While musing my response to the reminder of all the wrongs I had done, and apologised for in the past, I took my time.  One; to make sure I didn’t miss anything and, two; so I could take some advice from someone who was up to speed with events.

Over the weekend I had got further acquainted with Google+.  I was interested to find some of the fake accounts were also on Google+.  I wondered if anyone else knew they were there, I was guessing only the fake account owners would know.

It’s very easy to add people on Google+, just like following on Twitter, so I added them.  Who knows, Google+ might exonerate the authors of said accounts. It was suggested the author of a fake account or two might get in touch with me over the matter, at least it would open dialogue.

My more pressing task was to respond to the post on my many faults, It was written and needed looking over, but before I could post it, this arrived in response to me, from the owner of the blog to whom I responded: –

Actually I am beginning to believe that there is a serious problem here.

3 people have independently contacted me this weekend to let me know that they have been tracked down on the Internet by an account purporting to be Tony Flavin via Google Plus, one person in particular is very concerned about how his email may have been obtained.

In addition, as I mentioned, I was contacted out of the blue by Deacon Tony when my daughter was 3 days old and I was still in hospital connected up to IVs and catheters, complaining about the content of others’ tweets to me. He has yet to clarify from where he procured my email, it was not via the blog.

Another lady had Deacon Tony write to her at her home address, after his friend published it on Twitter, much to her dismay. Deacon Tony did not take his friend to task for publishing such confidential information online and neither did he when his friend did the same to me recently, publishing my former surnames, not available online, whilst addressing @frererabit and seemingly accusing a fifty/sixty year old Spanish ex-pat who runs a donkey sanctuary of being me. I sense double standards applying here.

Furthermore another friend has told me how Tony tracked her down and sent a letter to her work address, something which she found very peculiar and rather creepy and today, another friend has just informed me that she has discovered an email from him from April this year, admonishing her for RTing another account and asking her motivations for doing so. He said he googled her email address and every single person who had RTed, to check if they were real or ‘socks’.

This is extremely concerning behaviour. Twitter is not so important as to waste valuable amounts of time on, let alone tracking women down in real life, to let them know he knows where they live and work and pursuing a vendetta. It seems verging on criminal activity and that’s 4 women now (in his email Tony mentioned a fifth woman he’d contacted) who can attest to being dismayed and concerned at his tracking them down in real life.

I do of course have all the evidence to substantiate this as I would not be so irresponsible as to publish false allegations.

This appears to have simply come about because I had added people on Google+. While the use of the word ‘stalking’ appeared to be rather emotive language, I’m not going to denigrate someone for their lack of vocabulary, I can’t, glass houses and stones and all that, but the prepared post was then response was nuanced and posted: –

I wouldn’t expect you, or anyone else to play Twitter Police, but I would suggest to you that you act as the <blog owner’s name>  police and guard your reputation from being tarnished by the on line company that you keep.

I’m sure you’ll understand after my own experience I will not be satisfied by simply being told anonymous accounts belong to real people. As we have seen, many of the accounts I have called fake have disappeared or stopped being used. Take for example Sheehanboy, Jean Racine, StopAntiCath and Clothilde Simon. My experience cannot lead me to accept the two vile unpleasant Tweeters in question to be genuine. And yes, I would hold that anyone, including a priest, who engages with these unpleasant profiles, is culpable. Archbishop Smith reminds people frequently that we clergy are but men, and sometimes we get things wrong. He will then go on to ask for prayers for the clergy.

You said I was monitoring your timeline. Your timeline was watched when the author of another account was being sought back in June and it was made clear to you we feared you were being made to look as if you were the author, which we have also made clear, we do not think is the case.

Currently we are speaking of a blog post and the tweets of others with whom you have engaged, these would not just be on your timeline.

However, as we saw on 10 and 12 June, in spite of neither of us following each other you admonished me for two separate posts. Neither of these admonitions are in accord with your point on dealing with issues outside social media.

At the time of giving birth last year, your tweets were private. Twitter Support can confirm this for you. I had only seen tweets to you, not from you, and as you have indicated is favourable, I dealt with the matter outside social media.

While Fr Stephen may have received your apology well, my whole point is how these things look to others, particularly the action of the male profile who jumped into that thread. We have seen much viciousness from that profile, simply stepping away without taking the profile to task looks, I am trying to stress, as accord with all actions of the profile. The same applies to the female profile who was unnecessarily unpleasant to your colleague.

Maureen Clarke was enduring comments from crisscross60. No matter what our relationship with other tweeters, if they include us in a tweet and it makes us uncomfortable, we have to act or look duplicitous. For example take my own actions with AnnraoiOD who do not interact with. I told him emphatically I was not interested in being included into his tweets to you.

I shall not comment on the myriad of my faults you have reminded us, and informed others about. I have, as you and many others are aware, apologised for my actions to you on more than one occasion. However they stand to serve exactly the purpose of my response to your blog. If these comments had come from an anonymous account would that account be best disposed to make retribution?

While you appear to accept my apology at the time, those faults keep being dragged up, forgive me please for considering that Christian actions speak louder than simply words. Once again, I apologise for upsetting you and leave those we share these posts with, particularly those familiar with the Spiritual Works of Mercy, to be my earthly judge.

But if you could provide proof of me calling anyone a horse or a dog I’d be grateful.

Can I just verify one thing with you. Last year you bought your distress during pregnancy into threads on Twitter. One or two others mentioned your pregnancy as a mitigation for people possibly allowing you not to be challenged on your posts, some of which others, myself not included as your tweets were private and I could not see them, found contentious. Already in this pregnancy one of the profiles referred to earlier is defending your right to say whatever you feel without the matter being discussed due to your condition. Surely this is not your view? Currently I know of a liquidator and an oncologist who are pregnant, neither of them would expect exemption from trickier, non physical tasks, just as they hadn’t in their previous pregnancies. You debated live on BBC1 during that time, hence I draw this conclusion.

Finally you refer to my campaign against you. I have to point out, as the evidence is there to support, I simply respond to you, as I have in this instance. There is no campaign, and no trouble making, simply response. If there was any campaign I would not have emailed you privately on 12 June, outside social media as you suggest, asking how I had upset you and asking how I could correct it. I am willing to share my emails to you with anyone who wishes to see them, as I am sure you too are willing for our correspondence to be witnessed.

I wish you no harm , I would have hoped my getting in touch to congratulate you on your performance on the Vanessa show and your appointment as a columnist at The Universe and the other occasions I have tweeted you might have illustrated this. If there is a gap in my communication perhaps a contributor with a real name might be able to assist me.

As a reply this has appeared: –

Deacon Tony. I have been advised that it would be a kindness to you to remove your incriminating and comment in which you admit that a group of you have been monitoring and watching my timeline since last year, behaviour which could well amount to criminal conduct

I shall continue to hold you in prayer and hope that you find a more fulfilling way of spreading the Good News of the Gospel in accordance with your ministry.

..And my post was removed.  Obviously there is no criminal activity here, if there is, then I was subjected to it on 10 and 12, but I shall forgive.   Using your ordered state as a rod with which to beat one is also something else I shall forgive.  In diaconate formation we were told it would happen, we are reminded during ongoing formation that it will happen when you do something someone doesn’t like, it will be there only response.  This reminds me of Dr Johnson on patriotism ‘the last bastion of the scoundrel’.

I’ve received no other answers to any of the points I have made.