Bob Fiddaman Denies Any Involvement in the Twitter Pages Attacking and Threatening the Safety of Sir Andrew Witty and Family?

Or is he plainly trying to abdicate all responsibility?

So far there seems to be no legal evidence that Bob Fiddaman created the Witty Parody page or the Seroxat Kills twitter pages that listed the home address of Sir Andrew Witty and another more violent threat claiming the author would get his mates to go round to his house where his children live. But what about endorsing and encouraging other advocates with his obsessive poison? I think that might be a legitimate legal argument. Bob carries on about Witty relentlessly and fuels the fire with obsessive intensity. What did he think was going to happen in a mob filled room of angry and irrational mental health patients with a few screws lose? A group he claims are capable of homicidal acts due to the dangerous drugs they are/were taking. At the very least Bob's Witty posts aim to intimidate and cause distress on Witty and his family. The other advocates just follow their psychotic leader. When the shit hits the fan he washes his hands of them claiming he does not agree with it. Convenient!

I cannot agree with Bob's refusal to take responsibility for the other half dozen twitter pages he uses to exercise his new interest in tennis and benefits fraud as well as stalking, harassment and bullying. He is responsible for those pages and for contributing the sick entertainment provided on them. We have openly debated posting the proof of this but I personally believe that could show Bob the mistake he made. He would obviously amend the mistake and this action would destroy evidence needed at a later date and proving his involvement.

Bob Fiddaman has been known to exaggerate his own credentials. He claims he is an award winning writer. That's a stretch. My nephew won first place in the science fair in middle school. He now has a degree. He does not use the award from middle school to describe himself as an award winning scientist.

Bob Fiddaman describes himself as a man that "Covers" the dangers of Seroxat and other drugs. "Covers"? Bob Fiddaman only posts his opinion on what has already been uncovered. He's more of a librarians assistant with an opinion.

Bob Fiddaman's more recent main thrust seems to be to canvass for other victims of psychiatry to come forward to his lair. By exaggerating his credentials many victims believe he has some expertise in psychiatry and dangerous drugs. Aside from reading anothers personal testimony and that of a few books, what degree does he have to support this expertise?

Bob Fiddaman claims he is the decade long victim of cyber abuse. He has contributed many angry hours trying to get support and people to believe he is a helpless victim. Helpless victim? Or a man that can't accept some of his facts and opinions are not a reflection of the majority at this point in time?

Bob exercises free speech but does not believe anyone else should have that right unless they are smashing Sir Andrew Witty to bits, agree Seroxat is a defective drug and patients abusing illegal substances while taking antidepressants are not subject to some personal responsibility.

But here comes the dangerous part, the part that really sets Bob Fiddaman apart from men with a conscience. This is bit people should be paying close attention to and something he is foolish enough to make public, foolish to think rational minded folks wont notice.

Bob Fiddaman now appears to be using his lady friend, Maria Bradshaw, for his cyber-stalking campaign. He has recently tweeted that he has done a podcast with Bradshaw about the loss of her son. She is also going to address her stalker. Does poor Maria not understand what Bob Fiddaman is doing, what he is setting her up for? And even if she did, agreed to it fully informed, wouldn't a caring friend refuse to put her in danger of the same fate he claims he's been victim to and has caused him such distress? If it was so horrible for him why would Bob Fiddaman use a bereaved woman in his online war games? Either he does not care about her or he is not a victim of his claims. A person with a conscience would have thought this through and not put his own interests ahead of woman that's been through hell.