Rachel North London Needs Your Help


As many of you know, Rachel North has been the target of a vicious stalker who has plagued her for over a year. This is not just a case of a 'net nutter' or some bloggers having a flame war but an unjustified assault.

Her stalker, Felicity Jane Lowde, has previously been jailed for stalking and harassment and is currently on the run after being found guilty of stalking Rachel.

Rachel is asking for your help - especially readers in London. What we find saddening, is that a lot of Felicity Jane Lowde's stalking has been done on a long list of blogger.com blogs, all containing vicious libel and some really disgusting allegations. The problem is that Google won't take them down claiming it's got nothing to do with them.

Funny that, they don't mind censorship as long as it's for the brutal Chinese government, but libelling a rape victim is OK in their book. What a strange moral universe Google inhabit.

We want to be careful this

We want to be careful this doen't encourage Her Majesty's Government to press on with their attempts at restricting what can be said and by whom, (Something we've all been railing aganst since it reared it's ugly head). She's a semi-public figure and alot of MP'S like her, there needs to be a serious absence of a bandwagon here. If this nutter's doing anything illegal we've already got plenty of laws to deal with it and the last thing we want is more. (Can the old bill ask Google to take them down due to libel, defamation, restraining orders?). Just being vigilant and reporting anything that seems necessary sounds to be what Rachel wants, nothing more, and I totally agree.

No one's suggesting that new

No one's suggesting that new laws are needed.   The main point of this is to get a bench warrant -- issued after Ms Lowde was convicted under Section 2 of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 -- executed, Ms Lowde brought before the court and sentenced,and thus out of Rachel's hair.      There are, as you suggest, separate legal procedures for getting the sites down, but that's another matter.    


Thanks very much for the

Thanks very much for the support. Let's hope that the police catch her soon.

Jailed? Although I don't

Jailed? Although I don't know this woman, it would seem to me treatment in hospital under a Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, or at least a 28 day assessment under Section 2 would be more appropriate.

kagemusha, I agree: she

kagemusha, I agree: she seems to be seriously disturbed. Someone I knew was stalked by a man who actually flew over from the US to harass her. Very frightening time for her. The man was eventually detained in the UK under the Mental Health Act rather than just being prosecuted and deported. The authorities acted very humanely as the guy was completely batshit and he was better off getting treatment here than being out on the streets in the US. Reassuring for my friend too, as he had broken into her house several times, attacked her, and would only sneak back into the country if deported.

Well, repeating libel is

Well, repeating libel is libel :) If Rachel is bothered she should sue Google. You can bet they'll pull the blogs pretty quickly then.

Unfortunately not. As

Unfortunately not. As explained in the post Google say that they are covered by US law and have no responsibility for content.

Had anybody actually read

Had anybody actually read this woman's blog before Rachel publicised it?  

I doubt many had.

And if everybody who gets insulted on the web started libel proceedings where would it end?


It's not just what she

It's not just what she writes on her blogs, it's the comments she leaves on Rachel's and other peoples blogs. It's also the threatening e-mails. This is more than just a few insults, it's harassment and a court of law has confirmed that.

Ted, It's not just about the


It's not just about the blog - or the dozens of others she set up. it's not just about the many hundreds of emails she sent. it's not just about the thousands of comments she's left.

it's also about harassing rachel at work, sending vile accusations to her employers and co-workers. it's also about printing and publicising her name all over the place, with the same old accusations. it's about outing rachel as a rape victim - something illegal - it's also about her complaining to everyone that rachel lied about being raped and put an innocent man in prison.

this is not about mere insults, but about a sustained and vicious campaign by someone with a history of such behaviour, towards someone who has done nothing to warrant it.

Sorry Qursan but that's

Sorry Qursan but that's bollocks not least because those sort of posts do actually breach the terms and conditions of Google itself. "Blogger may not be used for illegal purposes," say their terms and conditions. It gets better though....
Defamation/Libel. Users should not publish any content that is unlawful, defamatory, and fraudulent. Note that an allegation of defamatory expression, in and of itself, does not establish defamation. The truth or falsehood of a bit of expression is a key element in establishing defamation, and we are not in a position to make that sort of fact-based judgment. That said, if we have reason to believe that a particular statement is defamatory (a court order, for example), we will remove that statement."

A court order is what Google

A court order is what Google would required to provide defamation.

Note that an allegation of defamatory expression, in and of itself, does not establish defamation.

That is enough for them to 'get out' of jail so to speak.

Did she out Rachel as a rape

Did she out Rachel as a rape victim?  I thought Rachel wrote about that herself.

The point is, there's

The point is, there's nothing stopping Rachel from getting a court order against her in the USA. Said stalker wouldn't even be able to defend it as she's on the run and its a pretty simple thing to do.

Yes. She published,

Yes. She published, repeatedly, Rachel's real name.

Strewth, this is scary. Like

Strewth, this is scary. Like end of invasion of the body snatchers.

Enjoy the witchunt.

Lemme ask... Butning, hanging or drowing?

What a strange moral

What a strange moral universe Google inhabit.

Take a look in the mirror Blairwatch.

You fascists. Your

You fascists. Your behaviour is disgusting. You spitefulness is gross. You are the same scum as what you fantasise yourselves into believing you fight against. Who next huh?

Criticism: 1. The act of

1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
2. A critical comment or judgment.


1. To use wrongly or improperly.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.


1. A violent physical or verbal attack.
2. Any act that causes someone to feel physically threatened, which is considered reckless or intentional, and which need not necessarily involve any physical contact.


Criticism: 1. The act of


1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
2. A critical comment or judgment.
3. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting.


1. To use wrongly or improperly.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.


1. A violent physical or verbal attack.
2. Any act that causes someone to feel physically threatened, which is considered reckless or intentional, and which need not necessarily involve any physical contact.

Simple distinctions really.

found on Google's website. 

found on Google's website.  Maybe this can help you.  Google is vunerable to distributing libel in the UK


Why Does Google Publish Libel?

"At a time when Google proposes to amass ever more sensitive and personal information on Internet users worldwide, Google's lack of responsibility in actively distributing unsupported libel has given many, real cause for concern. It is the unique status of libel law in America that allows Google immunity from prosecution from anything they publish on www.google.com. And yes, that includes anything they'd like to publish about you" claims Brian Retkin Director dotWORLDS.

London, England 5/31/2007 6:24 AM GMT (TransWorldNews - Top Story)

By allowing defamation, libel and character assassination to be posted on their Search Engine by the unverified, the alias and the anonymous, Google undermines and threatens individuals and corporations alike” says Retkin   “Alarmingly, Google operates such a policy without fear of accountability, responsibility or compensation for any unjustified degradation suffered by individuals or for the potentially huge costs incurred by businesses supplying bona fida goods and services to the economy”. 

“Google’s complete lack of care in this field is certainly not reflected in their own ambition as they adapt their Search Engine results to accommodate their own sensitivities” says Retkin  “In facilitating their growth globally, Google often filters offensive material when catering to new markets with tighter controls.  Unfortunately for almost everyone else, or at least those without a few million dollars in the bank to fight back, should Google distribute unsubstantiated and damaging libel about you, there's little that you can do about it – at least not for a few years as that’s how long they keep their information current”. 


Is this the same Google that's now begging for even more personal information about you, your family, your lifestyle and any other sensitive data you might care provide?  “Well, yes it is” says Retkin  “Today, Google needs you.  Google needs you for their databases, for their marketing projects and for umpteen other schemes under development.  On this subject at least, Google can't wait to help you out.  The questions that arise are whether or not Google can be trusted to use the information responsibly and whether, on past performance, their proposals should even be considered?” 


Why has this been such a worry to so many?  “In our case and for some time” say Retkin, our company dotWORLDS has been trying to persuade Google to remove numerous grossly libellous articles published on their Search Engine.  Google's initial response was that they had no responsibility for any content displayed on their websites and that complaints should be directed to the author.  However, as these articles were written and posted anonymously (an option available to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the Internet) there was no way of tracing the culprit(s) even though we were fairly certain it came from one or more of our competitors.” 


dotWORLDS feel that these libellous postings would probably never have been seen but for the Search Engine, as they believe that the attacks on them are all but indistinguishable from so many other unsubstantiated and obscure grudge web pages on the net.  “Rather” say dotWORLDS “it is Google's web-crawl system that allows for just about anything, no matter how inaccurate, spurious, nonsensical or even illegal to be gathered unscreened, recorded, indexed and ranked, later to be disseminated at Google’s inclination to millions Internet users across the world” 


There are rulings that Google can rely on in cases such as dotWORLDS and they are the same rulings that would probably govern the use of your private information should Google get hold of it.  For example:


1) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (USA), 1996....…This Act specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. 


2) Excerpt from BBC report from November 2006  entitled "Bloggers and US internet providers cannot be liable for posting defamatory comments written by third parties, the California Supreme Court has ruled" .......Overturning a decision by the San Francisco appeal court, the court ruled that people claiming they were defamed online could now only seek damages from the original author of the comments - and not the website which re-posted it.  The court ruled that that Internet Service Providers were protected by US Federal law that said providers of chat rooms or news groups are not considered the publishers of information furnished by others.  "The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," said Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.


Still, it’s not all bad news.  Using legal argument, dotWORLDS estimate that they have forced Google to remove over 1500 libellous links from Google’s websites worldwide (eg: google.co.uk, google.fr etc) – with the notable exception of Google’s American website www.google.com.  Even so, dotWORLDS are convinced that despite the differing libel laws, they’re moving closer to fulfilling even that challenge.  More recently dotWORLDS claim they discovered that Google had begun re-publishing libel in the UK, that under threat of court action from dotWORLDS, Google had agreed to withdraw.  “We believe that Google have now committed a serious offence under English law” say dotWORLDS


Search for dotWORLDS on Google's UK website (www.google.co.uk) and dotWORLDS claim you won’t find much of the libel remaining.  DotWORLDS say it was a very different story not so long ago although much has been achieved since then.  What you will find instead are a number of legal notices at the bottom of the search pages to the effect "In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org".


Whilst this is a victory for dotWORLDS, it is by no means a total victory.  Make exactly the same dotWORLDS search on Google's USA website (www.google.com) and included on the information displayed you will see the libel that Google has deleted on its other websites.  Even more disappointing for dotWORLDS is that there is little or no mention of the Google/dotWORLDS dispute  “Where is the balance?”  says Retkin “We haven’t seen dotWORLDS legal requests to Google, nor any of Google’s deletions notices that have been posted on Google’s other websites.  We haven’t even see the hyperlinks to information on the deletions dotWORLDS forced Google to make.   This alone should be of great concern to anyone relying on Google’s information as truth (although why shouldn’t they).  In the case of dotWORLDS, not only is Google potentially misinforming their American users but they are also putting them at risk of immediate legal action should they repeat the libel publicly.  In a lengthy and expensive hearing, the plea ‘I saw it on Google’ is not a defense.  It is only Google that has protection”.


Whether or not Google wish to remove libellous content on their USA website, having already made a judgement call to delete it in the UK, should the same information on the Google/dotWORLDS dispute be displayed on Google USA.  “Yes” say dotWORLDS  “by refusing to publish crucial information on their own home ground in the same way, Google's claim that they are not the arbiter of the Internet becomes spurious.  Have Google intentionally censured their own content and if so, what is the reason?  Coming directly from Google office, this information on the dispute should be the first thing displayed.  However, on Google’s USA, website the information it doesn’t even seem to exist - at least not where it’s supposed to“.


Google for us was about relevancy, accuracy and quality, say dotWORLDS “but out of approximately 8 billion results currently available, suddenly somehow more than 1 billion are related to Google.  Can there really be 1 billion interesting, relevant and/or different things to say about them?  Perhaps the quest is now for quantity whatever the cost?  Perhaps Google believe that the Search Engine with the most web pages can triumph over all others.  Perhaps this has become a race to an indeterminate finish line.  If this is so, perhaps this is the answer to the question: Why does Google publish libel?  Perhaps it’s just because Google can“.