Is this an end to Rachel N. here?

[kbo234]

Quote Ian Neal:

I have removed the threads discussing Rachel N and Daniel O while I review them. I'm concerned that a small number of posts have one again defamed RN. I will review them when I get some time (working and then out this evening) I will consider reinstating it once I have removed any dematory comments.

What about blocking all such future debates with Rachel. She is pretty good at 'defamatory comments' herself. Fired up and obviously empowered by her sense of her own 'extraordinary' suffering, she lashes out recklessly at all and sundry.

I heard about her performance when she invaded a 9/11 Truth meeting in central London.

She is an unusual individual. I don't doubt the experiences she reports having undergone but it is puzzling to me that she should behave in this manner. The behaviour of most people I have met who have suffered terribly is marked by humility and fellow feeling.

Yes, she has suffered, but that suffering is not particularly unusual. There are plenty of people around who have been through worse.

No more of her vitriol please.

[xmasdale]

I'm not aware of Rachel having posted defamatory untrue comments about people, but if she has, such posts, I believe should be removed. It would be unjust to remove defamatory posts against her because she sends a solicitor's letter, but to permit defamatory remarks to those who have not sent solicitors' letters to remain.

She does come out with plenty of vitriol, but what I have seen of it normally amounts to mere bitchiness and name-calling - not damaging untrue statements about others which, IMO, would amount to libel. Unpleasant as it is, I believe we should put up with that and take comfort from the fact that abusive language does far more damage to the reputation of the abuser, than it does to that of the abused.