“The offences, I would say, are at the very top end to be taken in a prosecution of harassment and therefore have to be dealt with at the top end of my powers. “You persisted in that for a considerable……

She is highly unlikely to receive the help she requires in prison.

I don’t know what she is endeavouring to research- from what you say its connections in the Jack the Ripper case to leading figures in contemporary society- I’d be really shocked if anyone serious was funding that- it sounds more conspiracy theorist than historian to be honest.

Its good news that the case is resolved despite threats to appeal- I would hope that in prison Lowde might get some treatment and therefore for Rachel and her other victims things might return to normal- and for Lowde herself she might acheive the opportunity of getting some peace and normality into her life.

I’ve thanked bloggers, said no to all interview requests, am braced to go through it all again in an appeal, though I doubt she’ll be able to cross examine me in person, due to the nature of the offence and witness protection rules.I’m ploughing though zillions of emails, and messages. I’d like to repeat my thanks here to everyone who helped, especially Unity who’se NPD post was really useful to me in terms of understanding why she couldn’t/wouldn’t stop. I’ve explained why the internet campaign was so helpful, on my blog. And I’m looking forward to blogging about other stuff now, and getting on with normal life. I think I guessed most of the Cabinet wromg, for starters…

BBC

It depends on what’s in the terms of the ASBO and the basis on which it was laid down.

If it stems from an acknowledgement of the trail of other net users she’s harassed then it could well incorporate restrictions on her use of the net, which could range form a complete ban to simply a ‘don’t use it for harassment’ order.

She should get psychiatric help, but if I was anywhere close in identifying a narcissistic personality disorder as the underlying cause of her behaviour then its in the nature of the condition that those with it are very unlikely to seek help voluntarily and that the nature of on-line communications may be a contributory factor and facilitate the disorder.

The sanctions on an ASBO are not appropriate to the condition, but appropriately worded restrictions on net usage could be as this removes an outlet for her disordered behaviour that may force the issue of her accepting her need for help.

Its a fine judgement call, but in the circumstances it would be better for her that she stay offline until she can get her problems under proper control, not least because, after all the publicity around this case, she’s likely to be a very easy mark for a bit of deliberate troll-baiting which could set her off again and land her back in the pokey.

Six months inside is about right for the harassment she’s visited on Rachel, but next time out it could be anything up to five years and that would be harsh, which makes it preferably that things are nipped quickly in the bud if she does start up with her antics as the longer that’s left unchecked the worse it’ll be for her if someone does sick the Old Bill on her.

The big legal deficiency in a case like this is that the court has the option of an ASBO but not, seemingly, a treatment order, which would be the more appropriate response.

I’ve seen this kind of thing before, and if gets to stage where she become nothing more than troll-bait then it can all too quickly spiral destructively out of control - in some respects she fortunate that this has happened in the UK and not the US, where there’s no shortage of people who think nothing of playing rough with individuals even when its obvious that have mental health problems.