How To Be A Victim

This Post Is Rated: O for Downright Offensive! It's controversial! Get your lawyers, call the police, a blogger has commented on a hot issue and we don't agree with his opinion. Whoa, Alex, getting personal now? Well, in a way yes, but no, not really. I've noticed a few bloggers have started to post wanted images for a blogger named Felicity Jane Lowde (FJL) recently, regarding an ongoing legal dispute generated by what can only be described as a cat-fight, between her and perpetual victim of things like malice and 7/7, Rachel North. After reading both blogs, and opinions of other bloggers, I decided on what I thought was the best response to the growing hysteria and lynch-mob that has resulted. I have posted a similar warning for the blogosphere. What has taken place was avoidable and unnecessary. It's hard to tell how it started since both women seem to have deleted comments and posts (North more evidently than FJL), but it is possible to assume that FJL began by trolling Norths blog. To read some of FJL's early postings on her blog, you wonder how it turned so nasty. Similarly North started out simply wanting to share her story of survival. It seems that FJL does have a checkered past with allegations brought against her (no official sources) on a couple of forums. She appears to have picked up a real stalker at some point early 2006. She was initially supportive of North and the Kings Cross United movement. In May 2006 she posted a constructively critical piece on the KCU and Rachel North. Having read it, I can say it was in no way vitriolic or without merit. It was written as a genuine concern (one I would have shared at the time) and I think she was entitled to post this on her own blog. The following month, FJL testifies having "problems with Rachel North", in the form of a "plethora of angry and aggressive mails from the self appointed public enquiry head campaigner". So big deal, right? This is the blogosphere, people have strong opinions and people are entitled to them. But suddenly what was originally a difference of ideas and opinions descended into vendetta's, accusations and eventually police involvement. In my own mind (which may not be right), if you can't take public criticism or the odd troll, you shouldn't be blogging. But the ridiculousness of this situation and the fault of both these women, is that they obviously did not know that blogs, posts and comments can be deleted, IP addresses can be blocked, and comments can be moderated. Instead, they both entered into a pissing contest to prove who had been abused the most. One woman chose to publish it all on her blog, the other kept it low key and delete comments/posts (unfortunately -which makes it difficult for me to present her side). It ended with confiscation of FJL's computer and her subsequent conviction for "cyber-bullying" and harassment. FJL's life being obviously decimated, has reportedly skipped bail and is on the run. Not satisfied with justice being done, North decided to go public, which comes across to me as simply gloating and sneering. Still not content with coming out on top, she has also spearheaded the aforementioned blog-campaign for vigilantes to find and shop FJL. The following quote is apparently a police description of FJL. Sounds a bit too bitchy for the police: "The police are unable to release her arrest photo, but say she has aged and put on considerable amounts of weight since it was taken. Age 41 ( police say she appears older). 5'8 tall. Size 16/18 ( police say overweight for height) Eyes brown/green with unusual squinting appearance in one eye. Hair mouse/light brown, possibly some grey" Rachel North (Italics mine) I had never heard of these two women till recently from a couple of other blogs I read. I've seen examples of trolling and flaming. I've even had a few trolls on my blogs in the past (though I'm not a prominent blogger or widely read). I believe that gives me a unique perspective in that I am able to look at both blogs, both sides and assess what I see. From my point of view, it's clear that FJL comes across on her blogs as slightly obsessed with Rachel North. She has created a number of strange defense blogs (here, here and here) when there is only need for one. In her defense, she posts a lot of evidence and exchanges that have taken place, so even if you do not agree with her- there is a method to her madness, so to speak. FJL could have a mental illness, again she appears to to be highly paranoid and suspicious. However this does not make her an evil or bad person. Mental Illness is an illness. If FJL suffers from it then she needs to be treated with an attitude of forgiveness and care. IF FJL is mentally ill, then she has an excuse for her odd behaviour, which prompts me to question those who oppose her: what is your excuse? "Don't answer the foolish argument of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are." - Solomon On the other hand, North hardly smells of roses. FJL has accused her of "using press attention to further what are ambitious career goals in journalism rather than help other deserving people quietly get to the truth of the matter (May 04 2006)". To be fair, FJL may not be far off the mark. Of course, I'm not saying that North shouldn't have a career in journalism, but why write under the blog pseudonym? It's clear she has benefited from the publicity. FJL is not the only critic that North has had on her blog and she has had no problem moderating comments in the past. This should not have got as far as the police. This could have been dealt with by methods I mentioned above. Even persistent trolls can be dealt with and eventually tire when they are moderated, ignored and blocked. It seems to me that North was either: a) Ignorant of online forum and blog culture and the methods for dealing with hostile posters and/or b) Wanted to escalate the situation, possibly motivated by desire for justice revenge on one of her critics Yes, Option B sounds strong. But why now try to turn the blogosphere against a woman who is now obviously disturbed and unstable? If it is indeed with the police, leave it for them to find her. Why not host a more worthwhile campaign on your blog, is it really worth the hyperbole? I wonder, if Tony Blair ever decides to pursue libel against bloggers, how many of us would also end up with our computers confiscated, eh Rachel? What hasn't been helpful in escalating this sad affair is supporters of Rachel North. They are not innocent and are themselves guilty of the same accusations levelled against FJN. I suspect many people are blogging about this and adding the 'Wanted FJN' badge to their website without knowing the full story or reading both blogs. They have simply bought into the mob-mentality. I'm convinced some bloggers out there care little about what campaigns they are supporting, but simply leap for the chance to add another 150x200px badge to their sidebar. Blog-Solidarity - Blogidarity. As mentioned, North had her other critics, most notably David Duff (Duff & Nonsense). Last year Duff posted on his blog: "Rachel North is a young woman from north London who was on a train hit by Islamist terrorists on July 7th last year. I first crossed 'pens' with her over at The Sharpener (I can't find the link but it was about a month ago) and then again yesterday and today on her own site - although you will be hard pushed to find much because she censored me first before banning me! Apparently I "insulted" her by, amongst other things, suggesting that she was mounting a political platform on the backs of the dead and wounded." - Rachel North from Planet Zog Rachel responded in the comments: "...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..." There was then a comment from FJL which prompted Duff to intervene with a humourous but insightful retort: "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." However they BOTH paid no heed to his request and made further side jabs against each other, in the comments, until losing interest. Recently Duff has commented on the Liberati Lynch Mob that has formed since. Duff was right. This is nothing more than the blog equivalent of two drunk ladettes fighting outside a pub. There was no need for others to get involved. There was no need to form a lynch mob. They should have BOTH been ignored. I realise this will not be a popular post, I don't have a huge circulation of regular readers. I usually get about 15-20 SE hits a day, so it's quite conceivable I'm now exposing myself to supporters of Rachel North in the form of trolling. Since I've linked extensively to North, I imagine she'll see this post, and if she stays true to form, she will comment, as I have noticed on all other blogs I have viewed linking to the witch hunt. So Rachel, feel free to comment and defend yourself, but be prepared for my response. Here. And good luck with the new book, for which Lowde has undoubtedly brought much unintentional publicity.