4 days ago
Rachel Riley stalker hell: Countdown star targeted by convicted stalker who accused her of being the 'ringleader of a cult of celebrities'
Countdown presenter Rachel Riley was targeted by a convicted stalker who accused her of being the 'ringleader of a cult of celebrities', a court has heard.
Felicity Lowde, 59, from Chelsea, west London, mentioned the TV star more than 200 times on blog posts and accused her of leading an 'international conspiracy' alongside JK Rowling, Stephen Fry and Katie Hopkins.
She claimed this was being orchestrated by Ms Riley through a secret social media plot before further accusing her of being 'sexually obsessed' with toilets - an accusation Lowde also labelled at Piers Morgan in court earlier this year.
At City of London Magistrates' Court, it was heard that Lowde accused Ms Riley of being 'complicit in genocide' in a reference to her Jewish faith amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza, as reported by The Sun.
Lowde, who was previously jailed for stalking a London Bombings survivor, tried to sue Ms Riley last year after accusing her of 'trying to defraud her creative work and family history' as well as 'hijacking her identity'.
The 59-year-old was arrested after Ms Riley reported her to police, who later applied for a stalking protection order on her behalf.
It was further reported by the newspaper that Magistrates chair Dr Ian Cole told Lowde, who has four convictions for stalking and harassment, how the ordeal made Ms Riley 'fear for her safety'.
They added that Lowde was banned from contacting Ms Riley or mentioning her on social media for life, and could face time behind bars if she breaches that order.
Felicity Lowde (above) mentioned the TV star more than 200 times across 855 blog posts and accused her of leading an 'international conspiracy' alongside other celebrities
It comes six months after Mr Morgan likened Lowde to Netflix's Baby Reindeer stalker when he had to defend himself in court against her for similar accusations to those made against Ms Riley.
The journalist, aged 60, said her claims of abuse and harassment were a 'complete fantasy'.
At the time, Lowde had filed 64 cases against multiple celebrities, including one which accused Mr Morgan of hijacking her brother's identity.
Mr Morgan won his firm's case against Lowde in January and the one against him personally was also thrown out after he defended it online.
The former Good Morning Britain host said he didn't want to have to defend himself or his company in court but he was forced to after being contacted by the court.
If he had not done so it would have gone through the court process and he could have received a judgement against himself or his company which he believes was what Lowde 'was trying to do'.
Lowde was ordered to pay Mr Morgan £6,000 in damages but he said he had 'no expectation seeing any of that money'.
'She is a harasser, a bit like Baby Reindeer's,' he said, adding: 'This could happen to anyone - whether they're in the public eye or not - at a huge personal cost.'
In his witness statement in court, he revealed that TV stars, comedians and campaigners have also taken action against her, including JK Rowling.
He added: 'For anyone in the public eye who gets these kinds of harassing letters, it's always a bit unsettling.
'You never quite know whether the person is a threat or not.
'Obviously I don't want to run the risk of an actual threat so you need to be careful with people like this because they've clearly got something wrong with them.
'This is a convicted stalker who harassed a terror-attack survivor. It's hard to think of anything more despicable.
'I've got security, but you can't live like a hermit and let that stuff get in your head.'
Mr Morgan called on the courts to stop Lowde from bringing forward endless cases against public figures.
Instead, he suggests she can pursue them by using 'fee remission' usually granted based on the applicant's financial circumstances.
He explained this would mean the cost to her issuing the claims would be 'effectively nothing' and pointed out that this is not the case for all the defendants who are forced to go through the court process and end up paying the costs.
