Google+

Let’s help Rachel catch this cyberstalker

Could you guess that the woman in this pic is a deranged cyberstalker who has been posting hateful messages to Rachel from North London over the last year? She looks so friendly.

She is Felicity Jane Lowde and has been convicted of harassing Rachel by repeatedly posting malicious comments on her blog and making other libelous statements.

Rachel asked me if I had had problems with any nutters when we met up the other night in London. Fortunately, not to this extent. I really do feel for Rachel and admire her courage in the way she is not caving in.

Rachel has asked for our help in finding this stalker, you can find out more here.

This is such an horrific account that I had to post it instantly after reading about it. My “missing” posts will  resume on Tuesday.


25 Comments

  1. Just a note, there’s a infamous predator whose been given “kook of the Millennium” stats on USNET Google forums. In case anyone ever wants to research any kook predator bothering them, it could be this guy http://www.MerrillvsWollmann.com

    Also, a new Wikizine has gone up on Cyberstalkers at: http://www.zimbio.com/Cyberstalkers%2C+Predators%2C+Kooks

    I intend on adding this story to my Wikizines soon.

  2. I don’t understand. If she’s ill why is she not in hospital? And what’s all this stuff about ‘nutters’. I take it from that you mean the mentally ill. And did someone say they should be eliminated – well, the Nazis tried that, didn’t they?

  3. Following the awareness-raising campaign, she has been caugght, been to Court, and is now in prison awaiting pre-sentence and psychiatric reports, before being sentenced.

    Thanks to all who helped and supported.

    Hope she gets the treatment /diagnosis that will stop her bizarre behaviour, and I am very glad that we can all now take our blog buttons down and forget about her.

  4. To the commenters who argue against giving her publicity:

    This is not about ‘giving her publicity’. This is about catching her so that she is locked up behind bars, where she deservedly belongs. If a violent man is out on the loose, wouldn’t we (rightly) want his picture publicised so that the police can catch him? Just because the abuse she has heaped on Rachel has been emotional, and not physical, that does not mean we should treat this criminal any different from the way we would a violent criminal.

    Publicity is good, if it gets her locked up. Would you rather no one publicised it, and she went underground to continue her harrassment? I most certainly would not.

  5. How incredibly creepy. I read it.

    Some people are really sick.

  6. Ellee

    I read this scary story over at Rachel’s blog. My first thought was that what is the point of the police actually catching her. When they caught her in the past and imposed conditions on her, she immediately broke them.

    What can you do with such a nuisance? Is she physically threatening?

    Rachel is saint for not hiring a likely lad from a dodgy EastEnd pub, shelling out a couple of grand and bingo – problem solved.

  7. I had trouble with a nutter. Also a woman. Said really disgusting things, so I simply ignored the comments, deleted them, & put up comment moderator.

    Sad though

  8. I know I’m playing devils advocate but she’s obviously most upset about something – what is it? I don’t think ignoring her in the first instance a good idea; if someone has a grievance then nipping it in the bud with an explanation or apology is best. She’s obviously intelligent so rather than denying her attention, I don’t think she’s getting the airing she needs – she’s just being ganged up on. What is she so upset about?

  9. Rachel, Jeremy’s point is valid. this woman is obviously in need of eitehr restraint or help but the authorities should be doing this. We mustn’t give her undeserved publicity.

  10. Hi Ellee…I have posted the wanted picture link on to my blog. But have you seen the Daily Mail today…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=458109&in_page_id=1770

    Will post on my blog.

  11. Rachel, OK, I take your point. Good luck.

  12. Ahh! But the comments aren’t as bad as this cow :

    http://www.theapprenticeforum.co.uk/?page_id=35

  13. This is horrific. I, too, am shocked. You are brave to post it, Ellee and Rachel , I admire your stance.

  14. Jim, I don’t often agree with you but in this instance I totally concur. I’ve expressed my views about Rachel’s problem over at Mr Euginides. Giving this woman publicity will only make matters worse. Had this not been aired all over the Blogosphere we would have been none the wiser.

  15. I don’t think this is the place to post examples of her obscenities. Try looking here, for a quick preview.

    http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2007/05/fan-mail.html

    ‘These bullies are attention seekers. Deny them attention that they crave and they invariably go away. The best advice might be for Rachel to take her blog off-line for a week or two. Or at very lest set her comments for ‘moderation’.

    Or is there something I’m missing here? ‘

    Yep, sadly there is: the fact that this went on for a year, relentlessly, despite me not responding.

    Ignoring her – for 400 days – got me nowhere, nor did arresting her or her being tried and convicted.

    She is very ill, extremely abusive and malicious and imprevious to warnings from police, arrest, being ignored and reason, it is very sad. And even I have limits.

    I do not think it is appropriate to call me evil, psychopathic, criminal, abusive, to say that I am to accuse my own newly-wedded husband of rape, that I am a blackmailer, abuser, pervert, liar, false convicter, harasser, that I should be prosecuted for surviving 7/7 and ‘deserting the dead’ ( when I evacuated the suicide-bombed train when a bomb went off) and that the man who almost murdered me and who raped me in 2002, and who was sentenced to 15 years in 2004 is ‘doing time for nothing’. And there is worse, but I will not put it here.

    Apologies Ellee, this is not the sort of thing that should be fond on your blog. But peopel need to understand why this campaign is going on.

  16. Yes but what were the nature of the messages? What was the issue she was so upset about?

  17. if you get nowhere or are faced with an obvious nutter, that’s the time to go offline.

    And let the nutters censor us? No thanks. Personally I think the best policey is to help the police catch this woman and any others of her ilk. That way they get the help they need and we can go on being bloggers/ranters/whatever

  18. Crikey! Before I read this I have to say that I thought it might be a bit of oversensitivity – I’m absolutely rubbish at writing, really bad. I’ve made the mistake myself of responding to someone as I would chatting; having a bit of banter and then, when they got one over on me, just sending one word as a response. I didn’t mean it literally and if they saw me, as you would when talking, I would have been grinning at their obvious superiority in wordplay. But that’s a mistake I’ve made in the past, of ‘talking’ through the keyboard when of course half of conversation is expression and tone of voice. Literally.

    I think that Felicity is talking a bit scarily though. A lot scarily: “6.07pm: People pay for their spite. Slowly., 6.08pm: You will pay for your actions” Eek!

    I think it’s not good advice to just ignore everyone whose comments you don’t like – some people may have a genuine grievance. I think it best to try and sort it out first – ask what’s up, and then if you get nowhere or are faced with an obvious nutter, that’s the time to go offline.

  19. These stalkers are the bad side of the web, and need them eliminated.

  20. Thanks Ellee. Let’s hope the police catch her soon, hopefully after a blog reader tip off – as she is letting the blogging side down somewhat!

  21. I feel slightly puzzled, or am I just being naive? These bullies are attention seekers. Deny them attention that they crave and they invariably go away. The best advice might be for Rachel to take her blog off-line for a week or two. Or at very lest set her comments for ‘moderation’.

    Or is there something I’m missing here?

  22. I wonder if police have put up wanted posters in all the internet cafes?

  23. This is unbelievable. I am shocked.

  24. Steven, I have had my fair share, but not like Rachel has. And consider yourself linked, I don’t want to risk getting into your bad books.

  25. What’s this? You don’t have any problem with nutters? Well if you want to keep it like that how about you link to my new blog (which links to you of course) and we can all stay friends.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Google+