Blog powered by Typepad

« "Rock 'n' Roll" by Sir Tom Stoppard, part II | Main | The Dawkinci Code: Revelations Book One »

Monday, 03 July 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As I'm sure you already know David, I'm in agreement with you on this, and have made my opinions known on my blog here:
(includes a link to the Sharpener article).
Although I didn't say so, I too suspect that what lies behind Rachel's call for a public enquiry is not so much a desire for "the truth", but rather "the opinions she would like upheld as truth" (ie, Islamic terrorism is all our fault and we should pull out of Iraq and learn to "love" and "understand" the terrorists instead of engaging them in battle).
Yet another "Cindy Sheehan" voice, as if we needed any more....

Yet the sad fact is that (whether due to the incessant whingings of the press/BBC etc or otherwise), Rachel's opinions are probably broadly shared by the majority in this country, and opinions such as yours and mine form the minority of public opinion (at least, that's the way it seems to me, from conversations and so forth). Few people either believe, or are willing to face up to the fact, that radical Islam is at war with us. It's as if the ghost of Neville Chamberlain has returned and taken possession of the minds of about 75% of the population! This situation needs to be rectified urgently, as Melanie Phillips summed up the danger of not doing so in a recent interview: "After the London bombings [...], a senior London police officer went on TV and said that the words Islam and terrorism did not go together. If a threat is so badly misunderstood in this way, it will not be defeated."

So you're saying the poor woman has a form of Stockholm Syndrome Tom? Care to go and discuss that with her or any number of people who don't happen to concur with your reductive and utterly retarded attempt at reasoned thought?

No, sick man, that's not what I'm saying at all. I suggest that it is your powers of reasoned thought which fall short of the mark here:
Wikipedia: "The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in a hostage, in which the hostage exhibits seeming loyalty to the hostage-taker".
Sorry, when and by whom was RN taken hostage? I must have missed that part of her story.

But *why* is radical islam at war with us?

" we struggle to fight a war the like of which we have never seen before...."

Given that you point out the feeble number of casualties that radical Islam has managed to inflict upon us ("slightly less than a week's worth of road deaths"), I can only assume that the war you wish us to fight is one against the motor car. Good man!

That is almost 'NIB'-like in its fatuity, Larry, as you may come to learn when militant Islamists get their hands on something a tad bigger than a bag of farm fertilizer, or whatever.

To David Duff,


Thanks for your mail.

I feel alot of pity and compassion for the others who have only Rachel to rely on.

..fear not you are not the only one who has been sent a plethora of R North e-mails and driven up the wall! :-)

Never mind it is all a foolishness, and will of course die down.

I said A FORM of Stockholm syndrome. Your insinuation is that she feels nothing but sympathy and understanding for the plight of those who almost killed her. Ok, maybe I used the wrong terminology but I think you know what I was clumsily trying to get at.

Tom, I assume you have read the Koran, given that you categorically state that 'Islam' and 'Peace' are mutually incompatible. I'd hate to hear that you have merely swallowed all the right wing media horseshit and not recieved any of your information straight from the horses mouth.

I bought a copy of it once, but it was nowhere near as good as the NME. All it had was articles on heavy rock music and interviews with guitarists from Guns n Roses and Zeppelin etc. Not my scene at all.

Positions are different from opinions, they are rational and based on facts, opinions are based on supposition. She is asking for an inquiry independent from the government and specifically the security arm of the government. Considering their vested interest in a particular story about terrorism, I find her request highly reasonable.

Dear Mr Duff,
I'd appreciate it if you could allow me to clarify something for readers directed here from another blog which contains a great deal of defamatory content, alleging that I, other members of the public, the police, Special branch and the CPS are all engaged in some kind of vendetta against the blogger, (who was incidentally arrested 2 weeks ago, and bailed, pending investigation of her PC & hard drive which were seized as part of the police investigation into harrassment charges.)

The blogger makes the following defamatory and untruthful allegations concerning communications between yourself and myself:

'this person [David Duff] contacted me and told me he'd also been bombarded with harassing, aggressive, self important and distressing emails from Rachel. He feels her way of going on is tantamount to a 'charter for self important busybodies', and less than uninformed.'

I should like to clarify that I have never 'bombarded you with harassing, aggressive, self-important and distressing emails' and to claim this is not only untruthful and defamatory.

In fact, we have corresponded once before, on one day, by email, and the correspondence relates to you querying why I did not pass a comment made by you on my blog.

I said 'Just to let you know disagreement is fine, but personal attacks which add nothing to the debate will be binned. Your call. If you can't manage to post without insults, then please don't bother'

This related to a comment which you attempted to post on my blog in which you said my volunary work with survivors in setting up a PTSD support group, my writing a blog and campaigning for an independent inquiry into 7/7 was 'standing on the backs of the dead and wounded of 7/7'. I explained to you that I found this deeply offensive and that was why I was not publishing your comment. You then apologised and sent another comment, which I did publish.

You have sent, in total, 6 communications to me ( 3 emails, 3 comments) and I sent 4 emails to you in reply explaining why your first comment was not being published.

Our previous communication was in the form of a comments discussion following a blog post I was invited to post on The Sharpener political discussion blog, which was on the subject of terrorism.

A lively debate then followed in which you and I and many others all debated the points I made, as is normal on The Sharpener. I enjoyed our debate and you said that you did too.

The blogger who is making these defamatory statements about me is someone who has caused me huge distress for many months, and whom I have now had to report to the police for harrassment of me. She initially left dozens of over-friendly comments on my blog, then abruptly demanded I cease publishing my opinions, and cease campaigning for a public inquiry. After which I was sent many abusive emails, in which she referred to me as a hag, a bitch, a malicious slut, a blackmailer, mentally ill and so on. Requests to her that she cease harrassing me and sending obscene emails and comments were met with the bizarre charge of 'bullying', a charge that her blog readers will see she now lays at the feet of not only myself, but a local web designer, some Victorian history researchers, the Thames Valley police officer who ordered her arrest, Special Branch and the Crown Prosecution SErvice. Oh, and a local magistrate.

You may draw your own conclusions, I am sure, about this blogger and her world in which she seems to be the victim of a quite extraordinary conspiracy against her.

I am perfectly happy for people to politely disagree with my views, and I have published comments from you and many others in which this happens - as anyone can see from my blog.

I only refuse to publish comments which are spam, pointless personal insults, or hate-comments ( racist, anti-semitic and so on) or cut-and-paste conspiracy theories.

I am sorry to pop in and comment at such length here, but I felt the peculiar charges made by this blogger about the nature of our correspondence deserved a public refuatation.

Mr Duff, you and I have disagreed, as we are politically many miles apart, but I reiterate that I enjoyed our debate on the Sharpener. I also repeat that I would never bombard you or anyone else with 'bombarded harassing, aggressive, self-important and distressing emails'



If anyone is interested in Rachel's false allegations, please come and see my response on my blog. I am aware that she has bombarded this person ( and others ) with emails, because there is evidence on it on my hard drive. From this blogger himself. Rachel has been lying to police, and will be well exposed. Her allegations are entirely untrue: she is an extremely malicious troublemaker. Her dreadful communications are partly evidenced on my blog.

If she had any confidence in her statement to police she wouldn't be coming here and carrying on with more libel and harassment.

Ladies, ladies, you are at risk of resembling a pair of drunken biddies fighting outside a pub!

STOP IT, both of you!

But if you are enjoying it so much that you really can't stop, then please do it somewhere else. The blog equivalent of ladies wrestling in mud holds no attraction for me so please do it elsewhere.

well said ;-) sloosh a bucket of water over her.


Could I also add please David that I am not charged with any offence, contrary to Rachel's libel.

I have no interest in corresponding with FJL, here or anywhere else, the matter remains in the hands of the police who are conducting an investigation into her behaviour following her arrest and bail. My single comment was addressed to this blog's author, David Duff, and is pertinent to the content of his post, which is about the interaction between myself and him. I considered that he may be interested to know that someone is making entirely false claims about what he has said and what his interaction with me has been. And to be linked in any way with the claims made on Ms. FJL's blog is likely to undermine his 'credibility' amongst sane and rational persons.

er.. not according to David they're not. Some of these 'sane and rational persons' have been reported to police for stalking and harassment many times over, and use dowsing rods on a daily basis. Rachel is very unlikely to pull her false allegations off. David sounds entirely credible to many of us :-)

She slings mud again, demonstrating her increasing need for a good shower.


..and can we not just say 'sane and rational people?' Why does the nastiness always have to be written inus shakespearianus contextus?

Just to say I've made light of it as I don't want David upset, but I am taking the false alleagtions and hurtful libellous announcements seriously. The 'we' in the post above refers to Rachel.

The comments to this entry are closed.