Anyway, I certainly am not about to read all those comments people left telling me things I just don’t want to know. DAADAAADAADAA. Not listening. Or reading. Or researching. I just know.
But they were funnee though, weren’t they? Little tiny brit comments, cobwebbed in history and smelling of subjection to monarchy. If I could get a font that simpered with delight I would use it right now. And that huge pile of comments containing closely argued critiques of Felicity? They are definite proof of derangement in all concerned. Because look at me, I’m calm. And look at you - all upset over stupid things like, um, pissy little bombings, and so-called misrepresentation. Chrissakes guys, get a sense of humour. Like mine, preferably. Everybody knows that there's no such thing as unfunny material, only unfunny audiences.
I also know, because I am a master of logic, that those comments prove that everyone in Britain is mental. Except Felicity, who is a freedom fighter who should be compensated.
So, to sum up. I am astonishingly like Felicity without even looking very hard for parallels. 7/7 was a good thing because it hurt Rachel North, who caused it and exploited it personally. And wasn’t even there. I think that’s what happened, and I see no reason to doubt my once-in-three-millenia intellect.
P.S. As I say, you wouldn’t like me if you met me. But it really doesn't bother me
The reason I'm not answering is that this case is going to be resolved in Court, not on the web. This series of threads is totally pointless, (except that a number of people have revealed themselves for what they are. All useful). I have every reason to keep a sense of humour at this time.
a) the allegations and hate campaign against me are absurd, totally absurd, and obviously vindictive.
b) the legal position is good and my counsel are fab. Good gigglers who've been like brothers to me in this hard time.
I am chuffed :-) at the support starting to come though openly, but even that makes no real difference to the case itself. Personally I think it's best for this sort of thing to be completely avoided. But there's just no telling some people. Not by jokes, not by light hearted humor, not by pleas, not by common sense.
They wombat on.... :-)
68 comments on both threads so far from FJL and counting. Zero from North.
Right, I'm now going to count the FJL sockpuppet comments as well.
Back in a tick.
And 27 sockpuppet comments from FJL.
That makes 95 of the contributions from Ms Lowde herself, out of about 250 comments so far.
What was that you were saying about insanity, vehemence, repetition, and so on?
'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.'
A lesson the ASBO-busting, lawyer-threatening, anti-free-speech-comment-blocking, attempted-thread-closing, perma-flouncing-and then-returning Ms Lowde would be wise to take on board.
PS. Sir Silly Oh parody is genius.
Felicity commented...
' the allegations and hate campaign against me are absurd, totally absurd, and obviously vindictive.'
That will be the following allegations...
1. That you were found guilty of harassing your ex boyfriend in 1999 and were given a suspended prison sentence and a restraining order
2. That you appealed against the sentence and conviction - and lost
3. On the day you lost the appeal, you then began to harass your ex boyfriend's father in breach of your restraining order
4. That you were found guilty of this harassment and breach too in 2000
5. That you then went to prison for 3 months.
6. That a few years later you began to harass Rachel North. You were arrested and bailed with conditions which you broke.
7.That you were found guilty of harassing her in April 2007
8. That you went on the run to escape sentencing
9.That you were caught and remanded for sentencing, and then sentenced to 6 months
10. That you are currently attempting to appeal your conviction and sentencing and until the appeal, you are bound by a (i) post-conviction antisocial behaviour order and (ii)a restraining order preventiung you from contacting or blogging about (i) a long list of people you have pestered in the past, including your previous defence lawyers and (ii) North.
11. That you are therefore someone with previous convictions for harassment - a convicted harasser, who has been to prison more thsan once
That's all a matter of public record, Felicity. There's nothing 'absurd' about it - it is provable facts, not 'allegations', not a 'hate campaign' nor 'vindictive'.
You might not like people mentioning it, but in the light of all the stuff you happily publish about other people - calling them 'malicious', 'mentally ill', 'sabotaging', 'harassing',
'abusing', 'stalking', 'evil', 'mad', 'deranged', 'psychotic' etc etc - without ANY PROOF AT ALL - you can hardly complain when people bring up REAL FACTS about you - even though they show you in an unflattering light.
Felicity:
I agree. This case will not be settled on the internet. That leaves the question - why are you still here?
If I may make some suggestions?
Your mistake was coming here in the first place because now whenever you stop (and you have said you are stopping on multiple occasions) it will feel like a defeat for you. But no one ever gets the last word on the internet - especially not on someone else's site. (Thanx to Cecilieaux for leaving all these threads open: free speech in action, practice preach etc.)
You came here because you misread the post. No surprise there, you misread every text. You thought because the post was anti-Rachel (which it is) that it was pro you. Not really.
The original post was the bastard son of Cecilieaux's arrogance and Alex's obsession with Rachel. You were depicted as the fall guy.
In fact you are the patsy now too, because Cex is laughing his socks off. And Alex, if you notice has started swiping at Rachel using Dan Hart as a punch bag. He - as he says - could no longer resist bringing Rachel back into it after about 200 posts about you. We get it Alex.
So please stop now with whatever dignity you have left. Because these threads will go on and on and Cex will only close them when his feet get cold. Which could be some time.
Silence - golden - not blabbing defence etc. Good advice. I think I speak for many when I say that we would, as an internet community, appreciate hearing less from, you, not more.
But there's just no telling some people. Not by jokes, not by light hearted humor, not by pleas, not by common sense.
Nor by previous run- ins with the law, nor going to prison for harassment a few years ago, nor police warnings, arrests, nor bail conditions, nor being found guilty, nor being sentenced, nor by going to prison, nor ASBOs nor restraining orders.
There's just no telling some people when it really is time to leave it alone and give it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yawn
A fascinating insight into personality disorders.Who is this poor woman they keep on about; does she actually exist?
Alex
1. I am not Rachel North. I am her real life friend and I am also a blogger, ( a foody/recipe blog) but I am not linking my site here because I do not want to be pestered by FJL or the 'FelicitySquad'.
2. I have not mentioned whether I am a 'victim' of anything or not. As it happens, I have had a blessedly blameless and boring life, thank goodness, but this does not prevent me having empathy with those who have suffered tragedy or trauma.
3. I am not aware of Rachel having the 'monopoly over victimhood', or ever saying anything of the kind. What a strange, patently ridiculous thing to say. Every day people are hurt, bereaved, raped, robbed, run over, etc. There are many blogs dealing with 'victim/survivor' issues: bereavement, miscarriage, cancer, mental illness, disability, sexual abuse...and so on.
Nobody claims their authors have a 'monopoly on victimhood', so why have a go at Rachel?
If you don't like North's writing, don't read it. As to 'what does rape have to do with stalking?' - my point is that FJL seems to have deliberately targeted a woman with PTSD, who had been through 2 severely traumatic experiences. That's pretty nasty, and is, I imagine, why so many people are angry with FJL. If she went after someone running a cancer blog, or a life after miscarriage blog, or or similar, I imagine the reaction would be similar.
5. Finally I thought you were needlessly aggressive in your response to me. This can only be explained by you assuming I am Rachel North, and gives an indicator as to why you are supporting FJL - as someone else has said, you seem to have an fixation on her. How many posts have you made on the subject of North now on your own blog?
Belt up Jane, I think you are Daniel Hart and anycase whoever you are, you sound like a donkey braying. You seem to be a man. What is the point of you? There is no FJL squad that is really ridiculous.
Incidentally Cex I am not North either, nor any close associate or surrogate. If you'd read what I said my involvement with the Felicity story is more personal and predates and parallels Rachel's stuff. Fallacy.
I blog under another name. I have commented at North's site about 3-4 times and always re Felicity.
I didn't carry a Wanted button on my blog.
You out clevered yourself there.
'And take no notice of daft conniving people who haven’t a hope of getting their silly threads into Court'
I thought, Felicity that all this was being downloaded by lawyers and would be produced in court?
More inconsistency.
And even your 'mates' seem to be advising you to give it up....
Wombat, fjl hasn't commented here for some hours so who are you talking to.
Just read that other thread. It’s the first glimpse of what the two main players here are actually thinking and it makes things a lot clearer.
Cx: 7/7 aside, if you insist on believing that Felicity was ‘jailed for blogging’ or that imprisoning people for criminal offences is ‘anti-democratic’ then you are never going to understand the reactions here. Garbage in, garbage out, mate.
Alex: people here have tried to tell you stuff that you DON’T KNOW.
You won’t listen. Why? Because you have a deep moral solipsism that leads you to believe that only you are in a position to judge right and wrong. You are out of your depth when it comes to categotical thinking, content to see the world in terms of the most facile dualism leading to Rachel=Devil.
1. There are a large number of people here criticising one person, revealing actual facts about her and dissecting exactly what she has written.
2. You DON’T KNOW these people yet you indiscriminately describe them as dark, bitter, obsessed, hate filled and evil.
Which of these positions, Alex, is the more extreme?
Try doing a search for 'Rachel' on Alex's 'Abandon All Fear' blog. So far, at least 4 long posts on the subject and mentioned it numerous times in other posts.
Despite Alex initially saying:
'I intend to keep this under one post and restrict it to a discussion about Rachel North and FJL.'
He later admits
'It's been hard to ignore the volume of pageviews I've had from "Felicity Jane Lowde" searches...'
'Please come back! I need the hits!'
Several posts on the subject then follow.
From a close reading of Alex's site & comments, he seems to have initially leapt upon the bandwagon of supporting FJL for ego-driven reasons, in order to flaunt his holier than thou Christian forgiveness,
'Being a Christian I am compelled to defend those who cannot defend themselves (FJL really wasn't doing a good job of defending herself).'
and to get hits by being 'controversial'
'Label: Controversial! Putting myself up for a Northsquad hit again'
He initially presents the situation as
' what can only be described as a cat-fight, between her and perpetual victim of things like malice and 7/7, Rachel North'
'they both entered into a pissing contest to prove who had been abused the most.'
'Not satisfied with justice being done, North decided to go public, which comes across to me as simply gloating and sneering.'
So, from the outset we can see that Alex has already got an opinion about North ( The original post is called 'How to be a victim') and is looking for evidence to support his opinion of her as a 'perpetual victim'.
When challenged about his version of what actually happened with RN and FJL by someone with more knowledge of the situation than he, he blusters, claiming that despite being prosecuted by the police and convicted of harassment in a court, FJL cannot be guilty because he, Alex, does not recognise online harassment as harassment. He also infers that stories of previous convictions can only have been made up by North and uncritically reprinted in the papers ( demonstrating a naive awareness of how journalists check sources and how papers can be sued)
He starts to demonstrate his inconsistency, saying first, to one commenter
'You have no fear of anyone grabbing your IP address, or shouting you down here.'
A few days later, faced with an anonymous commenter who is besting him in the argument Alex gets angry
'Who's becoming a stalker now anyway? Why don't you out yourself Anon so I know who I'm dealing with.
IP: 8X.1X9.13X.9X
BT Broadband User'
( I have hidden the IP address, Alex did not. )
Alex seems to me to be showing his real motivations here, which to me are somewhat at odds with his professed Christian outlook
'And so the vicious cycle will probably continue for some time. Which doesn't bother me, I tune into it now daily like watching a soap opera. Like the other Anon in the comments above- it's fun to watch FJL on the run and continue blogging. I almost feel like cheering her on.'
' I still will argue for FJL simply because I believe in devils advocate.'
Playing devil's advocate and enjoying watching a bully/absconded criminal's taunts are not especially Christian positions to hold. Alex claims he acts as he does becuase 'Jesus was a friend of sinners' but to me it looks as if he is enjoying himself and stirring the pot, whilst attempting to grab the moral high ground by claiming the victim in this case is the abuser and the abuser the victim, and by inference, only he is wise and open-minded enough to spot this. Self-congratulatory as he is, he is quick to block any anon commenter who bests him in an argument.
Further Alex's inconsistencies demonstrated here...
' the main reason for my defense of FJL is this-
1) She does not seem to have much support, which is ironic if the lynch mob are to be believed that she is in need of help.
2) Many people are jumping on this campaign bandwagon without any thought for the consequences and are using the same vitriolic language and rationale that FJL is accused of'
Now compare Alex talking about supporters of Rachel
'These bitter, twisted and possibly evil people openly admit that they are trying to set a trap for you...'
'Look beyond the venom of those with bitter, dark hearts.'
Who's using vitriolic language now Alex?
In a follow up post, Alex links to a selection of sites that he thinks are anti-Rachel, and so supporting of him - notably 7/7 conspiracy theorists, with whom Rachel has publicly clashed in the past - and David Duff, an educated troll who spends his time attacking 'liberal ' bloggers and who also seems to have an obsession with personally insulting Rachel, which he recently apologised for.
Alex is frequently inconsistent in his position: firstly saying that he does not like the behaviour of the 'Northsquad' whom he describes as a 'witch hunt', and as 'disciples' and a 'cult', later moving to calling them 'haters' and 'evil'. Then claiming he is not responsible for what the other anti-Rachel bloggers say.
Alex also claims to be neutral, and above it all, and not emotionally involved.
He states
'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.'
OK Alex. In which case, why post this:
'CPS = Couldn't Prosecute Satan, according to some circles. I've had experience myself in a real crime where the CPS let me down terribly. It's past now but has left me with no confidence in their decision making (in bringing cases to court).'
and
'I am pleading with you Fel to do this, for your own sake. The reason is I have seen someone very close to me go through a situation similar to this. It was a person who had made mistakes but simply couldn’t find a way to move beyond them. The person I speak of has managed to find peace now but not without regrets and some terrible repercussions'
Finally, Alex, (and Cecilieaux) try to make out that they are nobly defending free speech and democracy.
Alex says
'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.'
Missing the point, because, to reiterate AGAIN as many commenters have done - this is about criminal harassment, not civil libel, and about abusive behaviour, not free speech.
The irony of this position,Alex defending FJL who herself repeatedly threatens libel on her blog is not lost on me.
Felicity writes
'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.
See you in Court.'
FJL also demands that this thread is deleted, and that the ECHR right to free speech is 'a key plank of her defence'.
Alex posts ( this weekend)
'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'
This comes as Alex joins the anti-Usmanov 'libel' campaign ( and manages to mention Rachel again, indicating to this commenter how his anti-Rachel obsession continues) - a campaign which FJL is vehmently against ( spectacularly missing the point as she usually does, FJL thinks it is a campaign by Tory backbenchers, rather than a cross-party blogger campaign led by liberal-left bloggers)
Interesting stuff. Personally I think Alex's new-found support of FJL may soon come to an end when he realises who he has befriended. Already he is advising FJL to cease blogging, something FJL states she will never do, and I doubt it will be long before she turns on him.
Meanwhile, as he bans people who anger him on his site, it's good to have a genuinely uncensored place on the internet to discuss the Lowde affair, so thanks to Cex for this. And good luck with your new friend, FJL.
Alex: 'With regards to Rachel North and other so-called "victims" of FJL, first, FJL did not rape her, bomb her or kill her mother. '
Me: Nobody said she did Alex. She was done for criminal harassment.
Alex: 'She sent some discourteous emails is all (and sometimes made fair arguments).'
Me: District Judge Malcolm Read, sentencing FJL: 'The offences I would say, is at the very top level of harassment, and therefore has to be dealt with at the top end of my powers. Indeed, I do not think my powers are sufficient in this case'
Alex: 'I do not know of any cases myself outside of the blogosphere, but whether Felicity is innocent or guilty is no matter... '
Me: Eh? It is an important matter, especially where courts and prison sentences are concerned!
Alex:'I expressed interest in this when the blog buttons went up and made my own balanced analysis.'
Me: OhReally?
Alex: 'I took sides with the hunted when I was set up on by vicious, anonymous commenter's who took umbrance with the fact that I dare say anything critical of Rachel North (which is how they interpreted my post and why I dubbed them the Northsquad).'
Me: The comments ( from a maximum of 2 people, hardly a 'squad') were critical of you, and your illogical and badly researched position. You now admit here that receiving amnonymous comments made you so upset that you rather histrionically chose to take the side of a convicted criminal? And then you claim that this is 'balanced analysis'?
Alex: 'I've had dialogue with North on my blog. I don't hate her or have anything against her personally, but I find her to be hypocritical and reliant on a perpetual state of victimhood.'
More 'balanced analysis'. But Alex, your very first post on the subject was attacking North and dismissing her experience(s) and the court conviction whilst denigrating her for the comments made by others running the 'wanted' buttons. Meanwhile, you publicly back libel-threatening, blog-closure demanding, 'I am a victim of malice and corruption and a victim of Special Branch abuse and a victim of injustice and a victim of stalking and a victim of psychotic attacks from evil-doers' Felcity Lowde.
Lowde does nothing but present herself ( falsely) as a 'victim'. To this end, she abuses the innocent, tells lies and makes false claims about people, harasses them, runs away from the consequences and refuses to learn lessons. You have been given piles of evidence to this effect from many people, all of which you ignore.
This is the creature that you support, all because your original abrasive dismissal of North as a 'permanent victim' caused you to get a few anonymous negative comments querying your own logic?
Felicity sent far worse in emails and comments for a whole year, yet her victim said nothing in public about it. The police only got involved when Felcity overplayed her hand and made false complaints to them. On Felicity's eventual conviction, the crime victim was entitled to hope it was over - but no, Lowde goes on the run and gets worse. Finally, with the help of a 'wanted' campaign she is caught within days, and the internet has bitten her on the bum.
Meanwhile, Alex starts to troll for hits, sanctimoniously claiming he is Jesus-like, befriending sinners.
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.
'The fact is we all have personal prejudices, some of us get offended by someone or something and carry it as a burden in our hearts, never letting it go and seeking every opportunity to let our bitter hate spill out.'
Exactly, Alex. You said it.
!!!
Felcity is now giving clear warnings to Alex that he is getting involved where he shouldn't, and calls Cex a "berk". The next day apparently she links them back again.
This "I'm your friend/enemy" business just gets more and more extreme, and I guarantee that they will soon regret having anything to do with her.
There is no evidence that Felicity sent a thing she shouldn't have, or wrote one bit of libel, except one blogger's claims. What will you do if it's shown that blogger lied?
Lowde was convicted of harassment in her absence when she failed to appear in court in April this year and went on the run.
Judge Malcolm Read told her that she had struck at Ms North's "terrible experience and trauma" as a victim of the London bombings with a "vicious, vitriolic and vindictive" campaign.
She then "aggravated" the situation by breaching her bail conditions and continuing to persecute Ms North even though police were involved.
Mr Read told Lowde: "The offences, I would say, are at the very top end to be taken in a prosecution of harassment and therefore have to be dealt with at the top end of my powers."
What are you suggesting the 'one blogger' lied about, Felicity?
The emails?
The blog posts?
The alarm and distress?
http://www.encycmet.com/lyrics/lyr-met3.shtml
I haven't linked back to anyone. Nor am I going to until people belt up. I have allowed discussions to continue a) free speech b) the case is public.
I printed my evidence because I had to. Because police had failed to investigate. This is not a reason for people to wombat on like old women for endless hours.
I suggest you cease all this wombatting on, for fear of becoming bearded hermits. I have told you, I am not going to participate in it.
Fliss, my dear old girl,
1. You can't stop people discussing you. You don't own or control the internet, and no despite printing hundreds of pages off and carrying them about in a bag, so you 'partially break your arm', or threatening 'lawyers downloading people for their internet crimes' will make a difference. You are now a famous internet stalker who has come out of prison and carried unrepentantly straight on with your bizarre blog and commented furiously on your matter on other blogs. Deal with the fact that you are an object of curiosity, pity, gossip and amusement and people are ging to talk about you.
2. You claim that you published your 'evidence' on your blog because you 'had to'. No, the thing you *had* to do was come to court and GIVE the evidence in person. Your failure to do this led directly to you being wanted for absconding and getting several books thrown at you by the Magistrate when you eventually got your collar felt. Wake up! Can't you see how you make things worse for yourself? It's not the media, its YOU who pissed off the court.
3.Next. The police DID look at the evidence which you gave when you kept complaining to them - they didn't ignore it - but on the evidence they decided YOU were the harasser, not Rachel as you claimed, and proceeded to prosecute you. If you'd turned up at the trial you'd have discovered all this. If you'd not involved the cops you might well have got away with it and not ended up in jail
4. YOU are the main culprit participating n the 'wombatting on' Fel - you are by far the most prolific commenter (and sock puppeteer) on this website now, by a score of several dozens. It's all very silly of you, as even your friend Alex Fear and his conspiracy theory chum have pointed out. But I expect you will find yourself unable to stop.
You always do find yourself unable to stop, Fliss, even when it is clear that you are heading for self-inflicted disaster and your actions are fighting fires with petrol.
That's why people keep suggesting you get help before you self-destruct completely.
No, I haven't left any sock puppet or anonymous comments, you sad people.
"I have allowed it all to go on because...." (FJL, chez elle - Shoo Crabbies. 24/9/07)
You haven't allowed it. It is happening. You started most of it and what you didn't start you have continued and exacerbated. Your sock puppetry is legendary. I can prove it from my own blog records, which I am prepared to make available on request.
You can't stop all this discussion, except on your own blog. It's just more post hoc rationalising and grandiosity. Remember "Le Petit Prince", and the king who commanded the sun to come up every morning?
Your lawyers will be having seven fits. Every thread you enter gets covered in contradictions, authored by you, with which any semi-skilled brief could tear you to pieces.
Nobody currently commenting believes they are in any danger from any lawyers. You haven't the money or the grounds. You have legal aid lawyers working on an appeal. Full stop. Questions are not libellous. Recounting your past is not libellous. There will be no libel actions. Drop the threats. Just. Not. Credible.
You are making this worse and worse for yourself. I understand that this is the nearest thing to actual fame you have ever had. But it is actually infamy.
Wise up.
For your own sake please stop. Do what you say you are going to do and walk away. Bye wombats? Remember? You have said repeatedly that the blether means nothing to you, you have moved on, it's all nonsense etc etc et bloody c.
(I know you won't stop, but you must be given the chance. Unfortunately for you, when it has been explained to you this many times by so many shades of opinion, you will have no possible excuse left.)
Just come back to this after a nice supper. Three things.
1. I can't be-LEE-ve Felicity has turned up here to tell us she has allowed us to carry on.
2. And to tell us she has not commented under other titles.
3. Felicity, if you want to prove you are peace-loving, affable, gentle, non-critical and generally non-contentious (which is what you maintain on your blog), then you are going the wrong way about it.
=
4. You have moved from 'blogging the defence' to 'commenting the prosecution'.
;-)
rnm,
Stop baiting her. I believe, in law, that's called 'entrapment'.
Entrapment eh? What about multiple attempts to arrest her, which she has deliberately evaded? Several in the last two years, but if you read the threads, dating back at least seven years.
It is only AFTER arrest that one has the right to question the law, something that a democratic country like Britain will allow people. The same goes after sentencing. This is what Felicity is wishing to do, and it is her right.
It is NOT her right to tell people to remove a thread, or to threaten people with legal action. She actually has three months remaining on her sentence (six months) - don't you think she is rather undignified (to say the least, rather more, unwise) to engage in this discussion at all?
Do you guys know that she has publicly called a senior guy at CPS (Criminal Prosecution Services) - Jonathan McGarry, a "vicious, spiteful bastard" on her blog?
Not wise words for someone seeking to have a criminal sentencing overturned, are they? If she is innocent of all charges, then good for her, she would be right to feel vindicated, and free to continue her life without yet another criminal conviction.
That is all the appeal/"re-trial" might seek to achieve. I am sure that anyone, Alex and Cex included, can see that she is hell-bent on doing something other than making a different, better life for herself?
And to refer to other comments, there are many people who have seen FJLs actions who can recognise she has genuine intelligence. I know it seems disingenuous to express sympathy, but it really IS a shame that she cannot apply her obvious abilities to something better.
It is a real pity to be known for that alone. Serial harassment, proven in court, the very same mentality that FJL has proven on these threads.
Freedom of speech is certainly something to hold dear, and it is certainly a grey area when it crosses the line into criminal activity.
I should reserve the right to call x person a moron, but when I phone his employers, set up blogs that say he is a paedophile, or send messages that purport to be from him, that might affect his reputation, ability to earn, or send 40 emails in a day that carry the threat of violence, then I would say that I would have crossed that line too, and would certainly deserve appropriate punishment.
Everyone, but EVERYONE, has the right to blog, if they have the means, of course. Blogging is the ultimate form of democracy, and is sacrosanct. Regardless of political views.
A very brief example to counter this idealistic point - many institutions have banned the Historian David Irving, a Holocaust-denier, from attending their conferences, or any form of public discussion. While he has the right to say as he pleases, he does not have the right to be accepted into their community. Unless he advocates the murder of Jews, he would still have the right to "blog" his opinions freely.
To repeat, the issue is NOT about "freedom of speech", the real, vehement objection to that claim is that it is about terrorising people, making threats, and wrecking the personal lives, families, and finances of others.
"It is NOT her right to tell people to remove a thread, or to threaten people with legal action."
Well, although the woman is incapable of recognising her problems, a deluded and pathetic character who barely deserves our attention - it IS her right to threaten anyone with legal action.
Elizabeth Allen:
Er, I don't think it is entrapment. Surely to entrap you must encourage someone to do something illegal? I am, repeatedly, asking her to stop doing something legal (i.e. commenting as if she owns the whole internet, trying to have the last word, threatening libel suits) for two reasons.
1. Because it is very unhelpful to her cause. I am even explaining why she is destroying what case she has (that she is reasonable, non-aggressive, all this was done to her, all she ever did was blog etc etc). And because she ties herself in knots - not good for a witness's/defendant's reliability/credibility.
2. On another level I admit I just want her to stop, because her behaviour as listed above is an integral part of the wider behaviours that have brought so mush distress to so many people. I challenge her because there is so little truth in anything she says (and that really is the case).
I speak for no one but myself, and I can see that I slipped into Fel-ese a bit there, saying 'nobody...' when I should have qualified it.
There is some very rough stuff out there about Felicity. I don't support it and it isn't me. I am not trying to get her to breach her ASBO. I am, if anything, trying to get her to respect it. Entrapment? No, Baiting? Yes, probably.
If there is any feeling out there that I am too close to the edge (and some who engage with Felicity go near and over it) then I will happily stop. In many ways this is not my fight. It makes little difference to my life if she is in or out of prison, blogging or not, talking rubbish and lying or not.
So, that is the last I'll say here. Under this or any other tag.
"it IS her right to threaten anyone with legal action"
Well, it is her right to take legal action, and to advise people that she may have recourse to that. It is not, however, her right to use threats of legal action (especially on specious grounds) as a way of bullying other people into silence.
There's no need to 'entrap' FJL - she does a very good job of digging her own grave all by herself through her own bumbling incompetance blinded by seething red mist caused by who knows whatever. But since she's no longer a fan of Mr Aux, we need not concern ourselves with her on this thread any longer I think. RNM - don't worry, you've only said what a lot of us were already thinking.
Personally I'd quite like to forget all about FJL from now on - if she'll let me! She's stolen quite enough of my life and sleep and I'm damned if I'm letting her and her vendettas cheat me out of any more.
I have simply not done any of these things.
You really are daft as this part of the smear campaign is being downloaded.
Elizabeth, ignore these people. They are frenetic loons I am simply ignoring them while lawyers download them and I suggest you do the same.
Felicity, because we know you are still reading this:
Are you or have you ever been a stalker?
Do you or have you ever sent Rachel North threatening emails?
Is there a current asbo against you relating to these charges?
Have you told lies about people online?
Have you been previously been in court more than once for the same offenses as listed above?
Did you once try to hire an undercover policeman to harass an ex-boyfriend of yours?
Did you set up those 'support' websites which all protest your innocence?
How come after you post under your own ID, there is always a supporting anonymous comment a few moments later?
There is no attack or malice in the post FJL, just a plain request for information.
Why don't you sop persecuting this poor woman? She's said no, hasn't she?
This is nothing compared to what she can expect in Court (if she bothers to turn up).
I doubt it it, Dougal. She seems pretty innocent to me.
Jaysus what is wrong with these maniacs ??????????????????????????
Get a life outside that woman's life!
On the basis of what has been seen here - I doubt Felicity will even turn up for the appeal. Look at the questions asked, the endless contradictions and tying herself up in knots in the answers, the inability to give straight answers, the running away when she doesn't want to answer. How will she cope with relentless cross questioning for days at a time?
----------------------------------
( to FJL)
You don't have to answer questions on this thread, Felicity, and you would have been much wiser not to respond at all. But you couldn't resist the opportunity, and have posted 100 times now. How many times have you said you will leave the thread? And then returned? You've asked for the thread to be deleted, then when that didn't happen, grandly claimed you've permitted it to continue, as if you had any choice at all. You should just have ignored it because you've just given the prosecution loads of ammunition and a big audience now know a load of stuff about you that I bet you wish they didn't know.
All the sorts of things you didn't want to answer on the thread will be asked in court, in public, by a hostile attourney, with no let up.
It won't be nice at all.
'Bye wombats!' won't work with the Judge. There will be nowhere to hide as it is all brought out into the open.
If you say you have been a victim of harassment yourself, then you should go to the police, not attack people and start vendettas.
----------------------------------
Felicity tries to control her own reality, posting anonymous supportive comments to herself,
( yes, she really does, want proof?) - weaving her webs of lies - but anyone with background knowledge and a forensic line of questioning will be able to shred the whole tissue in half an hour.
-----------------------------------
( to FJL)
Do you really want to stand there, Felicity, answering questions on oath? With nowhere to run to? In public?
No, you can't hand in your blog instead, as you tried before. Your laptop can't take the stand for you.The world you have created in your head is not the real world. In the real world, people can challenge you, disbelieve you, ask questions you don't want to answer and keep asking them.
Last time you kept saying how you would be vindicated in court. You went on for months about how you would be found innocent. Real life didn't turn out that way. What makes you think it will be any different this time?
You were found guilty in 1999 of harassment and lost the appeal.
Guilty in 2002 of harassment. (Dunno if you tried to appeal again. Probably not)
Guilty in 2007 of harassment. Another appeal is now pending.
Then what?
I will put a tenner on you not turning up again.And even if you lose it I expect you will carry on with your demented behaviour which is causing you so much grief. I actually feel sprry for you.
I do think you are delusional and self destructive and that you should be getting help for your condition, rather than being in and out of prison and having your house repossessed and wasting your life on the internet. Perhaps you could get a job and do something useful that uses your intelligence, get a bit of security, pay off your debts, make some real friends, see a sympathetic shrink and work it all out, get back in contact with your son, make peace with your family, lay off the cider, join a local Church - that kind of thing. Live a normal life without hurting yourself and other people. That's what I wish for you and even now it is not too late.
Quit blogging and getting into rows with strangers on the internet and go and get a life.
_-----------------------------
To everyone else
I can't say this has been a nice thread to read. The whole carwreck makes me feel depressed.
sorry, I meant found guilty in 2000, not 2002 there
Oh, and Felicity, you know you said ( and I bet you were quoting your long-suffering attourney) that 'this case won't be won or lost on the internet'?
Exactly. So quit blogging about it and commenting on it. All that 'blogging my defense' is balls. You tried that and this is what happens when you can;t moderate the public reaction.
If you don't want to be argued with, and have holes picked in your threadbare nonsense 'defense' don't blab and don't blog. Your buddy Alex got that right.
( although I see he's not your buddy anymore)
What exactly does the year 2000 got to do with her case? It's one long time back.
Anon,
Ignore these lunatics. Nopthing they try to raise is of the smallest relevance to the case, even if their accusations could be made out.
So what's their point?
They are really a bunch of obsessive failed authors with nothing to do but bang on with their rubbish. They're not worth the time of day so don't give them any. They are paranoid embittered obsessive male rejects who object to being denounced for cyber-stalking apparently, though I never bothered with them.
Why their obsession with yourself?
They're like a deranged ferret who's got his teeth into a log and they just keep going. It doesn't occur to them that there may be life outside their ferretting teeth. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they keep it up, as it must be apparent that they'll never make an impression on me except for the sort of distaste you feel as a kid when you drink some stale milk.
frenetic loons... : )
Oooh look, a mystery to be solved by speedy the sockpuppet. Help me out gentle readers! We need to get to the twoof!
12.43- Anon asks a stooge question ...
12.44 - FJL answers!
12.46: Anon responds
12.48: ...and FJL responds. (Boy, you're so quick, FJL!)
12.49; Anon responds ( WOW - SO FAST THAT WITHIN A MINUTE HE HAD READ FJL'S RESPONSE AND POSTED HER OWN - AS IF ANON COULD READ FJL'S MIND HEY!!)
12.52: FJL responds...
12.52: - And so does ANONYMOUS AT THE SAME TIME! With a classic unusual FJL phrase - 'frenetic loons' - and a classic FJL smilie
Sockpuppetry? Psychic ability to intuit anonymous supportive comments even as they are posted and reply in the same minute? You decide!
I can't decide!
Nor can I!
We can't either!
Nor can we!
We love FJL!
FJL is great!
I agree!
Tsk, sorry about that, people. Sockpuppets are so darn quick off the mark these days. I can't keep mine under control. How about you, FJL, you struggling with the little blighters also?
Good luck taking them to Court Felicity. Here in the U S you'd have no problem.
I won't ;-).
it won't be long now, godspeed, and we'll be rid of this Internet plague.
You're not taking anyone to court, Felicity. The CPS are prosecuting YOU (again).
FJL try reporting
Stan Russo
Dan Norder
Bob Hinton
Ministry of Truth
Philip Hutchinson
jtr forums
Daniel James Hart
John Hirst
to your lawyers for fraud and perverting justice. I am, personally, bored of their tiresome fiasco, and I don't have to care whether they have made their assing around the subject of a silencing order or not.
I'm pleased to hear youve got a good legal team.
Oh shut up FJL - we all know it's YOU behind the majority of these postings!
They are paranoid embittered obsessive male rejects who object to being denounced for cyber-stalking
I'm not male. I am not bitter. I am not obsessive. I am not currently rejected and I have never been denounced for stalking.
I just want straight answers to straight questions as I cannot figure out the right from the wrong here.
I was one of the people who used to link to you fjl. Then I unlinked as your blog was getting a little more "they are all out to get me" than I really wanted to know about.
I got an message from you at 2am one morning going "they are really all out to get me and why did you take down the link" which I picked up the next morning. I was waiting in for a delivery so I started reading..... and reading ...and reading. I read all the fjl blog, Rachel Norths' blog, the posts relating to you on the Ripper sites and posts by Daniel Hart and Alexander Fear. This was one marathon reading session.
What made me alarmed was the venehmence and the mob mentality of the people contesting you. However, on the other side, there are people giving out about being agressively messaged by you as far back as 2002, long before it was fashionable to dislike you.
So I decided to ask you what the truth was to all these stories about you on the internet.
I refer you to my questions again.
Fliss, I have been to the streamsofnonsence parody side, thank you for the link. It is one of the funniest things I have read in a very long time. At least you are being lampooned by someone with some skill at the art.
I wonder what Peter Cook would have made of it all.
I do not know who on earth you are, and I am quite sure I sent you no such message!!!
Be careful of what people are sending you.
I am not leaving anonymous comments here.
The following blogs have just been deleted.
www.blogging-the-malice.blogspot.com
www.philip-hutchinson-daniel-hart.blogspot.com
www.thames-valley-prosecution-service.blogspot.com
www.felicity-lowde-innocent-victim.blogspot.com
www.felicity-lowde-innocent-of-charge.blogspot.com
www.felicity-jane-lowde-malice-victim.blogspot.com
www.felicity-lowde-mistrial-victim.blogspot.com
www.felicity-lowde-cyberbully-victim.blogspot.com
By Blogger.
Felicity, I asked a great deal more questions than ones about you publishing anon. comments.
FTLOG, stop making posts as yourself logged in one minuite and as an untracable commenter the next.
Isn't it amazing that a few seconds after you posted, some non-entity was able to announce all the support blogs which were attributed to you INCLUDING one you laid claim to were deleted.
The message you left on my blog came from you logged in as you.
I am glad you do not know who I am because unlike a lot of bloggers who see the increased traffic and infamy a post relating to or commented on by you can bring, I could easily live without the attention.
Having had no answers from you, I am left to draw my own conclusions about the affair.
I don't think that post about the blog deletions is from FJL. You'll notice that she's now claiming on her blog that she voluntarily removed it. If there's one thing we know about her and have seen here, FJL needs to present herself as in control of everything.
1. she claims she 'allowed' herself to be arrested.
2. she claims she deliberately left clues to her whereabouts to let the police find her more easily (!) --no explanation for why she didn't just turn herself in if he wanted to be caught, but whatever
3. she claims she 'allows' this comment thread to continue.
No way she'd post anon or not that Blogger took her blogs away from her and deleted them.
Think sock puppet anon comments are funny? Check this!
LOL! :-D
ROTFL!
those blogs mentioned
they weren't taken down by Lowde
they were taken down by blogger
Oh look, it's the grieving victim again. Worn out with her boo hoo, perhaps.
I do hope that the previous anonymous comment isn't from Felicity and referring to Rachel, that would be very unwise. But I bet it is.
Written by fjl herself on the 'legal' page of her blog:
http://www.legalandstuff.blogspot.com/
If a blogger's writing touches you personally, remember that's just coincidence. Don't assume for a minute it means you can now relate to the writer on an intimate or personal level, (unless he or she has specifically invited you to do so). Or that the writing you enjoyed was somehow destined for you. Some commenters make assumptions which can come across as intrusive. Just enjoy the work and don't get personal
So how personal is stalking someone because they disagree with you fjl?
Please don't discuss this blog or its contents extensively anywhere on the public internet without my express permission.
Too bad Ms Control Freak - court convictions are a matter of public record
Please don't use or refer to any aspect of my identity on the internet or anywhere else without my permission.
What about your repeated 'outing' of your victim's real name, protected under UK law as a victim of rape? What about your repeated slurs on your multiple victim's names and reputataions and attempts to wreck their businesses by manipulating google?
If you're among my personal, social or professional aquaintance and you come across 'Streams of Consciousness' without my having told you about it, let me know you're reading it please, or leave it alone.
Why? This just smacks of paranioa and more control-freakery. Why publish topless photos and your real name and address FJL if you don;t want attention?
In other words, don't do anything that might cause me annoyance, alarm or distress.
Heh. The irony, Ms three-times-convicted serial harasser - convicted of causing harassment intended to cause alarm and distress! The irony!
This is scary... ( from FJL's '100 things about me' blog)
I cry very little, I don't think I ever collapse and cry
I fight my own battles
I've been victim of alot of vendettas
Justice and fair revenge are important to me, I can never pretend I'm happy without scores being justly settled
Occasionally I'll fight if bored, due to some serious unresolved hurtful situations (I never got my revenge) thankfully it's rare
I can be my own worst enemy
I've been ruthlessly attacked by competitive researchers who're not up to the mark ( I told 'em so)
Murder casework doesn't worry me, I just see the lives of the lost. I'm curious at how people get worked up or freak out
I deplore the baby boom generation, especially the women
I hardly see my mother, she does nothing but betray me
One jealous half sister who's always plotting
I don't forgive a man who finds he doesn't love me, why should I? No we cannnot be friends you ..
Jesus loves me
When was that picture taken?
Cecilieaux...
Make your own mind up. It seems you are some kind of PJ O Rourke perverse Republican. Thats cool, I mean, charisma is just ok.
I notice you are responding to FJL. That is okay too. Like, uh, drink driving.
Seems okay at the time right? Get a response? Get away with it?
You are either a A1 Joker or you have no idea at all.
Read the thread you created. Good luck with your FJL friendship - she already seems to consider you beneath her.
In these very frustrating cases, the stalker may believe that he is the victim. Sometimes he even reports his victim to the police as having stalked him.
In these cases, the true stalker is usually the one who initiated contact, although this is not always so. In all cases, the stalker holds the victim in very high regard and will consciously or unconsciously imitate his victim's style, speech, dress, habits, etc. Some stalkers go so far as to buy a house with the same floor plan, trade in his car for a model like the victim's, or even make a career change to the victim's chosen profession. The stalker will rationalize his behavior by saying, "I can do it better". In reality, this kind of stalker suffers from a severe lack of self esteem. He feels very inferior to the victim whom he admires greatly, although he will rarely admit this to be true. These stalkers, believing themselves to be inferior to, or wronged or rejected by the ones they admire most, begin harassing and following the victims, spreading tales, keeping tabs, and in many instances plotting revenge. Very frequently these are same-sex stalkers.
In false victimization syndrome, the stalker is extremely manipulative. Very frequently he convinces himself and others that the victim is the one at fault, when in truth the victim frequently would have had no contact with or knowledge of the stalker if the stalker had not begun a campaign against him. Often the victim is reported to the authorities for defending himself from the stalker. You may hear from this stalker things like, "You are your own stalker" or, "You only know one side of the story." Frequently delusional and always irrational, when presented with the facts, this stalker will rationalize and manipulate everything he can and ignore even a direct question, in order to preserve his fantasy of being the victim. He will initiate conflicts and then twist them in his favor in an attempt to gain positive attention for himself. He wants, in a nutshell, to be like his victim and when he feels that he does not measure up, his motive is to bring his victim down . Sometimes this means merely trying to ruin his victim's reputation by spreading lies and rumors. Other times, this means murder.
Minitry of Truth, that kind of endless bulshit hitting the ground aint gonna stop fjl suing your ass.
How, 'anonymous', will FJL 'sue' the ass of 'Minitry of Truth' (sic)
when...
a) She has no money for an expensive civil libel suit
b) She does not know who 'Minitry
( sic) of Truth' is...
c) ...or whether he left the above comment, which in any case does not mention FJL and is not libellous
d) No libel has therefore been committed
e)And if we want to play fast and loose with libel lawyers, Felicity may wish to review the content of her own blog, 'Blogging the Malice' which was removed by google for being libellous on Tuesday.
I submit that Felicity is no more likely to be able to bring off a successful libel case against any commenter than fly to the moon.
Toodle pip!
Better be sure.
Post a Comment