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?

Wednesday, 9 July 2008

Miracle, deceived, or Walter Mitty?

No one believes that George Roskilly is a walking miracle who escaped a bomb from three feet away on July 7th 2005. We are undecided about whether he is a bit of a Walter Mitty or whether he is completely deceived. There is some disagreement.

On Monday Channel 4 documentaries broadcast a programme 'The miracle of carriage 346' 'disclosing' that there is another survivor of July 7th who was a very short way away from Lindsay when he detonated his bomb. We provide the link to the documentary here. 'George' is claiming that he was three feet away from Lindsay when the bomb went off in carriage 1!

That's less than 1 metre.

Obviously, his outlandish story is interesting. But we shouldn't laugh insensitively. Is he Walter Mitty, or deceived? We need to be open minded about this question.

No one else who claims that they were in the carriage 1. train bombed on July the 7th claims that they escaped the 7/7 train without serious injury, apart from Rachel North, who is unmarked. On the contrary all the survivors of carriage 1. were severely wounded. As would be expected.

We learn that George was subjected to Rachel North's influence. She met him in or around early 2006.

We learn that George left the July 7th train without speaking with anyone, went to hospital alone, left alone, then went home. He refused to speak to anyone about the July 7th incident. He would not discuss it with his wife. He refused to visit a Doctor for many months. According to reports, he could not remember anything about July 7th until he heard his grandson crying. He 'began to remember' events a this point. According to Channel 4:

"The injuries he witnessed at Russell Square caused George to refuse serious medical attention as his physical wounds were only superficial. After a brief examination by a first aider, George left the scene and headed for home. He continued to refuse medical help despite his wife’s insistence and returned to work, travelling by tube, on the Tuesday following the bombings. It was only later that the sound of his grandson crying caused the memories of the 7th July to return. He broke down and sought counselling which he attended for six months. He still suffers from anxiety and survivor’s guilt brought on by triggers".

Poor George was subjected to some trauma on July 7th 2005. He was an old man somewhere on the train (probably not on carriage 1.) from another country. London is a hard city. He might have been very poor before he thought about claiming criminal compensation (and possibly insurance). He was traumatised, he lost his memory, and then he met Rachel North. She appears to have 'filled his traumatised mind with her ideas', or given him a smart idea.

He was introduced to Channel 4 by a mysterious person later.

We believe that it was cruel to tell George that he was three feet away from a chemical bomb on July 7th when he obviously was not. If he really did lose his memory.

We also believe that it is wrong to call George a 'miracle' without examining the facts. We don't believe that there is a God who would cause George and Rachel to experience miraculous escape at random and allow the other people on carriage 1. to be severely injured or die at the same time. We feel that Channel 4 has been cruel towards the injured and those who suffered loss on July 7th 2005.

Why is this man repeating Rachel's points of view and her purported experiences? Why has he been introduced to Channel 4 specifically?

Rachel is a media executive with an eye for an opportunity.

We accept that the report quoting the fire fighter's perspective talks about 'Bluewatch' who are stating that a small handful of people escaped carriage 1. with 'miraculously minor injuries.' In other words, they lost their limbs, but they were not killed. We agree that these people are 'miracles of carriage 1.' and we wish them the best. All reports from professionals at the scene support this interpretation.

There is no suggestion either on the Channel 4 report or on any of the others that anyone is claiming to have emerged from carriage 1. unharmed apart from Rachel, and George.

A handful of people emerged relatively unharmed at Russel Square. As compared to the passengers of carriage 1. We believe that these people came from the other train carriages. They are not claiming that they fabulously escaped from being two metres or three feet away from Lindsay when he set off his bomb. We provide a link to another passenger's story, from a lady who was ten to twelve feet away from Lindsay. As recorded by the paramedics. Observe the very marked difference between her story about her wounds and her suffering and George's and Rachel's stories.


Anonymous said...

You'd expect Rachel to enlist a feeble witness to support her outrageous claims, which she adapts and changes to suit her position, all the time.

But she shoots herself in the foot, again.

thefirmsong said...

Alright my son, Leave it out
As it 'appens its your shout
Straight up, Pull the other
In a right 2 and 8
What's the damage Chief?
Who's your mate?
The geezer with the bunny in the trilby 'at
Reckons he's legit but he ain't all that
Arthur Daley, little dodgy maybe, but underneath,
'E's alright.

Propping up the bar at the Winchester Club
"A V.A.T. on the slate please Dave"
Terry's still looking for a sub.
Arthur's onto a nice little earner
Terry's getting agg and the chance of an hernia
Minding the disco down some boozer
Giving him a slap but he's onto a loser
Pound to a penny that he don't get paid
On account of the recession in the used car motor trade

Terry's piling up the Zeds
Been up on a job all night
When all of a sudden there's an horrible scream
And somebody's switching on the light
It's Arthur, Y-fronts caught in his zip
Brahms & Liszt an' he needs a place to kip
Terry gets the hump with Arthur 'cos he
Won't go home 'cos of 'Her Indoors'
"She'd kill me Terry, odds on bet
I ain't got the bottle; Ain't you got that kettle on yet?"

Checking out his stock in the lock-up
Arthur's havin' a fit
'Ere where's them magazines with the 'Erbets in the leather
And the bird with a whip
(inaudible comment)Says Terry (Inaudible comment)
"Cheap jibe Terence. Try to understand
Got a punter coming round gonna take em off me hands
Got a part exchange, claret from Japan
A vintage year, and he does 'em in five gallon cans"

So he's got a couple of Nelson Riddles going,
Who ain't ? Don't make you a villain, do it ?
And he sells the odd dodgy motor now and then
Well, it ain't a crime is it ?
Well yeah, it's a crime, yeah, technically
But it's a bit under the arm the way the(inaudible)
Sit on his daily giving him GBH on the ear'ole all the time
I mean, just 'cos he happens to have done a bit of bird for petty when he was a saucepan
He aught to do them for inflammation of character I reckon
You know what Chisholm said ?
He said "I know how Arthur Daley'll die
I said "How's that"
He said "he'll fall off the back of a lorry"
Bit strong, definitely out of order, Know what I mean?
He goes turning his drum over, looking for bent gear
Finding it, yeah, yeah, but it ain't a crime, it well yeah it's a crime....(fades)

Anonymous said...

Whenever Rachel meets someone who is weak or fragile she always tries to organise their lives.

seeker said...

That poor man, to go through all that and then to end up so manipulated.

This blog has shown up many things, some of which, I suppose, we already knew.

Let's hope it plays full part in getting the horrible woman silenced.

never in that carriage said...

We are undecided about some aspects of George. He must have been seriously manipulated we think, to take such a risk. One of our contributors won't have it and thinks he is a complete Walter Mitty.

He must have been terribly traumatised nonetheless from being on the train and a stranger to this country and it will have been very easy to influence him. 'It works like this, do that, it will go alright.'

Anonymous said...

Why the big deal?

Survivors of diasters make false claims and exaggerate them all the time.

This is why Insurance companies have offices to examine claims.

Is the investigation into the survivors compensation claims still going on?

Anonymous said...

That's just the point, isn't it? The claims are unresolved because of the stories of some which are simply incredible. And those who have real claims are suffering as a result. How much have Rachel's press contacts been involved in all this? If you've got the press behind you its easy to make false claims- apparently!

disgraceful said...

When did Walter-George submit his compensation claim and was he helped by Rachel's husband who is a solicitor? They all thought it was a good idea to wait until there was a lot of media noise..?

-The old run this story to cover ourselves thing... Tony Blair's assistant! They get a story run on one day to stop another one breaking out.

( Tony Blair!)!!

Anonymous said...

Poor old George. To be in London in July at all, then to have to use the London Metro in July, on J7'05, to be married to a woman who keeps telling you you've lost your mind and you need to see the Doctor, and then to meet Rachel North, strikes me as a most extraordinary run of bad luck! he only needs to adapt his compensation claim slightly.

never in that carriage said...

Yes he ought to get a big cheque for that one.

Anonymous said...

The mess she's got George into whiffs and pongs of Rachel's tactics. Followers of her blog will have observed that wherever she goes for anything risky ( attacking the Home sec. for example) she gets someone else to plant themselves that bit deeper than she. Often a reporter. She then backpedals and blames the one she planted for adverse consequences. She would never have made her outrageous two metres away claim without finding herself a goat to carry blame and tough questions.
The doc didn't run Rachel's own story did it?

jen said...

I think Rachael still could have been far away from Germane at the end of the train carriage. I don't know why she's lied so much. I can't explain it. Some people are just like that. Even if she was somewhere on the carriage it's awful to see her preening her feathers about how fit and well off she is when you look at how the other passengers suffered so terribly. I bet they can't stand it, myself.

never in that carriage said...

It must be awful for them to see her going on and on.

Rachel isn't claiming to be at the far end of the carriage, is she. At first she said she was near the driver, later, she claimed she was two metres away from Lindsay.

Anonymous said...

She is STILL CLAIMING this supercalafragalisticexplialdocious.

L said...

C 4 docs are half witted and they put a smile on my face every time. My wife is often taken in.

never in that carriage said...

Are you sure about that? George's wife seems more savvy than yours!

seeker said...

She just goes on and on regardless. As if blogs did not have consequences, as if they are not connected to real life.

But not forever, hopefully.

Anonymous said...

'Are you sure about that? George's wife seems more savvy than yours!'

Are you saying that the story about George losing his memory about 7/7 is fabricated? And that his wife knew about this sham?

Then where does the "arch scammer" come in?

Anonymous said...

First, Rachel claims that she was densely packed in among the passengers who were like "sardines". Then she claims that she was lifted out of the densely packed crowd and lifted into the air by a "huge ( PAUSE) POWER." Was George subject to this powerful lifting?

Rachel has got George a good bit of media cover- someone suggested. She must have been savvy enough to suss out who would be wiling to tell such a wide eyed tale to everyone. George is her cover isn't he? If he survived a bomb from three feet away, how can any of us dispute her Mary Poppins umbrella?

never in that carriage said...

Some commenters find it all amusing but it is shocking to think of the cash that she must have claimed.

Anonymous said...

The injured and wounded are still facing grave compensation problems, but I bet Rachel got 'hers'.


More than one in 10 of those wounded in the July 7 terrorist attacks in London are still waiting for compensation as survivors mark the third anniversary of the explosions today.

The co-ordinated suicide attacks on three Tube trains and a bus in 2005 killed 52 people and injured 700. Many of the injured have been unable to work since the attack and are having to get by on compensation payments that they say are far too small.

Last night the Government and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) were criticised over the handling of payments for the 700 people injured.

Beverli Rhodes, 47, a passenger on the bombed Russell Square Tube train, said survivors had been left "pretty much on our own" and contrasted the treatment of British survivors to those who lived through the September 11 attacks in 2001 and Madrid train bombing in 2004.

"Not much has been done to help us," she said. "The compensation is pretty unrelated to how much our lives have changed. The Government just wants us to disappear and be swept under the carpet."

Mrs Rhodes, from Kent, previously worked on helping assess London's vulnerability to a terrorist attack but has been unemployed since the bombing. In addition to the head injuries she suffered, she also has post-traumatic stress disorder.

The CICA, which handles the compensation claims, says that almost 90 per cent of cases have been "fully resolved". Only four per cent of the 647 applications made in the past three years – some as recently as three months ago – have yet to receive any financial settlement.

It has paid out £7.5 million since the attacks, with offers totalling a further £1 million still being considered by claimants. In total, 73 cases are still "active", having received either no compensation or just an "interim payment".

Carole Oatway, the chief executive of the CICA, said: "We are in regular contact with all the outstanding applicants from the London bombings to make sure everyone is clear what needs to be done to finalise their cases. Every victim of a violent crime who applies to the CICA for compensation is treated with equal seriousness."

The third anniversary of the attacks will be marked with a low-key ceremony this morning at King's Cross station, from which the four suicide bombers set out.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, will join Tessa Jowell, the government minister for the capital, and transport chiefs to lay flowers outside the station at 8.50am, the time at which three bombs went off on trains near Russell Square, Aldgate and Edgware Road stations.

never in that carriage said...

The film shown by the Telegraph is very good.
You see a credible witness and genuine caring people, and there is no Rachel North style fibbing and dramatics.

seeker said...

Wouldn't the blogosphere be a better place without this insatiable egomaniac?

never in that carriage said...

We are very impressed by the man in the film. Visibly burned all over his face and neck, possibly his upper half, his eye damaged, possibly blinded, he tells his ordeal simply, graphically and sensibly, with no self pity. A classic English man and a credit to his people at a terrible moment. Then he gets straight on with his job and we never hear from him again.

Wouldn't it be a treat if he took over Rachel North's blog.

Anonymous said...

Was that man in carriage 1 or 2 or possibly 3?

never in that carriage said...

Probably in carriage 2. or right at the far end of the long carriage 1. far away from Lindsay. He is badly burned and had his eye damaged by the blast which "twisted and turned him" he says. This makes perfect sense.

Anonymous said...

Should have called it 'NorthWatch'

Anonymous said...

If you people are going to continue approaching this objectively then this is a useful blog.