Liz Fraser #5 She has gon-dola mad in Oxford & Venice, yet again.

[Marstonroadmrs]

Congratulations Liz. Top marks on the test

“Jon Ronson’s “The Psychopath Test” delves into the complexities of diagnosing psychopathy, critically examining the PCL-R and its broader implications.”

The PCL-R

Interpersonal/Emotional:

1. Superficial Charm: Engaging yet insincere charm.
2. Grandiosity: Exaggerated self-regard.
3. Pathological Lying: Habitual dishonesty.
4. Manipulative: Deceptive for personal advantage.
5. Lack of Remorse: No guilt for misdeeds.
6. Shallow Emotions: Limited emotional depth.
7. Lack of Empathy: Disregard for others’ feelings.
8. Irresponsibility: Avoiding personal accountability.

Lifestyle/Antisocial:

1. Need for Stimulation: Seeking excitement, avoiding boredom.
2. Parasitic: Dependent, exploitative lifestyle.
3. Poor Behavioural Controls: Impetuous or aggressive responses.
4. Short-Term Goals: Absence of long-term planning.
5. Impulsivity: Hasty, thoughtless decisions.
6. Irresponsibility: Neglecting obligations.
7. Juvenile Delinquency: Early criminal behaviour.
8. Early Behaviour Issues: Childhood conduct problems.
9. Conditional Release Violation: Breaching probation/terms.
10. Criminal Versatility: Engaging in diverse criminal activities.

 

[Needham]

Quite! I’m not sure Liz understands what psychological projection is

 

[ORhineORhine]

I don't think she understands what trolling is, either, so it might be a good thing that she's going to try to research the subject.

 

[intriguedbythis]

I think she thinks Trolling means..

“people saying things I don’t like”.

 

[Tricia Doll]

I think Liz needs to be very very careful with this next book. Now a LOT more people will now find out about her marriage wrecking, coercive control, manipulation and lies. Watch out Liz, people aren't stupid.

 

[Needham]

Also, taking a pic of that pile of books reminds me of when she took a photo of her box of old mobile phones - presumably with messages from M and particularly HWCBN and others - a great big juicy threat to those who she dislikes or who she didn’t get her way with. She should get on with the book instead of incessantly talking about it perhaps. That’s work though!

 

[nopeasinapod]

In some ways I hope she writes this book, as horrible and poorly written we know it will be. Then we can all call up those who might interview her and give them a differing point of view. I’ll be first in line to tell the actual truth about this narcissist! And she might want to find a “bestie” before she says “yesss!!” in her stories - maybe if she works on herself, by the time she’s 80 she might have A friend!

 

[Needham]

Yes, she’s playing with fire. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. She’s exposing herself to a tonne of scrutiny with this book and making things very bad for herself.
---
Also, since she considers that she is ‘trolled’ on Tattle I think it would be a good idea to get shots of her posts actively trying to provoke ‘trolls’ and keep them engaged, which she does constantly.

 

[Marstonroadmrs]

Yes, she’s playing with fire. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. She’s exposing herself to a tonne of scrutiny with this book and making things very bad for herself.
---
Also, since she considers that she is ‘trolled’ on Tattle I think it would be a good idea to get shots of her posts actively trying to provoke ‘trolls’ and keep them engaged, which she does constantly.

I’ve kept, and passed to the police, her direct threats to me. Troll on baby. Troll on.

 

[Raindropsonkittens]

Also…she’s been trolling Mike for years! In published books & on social media. Does she not see the double standard?

 

[Marstonroadmrs]

Yes, she’s playing with fire. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. She’s exposing herself to a tonne of scrutiny with this book and making things very bad for herself.
---
Also, since she considers that she is ‘trolled’ on Tattle I think it would be a good idea to get shots of her posts actively trying to provoke ‘trolls’ and keep them engaged, which she does constantly.

There is a complex dynamic at play and Liz snd her publisher need to be aware of this.

The terms "troll" and "trolling" require clear definitions, especially when discussing them in a formal context like a book. If Liz fails to define these terms clearly, it can lead to misinterpretation, confusion and wider questioning. Questioning that she won’t have control over.

The situation with Mumsnet highlights a key issue in online interactions: engagement versus observation. Her choice/arrogance to observe/block rather than engage might be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the community's perspective.

The issue with Liz blocking group members is another nuanced point. In online communities, the line between dissenting opinions and trolling can be very thin and what one person sees as a different opinion, another might view as antagonistic or disruptive. Who ultimately decides?

Regarding the situation with Mike and his girlfriend, Liz has engaged in what can be perceived as trolling behaviour. This raises questions about her credibility and bias.

It's crucial for any writer, especially one tackling such a nuanced topic, to apply the same standards to their behaviour as they do to others.

She very determinedly set out to discredit Mike and his girlfriend and to damage their careers.

She very determinedly set out via online mediums to make Mike’s wife and HWCBM’s wife fully aware of what she was up to with their husbands. The same could be said for the girlfriend of Yellow Trotters.

She set about her last agent and publisher online. And the patriarchal family court system and the police.

Overall, context, intent and transparency are crucial when discussing behaviours like trolling, especially in a medium as varied and nuanced as the internet.

I’d pop those stones down and sit for a moment in that glass house of yours Liz Fraser. If push comes to shove, I’m more than happy to be interviewed by the media.
---

Yes, she’s playing with fire. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. She’s exposing herself to a tonne of scrutiny with this book and making things very bad for herself.
---
Also, since she considers that she is ‘trolled’ on Tattle I think it would be a good idea to get shots of her posts actively trying to provoke ‘trolls’ and keep them engaged, which she does constantly.

There is a complex dynamic at play and Liz snd her publisher need to be aware of this.

The terms "troll" and "trolling" require clear definitions, especially when discussing them in a formal context like a book. If Liz fails to define these terms clearly, it can lead to misinterpretation and confusion.

The situation with Mumsnet highlights a key issue in online interactions: engagement versus observation. The author's choice to observe rather than engage might be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the community's perspective or, conversely, a way to maintain objectivity or personal boundaries.

The issue with Liz blocking group members is another nuanced point. In online communities, the line between dissenting opinions and trolling can be very thin, and what one person sees as a different opinion, another might view as antagonistic or disruptive.

Regarding the situation with Mike and his girlfriend, if the same person who's writing about trolling engages in what can be perceived as trolling behavior, that indeed raises questions about credibility and bias. It's crucial for any writer, especially one tackling such a nuanced topic, to apply the same standards to their behavior as they do to others.

The use of emojis like can also add a layer of informal or emotional expression to these discussions, hinting at skepticism or resignation without using words.

Overall, context, intent, and transparency are crucial when discussing behaviors like trolling, especially in a medium as varied and nuanced as the internet.
---

There is a complex dynamic at play and Liz snd her publisher need to be aware of this.

The terms "troll" and "trolling" require clear definitions, especially when discussing them in a formal context like a book. If Liz fails to define these terms clearly, it can lead to misinterpretation, confusion and wider questioning. Questioning that she won’t have control over.

The situation with Mumsnet highlights a key issue in online interactions: engagement versus observation. Her choice/arrogance to observe/block rather than engage might be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the community's perspective.

The issue with Liz blocking group members is another nuanced point. In online communities, the line between dissenting opinions and trolling can be very thin and what one person sees as a different opinion, another might view as antagonistic or disruptive. Who ultimately decides?

Regarding the situation with Mike and his girlfriend, Liz has engaged in what can be perceived as trolling behaviour. This raises questions about her credibility and bias.

It's crucial for any writer, especially one tackling such a nuanced topic, to apply the same standards to their behaviour as they do to others.

She very determinedly set out to discredit Mike and his girlfriend and to damage their careers.

She very determinedly set out via online mediums to make Mike’s wife and HWCBM’s wife fully aware of what she was up to with their husbands. The same could be said for the girlfriend of Yellow Trotters.

She set about her last agent and publisher online. And the patriarchal family court system and the police.

Overall, context, intent and transparency are crucial when discussing behaviours like trolling, especially in a medium as varied and nuanced as the internet.

I’d pop those stones down and sit for a moment in that glass house of yours Liz Fraser. If push comes to shove, I’m more than happy to be interviewed by the media.
---


There is a complex dynamic at play and Liz snd her publisher need to be aware of this.

The terms "troll" and "trolling" require clear definitions, especially when discussing them in a formal context like a book. If Liz fails to define these terms clearly, it can lead to misinterpretation and confusion.

The situation with Mumsnet highlights a key issue in online interactions: engagement versus observation. The author's choice to observe rather than engage might be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the community's perspective or, conversely, a way to maintain objectivity or personal boundaries.

The issue with Liz blocking group members is another nuanced point. In online communities, the line between dissenting opinions and trolling can be very thin, and what one person sees as a different opinion, another might view as antagonistic or disruptive.

Regarding the situation with Mike and his girlfriend, if the same person who's writing about trolling engages in what can be perceived as trolling behavior, that indeed raises questions about credibility and bias. It's crucial for any writer, especially one tackling such a nuanced topic, to apply the same standards to their behavior as they do to others.

The use of emojis like can also add a layer of informal or emotional expression to these discussions, hinting at skepticism or resignation without using words.

Overall, context, intent, and transparency are crucial when discussing behaviors like trolling, especially in a medium as varied and nuanced as the internet.

Context, context… is Liz trolling Mike with this post? She’s completely whitewashed him from any existence in the Marston house, save for his ALLEGED abuse. Yet, here she is, all ‘loved up’ when it suited her.

She also whitewashed Mike from Scout’s life, as suited her. Was this trolling? Context, context.

Oh, and the ‘my daughter is my twin’ narrative when clearly Scout is her father’s image. Is this trolling? Context, context.

Btw, screenshots all from Twitter/X today. From Liz’s public posts. Not trolling. Simply observing

 

[CambridgeBun]

In some ways I hope she writes this book, as horrible and poorly written we know it will be. Then we can all call up those who might interview her and give them a differing point of view. I’ll be first in line to tell the actual truth about this narcissist! And she might want to find a “bestie” before she says “yesss!!” in her stories - maybe if she works on herself, by the time she’s 80 she might have A friend!

I will certainly enter into any debates she might open up on GMTV and with Ben Shepherd. Happy to give him a Cambridge eye view of the ultimate troll.

 

[Needham]

I’m really looking forward to reading this book - so I’m glad she keeps saying she is so pumped about it. The sooner it arrives on shelves the better so please get on with it.
---

---
Gosh she sounds nervous and rattled in the stairs vid.

 

[CambridgeBun]

Oh Liz. Your posts today are so desperately sad. You have no one to share anything with. Just the camera of a phone.

Even steel hearted (towards you) me aches for your loneliness, just a tiny bit.

Where are these children you hug and kiss as often as you can? They are NEVER with you. EVER. Not once have they helped you with your house renovations despite being so big and strong and able.

Where is the HE who left you the oh-would-you-believe-it message today? No. No one believes it. Not even the Twitter pervs. Mystery HE’S never helping you. Supporting you.

This is not trolling. This is observation of your very public posts.

 

[Replyingnow]

There is a complex dynamic at play and Liz snd her publisher need to be aware of this.

The terms "troll" and "trolling" require clear definitions, especially when discussing them in a formal context like a book. If Liz fails to define these terms clearly, it can lead to misinterpretation, confusion and wider questioning. Questioning that she won’t have control over.

The situation with Mumsnet highlights a key issue in online interactions: engagement versus observation. Her choice/arrogance to observe/block rather than engage might be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the community's perspective.

The issue with Liz blocking group members is another nuanced point. In online communities, the line between dissenting opinions and trolling can be very thin and what one person sees as a different opinion, another might view as antagonistic or disruptive. Who ultimately decides?

Regarding the situation with Mike and his girlfriend, Liz has engaged in what can be perceived as trolling behaviour. This raises questions about her credibility and bias.

It's crucial for any writer, especially one tackling such a nuanced topic, to apply the same standards to their behaviour as they do to others.

She very determinedly set out to discredit Mike and his girlfriend and to damage their careers.

She very determinedly set out via online mediums to make Mike’s wife and HWCBM’s wife fully aware of what she was up to with their husbands. The same could be said for the girlfriend of Yellow Trotters.

She set about her last agent and publisher online. And the patriarchal family court system and the police.

Overall, context, intent and transparency are crucial when discussing behaviours like trolling, especially in a medium as varied and nuanced as the internet.

I’d pop those stones down and sit for a moment in that glass house of yours Liz Fraser. If push comes to shove, I’m more than happy to be interviewed by the media.
---


There is a complex dynamic at play and Liz snd her publisher need to be aware of this.

The terms "troll" and "trolling" require clear definitions, especially when discussing them in a formal context like a book. If Liz fails to define these terms clearly, it can lead to misinterpretation and confusion.

The situation with Mumsnet highlights a key issue in online interactions: engagement versus observation. The author's choice to observe rather than engage might be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the community's perspective or, conversely, a way to maintain objectivity or personal boundaries.

The issue with Liz blocking group members is another nuanced point. In online communities, the line between dissenting opinions and trolling can be very thin, and what one person sees as a different opinion, another might view as antagonistic or disruptive.

Regarding the situation with Mike and his girlfriend, if the same person who's writing about trolling engages in what can be perceived as trolling behavior, that indeed raises questions about credibility and bias. It's crucial for any writer, especially one tackling such a nuanced topic, to apply the same standards to their behavior as they do to others.

The use of emojis like can also add a layer of informal or emotional expression to these discussions, hinting at skepticism or resignation without using words.

Overall, context, intent, and transparency are crucial when discussing behaviors like trolling, especially in a medium as varied and nuanced as the internet.
---


Context, context… is Liz trolling Mike with this post? She’s completely whitewashed him from any existence in the Marston house, save for his ALLEGED abuse. Yet, here she is, all ‘loved up’ when it suited her.

She also whitewashed Mike from Scout’s life, as suited her. Was this trolling? Context, context.

Oh, and the ‘my daughter is my twin’ narrative when clearly Scout is her father’s image. Is this trolling? Context, context.

Btw, screenshots all from Twitter/X today. From Liz’s public posts. Not trolling. Simply observing

She does look like her father. She’s the spitting image. Liz must hate this so much.

 

[Tabitha D]

Why does she insist on doing those “look at me laughing - SUCH FUN!!” pictures. So desperate and unconvincing. Does she think anyone buys it?

 

[Needham]

Oh Liz. Your posts today are so desperately sad. You have no one to share anything with. Just the camera of a phone.

Even steel hearted (towards you) me aches for your loneliness, just a tiny bit.

Where are these children you hug and kiss as often as you can? They are NEVER with you. EVER. Not once have they helped you with your house renovations despite being so big and strong and able.

Where is the HE who left you the oh-would-you-believe-it message today? No. No one believes it. Not even the Twitter pervs. Mystery HE’S never helping you. Supporting you.

This is not trolling. This is observation of your very public posts.

I don’t think Mystery Man’s message happened. She’d have shouted about it MUCH earlier. I think it’s a fabrication and and excuse to write a post about what a ‘kind’ person she is as she has realised that she has got herself into dangerous territory with this book and that there are plenty prepared to speak out publicly about her. It’s damage limitation.

 

[ORhineORhine]

There is a complex dynamic at play and Liz snd her publisher need to be aware of this.

The terms "troll" and "trolling" require clear definitions, especially when discussing them in a formal context like a book. If Liz fails to define these terms clearly, it can lead to misinterpretation, confusion and wider questioning. Questioning that she won’t have control over.

The situation with Mumsnet highlights a key issue in online interactions: engagement versus observation. Her choice/arrogance to observe/block rather than engage might be seen as a missed opportunity to understand the community's perspective.

The issue with Liz blocking group members is another nuanced point. In online communities, the line between dissenting opinions and trolling can be very thin and what one person sees as a different opinion, another might view as antagonistic or disruptive. Who ultimately decides?

Regarding the situation with Mike and his girlfriend, Liz has engaged in what can be perceived as trolling behaviour. This raises questions about her credibility and bias.

It's crucial for any writer, especially one tackling such a nuanced topic, to apply the same standards to their behaviour as they do to others.

She very determinedly set out to discredit Mike and his girlfriend and to damage their careers.

She very determinedly set out via online mediums to make Mike’s wife and HWCBM’s wife fully aware of what she was up to with their husbands. The same could be said for the girlfriend of Yellow Trotters.

She set about her last agent and publisher online. And the patriarchal family court system and the police.

Overall, context, intent and transparency are crucial when discussing behaviours like trolling, especially in a medium as varied and nuanced as the internet.

I’d pop those stones down and sit for a moment in that glass house of yours Liz Fraser. If push comes to shove, I’m more than happy to be interviewed by the media.
---

Totally agree @Marstonroadmrs . Ms Fraser does not like conversations with people, much preferring to broadcast her 'truth'. If she chooses to block anybody and everybody who doesn't toady to her and agree with her every word, then does she expect them to stay quiet and not find another platform on which to be heard? Seems pretty unintelligent to me. Is Liz really that egotistical and narcissistic as to think that nobody has a right of reply to the never-ending rubbish she pumps out into the public domain? And does she not realise that much of her own conduct is nasty trolling of others?

No need for a reply!

 

[Needham]

Dead right. Yesterday I mentioned that she sounded nervous on her first stairs video after all the posts on here about people coming out and facing her publicly about her ‘trolling’ book. Her next post was (just written) ‘tra la la la la la’ (again on the stairs). This is the equivalent of a child putting their fingers in their ears and going ‘lalalalalalalala’ to block out what someone is saying. A grown up!

 

[Replyingnow]

I’ve been in touch with ‘ObservingToo,’ a member from Mumsnet who had interactions with Liz Fraser.

She’s a domestic violence survivor who financially donated to Liz, believing in her cause. Liz had pleaded poverty and said she wasn’t able to feed her children or heat their home. The next day, Liz hosted a champagne party, spent £50 on narcissi bulbs and headed to Sicily.

Unfortunately, when ObservingToo inquired about a project Liz was promoting in partnership with the NCDV subsequently, she was accused of trolling and blocked.

ObservingToo has been attempting to get a refund for the Substack she took out, but with the help of Citizen’s Advice, has had no joy.

She is willing to share her story with the media, provided her identity is protected due to her and her children’s need for safety in their current safe housing situation.

Perhaps Liz will be willing to share the breakfast sofa with OT and Ben Shepherd…