What more is there to be said on the subject of Rachel North and her erstwhile internet stalker, Felicity Jane Lowde.
Well, for one thing, Rachel is not Lowde’s only victim.
Take Daniel Hart, for example. Daniel is a graphic designer who made – in retrospect – the mistake of doing a bit of graphic work for her blog and has been accused repeatedly – and falsely – of being a ‘vindictive stalker’ with a history of violence against women.
It’s worth noting that Lowde’s blog, which up until a year or so ago used the standard pink blogger template, currently ascribes copyright on the design, layout and ‘look’ of the blog to Lowde herself, although whether any of Daniel’s work is still included on it is anyone’s guess.
Then there are a number of members of Casebook, a forum for Jack the Ripper enthusiasts who’ve been subjected to much the same kind of treatment as you’ll see from the extracts below:
In January 2005 I was contacted, via Casebook, by a woman called Felicity Jane Lowde, now 41, unemployed, of North Oxford.
She claimed she was a teacher at a private school and wished to buy one of my rare books for £250. I declined but said I would loan her the book on receipt of a surity. This never came but I began to receive strange e-mails from her which started to get personal and I asked her to stop contacting me.
Shortly after this I discovered she was defrauding many sellers of JTR material on eBay and I alerted eBay to this abuse. In early March, 2005, I received a phone call from Thames Valley Police informing me she had contacted them with a claim of harrassment against me, though I had nothing to do with the woman.
On sending them her e-mails, I was informed there was no case to answer and they spoke to her to insist she stopped making false claims.
Shortly after this I started receiving e-mails, silent and non-silent phone calls and a vast amount of libel on various blog sites. She followed me around the internet, claimed I had been arrested and was in psychiatric care, contacted my employers in attempts to get me fired and posted links to her libel blogs to individuals on other websites I contribute to. Some of you may remember her mass SPAMMING of Casebook and other Ripper sites in the summer of 2005 with false claims against me and demands that anyone contacted by me was to phone the police or her solicitors.
I was placed on Victim Support as a result.
Two years on and, periodically, the stalking continued. The police were involved at an earlier stage but no action was initially taken as it was a Civil rather than Criminal case…
…Felicity Jane Lowde has been arrested several times and was remanded in custody before appearing in court last year on several occassions . She claims she is a Jack The Ripper researcher with contacts in Special Branch and unlimited access to The National Archives. None of this is true. She also claims that Prince Eddy had a child with MJK and Sickert witnessed the Ripper killings (this is her ‘thesis’).
It appears that Felicity Jane Lowde is a woman who lives on benefits and has few friends or contacts outside of her libellous blog site.
In the summer of 2006 Lowde set up a vast array of libel sites about many of the leading people on this site – those of you who were victims of her harrassment, feel free to add your voice; I am not going to name any of you without your permission. Some of these sites still exist.
Early this year Thames Valley Police raided Lowde’s council flat and seized a huge array of apparatus she had used to stalk and harrass complete strangers. She has been held on remand in both Holloway Prison and Stoke Newington Police Station. At her last remand hearing, numerous bail conditions were set, which she instantly broke.
After the hearing, Felicity Lowde went ‘on the run’. She has not returned to her Oxford accomodation since and, as far as I can gather from her writing, has been living rough in London, surviving on benefits and begging on the streets. She is still, however, posting on her libel blog.
As most of you should be aware, Lowde is still on the run, having been convicted of harassment in her absence, but she continues to post harassing and libelous comments about Rachel on her blog, all of which has prompted a blog campaign to raise awareness of this case in the hope that it might lead to her arrest – check the post for the list of blogs/bloggers lending their support. Oh, and extra special props to DK for creating the blog buttons.
That’s the story so far, the ‘what’ if you like, but being a curious sort, ‘what’ is never quite enough for me – I have to try and understand why as well.
Lowde is not the first online obsessive I’ve been able to observe in action, although her particular brand of stalking ranks amongst the worst I’ve ever seen, and there is much is her modus operandi that is, unfortunately, all too familiar from prior incidents I’ve seen, first hand. All of which suggests what I think is an all too plausible explanation for her behaviour; plausible in the sense that on three previous occasions that I’ve encountered individuals who display the same kind of behaviour, the cause in each case has been the same – an untreated personality disorder, or to be more specific a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).
NPD and the internet don’t mix. Or rather they shouldn’t be allowed to mix for the good of the individual with the disorder, for reasons which necessitate an explanation what a narcissistic personality disorder is and how it affects those who have one.
NPD has been, rather aptly in my opinion, described as a state of ‘denial of the true self’. The root of this particular disorder, so far its understood, lies in the individual harbouring a subconscious belief that they are personally flawed in such a fundamental manner as to ensure that they will be be rejected and ostracised by others should they become aware of whatever the flaw is. Think in terms of someone having brutally low self esteem and a near pathological fear of rejection and isolation and you’ve got a far idea of what’s actually running under the hood in such individuals, although these anxieties operate at a below conscious level.
To understand how NPD manifests itself its perhaps to consider the diagnostic criteria for the disorder, as set out in DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition) – the annotations are my own, by the way:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder – A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
These are the classic indicators of NPD.
Individuals with the condition exhibit a massively overinflated sense of their own self importance, which they typically sustain by means of creating a false persona that serves to elevate their personal status within the social circles in which they move. More often than not this entails the creation and active promotion of a false life history which presents them to others as being markedly more successful or able than they really are, e.g. the junior clerk who claims to be a senior executive at their place of employment. One of the more common types of false personae adopted by NPDs is that which establishes their (undeserved) status by means of laying claim to be some kind of authority figure or expert in a particular field and a basis of establishing their superior status over others.
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
These two, similarly, go together. An NPD expects, if not demands, to be recognised as a superior individual on the strength of their false personae alone, without providing any evidence to validate their claim to such status. NPDs not only go to great lengths to elevate their social status by means of creating and outward promoting a false persona but the also make strenuous efforts to control how they are perceived by others. Anyone who challenges or questions their claim to superiority will, at best, be treated in an entirely dismissive manner. At worst a failure to buy in to their fictional character will be treated as a mortal insult and the NPD will respond abusively and aggressively in an attempt to browbeat their antagonist back into line.
Remember, NPDs are driven by a subconscious belief that they are fundamentally flawed in character in a manner that others would not accept were the truth to be revealed – anyone or anything that challenges the veracity of their false persona is perceived to be a serious threat to this subconscious act of concealment, hence the extreme reaction that questioning or challenging their self-generated status provokes.
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
As might be obvious, NPDs are highly manipulative and exhibit little concern for the feelings, abilities or personal reputation of other. All that matters is the validation of their own, claimed, high status and they tend to have few scruples when it comes to climbing on the backs of others to sustain their artificially elevated social position.
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
It follows, logically, that there is nothing an NPD finds quite so threatening as an encounter with an individual, or individuals whose status matches or exceed that of their assumed persona. Not only do NPDs tend to be deeply envious of such individuals, whose position has been gained on the basis of merit and genuine achievement, but such individuals also present the NPD with an omnipresent threat of exposure as a fraud.
The false belief that other are envious of them provides the NPD with both a means of shoring up their contrived personal status when threatened – i.e. the belief that others envy them and their status provides additional validation for the belief in their own superiority – and with a means of rationalising any challenge to, or questioning of, their false status by such individuals – i.e. anyone making such a challenge is obviously motivated by envy, therefore such a challenge can be dismissed on that basis alone.
Envy, in both forms described above, is a common response amongst NPDs to situation in which they feel threatened or at risk of exposure, which is why it appears in the diagnostic criteria. It it not, however, the only potential response. In more extreme cases, the fear of exposure may resolve itself into full blown paranoia, in which any questioning of, or challenge to, the NPD’s status is likely to be interpreted as deliberate persecution.
Such challenges may also prompt an NPD to elaborate and exaggerate the false persona even further in order to re-establish their ascendancy over their challenger, often by meaning of weaving into their false life history some sort of special, unique or otherwise inaccessible privileges of a kind not open to the individual who is perceived to be a threat; for example the NPD may claim to be the inventor or originator of something of value to their claimed status (but to have had their invention or idea stolen). Being the first to a discovery provides a means of elevating their status above others who cannot (obviously) share in such a distinction. Claiming membership of a closed, and preferably, secret social structure or to have privileged access to secret knowledge of some kind is another device commonly used by NPDs to reclaim the ascendancy when threatened.
This may also be accompanied by concerted efforts to reduce and/or minimise the status of the individual who is perceived to present a threat by means of false claims of wrongdoing – especially against the NPD – and wide-ranging ad hominem attacks on the individual’s personal character and integrity.
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Given everything cited previously, this last diagnostic criterion seems rather to be stating the bleeding obvious.
Before getting down to specifics in terms of Felicity Jane Lowde there are a couple of other things worth noting about NPDs.
First, NPDs rarely voluntarily seek treatment for their condition, because such treatment threatens both the integrity of their false persona and is likely to expose the unacceptable character flaw(s) that drive their condition.
Second (and if you’ve understood even part of what I’ve written thus far this should be obvious) the internet, and specifically blogs and online discussion forums are a near perfect environment for NPDs to operate, because it affords the NPD near complete control over the persona they present to others. In the online world you can claim to be pretty much anything you want to be with only a very limited chance of being exposed as a fake or a fraud, so long as you’re careful to conceal your real identity, steer clear of situations and environments where there may be people who know you in the real world and who might be able to connect you to your online persona, and are reasonable consistent in the character to put on display to others.
The internet is an almost uniquely attractive environment for NPD because it affords them a degree of control over both how they present themselves and how others perceive them that is almost impossible to achieve in the real world. Form my own experience I think it would be fair to say that most of the worst and most difficult trolls I’ve encountered online have shown clear signs of mental illness or an untreated personality disorder and, of those, by far the most difficult to deal with have those who have been verified as having or shown clear signs of a narcissistic personality disorder.
That’s the social science bit over and done with, now what of Rachel’s stalker?
Well, as I’ve said, a number of aspects of Lowde’s behaviour and modus operandi seem rather too familiar for comfort and are broadly consistant with other problem characters I’ve dealt with in the past who have, at some point, been verified as having a narcissistic personality disorder.
So while I am categorically NOT making a diagnosis – that kind of thing must right be left to a practicing clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, and my personal specialism, in any case, was organisational psychology, human factors and information systems, what I am prepared to state in terms of fair comment is that there are a number of elements in Lowde’s behaviour that are broadly consistent with the diagnostic criteria for NPD and that these would be sufficient for a clinical practitioner to consider it a possibility worth considering should Lowde be professionally assessed (and my personal opinion is that she should have such an assessment).
That’s not a statement that I’m prepared to make without some evidence to back it up, and in Lowde’s case one of the most compelling pieces of evidence lies in her claim to be a graduate researcher who has/had privileged access to secret files held by Special Branch and the National Archive, a claim which features heavily in both her interactions with members of the Casebook community and with Rachel and other members of the Kings Cross United group.
Notwithstanding obvious questions as to the veracity of such a claim – Lowde claims to have been given this access at least in part to facilitate her (claimed) research into the Jack the Ripper case – this is precisely the kind of claim to expert status based on otherwise unattainable privilege that often features in severe cases of NPD.
The Jack the Ripper case is one that still provokes considerable public interest from time to time and has its own dedicated and highly knowledgeable following – a search on Amazon UK for ‘Jack the Ripper’ returns more than 250 books currently in print on the subject, and even if we take out works of pure fiction, there must be at least 150 books currently available that deal with the factual elements of the case and advance various theories as to the identity of ‘Jack’ and his possible motives. And that’s just the currently available stock, never mind the many and varied past works on the subject that are no longer in print.
In short, an online community based on a shared interest in ‘Jack the Ripper’ is a very difficult environment for anyone to enter and rise to the top of the pile. It’s a subject on which there’s is not much to be said that’s likely to be entirely original and hasn’t been said or alluded to before and a wide range of active theories each of which have their own dedicated following, which make for plenty of lively discussion and considerable scope for intellectual dispute.
To establish one’s personal status as a genuine ‘expert’ in such an environment one much either bring to the table a verifiable track record of genuine expertise or have (or claim to have) access to information that’s otherwise unavailable to the rest of the community, of which there is very little in existence that hasn’t already been extensively picked over by past researchers…
…unless, of course, on claims to have access to privileged information held by Special Branch and the National Archives, information that requires a form of security clearance not permitted to others, which is precisely what Lowde did claim.
This claim, which members of the community in question assert is completely untrue, fits very nicely with several elements of the diagnostic criteria for NPD. It’s certainly grandiose and based (seemingly) on a complete fantasy and, of course, if it were true it would mark Lowde out as being ‘special’ and uniquely privileged and elevate her status – based on a claim to expertise – in such a community to a level unattainable by others in a manner that would be expected to provide Lowde with a significant degree of recognition and admiration were she able to substantiate such a claim with hard evidence – which, of course, she cannot provide because her claim to expertise is predicated on an association with a closed social environment (the security services) which conveniently precludes her from being in a position to reveal her source material to others; this being the only effective means of validating her claims.
This whole strand of outwardly project persona and claimed life history fits the diagnostic pattern for NPD very nicely, even without consideration of her behaviour towards members of the community when this claim to expertise failed to deliver the attention and unquestioning recognition she would have expected.
These claims about privileged access to information held by the security services feature in a number of Lowde’s earliest posts about Rachel and the Kings Cross United group, starting at around the point at which she began to turn on the group over its calls for a public inquiry into the London Bombings.
In a post on May 4, 2006, entitled ‘My stance on the 7/7 Kings Cross United project‘, Lowde pitches her claimed ‘privileged’ relationship with the security services three times in this one post, which appears to be the first in which started to turn against Rachel and KCU group:
I wanted to be clear about the way I feel over the 7/7 survivors current KCU issues, partly for the benefit of those in security whom I work with, but also for KCU themselves, for the other 7/7 survivors who detract from the public enquiry campaign approach, and for our readers.
In 2005 I was working at security buildings based in London, looking at documents with special permission. ( Special Branch, New Scotland Yard.) I’m a researcher, based in Oxford and London, I look at secret history. It’s not a thing I go into much on my blog. I was taking the London transport myself when the bombs went off, travelling between Whitechapel and ( -security building) and like many London people I was profoundly affected by the news.
I have advised Rachel that liaising with the press and chiming in with their agenda so that they regularly print your stories and making genuine advances with the security services doesn’t mix. It’s I thing I’d never do. I’ve told Rachel this several times. I have told her that her only real way forward should she be genuine in her desire to get to the truth is to make an application to be granted special permission to view documents relating to her matter. I told her that the security matter is live, and that even if there were signs of her being organised about a public enquiry it would almost certainly not be granted because documents relating to live security matters can’t be thrown about in the public domain.
As an experienced researcher I feel strongly enough about the crafty way the press have been handling ( maneuvering) ‘Rachel From North London’ to write a whole book, but anyone could guess the content. Mainstream press have been pushing Rachel to accommodate their political standpoint and she has been a willing puppet. I can’t go along with throwing mud at the security services when one doesn’t get one’s own way, which is the media approach.
Pretty much the entire purpose of this post is to establish Lowde’s ascendancy over Rachel based on her claim to a privileged relationship with the security services – which she doesn’t appear to actually have – which she then reinforces by claiming that Rachel sole available route to substantive information about the events of 7/7 is to obtain the same privileged status that Lowde claims to possess. At this stage Lowde is at least publicly on cordial terms with Rachel and the rest of the group, but only because at this point she is still actively seeking to establish her superiority over them by advising them that they should aspire to be like her – she’s clearly seeking to obtain recognition and validation by way of trying elicit imitation from members of the group.
About a month later, Lowde is back on the subject of the 7/7 bombing and fulsome to the point of obsequiousness in her praise for the contents of the London Assembly report on the bombing, which she again uses to try and assert her claim to a privileged status:
One of the reasons the research report is so important is that it highlights the prevalent problem as per communication between the public and the modern Security Services which results in the public being badly let down in moments of crisis in the wake of terrorist attacks.
Inside the Security Services there is a strong reluctance to disclose relevant protection information on the premise that the public cannot be trusted with security matters at all. This way of thinking is partly ‘culture’. In its origin, it’s motivated by a genuine desire not to compromise security operations. It’s not an attitude that’s impossible to understand , either, when the many foolish, dangerous and aggressive attitudes directed towards the Security Services are so very apparent.
There seems to be a vicious cycle of closed communication between the Security Services and the public which it seems imperative to carefully break. This surely cant be done in an atmosphere of hostility, such as the press continually create. There is a need for stepped up awareness and good communications between the Security Services, the Emergency Services and the public.
Although seemingly critical of the nature of the ‘vicious cycle of closed communication between the Security Services and the public’, Lowde makes her remarks only after going to some lengths to present herself as an ‘insider’ – again she’s laying claim to expertise based on the fiction of a privileged relationship with the security services. However she saves her most interesting remarks in this post for its final paragraph:
N.B. This doesn’t mean I have changed my mind about the ill advised public enquiry. I have advised the survivors that that particular campaign will only lead to misery and exhasution [sic]. I am not going to change my mind about that, however angry and aggressive a small few people feel/are towards me for having given that information.
This appears to be the first clear indicator that things are about to turn nasty and, as importantly, why. Ignore the reference to ‘angry and aggressive’, that’s just a means of dismissing dissenting opinion without addressing its substance, what matters here is that she claims to have ‘advised the survivors that that particular campaign will only lead to misery and exhasution [sic]’, having stated a month earlier that she had ‘advised Rachel that liaising with the press and chiming in with their agenda so that they regularly print your stories and making genuine advances with the security services doesn’t mix’ and that she’d ‘told Rachel this several times’.
If Lowde does, indeed, have a narcissistic personality disorder, then Rachel’s failure to accept Lowde’s ‘advice’ (and, therefore, her ‘superior’ status) is like a red rag to a bull. Rachel’s not buying into Lowde’s claim to privileged status, which to most people is simply a difference of opinion, but to an NPD its both a denial of the status they believe they should be afford and a potential threat to their public facade. It’s also unlikely to be a coincidence that this turn in Lowde’s attitude to Rachel begins to emerge within a couple of weeks of Rachel and the KCU group having met with the Home Secretary (by this point, John Reid) – remember status is a major issue in this case and Lowde’s claim to possess a higher status than Rachel is based on her claim to privileged access to the security services, a claim that’s rather extensively trumped by the KCU group in obtaining direct access to the Home Secretary.
The full extent to which Lowde had, by this time, turned on Rachel only became apparent a couple of days later when she commented for the first time on the abusive e-mails she’d been receiving from Lowde:
I’ve been getting abusive emails from one of the blog readers, who I have repeatedly asked to leave me alone. She is convinced that she is helping me; but she is sending dozens of emails, lecturing and ranting, and saying as many hurtful things as she can think of. The conspiracy theorists who tell me I am a liar and deserve to die I can deal with, but this person is troubling. Has anyone any ideas of the best course of action? I think I might need to go to the police.
It’s worth reading this post both for the choice selection of Lowde’s ‘work’ both at this initial stage of the harassment and from an update added the following November and because nowhere in this post does Rachel actually name Lowde as the person responsible for this harassment, its actually Lowde who ‘outs’ herself as being responsible for the abusive e-mails sent to Rachel with this ‘response’ on her own blog the following day.
A cursory comparison between the two posts makes for interesting reading.
Lowde, for example, states on her own blog:
Rachel North was on the train carriage where everyone died, blown apart, waiting for rescue, while their lives ebbed away. Many survivors fled the scene. Rachel fled the scene and she was unscathed. I have had a nagging question about this and I asked her ” Why didn’t you stay and help the dying?”
Rachel, however, shows that Lowde framed this question in altogether more aggressive terms:
‘Why didn’t you stay and help the dying?
So you could have a go at journalism?
Having noted the possibility that Lowde may have a narcissistic personality disorder, I started to look into this to try an understand how and why Rachel became the focus for this harassment, which necessitating going back to the beginning and trying to identify how and why it all started.
From what’s available in the public domain, it appears that Lowde latched on the KCU group and then, following the diktats of her condition, attempted to assert her superiority over the group by using he claim to have privileged access to the security services to take control of the groups’ campaign and direct it into an approach that would afford her the high status she is seeking to claim. What she wanted the group to do was drop their efforts to secure a public inquiry into the bombing and buy wholesale into the idea that they would only get further information by cosying up to the security services and obtaining the kind of privileged access to information that Lowde claims (seemingly falsely) to have had – access that they would certainly have been refused.
Had Rachel, and others in the group, been gullible enough to buy into this then their failure to obtain such access would have meant either giving up on their efforts or going cap in hand to Lowde to ask her to use her (non-existent) privileges to secure further information. The latter scenario, which is what it seems likely that Lowde was trying to bring about, would have put her firmly in control of the group by giving her control over their access to information – even though she was no more able to get access to privileged information than any other member of the group. Had that happened, Lowde would have got her payoff by becoming, at least for as long as she could sustain the fiction that she had privileged access to information, the most important and valuable ‘member’ of the group.
The initial trigger for the harassment was, therefore, the group’s refusal to buy unthinking into this scenario, denying Lowde her ‘payoff’. Rachel then became the focus of Lowde’s anger and abuse simply because her public profile makes her, by default, the ‘Alpha’ member of the KCU group so far as its perceived by Lowde – whether or not that’s a role that Rachel occupies in reality is immaterial; Lowde has never met the group as has no idea of its internal dynamics. In Lowde’s ‘world’ she can only assert her superiority over the group by ‘topping’ Rachel, and having failed to do so by means of her false persona; the researcher with privileged access to the security services, her only means of doing this is to try and destroy Rachel’s public profile and personal reputation.
To make matters even worse, from Lowde’s perspective, Rachel and the group then obtained a measure of privileged access of their own – the meeting with John Reid – which made them (and Rachel in particular) a direct threat to Lowde’s false persona – what if they’d have asked Reid about Lowde’s claims and got the reply ‘who?’. Suddenly we’re being merely denying Lowde the status she believes she deserves and into the possibility that Rachel and others in the KCU group may obtain information that would expose Lowde’s false persona. The irony, of course, is that it was actually Lowde’s reaction – the harassment – that prompted Rachel to contact the police and led her to obtain exactly the kind of background information on Lowde that she didn’t want to become public knowledge.
And so on and so forth…
That’s the kicker with NPD – the more that the false persona falls apart the more the individual with the condition tries to cling on to it, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the whole thing is a facade and a tissue of lies, falsehood and gross exaggerations.
One of the previous NPDs I encountered claim to be the inventor of the ion drive (and to have their designs stolen by NASA), a fiction they tried to maintain even after they were not only shown documentary evidence of NASA working on ion drives more than ten years before the were born but actually ran into (in the online sense) an actual NASA engineer, who promptly (and very publicly) handed them their arse on a platter.
So, it comes as no great surprise to find that in September 2006, with Lowde’s campaign of harassment get fully into it stride, she was still making posts in which she advances the fiction that she have privileged access to the security services in an effort to advance her own status over that of Rachel and the KCU group:
I am being portrayed as fascinating and bizarre and intriguing.
By North’s hangers on, tetchy and pointless ‘Blair dissenters’, I am being portrayed as illiterate and incapable of expressing a political view.
I am none of these. I am a researcher with a happy life, answers, and privileged access, who disagrees with you all, and thinks you are alot of timewasters . Get over it.
I also thought that taking statements I made about my experiences inside the canteen when researching with Special Branch, which are of no great security significance, incidentally, and promoting them as an alleged example of my purported ‘delicious indiscretion’ was opportunistic and untrustworthy.
Shockah: the agents confiding interesting subjects in me over coffee in the canteens didn’t reveal anything they wouldn’t be happy to see discussed elsewhere. Another shockah: I have never breached the O S act and I have never betrayed my research. Numeral’s insipid innuendos are utterly silly. They are also damaging to people I worked with, who are good people.
I’m getting tough at present about people who simply can’t behave on the Internet. Numeral’s, Kier’s, Bridget’s, Rachel’s, Quarsan’s, the Antagoniser’s and others’ behaviour is a prize example of how to get yourselves in someone’s bad books. Sneaking, selfish and underhand. Get a life.
And, indeed, this fiction persists right to this day, all be it in a rather different form:
Nonetheless, a false prosecution against me is convenient to Nicolas Pierce (and associates), Special Branch P R, who is facilitating it via the police she’s been courting at the Met, on account of the work that is on my hard drives that relates to Special Branch files that ought to have been released to the public. But she began this current matter, along with the obvious sleezo greebo local Oxford stalker Daniel Hart; I am quite sure that Special Branch didn’t. I spoke with Nicolas Pierce and told him that my hard drives had been taken on account of her and his false allegations (on the telephone) for one, as I have stated, and I know genuine surprise when I hear it ( he instantly began asking opportunistic and artful questions) ; and two, she is obviously (from their point of view) a twit and a loose canon who would never get close to S B. Since she began her vendetta, he has helped facilitate it, (hence my email to him when I was very distressed in the beginning, title ‘you bastard’- not in the public domain obviously, and not produced in Court by anyone) because her vendetta involves the (false) retention of my hard drives and property by local and Metropolitan police.
That’s from yesterday…
To be clear, none of this changes the fact that Felicity Jane Lowde has been tried and convicted of harassment and will, when the police finally catch up with her, be sentenced by a court of law – that is only right and proper.
To that, I would also strongly suggest that she undergoes a full psychiatric assessment – as I’ve said I’m not trying to make a diagnosis here (and there are other disorders that can give rise to markedly similar behaviours) but what I am confident of is that a narcissistic personality disorder – and quite a serious one at that – is a distinct possibility. What needs to be determined is both whether such a disorder is at work here (and I would venture that Lowde has some sort of personality disorder, the only question that needs to be answered is precisely what kind) and whether its actually treatable (some personality disorders aren’t, unfortunately).
I would also hope that not only will Rachel be granted a full injunction to prevent any further communications but that the court considers taking steps to keep Lowde off the internet altogether until she’s been assessed (and treated, if that’s possible) – if she does have an NPD then, unfortunately, the only thing that that allowing her to use the internet does is facilitate and sustain her condition, if not make it worse.
Finally, I would also suggest strongly that if anyone knows of her whereabouts and especially if you happen to be putting up at the moment, then you’d best best advised to contact the police and disclose her location to them. If anyone is harbouring her at the moment or giving her a place to stay then you should be aware that you’re really not doing her any favours at all – she may well wind up in prison but at least there she has a chance of receiving the treatment she certainly appears to need, which she isn’t going to get while she still on the run.