Thursday, January 17, 2013

The FriendsReunited Conspiracy (?) – Part 12 – Coincidences

If you haven’t been reading this series of blogs then catch up at and the 11 following parts.

12 years ago our pursuers started their “investigation” into us based on what they regard as a number of coincidences. They went looking for them and found them. To be honest I could do the same about them and anyone else for that matter – everyone is linked in some way and coincidences appear everywhere.

We all have stories of bumping into people in strange places – my own consist of sitting at a table in a restaurant in Sydney Australia next to my daughter’s teacher and our neighbor. I’ve bumped into people on tops of mountains. Suddenly found myself sitting next to a friend on a chair lift when skiing in France. Talking to person at a party and finding out they happened to live in my old house. I could go on.

In fact I have recently found that our chief pursuer teaches at a school in Kent (or does he?) – well I once lived and worked for 6 months in the very town he is teaching at. They missed that one – off you go now and create a conspiracy out of that!!! I’ve also randomly had an email from someone with their surname who has nothing to do with them (it’s quite a rare surname) and yesterday I got a push notification on my iPhone through Sonar that someone else with their surname was nearby me. It happens!

The starting point for their whole mooted conspiracy is coincidences – that’s what they call them and that’s all they are. And all of them have led them nowhere, but they still keep looking for more. And as they find these spurious links (over 12 YEARS!), they put them together into a document. Add the odd mistake, a large dose of complete rubbish and hey presto – you have their full mad conspiracy. [I will be writing a self help blog on how to form your very own conspiracy soon]

Here are some examples of the suspicious coincidences which form the basis of their case -

  • -       Someone apparently with the same surname as their developer previously lived in the house we currently live in. It’s quite a rare surname, they say. Our pursuers implied some years ago that we bought the property off the people with that surname or Julie went to school with them, so we must know them – they never bothered to check things out. As it happens the family moved out in 1996 and we moved here in 2003 – a full 4 years after Julie came up with the idea of FR. They have done extensive research, including someone doing family trees for both the developer’s family and the family of the same surname that used to live in our house (somewhat excessive, nay obsessive, behaviour if you ask me) and found no link between them, by their own admission. So therefore – IT WAS A COINCIDENCE (and not much of a coincidence, at that). This was a major plank of their case some years ago – why do they still mention it ?

  • -       The party company. Apparently their developer once mentioned a children’s party company in passing. We had a site called Happy Party Bag, which we were trying out at the same time as FR, run by my business partner’s wife. They later found the business their developer referred to was one called Doctor Party, not ours. Again IT WAS A COINCIDENCE – it has been shown not to have any value, so (again) why mention it ?

  • -       Their developer and my business partner lived in Kent. Ridiculous to even list as a coincidence but believe it or not they do mention it.  I looked up on Wikipedia and the census population for Kent in 2001 was 1,579,206. I’m sorry, but even applying the very extended meaning of the term that our pursuers seem happy to employ – that’s not even close to being a COINCIDENCE.

  • -       My particular favourite. Apparently our pursuer’s developer once said he wasn’t sure of their website name, as it had the negative word “lost” in it. Well, they even list this as a coincidence, because FriendsReunited was not a negatively-loaded name like theirs. U.n.b.e.l.i.e.v.a.b.l.e. And, perhaps, a little bit mad ?

I could go on (and on).

However in going back through their document they list some of the above in a section called Coincidences. And just now I have found a lovely bit three paragraphs later. Read this

June 2002 - On his way to work one morning through north London, [our chief pursuer] was stopped in his car at a red light.  He unbelievably caught a very brief glimpse of [their developer] who was about to cross the road in front of [our pursuer] car, but as they saw each other through the front passenger window a few yards away, [the developer] immediately turned on his heels and sprinted back along the pavement in the opposite direction. Although he only found out later, this happened right outside the flat where [the developer] was living at the time:  It was a total chance that [our pursuer’s] journey to work took him past [the developer’s] new flat, but [the developer] reaction having caught site of [our pursuer] was absolutely mystifying, unless there is reason to take flight, such an extreme reaction is simply inexplicable.

This is quite funny for a couple of reasons. Firstly, given what we have all learned about our pursuers, I suggest we all know why their developer turned and ran away. But second, it was simply a COINCIDENCE – they caught sight of each other at a place that just happened to be right outside the developer’s flat.  [Can you imagine how much spurious meaning would have been attributed to it if I had been seen in the vicinity of the developer’s flat ?  This is not beyond the bounds of possibility, given that our pursuers had PIs following the developer for a considerable time.  But if I had been seen there it would – just like the above-mentioned instance of our pursuer bumping into his former developer – only have been a COINCIDENCE.  It takes a particular type of mind to parlay these these types of coincidence into something meaningful – but our pursuers most definitely have that type of mind.]

If you start thinking this way and looking for coincidences you find them. Like everything else with this conspiracy – its all just madness.



  1. Why you giving them the time of day Steve, what a colossal waste of everyones life to keep going on with this.

  2. I agree, it gives this idiot further reasons to hold on.

  3. I also agree - and for large parts in 2005 and 2012 that is exactly what I have done. Believe me there have been times recently when I thought "that will do" and then something else happens to kick start it all off again.

    There are two things in this for me though.

    The first - is the continual not believing everything we say or do and calling us liars in an attempt to discredit us. I can handle that and just ignore it. I've done that for large periods.

    But the second - is what I have found out through their dossier, is the tactics they use. The use of PI's, following, staking out houses, researching people, calling, emailing and telephoning friends. When you, and some friends, start looking over your shoulder and start wondering who people are sitting in a cafe near you, then you realise something is wrong. Yes we probably are paranoid but it's not fun. This is the bit that I hoped that putting everything out in the open would finally stop it. Thats exactly what they have threatened to do for months now anyway.

    But unfortunately, they choose to ignore every bit of proof I've written about. They are sadly still going, as them sending the dossier to the Kernel just before Christmas showed. They also contacted someone last month in another weird twist to the saga, who has recently passed everything onto me.

    Finally, the whole episode has moved on from more than being an intrusion and a waste of time as a few of us have become fascinated in the whole social networking/trolling/harassment/Leveson side of the internet. So much so we are beginning to formulate a book on the whole subject - my episode is one area of interest. I will finish off my current round of blogs, take stock and a view of the legals, and see what happens then.

    I suspect, as in most conspiracy cases though, this will not go away.

  4. I've haven't had the time to read all of your posts so forgive me if you've gone over this before but, even if their claim was true, wouldn't it be barred by the Limitations Act as the actions they're complaining of occurred over a decade ago? Additionally, have you ever considered simply flushing them out in the open by seeking some form of declaratory relief and having a court simply declare that their claims are without merit?

  5. Can't you just flush them down the toilet?