Watch out, there’s a stalker about!

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

Libertarian blogger, Rachel from North London, has been the victim of a sustained attack by a fruitcake stalker by the name of Felicity Jane Lowde, also known as “fjc”.

FJC has been found guilty of stalking in her absence and is now wanted by the police.  She didn’t turn up to her trial because she believes she is the victim and Rachel and the police are the criminals who are going to be going to jail.  It’s ok though, Jesus is on her side.

The woman is clearly 5 cans short of a 6 pack and probably a bit unstable in “real life”.  She frequents cyber cafés around London and Oxford despite being banned at a previous court appearance from using the internet.  There’s a good chance that now her picture has spread around the blogosphere she will leave the south east of England so everyone should remain vigilant.

If you see Felicity Jane Loony phone your local police station or Crimestoppers.  If she comments on your blog you should let the police know details of her comments – time, date and IP address – as these can be used to track her movements.


  1. Rachel (6 comments) says:

    Thank you – let’s hope she is found soon and all this is over

  2. Sean Lynch (80 comments) says:

    WANTED for terrorising England TONY BLIAR.
    Said to be impersonating a Prime Minister, currently off on a global farewell tour at huge expense and just imagine the size of his “carbon footprint”.
    Last seen in U.S. gawping up mawkishlsy at Pres. G.W. Bush.
    REWARD for capture DEAD or ALIVE,
    the eternal thanks of a grateful Nation.

  3. KeithS (80 comments) says:

    Nice one Sean 🙂
    You forgot one thing. His big, final farewell present-to-come to the country, signing up to the European Constitution in defiance of our wishes and his previously stated promise that there would be a referendum on this.
    It’s just a two fingered salute to the country which will pay his gold bottomed pension for the rest of his life.

  4. Allie (93 comments) says:

    Maybe if Rachel, like others, didn’t labour under the misapprehension that her every thought needed to be shared with an eager, waiting world on her blog, she wouldn’t have been troubled by unwanted attention.

  5. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    So it’s Rachel’s fault for putting herself in a position where this fruitcake could break the law and stalk her?

  6. Allie (93 comments) says:

    No, its not her fault … but I don’t see why she’s surprised. And she’s gone completely the wrong way about tackling the problem (which you, inadvertently, are also doing).

    It’s profoundly naive to imagine that you can share vast quantities of personal information, however banal, inane and pointless (can’t stop singing Take Me Home Country Roads, can’t find dance kit, like being married), without it attracting some kind of unwanted attention. If, for whatever unfathomable reason, you decide that what the world most needs is unfiltered access to your every thought, then don’t be surprised if people react to it. Don’t want the hassle? Then don’t post personal information on the internet. It’s not difficult. To that extent, she has put herself in that position.

    And as I said, she’s gone about dealing with the problem in completely the wrong way. Stalkers crave attention; they want to get a reaction from their victims. Writing about them on the internet at enormous length, getting other people to write about them on the internet and post their pictures on other sites, making a fuss … all of this makes them feel like they’ve succeeded. She is – and by joining in, you are – giving the stalker exactly what she wants, in order to feel that her actions are validated. The correct thing to do would have been not to have responded or reacted online at all, but to quietly involve the police. And then shut the hell up about it. However, it’s clearly somewhat too late for that now.

  7. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    She ignored the stalker but it didn’t work.

    Writing a blog puts you in the public eye just like a journalist or media personality. Should journalists refrain from writing in case they attract the attention of a nutter? Should we replace all TV presenters with robots in case they get a stalker?

  8. Allie (93 comments) says:

    How is turning the stalker into a celebrity making things better? If ignoring it didn’t work, then she didn’t ignore it for long enough. And why go to the other extreme?

    Writing a blog doesn’t `put you in the public eye’, it just puts your thoughts and, in some cases, vast amounts of personal detail, into the public domain. No, journalists shouldn’t refrain from writing in case they attract unwanted attention. Many do; they just handle it in a more mature fashion than in this case, which is why you don’t hear about it. But journalists understand that it’s a risk they take, so when it happens, they don’t whine about it. It comes with the professional territory; but they’re journalists. They have to write. If someone doesn’t want the attention their blog brings them, then they can just stop writing a blog.

  9. Rachel (6 comments) says:

    Thing is Allie – I did go to the police, last year, quietly ( after she made false complaints to the cops about me – before that, I just asked her to stop, then ignored her) . I continued to ignore it. For 400 days. Made no difference. I didn’t respond. Still made no difference. The CPS prosecuted, and I went to the trial when called as a witness. Stalker found guilty and stalker went on run. Is still using internet cafes to stalk me and others to this day. Stalker is now convicted criminal who is wanted for immeidate arrest and there is a warrant out. Police struglling to find her, but she is know to use cyber cafes in London. Targeted ad campaign therefore angled at bloggers and internet cafe users. I did explain all this on my blog but never mind.

    Oh – and I am a professional freelance journalist. So this is what I do, I write. Usually I write about terrorism.
    I posted the banal stuff you mention to try and get stalker to calm down temporarily – on police advice.

  10. Rachel (6 comments) says:

    I do usually use spellcheck though.

  11. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Looks like they got her

  12. To hell with the EUroland! (3 comments) says:

    So this doesnt mean the old bill can use this case as a benchmark then ah? Fod gawd’s sake, you know they’re dying to stop the internet working, i.e. people actually talking the truth about things. You don’t think that they’ll bring up this and other cases like it to “prove” that future so and so’s were acting like terrorists and deserved to be imprisoned? I think you’re playing right into their hands. Unless you are them of course.

  13. To hell with the EUroland! (3 comments) says:

    Anyway, why can’t you just add their numbers to the banned list? I smell something fishy and piggy!

  14. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    The harassment Rachel was getting had gone beyond malicious communications and into telling the police Rachel and her family had done things.

    The internet is impossible to control but I think you’ll find that some websites are already blocked in the UK and that even your local council has the power to snoop on your internet connection and email account.

  15. Allie (93 comments) says:

    Fair enough, and it must be a great relief to you if she’s now in custody … but if you’d not been blogging – and as a professional journalist, surely you have enough outlets for your writing? why would you do it if you’re not getting paid for it? – then it wouldn’t have happened.

    Hugely entertained, though, by the idea from To Hell With The EUroland, that the internet is `people actually talking the truth about things’.

    And yes, Wonko, the internet is impossible to control. There are arguments for and against that. But we can control our own use of the internet, and if it’s causing problems, then we can stop.

  16. Rachel (6 comments) says:

    Allie, I was just one of the victims, and I only went to the police when she involved them herself with false complaints. AQs it turns out, she doesn’t just stalk bloggers and she served a prison sentence for RL stalking before. She has a long history and a list of victims who are currently applying to have their names added to her restraining order, including a graphic designer, an author, a crime historian…none of whom blog.

    As to the impact on free speech – she was done under a 1997 law, which protects people from harassment whether it is silent phone calls, dog poo through letter boxes, poison pen letters, swastikas daubed on garage doors or whatever.

    Why do I blog? I enjoy it, it’s a good way to write every day which is imprtant for writers to do, it ‘s a way fo keeping in touch with friends and havbing interesting discussions, and it’s also a way I get freelance work. It would be more of a blow for free speech if bloggers were silenced because of a few nutters who use new technology to harass random victims. I have a letter box; but it doesn’t mean I invite hatemail. I have a blog, and plenty of trolss pop by but the police looked at what was going ion and said this wasn’t trolling, it was abusive and it was harassment, and due to all the previous victims and complaints they ‘d already had, were keen to prosecute.

Leave a Reply

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

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.