The thought suddenly struck me as I was reading this story that I suspect FJL sees herself as an English version of Patricia Cornwell. Only in her case it is her who cyber-stalked Rachel North London.
In any event, it is difficult to see how Patricia Cornwell will get a satisfactory conclusion to the case because the cyber-stalker will probably continue to stalk her from Europe where the US law has no force.
Perhaps, it is time that a world wide law is drafted to combat this menace and provide no hiding place for cyber-stalkers?
China to drop its ban on anonymous bloggers.
UPDATE: FJLs latest cyber-stalking of Rachel North London.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
15 comments:
If New Labour made cyber stalking a criminal offence it will probably have a few illiberal measures in it. Such as Scopas law against peaceful protest in westminister.
It may give Iain Dale a chance to lock you up in revenge for humiliating him.
Just be careful about what you wish for.
If he could I think he would. One blogger has already tried this and failed.
Hadn't thought of cyber-stalking. It would be as bad as physical stalking.
Hi James: I have had minor attacks myself, but nothing compared to what happened to Rachel North London and an American woman blogger. Some have had to close down their blogs as a result of it, and there have been examples of violence including murder. Its an assault on the senses and it can take on terrorist-like proportions.
Fortunately cyberstalking doesn't seem to need new laws - you can bust people under the ten year old 1997 Protection from Harassment Act and the 1988 Malicious Communications Act in the UK. Death threats/abuse by email are treated the same as death threats/abuse by phone.
The main problem is how useless google/blogger are about provably defamatory and criminal content.
John, have a look at this post quick, before I take it down. I'd be interested to know your opinion on whether she is dangerous. I think as she sat for over an hour sending obscene and threatenign abuse, that is quite serious in terms of her state of mind. A few sentences bashed out in a temoer is one thing, but that level of hate is scary.
She remains at large in London, evading arrest and continues to harrass me.
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2007/05/fan-mail.html
Rachel: I have responded on your blog. I noticed that it had gone quiet on your blog, and I have not visited FJL's until today and it looked pretty mild. Until this.
She has been saving it up and let fly with everything. If someone came at me with that lot I would not rest until I had addressed the problem. I tend to argue that people are not dangerous, but that the situation is. I have difficulty holding that view in this particular case. If you two should ever meet and she is not restrained by handcuffs or a body belt...
How come the police are not able to track her whereabouts from the ISP? I suppose they would move hell and high water if it suddenly became a murder investigation.
For her own and your sake she not only needs shutting down but being shut away.
You could be next
Just to say I think you handled it well. Allowing the comment is Far Far superior to Censorship. Of course if there are repeats you are fully entitled to take avoiding action.
Cheers
"How come the police are not able to track her whereabouts from the ISP? I suppose they would move hell and high water if it suddenly became a murder investigation."
Yep - that's about the size of it. Of late, it's become difficult to get some data applications through the "gatekeepers" unless we can demonstrate a life-and-death importance. I have a feeling that's more to do with how much the ISP and moby companies charge us for a one-page reply, and it may not be such a problem in Metpol territory.
She seems a persistent bugger, so I wouldn't be surprised if she were using a WiFi laptop and other people's routers, so the ISP check might be misleading anyway. Deleting her comments is probably the sensible option, not giving her the opportunity to see her comments landing on screen..
MECS: Apparently she is using internet cafes. There can't be that many in her locale? CCTV footage? Photo distribution to the internet cafes, local library. I'm sure they can pull their finger out on this one. She's one hell of a loon...
Well, I have explained to the police in an email that I am now frightened.
I said on my blog all was cool, that was to try and brush her off , but I am afraid. After a year of this, keeping quiet, waiting for the trial and not prejudicing it, I am quite used to her attentions. I am not over-reacting. But to sit at a terminal typing hate messages for over an hour demonstrates a pathology that is really scary.
I dare anyone reading this to try it: sit down and be furious, vent venom, type obscenities and threats for more than 10 mins. Normal people cannot keep it up: they get bored.
She bombarded me with hate messages for over an hour.
On these grounds, after a year of progressively escalating abuse, I am now concerned for my safety.
I hope it does not turn into a murder enquiry: if it does please forward this blog comment to the Times.
Hi Rachel:
In law, the reasonable apprehension of assault constitutes assault. It does not mean that anyone has to actually lay a finger on you, and if that happens it becomes assault and battery.
There is already an assault to the senses with the cyber-stalking.
She has to be tracked down. And pressure applied to both Google and the ISP, to take her weapon away from her in the meanwhile.
the threat or apprehension of the assault must be immediate. so on that basis the internet wouldnt count. harassment covers it though, however it is very difficult to prove if said stalker is mobile.
There's a more obvious, and considerably more serious, offence than common assault (summary only), JHL.
She's put Rachel, quite understandably, in fear of violence. That makes it Section 4 harassment (either way offence; 5 years or unlimited fine if tried on indictment), rather than the summary only Section 2 for which she's already been convicted.
not saussure: I am aware that there are other ways in which she can be dealt with. She is a danger to the public and could be locked up even without committing a criminal offence.
My main concern is with Google and the ISP who could be preventing this stalking over the internet continuing. And, of course, the police who do not appear to have it as a priority.
The police have been trying pretty hard, they are relaint on sightings of her though or someone getting an ISP. If she leaves a comment on your blog, and you can grab the ISP, please shout.
I have no complaints wit the police, who have been hardworking and supportive throughout, and it is just bad luck that the Magistrate failed to keep her in and bailed her - bail conditions that she immediately broke.
Post a Comment