Blog powered by Typepad

« "Not a lotta' people know that!" #2 | Main | The'ZitZit' on the arse of the stupidest blogger in the west! »

Sunday, 01 July 2007

Comments

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

Tough on crime. Bollocks Dave this is bullying on your part. I wouldn't wish Lowde on my worst enemy.

Considering that you don't care about victims of crime will you stop your They died in vain series? in fact you want her to suffer again. Twat.

You seem awfully obsessed with me, as well as woefully ill-informed, Mr Duff.How many posts about me have you made now? And still I won't link to your site, or get upset, or whatever it is you want me to do. It must be very tiresome for you.

I will indulge your cries for attention from me.I'll also point you in the direction of facts, as reported by fact-checking reporters in court.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2002387.ece

'The judge, who said he did not have the power to give her a longer sentence, told Lowde that she had struck at Ms North’s “terrible experience and trauma” as a victim of the bombings in 2005 in which 52 people were killed.

She had aggravated the situation by breaching her bail conditions, continuing to persecute Ms North, even though police were involved.

District Judge Malcolm Read told her: “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''

See also...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6249594.stm

You may note that far from courting media attention on this, I made a brief statement of thanks, but no comment, and have since merely thanked bloggers for their help - which led directly to police tip-off enabling the successful capture of a wanted convicted criminal on the run for 2 months within days of the announcement.


At which point I removed the campaign posts and asked people to remove their police-apprved Find Lowde buttons. Hardly 'hounding'.

As for the reason why FJL is jailed.
It was far more than sending 'potty emails', as the most cursory reading around or fact-checking would have shown. Fortunately I, and the Judge, who sent FJL down and the police and CPS who investigated and prosecuted FJL can tell the difference between mere inane trolling and attention-seeking cyber-bile, (such as you appear to specialise in), and *criminal harassment section 2*,for which the Judge sent Lowde to prison for the maximum sentence of 6 months, remarking three times in court that he considered his powers 'inadequate' for the seriousness of the offence.

Lowde failed to attend, absconded and aggravated the offence - her harassment included bombarding the police with malicious and false complaints about me,
( at which point I had to get them involved, and they decided to prosecute).

She also tried to get me sacked by making false complaints to my employers, moved to within 4.5 miles of my flat,sent threatening messages, waged a deranged hate campaign for several months in an attempt to destroy my personal and professional reputation, attacked the police, CPS and her defence team, my father and over a dozen other victims, all of whom are now protected by a CrASBO and lied in court.

Like you, she also disagreed with the survivor/bereaved campaign for an independent inquiry which I am merely a spokesperson for. The campaign is backed by the Tories and Lib Dems. You are perfectly entitled to your opinions on the inquiry matter, though I do not see why you have to resort to personal abuse, nor why you single out me alone amongst the dozens of other 7/7 victims, or cross-party politicians, who also support the inquiry for your vitriol. Again, if you did any research at all, you would see that there are many people who lost loved ones or limbs or who suffered greatly as a result of the bombings who are asking for an inquiry - it is not just me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6615387.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6610209.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2069589,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6503943.stm

But you only write about me. I wonder why?

Unlike you, (so far) Lowde crossed a line to a point where she was repeatedly committing criminal offences.

That is why she is in prison, and why you are sitting here trying to gain my attention by posting a series of bizarre attacks on your blog. I usually ignore them. Today I am feeling generous. You get some attention from me. That's what it's all about, isn't it? Make the most of it, it won't be forthcoming again.

I can see why someone getting sent to prison for waging a campaign of internet spite might rattle you, giving what your personality expressed on the net and what you post, but you need have no fear from me, David. You are not worth worrying about, in my opinion, and I daresay the police and the Judge would agree.


"You get some attention from me", writes Rachel of North London. Not half! To be precise 737 words in 17 paragraphs. Most of it repeating what she had already written in her triumphal post concerning the mentally-ill, Ms. Lowde; and that post, incidentally, ran to 1,872 words over 4 pages of A4. All rather uneccessary because I had, quite properly, pointed my readers to it so that they might judge for themselves between us. However, she seems, in her vanity, to believe that I *want* attention from her. If her response above is typical, and I regret to say that it is, then let me assure her that I can do quite nicely without it, thanks all the same. However, that said, unlike her policy in banning me from her site, I can assure her that there will always be a space here for her, and her supporters, to defend her actions and her opinions - even if they are as infantile as 'ZinZin'!

Rachel prefers not to rebut my accusation that her silly agitations are wasting the precious time of our security services, and instead, regurgitates the 'fjl' saga - again! I would simply remind readers that 'fjl' is demonstrably ill in the mind but all that she has done is to send bizarre e-mails; streams of them, to be sure, but that very fact would indicate to everyone who knows Rachel, including her bosses, that this is the work of a loony. Alas, because of the misguided government policy of closing down the mental hospitals, Ms. Lowde is to be incarcerated in prison for six months where she will receive, I guess, minimal treatment prior to being released when she is likely to start all over again. I do not deny that it was an irritating and distressing experience for Rachel to endure 'fjl's' campaign but she received no physical hurt and frankly I found her triumphal post rather distasteful and the chorus of 'yee-haws' from her supporters to be despicable. But, I leave it to my readers to judge.

Re. FJL: No David, it was more than emails. I have explained,again, for the aviodance of doubt - it is all there in the reports, and the court transcript, should you care to check - and if you *still* cannot grasp why FJL got the max sentence for harassment, then perhaps you should look at the advisability of referring to me as 'stupid' in every single post about me that you have ever made. And there are many, aren't there?

2.Now, I await your venom to be spilled on the named bereaved and injured and traumatised people who are also calling for a public inquiry.

Here are their names so you can write to them and about them on your blog.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2069589,00.html


Some of them have blogs of their own so you can go and write and tell them that they are stupid, cruel, silly agitators, people who seek a platform so they deserve all they get, who should be arrested and charged with wasting police time, are traitors, vain or all the things you repeatedly call me.

Many of them have spoken out in the media. They all support an inquiry. Off you go.I have given you their names.

They include wives who have murdered husbands, fathers of murdered sons, brothers of murdered sisters, people who lost both limbs, eyes, and were traumatised, deafened, scarred and maimed.

There is no reason why you should not write about or to them, is there? No reason at all.

After all, it is not possible that you are waging a campaign solely against me, is it?

No, it is surely that you disagree with the inquiry and as a result feel it your duty to throw personal abuse at those who support it.So off you go.

Some of them, you might note, whilst supporting the inquiry calls, take a less high profile position than me. Why is this?

Because if you are maimed, or disabled, or bereaved, putting yourself in the public eye and getting the incessant media pressure and the bile and spite of people like FJL and David Duff and the conspiracy theorists thrown at you and your family can be too much to take.

That, David, is one of the reasons I do a lot of the spokesperson stuff. At their request. To protect other people, who are equally committed but whose burdens and injuries post 7/7 are greater than mine.

That you choose to repeatedly attack me for what I do, in the most personal and inaccurate manner, says a very great deal about you. That you have not- so far - trained your guns on anyone else who supports the inquiry campaign and was bombed or bereaved by the bombings is also interesting.

I wonder if your readers can guess why it is you write about me, and only me in relation to this matter?

I will leave it to them to consider.

Finally, Lowde was not found to be mentally ill. Just a common abusive lying criminal. The Judge said he did not need psychiatric reports to sentence her for harassment. She was aware of what she was doing.

Rachel prefers not to rebut my accusation that her silly agitations are wasting the precious time of our security services,

Maybe Dave its because they are not valid and therefore not worth taking seriously. Why engage with your smears? Theres no proof behind your accusations unless you know someone at MI5 which you don't.

Can't help being a cunt can you?

Rachel wrote in her first comment, "You get some attention from me. That's what it's all about, isn't it? Make the most of it, it won't be forthcoming again." If only that were true! But no, back she comes again, not once, but twice!

And this time with an implied threat: "you *still* cannot grasp why FJL got the max sentence for harassment, then perhaps you should look at the advisability of referring to me as 'stupid' in every single post about me". Crikey! If I get 6 months for every time I call some one stupid I'll be in for life. Still, her use of a threat says something more about Rachel than I ever could. Just for a brief moment I almost felt sorry for 'fjl'!

Rubbish comments indeed! What else do you expect all the time you publish rubbish posts?

Thank you for your less than useful contribution, Neil, and can I assume that will be your last visit here?

Implied threat? Deary me. There is no such thing there at all. Do calm down. You are no 'threat' to me, and I am sorry if you feel I am a 'threat' to you.

I am curious about you today though.

Firstly, you are wholly incorrect in saying FJL was 'petty emails'. Yet you keep saying that was all it was.
Why is that David?

I have shown you that you are inaccurate, you have read what the learned Judge had to say - and you still do not seem to grasp why FJL got the maximum 6 months for harassment.Odd.

I am now politely querying whether you are in fact being deliberately 'stupid' on this point. FJL was not just about emails. FJL was about criminal harassment s2. Can you understand this simple point? It seems not. And yet you call me 'stupid' at every opportunity. You write long posts, very regularly on how 'stupid' you think I am.

By the way, I am not threatening you at all. I am merely wondering if you are a bit dim on this point. Don't worry though, David. Unlike you, I can tell the difference between criminal harassment and what you are doing.

Secondly, and much more interestingly, you are wholly unable to answer why you do not call all or any of the many other people calling for an inquiry 'stupid', 'vacuous', 'self-serving', 'traitorous', 'vain', 'standing on a platform on the backs of the dead', or saying that they 'should be charged with wasting police time.'

Why do you not call the bereaved, injured, scarred, maimed and traumatised people whose names are there on the letter asking for an inquiry the same things that you call me?

Why not David?

They have been on TV and in the papers too. They have had meetings with politicians and the security services and the police too. They have written and spoken out about it too. Just like I have. Some of them even have blogs where they blog about it, just like I do. They support it just as much as I do.

Can you explain yourself on this simple point?

You are getting several responses from me today, since I note that you have posted attacking me on this inquiry business several times. You throw the same insults at me over it again and again. So I am curious now. I have some time and inclination to try to engage with you, on this point that you seem so obsessed with, that you must raise it, and insult me over it, time and time again, on your blog.

David, I should be pleased if you could try to respond to my specific points, above.

(We will leave the business about FJL, it is clear that you cannot understand what happened and why she was prosecuted by the CPS, so I will leave you to struggle with it, or read up on it, or ask a lawyer, or call the court, or not, in your own time.)

Just tell me why I, and only I, get called so many abusive things for being part of the 7/7 inquiry campaign, and yet nobody else does. I have given you the names of at least 18 others just as involved as me. I awiat to see what happens.


Thanks.

I'm happy to accept your word that there was no intention to threaten, whilst remaining curious as to your choice of words.

As to 'fjl's' behaviour, I have read the BBC News report that you linked to, and I have read your own report of the trial, but in neither does it make any reference other than to 'internet harrassment', that is, written communications. Correct me if I am wrong, but you were not physically harmed, and as far as I can understand from your reports, you never even set eyes on 'fjl'. None of that excuses her behaviour which was repellent even if it sprang from a woman who was mentally ill.

I also notice that in your report on the sentencing you made great play of your right not to be identified lest your rapist, who is due for release shortly, should identify you. However your choice of blog name would hardly require the services of Bletchley Park to decipher your identity; and indeed, again correct me if my memory is at fault, I think it was *you* who informed the world that you were once a rape victim, certainly I knew it and I can only think I read it on your blog. Also, your frequent appearances on TV hardly helped guard your identity - they do nothing else in prisons these days but watch the box!

As to me writing to all the other survivors of the bomb attack, why should I? *You* are the (self-appointed?) spokesman for the group, as *you* keep telling us, and you speak for them in your own, very distinctive style. You are, so to speak, the organ-grinder! And, of course, as you would be the first to admit because you proudly inform us of it, your career in the media has prospered enormously as a result of your efforts on behalf of this campaign. Again, as I have mentioned to you in the past, if you can't stand criticism and abuse, don't go climbing onto political platforms - and please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that your campaign is anything other than political. You are, yourself, pretty harsh and rude about this politician or that, and good luck to you, but the words 'sauce', 'goose' and 'gander' occur even if I can't quite get the genders right!

What I am trying to say in my roundabout way is that you are a first class, 5-star humbug!

My successful advertising career came to an abrupt end as a direct result of the bombings, David, and my income dived by 80% since I took voluntary redundancy.As you quite probably know, since you seem to read my blog.

That I have managed to do something with my life afterwards that doesn't involve getting on a tube at rush hour every day is a positive. The work I do to campaign for an inquiry is unpaid and time consuming - and means a lot to me.

The occasional work I get as a writer is very satisfying to me, and I will not apologise for it. I am grateful that since I started blogging people will now ask me to write professionally about matters I believe in and care about. When my redundancy money runs out, I will have get additional work so I can continue to write. I am certainly not making a living off this, on the backs of the dead or otherwise. But I am proud and happy to do what I do. Being a highly-paid high flier is no longer particularly meaningful to me. Maybe that'll change again one day. But for now, it's a relief to be out of the rat race

FJL: Basic law. If harassment has the threat of violence is it harassment 4. If it is straightforward 'harassment', it is harassment 2. Both are criminal offences. FJL got charged under harassment 2. It was so severe that she got the max sentence. If you still struggle with this, go and read the 1997 Protection From Harassment Act.

As to the rape/anonymity thing: Again, this has been explained many times, so you are being obtuse, I presume. I am happy to speak out about rape and PTSD as long as my surname remains hidden. Anonymity is a legal protection offered to all sex offences victims. The Judge merely reminded the press of this, when reporting, since Lowde had repeatedly breached it, in order to maximise the threat agaisnt me, and I gave evidence under my real not professional name. There is no 'great play', it is a simple matter of the law. I am happy to be identified as 'Rachel North', named and shown as such when spoeaking out about PTSD, rape, terror etc. I simply do not want my maiden name or married name out which could be dangerous for those searching the net for electoral rolls to get my address. 'Rachel North' does not have an address or bank account and her address is not traceable.

AS to not attacking all the other survivors and bereaved and injured who are part of the inquiry campaign, why shouldn't you? If you attack me, you should also logically attack them. That you do not shows you have some understanding of the weakness and hypocrisy of your personal-attack-position.

Of course it's fine to question the reasons for asking for an inquiry, but the personal attacks are quite unreasonable, aren't they? You know they are. That's why you don't broaden them out to the rest of the group. But you give your game away.

When you attack me, you are attacking them. For they speak out like me. They say much the same as me. They write, go on TV, give interviews, have meetings with politicians and police and security services people, keep blogs, exactly all the same things as I do.

Yet you only throw the abuse at me. I am but one of the people who speak out. I have explained to you why I speak out more than some others.

' Because if you are maimed, or disabled, or bereaved, putting yourself in the public eye and getting the incessant media pressure and the bile and spite of people like FJL and David Duff and the conspiracy theorists thrown at you and your family can be too much to take.

That, David, is one of the reasons I do a lot of the spokesperson stuff. At their request. To protect other people, who are equally committed but whose burdens and injuries post 7/7 are greater than mine'

Yet time and time and time again you go for me, and only me, not even arguing your case usually, but simply throwing personal abuse around. 'Stupid'. 'Vain'. 'Stupid.'
'Traitorous'. 'Should be arrested'. 'Stupid'. 'Nauseating'.Etc.

You do not launch into attacks on anyone else who says exactly the same as I do - even though I have provided you with just a few links where you can see Graham, Janine, Jacqui, Roz, Danny, Joe, Michael, and all the others saying just what I say.

I am sick of beating about the bush David. You think you can get away with it, because you think me very stupid.

Even you know that if you were to write a long series of posts saying' x, whose husband was killed, and y, who lost her legs and Z, who was disabled, are nothing but vain, wicked and stupid and should be arrested for asking for an inquiry', you likely cause such great offence that you would not be able to get away with it. If you want to try it out, do so. See what people call you then.

So you stick to abusing me. Presumably because for some reason you feel good about doing so. You seem to feel I am a legit target not just for disagreement - which I am - but for vehement personal abuse, which you hope I will read by linking to my website each time you post it.

Even though I have never spoken to you, posted about you or mentioned you at all and have no interest in you and would be delighted if I never read any of your attention-seeking trolling attacks on me ever again.

I do not particularly care that you disagree with OUR campaign. I do however think you deserve to have it pointed out to you that you insult not just me but dozens of others with your totally unnecessary bile calling it 'stupid' and 'vain' and a 'waste of police time that we should be arrested for' - and yet you are too craven to admit this.

I can stand criticism, and I get it regularly from people who are far more angry than you. However, I note with interest that you seemingly can't stop posting about me, and you invite replies, so to hell with it. Here I am, wearily pointing out the truth of your position.

I don't write long posts attacking you on my blog, and I don't encourage abuse. When you tried to send me abuse on my blog, I asked you to try again, politely, and when you could not, I banned you, in line with the site comment policy. I really wish you would just ignore my blog, what I write and flip the page, turn the channel whenever you see or hear me, or th eothers who campaig at my side.

Yep, I am sick of it David, fed up by your repetitive posting about me, frankly puzzled by your slurs and lies and wriggles and insinuations and insults. You've published these spiteful, puerile attacks on me time and time again. I know of at least six, there are probably more. Each time you link to my blog. It's quite clear to me and others that you have some wierd need to post about me. It's quite clear that you want a reaction from me. *Sigh*

You've got it.

You are in fact a first class, 5 star wriggler and a bully to boot. And I am calling you on it.

Utter waste of my time, but there you go. Well, I expect you'll carry on. You can't leave the subject of me alone, can you? I'd personally be thrilled if you never wrote about me ever again, but somehow I doubt you'll be able to stop yourself.

Well, I can. It's been an interesting couple of hours, but I feel like I've said all I want to say,good job I type very fast - for it is pointless, and demeaning to carry on trying with you. You'll doubtless carry on blogging vitriolically about me, because you can't stop yourself, it seems. I will leave you to it. I think it's rather pathetic and sad.

But you're a talented troll, perhaps, and it makes you happy to post this stuff and try to get a reaction. Well, if that's how you like to spend your time... Interesting that you called FJL 'repellent' and 'mentally ill'? And yet you can't see why posting personal attacks in the guise of sanctimonious security-services-defending isn't slightly...oh, never mind.

I have a dinner date and a speech to finish.

Inside the mind of David Duff:

"Hmmm, my attempt to start an argument with that prison blogger didn't come to much. Oh well, I might as well resurrect the Rachel North grudge match!"

N.I.B. You said it.

Twat.

I see my previous comment got blasted into the cyber ether so I shan't bother coming here again.

Rachel leave him be he's not worth the hassle even if you do type fast.

'Henry', I think we have a misunderstanding here, I have e-mailed you.

Excuse me. No random commenter here knows anything about the case or the evidence. My behaviour has never been repellent. The CPS allegations were false, and I have never had a mental problem in my life. The media spread complete lies. It is just a question fo sorting it out.

Check the facts, or belt up.

* It is just a question of sorting it out.

A comments box full of blether and nonsense, based on lies about me, and no one has the ability to calm down and get a grip on themselves.

* It is just a question of sorting it out.

A comments box full of blether and nonsense, based on lies about me, and no one has the ability to calm down and get a grip on themselves.

* 'no random commenter' refers to extraneous commenters all over the place on these blogs, (David in particular here), for the sake of pointing that out. " Repellent even if she is mentally ill." David. If you are going to defend someone then do it properly, instead of causing more harm by giving yourself get out clauses that rely on false information. I am not mentally ill, I have never been to see a mental health specialist, never been recommended one, nope, nothing. I have never done anything "repellent". The Wanted Campaign and twisted lies about me were extremely repellent, as you know very well.
I have never caused offence to a wounded or bereaved survivor either incidentally:- this is an obvious fact and everyone knows it.

* and 'no one', as inferred, refers to the whole mad mob who all went nuts over the false media stories, who printed their abusive comments and false information all over the web. Pathetic, utterly pathetic, and disgusting.

*'pathetic' as in pathetic and sad.*

We know the media come out with rubbish. On a regular basis. Did everyone's brains go into malfunction; or what. I thought it was all sad, grotesque. Setting up abuse blogs to abuse me, setting up Wanted notices all over the place, publishing all manner of abusive lies..... the list is endless.

Nothing whatever to be proud of.

fjl got the max sentence for harassment because she wasnt there. Does that make her mentally ill? If so everyone who is anywhere else this evening when they could easily be somewhere different should wait for men in white coats in fear and trepidation.

Duff and Nonsense strikes again.

re *check the facts, or belt up.*

Understandable response to the rudeness in your blog! But it wasn't intended to be put unkindly or expressed with annoyance. The newspapers printed an absolute libel bonanza.

As regards the 'random commenters' I notice that they are among the authors of the horrific hate blog set up to abuse me. Not so random, after all.

The comments to this entry are closed.