fjl publicises her plight
Posted on August 31, 2006
Filed Under Outside Ireland, Shout Out, blog, characters, computers, cyberbullying, interweb, legal | 23 Comments
Felicity Lowde was the very first person to post a comment here on isadub. I’ve always enjoyed reading her regular blog, which is a charming (in the best sense of the word) blend of art, poetry, history and personal stories. In many ways, I’d like to emulate what she has achieved in her blog. In addition, we’ve swopped a few comments to each other across the interweb.
Her blog is relevant to Ireland because she is an historian who has official access to ’secret’ historical British documents. I think she calls it ’secret history’. Naturally, many of these relate to Irish historical events.
I’m mindful of the lawyers so…she has made references in the past to alleged internet harassment by other named people on her regular blog. She has now taken it further by (a) writing about it on her new ancillary blog and (b) engaging lawyers for possible legal action about her alleged cyberbullying.
I would encourage you to visit both sites and make your own mind up. The second blog, http://felicity-lowde-cyberbully-victim.blogspot.com/, also has links to cyberbullying and ‘malicious communications’ that others may find useful. It only refers to UK law, though.
The strapline on her second blog reads:
This blog responds to a series of extremely abusive cyberbullying from: [6 named individuals], and others. This notice will detail in full the way in which I’ve been harassed, stalked, bullied, harangued, libelled and and blackmailed over the past two years, with examples and evidence.
fjl – I reserve the right to edit your posts if you name those individuals here. Right now, they are legally unproven accusations.
Comments
23 Responses to “fjl publicises her plight”
Leave a Reply
Thankyou for your support sweets, it’s very much appreciated.
On the whole, I have found bloggers to be a lovely lot, yourself included.
I would though, given that I’ve handed the matter over to lawyers, simply caution you to follow matters if you’re interested, rather than comment, as simply it could complicate things.
Focus on the good-time blog. And let’s have some more of your good comments.
Shes just be done for stalking and harrassement
Felicity Lowde was tried and found guilty of harassment on 2nd April, at Stratford Magistrates’ Court. The case was in front of a District Judge, because of its seriousness. She failed to turn up so the Judge decided to try her in her absence. Her own defence lawyers turned up and explained to the Judge why they now refused to represent her. I turned up and gave evidence, so did the police. The Judge looked at all the evidence for several hours, and found the case proven.
There is an outstanding warrant out for Felicity Lowde’s arrest for offences under the Bail act.
Felicity Lowde remains on the run and continues to breach her bail conditions by abusing me and by using the internet. She claims she will appaeal, but she cannot appeal until she has been sentenced.
I thought you would like to be informed and to let your readers know the truth of the situation, as your blog still comes up in connection with a search for ‘Felicity Lowde’.
That’s Felicity Lowde, a wanted criminal, guilty of bail offences and harassment, ( stalking) who is currently avoiding arrest.
I did try to warn you, because I didn’t think you knew what you were getting into. I sent you a private email explaining that you were linking to a libellous blog which made false allegations. Your response was to pass on my email to my harrasser so she could continue her harrassment of me.
Now you know, and I would be obliged if you would run this comment to put the record straight.
After almost a year of severe harassment and stalking from this woman, I am now finally able to get back on with my life – though my abuser continues to blog, she will be caught and sentenced ‘ere long.
Regards & thanks
Rachel North.
I’ve received
34 comments on this post. One was anonymous (87.194.68.142) so I’m not going to post it.Update 4th April: Another anonymous comment from 87.194.68.142 deleted.
I’ll second Rachel on this, isadub. It is not a “ganging up” – it is simply a matter of being brave enough to discuss it, after months of remaining silent. It’s a shame you totally ignored any well-meaning advice by sending it without consideration that there may be a reason for those feelings, reasons more valid than the daily postings FJL has made against so, so many. Perhaps, looking at the evidence now, you might see that many people are expressing their own miseries and experiences of genuine harassment with this character.
Again, you must make up your own mind – perhaps you have never had any experience of it, found her to be entirely charming, and would be baffled to see how many people seem to have, but it would be appreciated if you acknowledged the depth of pain she has caused many people – who are NOT bullies, stalkers, murderers or malicious harassers.
BY the way, all the links to ‘malicious communications’ etc on FJL’s ‘cyberbullying’ blog that you mention were, in fact, provided by me, to her, and sent to her when I was trying to explain politely that sending me dozens of emails calling me a slut, a bitch, a liar, mentally ill, evil, sick, deranged, ugly, vicious etc constituted *harassment* – and if she did not stop, I would have to take action and get legal advice and police advice. I hoped this, and the supplying her with links that evidenced the laws on the matter would make her leave me alone.
Her response was instead to go to the police with false complaints about me, forcing me to make good on what I said. I simply asked the Oxford police officer that she had complained to about me what to do. He urged me to report it to my local Metropolitan police at once.
The Met spoke to the CPS, who wanted to prosecute, having seen the evidence – all the emails and comments FJL sent to me, and my replies in return asking her to stop.
*All* email exchanges were submitted and nothing was held back. I never delete any emails or comments so I had the whole record of all communications.
I gave evidence, as asked, first to the police, then to a Judge, who deliberated for several hours and read everything submitted including FJL’s numerous police interview transcripts. FJL did not give any evidence at all to police or in court to support her counter-claims, though she publicly blogged an 800 page stream of vitriol and made complaints which were libellous and defamatory and untrue. Well, anyone can make wild claims on blogs, sadly.
She has produced nothing to substantiate her claims that I am harassing her. That’s because I didn’t harass her. All she has done is turn what she did and throw it back on me as a counter-claim – a tactic.
Her allegations were found to be all false.There is no evidence for them at all. It’s just pathetic. It’s like a child caught with chocolate all over their mouth and fingers screaming that they didn’t steal the other child’s Easter Egg.
Even now, she still continues to blog libellously,and falsely, that she is the victim of ‘harrassment’ – and worse. She cries that the police are corrupt, that Special Branch have silenced her, that a gang of random people have made her life a misery. All lies. You have been grieviously deceived and your kindness to her abused.
A court warrant remains out for her arrest for
a) setencing – for harrassment 2 ( £5000 fine/6 months custodial is the max sentence)
b) repeated bail breach ( she is not supposed to contact me, blog about me or use the internet)
c) Failure to appear in court ( up to 12 months in prison).
Previous convictions and evidence of bad character can have an impact on sentences passed FYI.
I will let you know the sentence and Judge’s remarks when it happens. The reason I am sending this second comment is for the avoidance of doubt; your blog still comes up as the first entry for ‘Felicity Lowde’ on google.
Personally, now hundreds if not thousands of people have read of her conviction, if I owned this blog, I’d take this post down, to spare myself further embarassment, so I respect you for keeping it up and for letting me explain the truth about FJLathome, Felicity Lowde, who falsely claimed cyberbullying, who tormented dozens of people for years, who libelled and lied and who has finally been convicted of stalking – harassment – only to go on the run in an attempt to escape justice, and to avoid facing up to the truth about what she is.
And I’m happy to say this publicly. Once, I sent you a private communication, which you forwarded to Lowde. I have said nothing here that I have not already said publicly already, and I can provide – indeed, have provided – evidence to substantiate all I say
Regards & thanks
RN
Hi Is, sorry you got bombarded by the vendetta loons. The conviction is a false one, and I’m amazed the saboteurs have come over here. It’s being appealed, and re tried, the trial having taken place in my absence.
This we all know.
Sorry they’ve come bothering and stalking you over here Is. They’d hire a plane with a banner if they could. But let’s not give them any interim ideas.
Hi Is, I’m just copying this over, so that anyone coming here via the link has my fair reponse to my saboteurs’ behavior. This will be the only one.
I am going to respond to Rachel McFadyen / Rachel North ’s abusive malice left over at my web mate Isadub’s blog. It is appalling.
Rachel: Rachel April 8th, 2007 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
Rachel: By the way, all the links to ‘malicious communications’ etc on FJL’s ‘cyberbullying’ blog that you mention were, in fact, provided by me, to her, and sent to her when I was trying to explain politely that sending me dozens of emails calling me a slut, a bitch, a liar, mentally ill, evil, sick, deranged, ugly, vicious etc constituted *harassment* – and if she did not stop, I would have to take action and get legal advice and police advice. I hoped this, and the supplying her with links that evidenced the laws on the matter would make her leave me alone.
My response: This she claims without any hard drive evidence which, as she knows, wrongdoing police, in collusion with her, refused to put into evidence. That is confirmed fact.
Rachel: Her response was instead to go to the police with false complaints about me, forcing me to make good on what I said.
My response: No, I never went to the police with a complaint about her. When her email bombardments got very threatening and severe, I copied them over to Colin Brooker.
Rachel: I simply asked the Oxford police officer that she had complained to about me what to do. He urged me to report it to my local Metropolitan police at once.
My response: Sgt. Colin Brooker attempts to get rid of her at this stage I think.Alternatively, he may have seen her opportunistic scene making as an excuse to get rid of my valid complaint about those who were harassing me and stalking me.
Rachel: The Met spoke to the CPS, who wanted to prosecute, having seen the evidence – all the emails and comments FJL sent to me, and my replies in return asking her to stop.
My response: Pc Weinert is very ambitious, and has been consistently perverting the course of justice, in association with SB, since her attack. See my case outline.
Rachel: *All* email exchanges were submitted and nothing was held back. I never delete any emails or comments so I had the whole record of all communications.
My response: The hard drives evidence far, far more than that which went into Court. They evidence a case that contradicts hers.
Rachel: I gave evidence, as asked, first to the police, then to a Judge, who deliberated for several hours and read everything submitted including FJL’s numerous police interview transcripts. FJL did not give any evidence at all to police or in court to support her counter-claims, though she publicly blogged an 800 page stream of vitriol and made complaints which were libellous and defamatory and untrue. Well, anyone can make wild claims on blogs, sadly.
My response: Everyone knows that my blog is my defence, and that it should have been considered by the Court. It didn’t go into evidence, and this needs investigating.
Rachel: She has produced nothing to substantiate her claims that I am harassing her.
My response: That’s because the hard drives were kept out of Court by police with whom she was liaising.
Rachel: That’s because I didn’t harass her. All she has done is turn what she did and throw it back on me as a counter-claim – a tactic.
My response: No; no tactics. I’ve been openly blogging this matter.
Rachel: Her allegations were found to be all false.There is no evidence for them at all. It’s just pathetic. It’s like a child caught with chocolate all over their mouth and fingers screaming that they didn’t steal the other child’s Easter Egg.
My response: No; I’m asking for the full evidence to go into Court. I wasn’t in attendance on the day the false conviction was handed down because I was exhausted. Neither were defence counsel.Neither was any hard evidence.
Rachel: Even now, she still continues to blog libellously,and falsely, that she is the victim of ‘harrassment’ – and worse. She cries that the police are corrupt, that Special Branch have silenced her, that a gang of random people have made her life a misery. All lies. You have been grieviously deceived and your kindness to her abused.
My response: There are no lies on my blog. I have printed significant evidence. Rachel is in quite severe denial and embarrassment here, I think. She’s clearly being willingly exploited by PC Weinert, who’s also been acting for Nicolas Pierce, Special Branch.
Rachel: A court warrant remains out for her arrest for
a) setencing – for harrassment 2 ( £5000 fine/6 months custodial is the max sentence)
b) repeated bail breach ( she is not supposed to contact me, blog about me or use the internet)
c) Failure to appear in court ( up to 12 months in prison).
My response: Thanks, ( if this exists) to Rachel’s false allegations and desperate PR Campaign. She is incorrect in her announcements that nothing can be done about that.
Rachel: Previous convictions and evidence of bad character can have an impact on sentences passed FYI.
My response: Well, that shouldn’t affect me then.
Rachel: I will let you know the sentence and Judge’s remarks when it happens. The reason I am sending this second comment is for the avoidance of doubt; your blog still comes up as the first entry for ‘Felicity Lowde’ on google.
My response: Persistent in her campaign to silence me. ( Are wrongdoing police paying this woman, instead of just using her?)!!
Rachel: Personally, now hundreds if not thousands of people have read of her conviction, if I owned this blog, I’d take this post down, to spare myself further embarassment, so I respect you for keeping it up and for letting me explain the truth about FJLathome, Felicity Lowde, who falsely claimed cyberbullying, who tormented dozens of people for years, who libelled and lied and who has finally been convicted of stalking – harassment – only to go on the run in an attempt to escape justice, and to avoid facing up to the truth about what she is.
My response: That is a total, provable lie. Give me back my property. …it is extremely unlikely that thousands have read about the false conviction. There will be a handful who have who haven’t read my story. When this matter is properly concluded, the links will come off, and they’re not a great concern to me. Those who have read about it on Rachel’s blog seem by and large to be seriously concerned about what’s going on.
Rachel: And I’m happy to say this publicly. Once, I sent you a private communication, which you forwarded to Lowde. I have said nothing here that I have not already said publicly already, and I can provide – indeed, have provided – evidence to substantiate all I say
Regards & thanks
My response: No, that’s the ruin of her case, I think. She has cooperated with specific police in hiding evidence throughout this affair, and their devotion to keeping the hard drives out of Court.
***
It’s awful that we have to deal with this . I am so sorry about it all everyone. It all begs the question: why is she keeping this up? If she thought the conviction ( and we all know how it was obtained-click-) was just, why bother?
I think she can’t be in her right mind.
—
Daniel posted this to my ‘I’ve won an Enda’ post (which was about Irish election posters). I think it’s more appropriate here.
isadub
—
Daniel wrote:
OK. I certainly won’t pester you, but did you know that Felicity has been found guilty and the Police are seeking her arrest? Did you know that she has a previous significant custodial history for harassment, going back at least 12 years? Very serious harassment, threats, lives really badly messed up?
Both Rachel and I wrote to you. You forwarded both to Felicity. Did you consider this at the time?
In fact, if you have any concern, phone Thames Valley or the Metropolitan Police. She is actively wanted since she is on the run after failing to turn up for her trial, for which she was found guilty. I ask you not to forward this to Felicity. I am writing this as a simple warning, just as I wrote last time, many months ago.
Dan.
Oh, naff off Dan. The case is listed for a retrial, because I wasn’t even there, and neither was an abundance of evidence against your awful self. And you are a known stalker whose case against me was rejected by the CPS… You are participating in a harassment blog, the worst that has yet been seen. Stop stalking me round blogs that are not even interested in you. Isadub is not going to delete me because of you. Go and poke someone in the eye who’s interested in you.
If anyone wants to read about the case you can get it at:
http://www.fjlathome.blogspot.com
Is can you not let anymore of his perversion through please. x
You can read about it specifically at
http://www.blogging-the-malice.blogspot.com
Where Dan and Rachel and the mob are exposed.
…also, the ‘custodial history for harassment’ Daniel hart alleges is a complete and utter lie.
Daniel Hart, djh graphics , has a police record for violence against women he stalks, many of whom have reported him to police.
Naff off Dan, you are not wanted on the blogs.
The last ‘fjl’ 3 comments came from:
—-
Author : fjl (IP: 86.144.93.204 , host86-144-93-204.range86-144.btcentralplus.com)
E-mail : {removed}
URI : http://www.fjlathome.blogspot.com
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=86.144.93.204
—-
See here for more info on why I put this info here.
‘13‘ is unlucky for some… so you’re all on ‘comment moderation’ for the moment.
Is, they all came from me. fjl your blogmate. The last one making jokes about ‘me’ was me, being humorous about Dan Hart’s endless sabotage comments that he sends you, always trying to make me out to be a lunatic. x Stop panicking.
xx
Sorry I didn’t mean to give you a shock. x
Hi fjl,
Sorry, I didn’t recognise your IP address.
It’s probably not a good idea to complain on your blog about people pretending to be you on the internet and then go and do it yourself in an ironic way (if you know what I mean).
I know, exactly!
I didn’t think of that atall; I was just being free spiritied and my humourous self. Currently, my saboteurs are imitating me and pretending comments are from me on their harassment blog. They do this by putting my website address alongside their abusive harassment comments. Clearly, you’d observed that and you were trying to be careful.
Anyway, for the record, on Isadub’s blog is the only time I’ve made such a joke, using my web adress to imitate Dan’s stupid way of going on- because Daniel Hart keeps on sending Isadub comments sabotaging me and trying to make out that I am bonkers.
So I sent one to Isadub imitating him and having a joke.
Importantly, keep our spirits up, and let’s not be downhearted because of the current miscarriage of justice which can easily be rectified. People are on the case, working hard.
x
So when does Mrs. North’s book come out? July 7th, is it?
This story made it ‘above the fold’ on The Register.co.uk:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/08/cyberstalker_in_custody/
Hmm, I guess you like this story, isadub, no matter the fact you ignored letters that were sent privately, for you to consider. You just forwarded them to FJL – well, has any of this made you reconsider, or do you just like the google attention?
I mean, I’m all for freedom of speech but what I want to know is – would you be happy with the kind of material FJL has published about others, as lies – well, if you got http://www.isadub-paedo.blogspot.com would you accept that without a fight, an apparent ally?
I say this because you should be aware of it, and there is active police interest in this matter.
I hope you can appreciate that Felcity Lowde is really rather sick, and has an extensive record to prove it – so since she is now in prison, at least she might be given the treatment she needs.
I’m surprised you have remained so consistent in your attitude. I have to say, I suspect it is because of your Google ranking. Which begs the question – is all publicity good publicity?
Seems you think so.
As a reply to P –
What a sick comment.
Do you think a public cat-fight between two women: one backed up by an indignant, bored, obsessive, cyper-army of self-congratulary googlers and the other backed up by a few lone bloggers and the army of alias’ she invented really constitutes abusing those who stand by her?
You come across as making FJL look as though her remarks on blogging the malice may be true. It makes me think Rachel North is not as white as she paints herself.
Thread closed. No more comments will be allowed on this post.
Edited by isadub:
Edited 2nd time by isadub to correct possible timestamp error:
Rupert* (IP = 62.49.68.165: Sep 16, 3:17 AM or 2:17AM) posted this comment in the wrong place. Since it’s more abusive towards me rather than fjl, I’ll post it.
———————————————–
Err ok isadub. I can hardly believe you are still supporting FJL. Nevertheless, one’s convictions etc. But you seem quite a smart guy.
Supporting the underdog etc… but can’t you see just how she simply doesn’t have any focus, just the last one?
Special Branch don’t even exist anymore etc.
I am not attacking you – but why the heck are you still her friend?
Maybe you feel like Lord Longford. That guy worked long and hard to recognise his subject as a human.
Can I suggest one thing for you? Put your money where your mouth is – and give her some accommodation. The poor woman is homeless, she had her house reposssessed! Take care of her!
Surely then, you might both become better friends.
Rupert
———————————————–
* Rupert:
(1) The world and his dog knows your IP address and the time you visited here. In other words, ‘the authorities’ (or someone’s solicitor) can find out who you are unless you paid cash at an internet cafe with no security cameras.
Next time you visit, you might as well leave a valid email or website address…
(2) Assuming it’s not your first visit to my website, you’ll know that I already support the Simon Community, a charity dedicated to supporting the homeless.
Why would a solicitor be interested in the above remarks?
Seems like a very good suggestion that you help your friend out.
IPs can be masked so you cannot tell, or are given mis-information, about where they are coming from.