We will be away for a few days in order to conduct some experiments. Keep leaving your thoughts.
We wish to put forward no theory on the London bombings. The job of this separate blog is to investigate the integrity of a suspicious woman's claims.
We have now completed another interesting experiment and once again concluded that Rachel North was never on carriage 1. when it was bombed by Germaine Lindsay.
While conducting this experiment we received comments about people that Rachel has abused and attacked through her press contacts and then her blog, one of whom is a wounded survivor of July 7th. Apparently for daring to question her version of events and touching on the subject of her position as a survivor of carriage 1. We are interested in people who have been abused in the way described by the apparently oppressive and attention craving 'Rachel North'.
If you do not wish your name to be aired on this blog write and let us know and we will delete any temporary reference. If you do not wish your comment to be printed on the blog let us know.
As a precaution we have now deleted the reference to particular names in order to protect people from Rachel's Internet crowd and their abusive ways.
We would like to explain that we are neutral in this matter. We want to remain objective. The title of this blog asks a question. We believe that we the public have a duty to the people on the carriage who didn't make it, who were left behind in the rush to escape. We believe that it is these people and the injured who are owed most. We believe that no one should be making false claims and profits out of July 7th. We believe that evidence relating to July 7th should not be false or manipulated. We believe that Rachel is doing this, or we wouldn't have started this blog.
We are aware that there are people commenting with a wide variety of historical and political views and we do not interfere with this. Comment is free.
21 comments:
Do well and keep making progress on the deceitful charletaine.
Rachel's pretence at acting for the survivors of J7 is beyond a joke.
I wish it was funny, as she thinks.
She tramples over their feelings in the same way that she tramples over everything and everyone else in her frantic struggle to plant herself on an out of reach stage.
Her time is up. She's fallen through. The sensible thing would be to read a quick apology the audience and take off her war paint.
'Which hides not a thing'.
I fear 'tis a shrew who will not be tamed.
Not until she has depleted every keyboard in Europe.
Surely if this were true people and parliaments would have anticipated some sort of central breakdown when she bought her first computer, in around New Year 2000.
Good job done that day on South Bank considering there weren't any problems. Must have badly exhausted their resources. She still wont have an argument all the same and tells them to work harder even though her blackberries are sounding off all day so they can't hear themselves think.
Seems she might have given up at last. She has published a post with nothing but 'pants.'
Is this an admissal of sorts then? She has been telling us pants all these years I'd never have guessed.
Nice and quiet today.
Rachel's pretences are astounding. She is a shrew and when corrected she points her long tongue, like charletaines of old. Instead of looking at all her pants we have exposed she blogs a post on a pants video.
Perhaps, she's trying to draw the eye away from the pants elsewhere on her blog. The reference to the video, a 'pants video' may be the Richard and Judy film we exposed. She offers no apology. She links to a film on pants.
Of course.
The fact that RN fails to mention this discussion on her blog demonstrates her extreme reluctance to expose this discussion to a wider audience.
If she could produce just one piece of irrefutable evidence to support her claim to have been '7 or 8 feet from the bomb', this blog would be a central focus of her blog. Coupled with which, she would be contacting all her 'tame' newshounds to get these outrageous 'conspiraloon' slurs exposed.
In reality, she dare not draw attention to this discussion, even amongst her acolytes amongst the intellectual pygmies who inhabit the Urban75 blogsphere.
If this discussion results in any legal proceedings, Rachael's version of reality will finally be exposed as a realm of psychotic fantasy.
We are looking forward to her linking to us in a 'look at these how dare they, come to my Aid Max Clifford' blog-fit.
We have been looking forward to it for over a week now and all we get is 'pants'.
I expect, we may be waiting for it as long as Will Shakespeare.
There are no conspiracy theories on this blog, we're looking at Rachel's fabrications and her Internet obsession
She can't keep getting knives out on people who challenge her version of events and the veracity of her remunative victimhood tales and voracious fantasies.
She's done it once too many times.
Two metres away from a bomb indeed Rachel.
Her husband the solicitor must feel like the Emeror Nero playing his fiddle whenever she pulls a square mouth and starts catawaling.
Using the Internet as a media for her ambitious hysterics was a big mistake.
You can fool some of the people sometimes, but.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/29/attackonlondon.terrorism
Here's a link to Danny Biddle. Rachel appears to have been one of the people who 'exposed' his past.... the fact that he was injured to the point of no repair was of no consequence to her.
Rachael blogs about her participation in the recent Haltemprice by-election, bragging about her apprearance alongside David Davies and the other sham 'Civil Liberties Campaigner', Chami Chakrabati.
However, I note that she refrained from repeating her mantra of being '7 or 8 feet from the bomber', limiting herself to saying, 'I was on the way to work when a 19 year old British man detonated a suicide bomb in the carriage I was travelling in ...'
She continues, 'killing 26 innocent people and wounding over a hundred more.'
Note that she doesn't mention that she was also injured! Is she attempting to get some 'damage limitation' in place as the questions surrounding the veracity of her claims is scrutinized?
That apart, the whole by-election was a classic Tavistock 'Controlled opposition' operation. Providing the opportunity to add Dave (I'm in favour of capital punishment) Davies to the list of media 'celebrities' who can be trotted out anytime a soundbite is needed to demonstrate that the media is providing the opportunity for 'opposition' voices to be heard spieling out their faux concern against the rate at which the 'Big Brother' state envelops us all.
Mantra.
She's starting to sound like eminem isn't she. cleaning out her closet.
What a wasted brag. The by election concerned about three voters and was held in a terrorism used straw hut beside a swamp. Such is Davis desperation to be heard. Chami, Davis and Rachel are all in an equally discredited state. One newspaper recently labelled the first the most dangerous woman in Britain and an anarchist in a barrister's wig.
One might ask, what is Rachel doing with two equally redoubtable political scarecrows at this interlude?
Rachael writes:
'Could the day have gone any better?'
A thoughtless way to brag in front of the bereaved of 7/7 who are strongly in opposition to her proclaimed "moral stance" on the 42 days detention....
Perhaps she meant the straw hut was not englulfed by a swamp and the rain didn't weigh their boots down too badly, one out of three voters turned up and voted against them, one other was irritated to be disrupted while feeding his chickens and the other marked a cross beside what he wanted to eat for tea provided by the Canon McFadyen (and Rachel grabbed it and threw it into the voting box) but, the roof did not fall in spite of Rachel wailing and crying and stamping her feet when pasers by slowly began to boo. 'Could the day have gone any better?' must have been paraphrased by the Canon McFadyen who drove them all home, passing through the little village of 'Yelling' on the way to the bypass, Rachel's favorite village.
If Rachel disappears off the scene for a few days, she's probably having plastic surgery ... to put a scar on her wrist!
Would strongly suggest you spell "charletan" correctly if you wish to be taken seriously.
We realise that there is no female version of 'charletan' in the English language so we have invented one for Rachel.
Post a Comment