A charlatane called Rachel North (Rachel McFadyen) who runs a suspicious blog called "Rachel From North London" has made a lot of money and publicity out of claiming to have been on the carriage bombed on the 7th July 2005. BUT why has she always been so fit and well? How has she heartlessly made so much money and created so much publicity when no one else has wanted to? Why does she specialise in false accusations? Who can back up her claims? What is the TRUTH? Is her story a SCAM?

Sunday, 6 July 2008

July 7 remembered

On this anniversary we pause to remember those wounded and killed in the terrible bomb blasts of July 7th 2005. 7/7 2005 was a dreadful day for London.

We hope that the living victims of the London bombings will find happiness in the future and that they, most of all, will be free from scammers and people who are trying to take advantage of July 7 2005.


Anonymous said...

I'm with you all the way. I hope the media leave them in peace these days.

Anonymous said...

I've heard enough about it to be honest.

Its time to move on. Someone will be selling the CD next.

knockoff nigel said...

This might be of interest to you




Why politics? What does she stand for?

A bit fishy

never in that carriage said...

Rachel North has many political ambitions. Not long ago that she was fishing for an OBE. If she has that type of ambition than she merits an investigation into her public show.

Anonymous said...

"Give us our independent inquiry, I say. There is so much that could be gained from it. Understanding, clarity, answers. Debate, dialogue. actions, learnings, things that could save lives. And I think, hope, and healing. Whilst conspiracies flourish, they can only add to the sense of victimhood and rage. Whilst the Government refuses to defend its foreign policy, many will suspect that is because it fears it will be proved to be instrumental in the radicalisation not only of Shehzad Tanweer, who said as much in his video released on July 6, but of unknown hundreds of thousands more would-be 'martyrs", here and abroad. Whilst it is speculated that the police and security services do not communicate, trust will evaporate and with it, our best hope of intelligence and help from all the communities and people of Britain. As we are told so many times, with ID cards, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear."

Rachel North.

What is she talking about?

Refuse to defend their foreign policies? What are "actions and learnings?" Who does this "speculating" about police and security services?

Very bizarre.

Anonymous said...

Here's more

"There are big, uncomfortable questions about our foreign and domestic policies, about whether multiculturalism is segregationalism by another name of whether ham-fistedly highlighting the differences between citizens to "celebrate them" instead points them out and makes people feel outsiders in the country they live in. These are political questions, but they belong to all of us as stakeholders in a shared future and they should be asked and discussed publicly. There may be some things that may not be publicly disclosed because they impact on current investigations, on pending trials or the defence of the realm, but in that case they should be asked privately, by someone independent, and empowered to ask and to keep asking without fear or favour."

What is she talking about? Does anyone get it?

never in that carriage said...

In our opinion it's meaningless waffle from a woman who wants the spotlight. Mumbo jumbo and no substance. Occasionally the editorials use her to attack a politician because they know she'll do it.

knockoff nigel said...

Not subtle is it.


Suppose myself ( thought to be a pillock) wrote an article for them


How many would sell ?

Anonymous said...

Watch this

"In a panic because I don't have a frock for the Madrid wedding this weekend - well - I thought I had a perfectly serviceable cotton number until J revealed to me yesterday that it is a very posh society do - I peered into my bank account and despaired. Fabulous frocks are all very well, but weddings - and I have two this year to go to plus two hen weekends - are so flipping expensive. It's not just the frock, but the shoes, hat, bag, jewellery, flights/train tickets, hotel, present and all the rest of it. The average couple spends £1400 a year on attending weddings, apparently. Ouch."

What is she talking about? What average couple? The average couple spends six grand on their own wedding. If they can afford to get married.

Is she making £ for herself out of her 7/7 book sales? Her Mum died and she advertises a heart charity called Corda. Where is the advert for the charity funded by her book?

Corda has only just scraped £400 from Rachel !

Anonymous said...

She's advertising staying in a very plush hotel in Spain. She published it last week.


She spends her whole time shrieking and falling to the ground about her secret identity and her whereabouts, then publishes her posh hotel on the world wide web with a picture of the room she will be using. If she cries rape from the balcony I'm not going to believe it.

Anonymous said...

Rachael writes: 'And being blown up did not turn me into a Sun reader.'

Well, that's exactly the point isn't it? Rachael makes the outrageous claim that she was 10 yards, then 10 feet and now 7 or 8 feet from the bomb but she wasn't 'blown up' at all!

The 26 who lost their lives were 'blown up'. Others who lost limbs or suffered other serious injuries were 'blown up'. What also seems to have got 'blown up' on July 7th 2005 was a planet sized ego.

Anonymous said...

How terrible that someone is making the most of the incidenct to run a scam, its really disgusting.

Anonymous said...

This blog is very interesting indeed. Has this womans claims been investigated ever?

How can anyone say that they were to metres away from a bomber when they cant have been just to make money?

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting post at


Here is Luke Akehurst's big idea of the day:

Maybe instead of Labour fielding a candidate in Haltemprice and Howden we should find a Martin Bell type candidate - preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack, to run under the following five word candidate description:
"Independent - for detaining terrorism suspects".

Right wing but libertarian blog muppets have found out where he lives and they're now using the F word, the N word and even the C word in describing his politics.

Rachel from North London fits Luke's Person Specification pretty well until the second comma. Only trouble is she thinks this idea is absolutely repellent:

As a 'victim of a terrorist attack', I spit at your repellent idea.
And if I was standing on a political platform I'd be standing right behind Davis.
I've met him, I back him, even though he is a Tory.
He stands up for freedom against fearmongering.
That's my own personal opinion, because, guess what, getting blown up on the way to work on 7.7 didn't affect my ability to think rationally, have opinions and care about freedom and democracy. If anything, it made me even keener on preserving the freedoms that lunatics seem keen to destroy.
As to the other passengers on my train, and their families, they have their own opinions about politics, much as the passengers on any train do.
Al Qaida do explosions, not mass personality transplants; and terrorist 'victims' are actually just people like anyone else you know.
*rolls eyes*
Sheesh, you patronising muppet.

Bit too much sitting on the fence there for my liking Rachel! Here's your very positive post on today's Davis phenomenon.

-end of post-

Why the constant swing to the Tory party whatever the circumstances? If she has been blown up how is it that she still so busy engaging in political debate?

Anonymous said...

And why the sheepish acknowledgement that survivor's families are hostile to her "views?2

woody said...

Rachel is in the money while people who were blown apart still get nothing:


anoninvestigates said...

Might the fact that she's telling lies and confusing the investigation and the story be holding up compensation payments for the wounded survivors and the families of people who lost their loved ones?

Anonymous said...


Here Rachel North defends her line that a public inquiry will not divert resources.

never in that carriage said...

" people who were blown apart still get nothing". You must be referring to the severely wounded and the families of those who lost their lives.

Anonymous said...

If Rachel is spreading word that standing two metres, or is two and a bit metres away from a highly destructive bomb is literally nothing at all I can't see how this can fail to negatively affect survivors compensation claims.

woody said...

It would depend on where people whove been wounded are saying that they were situated in the carriage.

never in that carriage said...

A very important observation.

Anonymous said...

Look at this from the CLAIMS 4 FREE website


>> Unlike most injury claims where both sides argue over how much an injury is "worth", as a government appointed, public funded organisation the Criminal Injury Board sets the rules and is pretty black and white. Your ailments must be of a certain severity to qualify for compensating as they only have 25 levels of criminal compensation for which they pay out from £1,000 to £250,000. The maximum amount you can receive in criminal injury compensation after all losses and expenses have been considered is £500,000. There are some simple guidelines to judge whether you have a possible UK criminal injury claim that qualifies for an award from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. To make a claim for criminal injury compensation you MUST have:
been assaulted or injured in some way covered by the scheme and physically and/or mentally injured as a result
been in England, Scotland or Wales at the time when the injury was sustained
been injured seriously enough to qualify for at least the minimum award available under the Scheme
received documented medical attention for your injuries
been a dependant or relative of someone who died as a result of a crime
reported the incident to the police within 48 hours
forwarded your application within 2 years from the date of the incident
There are sometimes good reasons for the above not occurring and criminal compensation can sometimes be recovered even if you cannot affirm all of the above requirements. As stated, criminal injury compensation can also be claimed for mental anguish as long as that mental anguish is severe enough to qualify for the lowest UK CICA award amount of £1,000. Mental anguish generally has to be substantiated and documented for it to be classed as being something that requires compensation, it helps if there is recognised trauma that occurs from your type of victimisation such as being raped. Rape victims are accepted to have both physical and mental injuries due to the extensive research done in that area and the already existing supporting evidence. If you have any doubts or questions prior to claiming then you can get free advice from your local citizen's advice bureau.

>> When you apply for compensation you will be assigned a case worker and they are not easily fooled. Where you might be able to throw a frivilous claim against and insurance company who would rather settle quickly than drag things out the CICA in the UK does not have a mandate that produces such results. For example, since the London Bombings we have received hundreds of inquiries from people wanting to know "how much they could get" as they were now "scared to get on a train or bus". If you think logically, there have been dozens of train and bus crashes over the years killing many, many more people and yet no-one was seeking compensation for being scared then.

Has Rachel made a false claim about the anguish she suffered after claiming that she was 'standing seven feet away from Lindsay when the bomb went off' and has this been holding up the survivors' applications?

Anonymous said...

anon asked:-

"Has Rachel made a false claim about the anguish she suffered after claiming that she was 'standing seven feet away from Lindsay when the bomb went off' and has this been holding up the survivors' applications?"

She has never mentioned her compensation claim but people often don't.

Her husband is a solicitor, did they have insurance?

Anonymous said...

This must be the first ever blog, where Rachael gets a mention, that the arch-scammer herself doesn't rush to dominate the discussion with her usual brand of vitriolic diatribe.

Could it be that she is beginning to realise that she has been rumbled?

The smart thing would be to draw down the curtains on her blog and to ride off into the sunset ... but we know that she can't do this. With such a massive ego to feed, she has to keep drawing attention to herself. As the media spotlight begins to fade, it's pretty much a given that the 'victim' tattoo across her forehead will start pulsating and she will need to manifest another life non-threating scam.

Anonymous said...

Your suspicions have got to be correct in my opinion.,, What a hole she has dug for herself!

never in that carriage said...

Comments today have been very helpful. We very much hope that the net result is proper treatment and compensation for people who have been wounded and bereft.

Anonymous said...

The accusation is starting to point to the husband but coul=d he have been greviously deceived? So many of us were.

woody said...

If my own suspicions are correct he's sent her to a comfortable hotel in Spain in order to rest his head AND the trouser press -- he's had enough!

I don't think anyone doubts how Rachel North costs a fortune.

Anonymous said...

How could her husband have failed to ask her where she was standing as regards distance from the bomb. He must have asked her this question.

One person writes,
/This must be the first ever blog, where Rachael gets a mention, that the arch-scammer herself doesn't rush to dominate the discussion with her usual brand of vitriolic diatribe. /

It looks like Rachel did try to leave comments here and there at first; in the other comments boxes.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote: 'It looks like Rachel did try to leave comments here and there at first; in the other comments boxes.'

But she beat a hasty retreat, which is not her usual M.O. That said, methinks it was perhaps the smartest thing she could have done, 'coz that hole is getting real deep.

Excellent questions being raised here as to how deep she is dragging her Father and the 'long-suffering 'J' into her fantasy world. If 'J' is a lawyer, how come he's keeping so quiet? If this was the States, the libel litigation would be flying all over the place by now. I reckon he's probably doing the smart thing and keeping his head well down.

Ms. North definitely got some 'splainin' to do!!

Anonymous said...

I dont know her father looks kinda sly. Is he complicit with rachel maybe? Sort of in a subconscious way...

Anonymous said...

52 souls celebrate three years away with the Angels ... all the while Ms. North is away with the Fairies.

Anonymous said...

Away with them? She dragged them all off with her.