« Predatory Lesbians! | Main | That Caribbean Vacation »

June 29, 2007

Felicity Lowde

Remind me to be very polite in any emails I might send to Rachel North will you?

Yesterday at Thames Magistrates’ Court, Lowde, from Oxford, was jailed for six months.

...

As well as the prison term, a restraining order and a five-year antisocial behaviour order were imposed yesterday.

June 29, 2007 in Weblogs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00e008cf150e8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Felicity Lowde:

Comments

I don't think there is any need to remind you to do that at all.

I take it that you don't need reminding not to send threatening letters though?

Posted by: Cleanthes | Jun 29, 2007 10:21:32 AM

Quiet is the new Lowde.

Posted by: lovegoats | Jun 29, 2007 12:02:17 PM

Well, not to be a contrarian, nor to approve of what Ms Lowde did, but -

Am I right in thinking that someone just got locked up for hurting someone else's feelings?

I relaize that may be an oversimplification, but that's what it amounts to.

I see no reports of threats, overt or otherwise. I see reports of quite-possibly-slanderous/libellous statements, but those are civil matters.

So now you can get locked up for hurting someone's feelings?

Explain.

llater,

llamas

Posted by: llamas | Jun 29, 2007 1:30:00 PM

Llamas:
Lowde was convicted previously of stalking behaviour and was generally considered to be a public menace and generally plain old Batshit Crazy.
This had apparently gone on for some time and was not just a case of scooping someone marginally impolite off the street and banging her up.

Posted by: Robert | Jun 29, 2007 2:07:49 PM

"Am I right in thinking that someone just got locked up for hurting someone else's feelings?"

No. Read the details on Rachel's blog - this woman targetted not only her, but many, many others. The author of the 'Copper's Blog' was another of her victims. She had a particular downer on some Ripper forum folks, and her former web designer.

She's a 100% grade-A nutcase. Let's hope the courts do the right thing, for once....

Tim adds: what, get her treatment? In prison? Bit hopeful there, eh?

Posted by: JuliaM | Jun 29, 2007 4:13:16 PM

I know how she is/was - I was one of her targets during her brief appearances on Coppersblog.

And I agree that she certainly appears to be a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal.

But I have seen no indication that she ever made any credible threat, of violence or indeed of anything else. I have heard it claimed that she was a 'stalker', but I have not seen any report that suggests that she physically 'stalked' anyone, in the sense of following them around or actively interfering with their lives in any way.

What it comes down to is that she said things about other people. Nasty. horrible, unpleasant things, to be sure. Hurtful things, things designed and intended to offend.

But that's all she did - say things that hurt someone else's feelings.

Someone above called her a 'public menace' - an assertion entirely unsupported by any facts. The worst she appears to have risen to was a public nuisance.

So I ask the same question again - hurting someone else's feelings now warrants 6 months in the Black Bar Motel? Merely being an offensive nuisance is now a crime?

If she's a 'Grade-A nutcase' - note that I do not say that she is, I merely quote the remarks of another - then my next question is -

Is 6 months in prison now an accepted mode of treatment for mental illness?

llater,

llamas

Posted by: llamas | Jun 29, 2007 10:38:24 PM

OK, I will tackle this here, and nowhere else, because this is a well read site and I respect the author.

I've explained more on my site but no, it is not about 'hurt feelings', or 'trolling' or blogspats. I get the usual random trolling crap sent to me all the time, and I can asssure readers here that the police are too busy to ask the CPS to prosecute re. 'hurt feelings'.

Lowde was found guilty of s2 harassment, a crme she had been repeatedly charged with before and had served a jail term for. In this latest case, it was so severe that the Judge said *three times* in court that his 'powers were insufficient with relation to sentencing'.She was given the maximum possible sentence.She'll be out in early September, 3 months less 21 days remand. I wish she would get treatment, but it is sadly unlikely. She has never sought nor accepted treatment before, in prison or out. I am not sure if she is even treatable. But she did commit crimes, repeatedly.

I suppose harassment as an offence by definition includes 'hurting feelings'; in my case it also included publishing my work and personal details alongside exhortations and claims to the public that that I was a mentally ill criminal who should be severely pubished for my evil and malice, who should 'pay slowly' for my 'spite'. It included making false complaints to the police about me, asking for me to be prosecuted, contacting my employers and claiming I was guilty of criminal offences. After conviction and repeated bail breaches she moved to within 4.5 miles of my flat, bombarding me with hate messages on a minute-by-minute basis & telling me I was going to 'pay for my crimes. Slowly' and 'rot in jail' and hoping I would die soon.
She also alleged my father was involved in child porn, & that my husband would soon be convicted of rape.

Over a dozen other victims were named in the post-conviction ASBO: in their cases, she had made false complaints to the police that they were violent abusers,
defrauded them, tried to get them sacked by making false complaints to their employers, set up hate/libel blogs about them so when you types in their professional details you were directed to dozens of sites alleging they were criminal violent sick abusers.See a pattern? Since 1996? The police did, and so did the Judge.


She also attacked the police, the CPS and her publicly-funded legal aid team and they too asked to be protected by the court order.

Oh yeah. She sent hundreds of emails and comments to me and made over 800 pages of public defamatory postings, using google to damage reputations about me and her other victims. So yes. She hurt my feelings as well. But that wasn't really the point.

As far as I am aware, all victims of crimes tend to feel pretty hurt by the experience. Fortunately, the court is there to go through the evidence. Max sentence was passed in this case, for a serial offender, a serial harrasser; I think that makes the point well enough.


Posted by: Rachel | Jun 30, 2007 12:29:45 AM

"..I have not seen any report that suggests that she physically 'stalked' anyone, in the sense of following them around .."

You need to move with the times, llamas. It's possible, these days, to do just that in cyberspace and not physically. See Rachel's comment above, if you are still wondering if this can constitute real hurt.

Also, "Merely being an offensive nuisance is now a crime?". Yes, since ASBOs. Or do you believe that people continue to be driven to the end of their tether, and sometimes to suicide, by the actions of 'offensive nuisances' for who the courts could provide no redress..?

Thankfully, the court appears, in this one instance at least, to have moved with the times...

Posted by: JuliaM | Jun 30, 2007 10:02:35 AM

Interesting case. But it appears to me that this woman has had negative consequences for her behavior without a resulting positive effect. Prison is not rehabilitating her. Is it possible that she be forced into treatment? It is probable that she has some personality disorders which are not particularly amenable to treatment (paranoid, borderline and histrionic for starters) but wouldn't that be the best course to prevent recidivism? Perhaps a court ordered frontal lobotomy should be next.

Posted by: Bubba S. | Jul 7, 2007 8:54:09 AM

Well, there's always the 'chemical lobotomy'. In a way I'm glad this case received so much publicity - I now know what the Great British Public really think of the mentally ill. And, no, this particular court hasn't 'moved with the times' (although it was probably moved by 'The Times') for, if it had, it would have issued a treatment order.

Posted by: Bellacat | Jul 8, 2007 8:52:35 AM

Restraining order

[[[[[Committed to prison for 8 weeks forthwith because of the nature and seriousness of the offence and the conduct found. Offence so serious. Overall length of sentence 26 weeks.
Restraining Order: made that the defendant must: 1- Not to contact directly or indirectly Elizabeth or John Walter or any member of their family, 2- not to contact directly or indirectly Suzanne Todd except to arrange contact with Oliver and Morgan Todd in accordance with contact arrangements made by Family Proceedings court or through solicitors in connection with any legal proceedings, 3 - Not to contact any solicitors instructed by Suzanne Todd other than through a solicitor instructed by you or the official solicitor, 4 - Not to contact Suzanne Todd’s mother namely Suzanne Condon, 5- Not to go within 10 metres of the curtalage (sic) of Suzanne Todd’s address, 6 – Not to contact Phillipa Pearson directly or indirectly, 7 – Not to apply for a domain name or e-mail address carrying any name but your own or any company by which you are employed, 8 – Not to publish on any website any information or material on Suzanne Todd, John and Elizabeth Walter, any member of the legal profession or member of staff employed by the legal profession, any school or any staff member employed by school including school Governors, 9 – Not to publish or distribute any material relating to any member of the legal profession other than in direct correspondence with that member of the legal profession.
This Order is in force for Five Years. ]]]]]
Since you are clearly determined to ensure that justice is done we would mention that the said Suzanne Todd is alleged to have stated at trial that she received no money from the Defendant and that he forced her to sell her home. Between 13.09.97 and 19.12.01 she knew that we paid her £54,188.90 as requested by the Defendant. The Defendant gave her the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home in Wembley, arranged for her to have a wage of £500 per week, a free car, free diesel fuel, free car insurance and free car maintenance but stopped this for good reasons after she betrayed him badly. She received something in order of £500,000 from the time they separated until she started sharing her home with a married businessman and the two children of the marriage. She claimed in the Family Court that she was “on benefit*. She received Legal Aid.
From what we hear in spite of the Defendant not being present at his trial most of the prosecution witnesses committed perjury.
The Defendant has appealed against conviction only by application to the Crown Court where he is being met with the same abuses. He has asked for a copy of his letter of appeal sent to the Crown Court from Woodhill Prison and has pointed out that he is not appealing against sentence. He has already served his sentence. It would appear that the Crown Court has already decided to refuse the appeal and increase the sentence for offences that were to be dealt with initially by a caution or by an undertaking.

Posted by: J M Todd | Nov 26, 2007 3:38:11 PM

Restraining order

[[[[[Committed to prison for 8 weeks forthwith because of the nature and seriousness of the offence and the conduct found. Offence so serious. Overall length of sentence 26 weeks.
Restraining Order: made that the defendant must: 1- Not to contact directly or indirectly Elizabeth or John Walter or any member of their family, 2- not to contact directly or indirectly Suzanne Todd except to arrange contact with Oliver and Morgan Todd in accordance with contact arrangements made by Family Proceedings court or through solicitors in connection with any legal proceedings, 3 - Not to contact any solicitors instructed by Suzanne Todd other than through a solicitor instructed by you or the official solicitor, 4 - Not to contact Suzanne Todd’s mother namely Suzanne Condon, 5- Not to go within 10 metres of the curtalage (sic) of Suzanne Todd’s address, 6 – Not to contact Phillipa Pearson directly or indirectly, 7 – Not to apply for a domain name or e-mail address carrying any name but your own or any company by which you are employed, 8 – Not to publish on any website any information or material on Suzanne Todd, John and Elizabeth Walter, any member of the legal profession or member of staff employed by the legal profession, any school or any staff member employed by school including school Governors, 9 – Not to publish or distribute any material relating to any member of the legal profession other than in direct correspondence with that member of the legal profession.
This Order is in force for Five Years. ]]]]]
Since you are clearly determined to ensure that justice is done we would mention that the said Suzanne Todd is alleged to have stated at trial that she received no money from the Defendant and that he forced her to sell her home. Between 13.09.97 and 19.12.01 she knew that we paid her £54,188.90 as requested by the Defendant. The Defendant gave her the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home in Wembley, arranged for her to have a wage of £500 per week, a free car, free diesel fuel, free car insurance and free car maintenance but stopped this for good reasons after she betrayed him badly. She received something in order of £500,000 from the time they separated until she started sharing her home with a married businessman and the two children of the marriage. She claimed in the Family Court that she was “on benefit*. She received Legal Aid.
From what we hear in spite of the Defendant not being present at his trial most of the prosecution witnesses committed perjury.
The Defendant has appealed against conviction only by application to the Crown Court where he is being met with the same abuses. He has asked for a copy of his letter of appeal sent to the Crown Court from Woodhill Prison and has pointed out that he is not appealing against sentence. He has already served his sentence. It would appear that the Crown Court has already decided to refuse the appeal and increase the sentence for offences that were to be dealt with initially by a caution or by an undertaking.

Posted by: J M Todd | Nov 26, 2007 3:38:21 PM

Restraining order

[[[[[Committed to prison for 8 weeks forthwith because of the nature and seriousness of the offence and the conduct found. Offence so serious. Overall length of sentence 26 weeks.
Restraining Order: made that the defendant must: 1- Not to contact directly or indirectly Elizabeth or John Walter or any member of their family, 2- not to contact directly or indirectly Suzanne Todd except to arrange contact with Oliver and Morgan Todd in accordance with contact arrangements made by Family Proceedings court or through solicitors in connection with any legal proceedings, 3 - Not to contact any solicitors instructed by Suzanne Todd other than through a solicitor instructed by you or the official solicitor, 4 - Not to contact Suzanne Todd’s mother namely Suzanne Condon, 5- Not to go within 10 metres of the curtalage (sic) of Suzanne Todd’s address, 6 – Not to contact Phillipa Pearson directly or indirectly, 7 – Not to apply for a domain name or e-mail address carrying any name but your own or any company by which you are employed, 8 – Not to publish on any website any information or material on Suzanne Todd, John and Elizabeth Walter, any member of the legal profession or member of staff employed by the legal profession, any school or any staff member employed by school including school Governors, 9 – Not to publish or distribute any material relating to any member of the legal profession other than in direct correspondence with that member of the legal profession.
This Order is in force for Five Years. ]]]]]
Since you are clearly determined to ensure that justice is done we would mention that the said Suzanne Todd is alleged to have stated at trial that she received no money from the Defendant and that he forced her to sell her home. Between 13.09.97 and 19.12.01 she knew that we paid her £54,188.90 as requested by the Defendant. The Defendant gave her the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home in Wembley, arranged for her to have a wage of £500 per week, a free car, free diesel fuel, free car insurance and free car maintenance but stopped this for good reasons after she betrayed him badly. She received something in order of £500,000 from the time they separated until she started sharing her home with a married businessman and the two children of the marriage. She claimed in the Family Court that she was “on benefit*. She received Legal Aid.
From what we hear in spite of the Defendant not being present at his trial most of the prosecution witnesses committed perjury.
The Defendant has appealed against conviction only by application to the Crown Court where he is being met with the same abuses. He has asked for a copy of his letter of appeal sent to the Crown Court from Woodhill Prison and has pointed out that he is not appealing against sentence. He has already served his sentence. It would appear that the Crown Court has already decided to refuse the appeal and increase the sentence for offences that were to be dealt with initially by a caution or by an undertaking.

Posted by: J M Todd | Nov 26, 2007 3:38:26 PM

J M Todd wrote the quoted letter to Harrow Magistrates Court but did not post it on your blog.

Posted by: J M Todd | Nov 29, 2007 1:26:28 AM

Just adding a link to my blog.

http://www.fjlathome2.blogspot.com

Posted by: Felicity Lowde | Jun 5, 2008 3:52:34 PM

I knew FL in Aix-en-Provence in the early 1990's. I thought she was quite menacing and unstable. Trouble is, she was also quite credible; she made some accustaions about me that caused me some degree of trouble.

Posted by: Steve | Aug 30, 2009 9:06:53 AM