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, 16 July 2008

Some Tavistock questions


Habib Hussain is held responsible for bombing the bus at Tavistock square. Along with his silent co defendants he has put up no form of defence for reasons apparent. More questions surround his bombing than the others. Mainly because he obviously changed his mind about bombing a train on the London Metro, offered his co ds an excuse by mobile and left the scene. Half an hour later a bomb went off at the back of a Tavistock Square bus.


The nature of the explosive found is highly volatile. It is easy to set if off by accident. We note that Hussain whose profile can be found on the J7 Truth Campaign website went to the top of a bus, and took a back seat. A very determined bomber would have taken a seat on the ground deck and stood in the middle, like Germaine Lindsay.

This bomber looks as if he changed his mind and tried to get out. He might have foolishly got on public transport and his bomb might have been detonated by unexpected factors. He might have suddenly changed his mind again and set it off. One thing for sure, that day he was a real fool.

Germaine's false assumption that a chemical bomb would 'blow the show' at the front carriage of his train ( causing a chain explosive reaction ) and Hussain's behaviour give the 'clean skin' appearance which MI5 gave the public before back pedalling.

We make the observation, we don't wish to theorise.

We appreciate that the effects of Hussain's bomb were limited, and that people at the front of the bus escaped. This was because the bomb was not in such a tightly confined and well sealed space. Accused Lindsay's bomb blasted the entire inside of carriage 1. away. We know that for sure.

We also point out that the metro tubes are not built by Mercedes Benz. Neither are the Double Decker buses. The bendy buses are. The buses might appear to be better made that the tube trains. We wonder why Rachel who has very probably observed the above points pays no attention to this, when it is quite clear that she has been praying for one of Mercedez cars for five years.

We will be looking at these questions. We will also be looking at the exact amount that Rachel has probably earned from selling her stories and her so called political opinions to the press. We pause for a commercial break, Rachel's favorite.



We have seen that anyone who disagrees with Rachel's version of events or objects to her terrible batterings, either or, is immediately labelled "poor muppet, (or patronising) muppet. Sheesh." We draw allusion to the much battered Kermit the Frog with whom Rachel ( Miss Piggy) appears to be extending the famous thwarted romance.

We note that Kermit bears some resemblance to Richard of Richard and Judy fame. We provide our readers with the link to our post which demonstrates Rachel's Richard and Judy scam.

We want to provide a link to a book which is written by the author of BBC Mastermind which we believe will help readers decide about Rachel "North". It is called 'Fakers, Forgers and Phoneys' and it brings the reality of these people home to the unsuspecting public. We find that Rachel and the different people mentioned within the book have very similar traits. The 'faker' parts are very interesting.
Fakers, Forgers & Phoneys is a masterful exploration of the shadowy world of deception and counterfeiting. The 16 case studies in this intriguing collection reveal:

• how a house-painter-cum-art-restorer fooled the art world and became a national TV celebrity in 1979;
• the identity of the person who fabricated the ‘missing link’ human skull which was discovered in a gravel pit at Piltdown in Essex in 1912;
• how a mystery man known by the unlikely name of George Psalmanazar fooled the London literary world in 1704 with his lurid accounts of cannibalism and polygamy in his native island of Formosa (Taiwan);
• how an obese cockney adventurer resident in Australia succeeded in passing himself off as a slim young English aristocrat who had disappeared more than ten years earlier in 1854 (‘The Tichborne Claimant’); and
• how a suave London conman inveigled a struggling artist to become involved in the greatest British art scam of the twentieth century.

Fakers, Forgers & Phoneys is the essential guide to the most ingenious art and literary forgeries, archaeological frauds, and imposters and hoaxers in the world.

We also provide a link to a Cyber Museum of famous scams.

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

More awkward questions for Goldilocks and "the three bears".....

"It was like a big bear" she said.

Is she still claiming that she's not a media darling?

never in that carriage said...

We wonder whether Professor Higgins, carriage advisor from Cambridge University, would quit sending us comments.

We are interested in specific carriages, quite obviously.

"Quit, Professor Higgins."

knockoff nigel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
never in that carriage said...

Nigel:

last warning.

Anonymous said...

Goldilocks is the fairest lady of them all!

Which bed will she try next? Baby bear has recognised her.

Anonymous said...

Rachel has spewed innumerable articles filled with her rush to press opinions on her blog and in the tame unbiased British press. When some mindful blogger informs her that she is spouting hollow idealism and conjecture she churns out the same old about her situation transcending party politics and political gain. Then we get a re twaddle. Then we get an outburst on how removed we are from today's important issues. Then she pouts and screams and we are banned from the forum and sent upstairs without any supper.

Anonymous said...

Rumbled Rachel wants her porridge

Anonymous said...

First ten, then five, then two metres away from a bomb.....

Anonymous said...

No one goes to press faster than Rachael, look at her blog I could swear she has been given a motorbike for the purpose. She must write her stuff on the way down. I swear I saw her speeding over a roundabout three weeks back. She was swinging her handbag at passers by and shouting and commuters tore out of the area. I don't know about Mercedes Benz it was something like this

http://www.motorbikeracer.com/

Anonymous said...

Am I right in understanding that Ms. North is referring to the Kings Cross explosion as a big grizzly bear.

never in that carriage said...

Yes you are. One that crept up behind her, it appears.

Anonymous said...

Rachel wrote

"Then I was striding through the grey morning streets,
smelling the tang of rain in the air, heading for the kiosk at
Finsbury Park station to buy Marie Claire magazine before
boarding the train to work at my new advertising job in the
West End. The magazine, published that day, contained a story
about me, and I was nervous, anxious, excited to read it. I had
given the interview months ago. I bought a newspaper, and
the magazine, which had a free pair of sunglasses attached to
it. I scanned the cover; it featured Elizabeth Hurley in bikini
pants and a see-through kaftan with her nipples airbrushed
out. My piece was not mentioned in the cover lines. It was
not, after all, a very unusual or unique story."

Then a bomb went off and Maxie Max bought her a new bike... and a pair of sunglasses and a new bikini...

Anonymous said...

She's been giving these muppets she batters a piece of her mind for so long its easy to understand how there's none left. All slices given away.

Anonymous said...

Rachel tells us all that she was so eager to get to work on the morning that "her" train was bombed.

Why then is she claiming thst she sat reading a magazine while two trains went past?

never in that carriage said...

You mean that she says that she was in a rush, late for work, reading a magazine article.

She then says that she waited, reading her magazine, while two trains went past, and then got on the carriage that was bombed.

Good point.

Anonymous said...

Rachel North would convince me more if she held off going into fits whenever anyone suggests her claims should be investigated and verified.

Should the very unlikely possibility that she was actually in the corner of a bombed carriage be proven correct it is not an all excusing mantra.

She has been sustaining her worn out #now rapidly changing# mantra for three years. It's endured longer than Planet of the Apes and will return like Jaws to haunt us for the next twenty years unless someone does something about it.

So what's wrong with obtaining the CCTV from Finsbury park for J7?

If I were Rachel I would go and get it right now.

Somehow I don't think that's about to happen.

tiredofrachel said...

In three years time we'll all have to be convinced that Rachel was on the fourth carriage that was bombed on July 7th by Germaine Lindsay. She is the interweb BB in a long goldilocks wig

woody said...

The Interweb BB in a long Goldilocks wig and a painted face that hides nothing.

Anonymous said...

Work out how much money she gets through Max Clifford for her BS

Must be over two hundred grand

http://www.maxclifford.com/

She writes all that BS and takes the risks for nothing?

Anonymous said...

Here's Max in the Independent:

He leans forward at his desk. "A lot of PR is lies and deceit. You can call it whatever you want. You can call it being economical with the truth or being creative, but that's what it is. The rest of the industry says: 'We don't tell lies.' Oh, well in that case I'm the only person in PR that does. Do I distort the truth? Of course. Do I say, 'No, my client isn't gay' when I know he is? Of course. Does telling the truth matter? If it's showbiz, rock and roll, then absolutely not. Did Freddie Starr actually eat a hamster? No, he didn't."

Hamster-nibbling aside, the kiss-and-tell business is in rude health these days, partly fuelled by the Premiership football wage bonanza. Multi-millionaire footballers are specifically targeted by young women who visit nightclubs hoping to land a night of passion with a player so they have a story to sell in the morning. Clifford barely blinks at the cynicism of it all. "Two or three girls go to a club and they've already worked out that player is worth £50,000, that one's worth £30,000..." he shrugs. "That's the reality."

Rachel's links with Max:

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2007/04/
scary-asbestos-story.html

Im surprised Rachel would have anything to do with him myself in such a subject.

Anonymous said...

Rachel on Max

'Hmmm. Media head on. I smell an agenda with the NOTW being all 'concerned' about compensation and running a panicky story. Most 7/7 people I know refuse point -blank to talk to the News of the World. Max Clifford last summer, when I went to him in desperation for help, when he was kindly advising me and other survivors for free as we were being deluged by media requests and I was on the verge of losing it with stress, told us to steer clear of that paper. (Which was more than fine with me, I had refused to talk to the NOTW ever since they sent a brass-necked request to me to please provide a family with attractive kids, where a parent had died on 7/7, for a feel-good Victims Meet Father Christmas courtesy of the News of The World piece. The email was sent to the Kings Cross United survivor contact email address, which I and three other survivors took turns to manage inquiries.'

Anonymous said...

BB?

Quoi?

Anonymous said...

Fascinating. She has been managing the compensation row with Max Clifford.

Why was she "desperate" about that?

Anonymous said...

Rachel seems to have gone cosnpiracy nuts by the look of her speech to the by-election candidates

"Yesterday I went up to West Ridings to take part in a debate about liberty on the eve of the Haltemprice and Howden byelection. This is the speech I made.

Three years ago 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, killing 26 innocent people and wounding more than a hundred more. I understand first-hand how terrifying terrorism is. The real aim of the terrorists is not to kill hundreds but to terrify millions – to terrify us so much that we forget who we are and what we stand for and become like frightened children begging only to be kept safe. To use our own nightmares against us and to amplify them through the media's endless feedback loop of fear. But as any parent knows, it is not always possible to keep those you love safe, and a person who is always safe is a person who never knows freedom and who has no life.

Tony Blair once said that the freedom not be to be blown up on the way to work was the most important freedom – and that sounds true, until you unpack it. For no government can keep us safe, even if they watch over us and film us and check our emails and internet use and hold our most intimate data and fill hundreds of prison cells with people who are merely suspected of, but not charged with, any crime."

The government watch all our e mails and film us,what is the maniac on about?

I have heard that people suffering from multiple personality disorder are capable of extreme conspiracy theories and parallel scams.

Published in the Guardian.

never in that carriage said...

We think people are probably sadly tired of the dead horses that she is flogging.

Anonymous said...

No government could manage the monitoring of Rachel North's e mails.There would be a run on the banks.

Anonymous said...

Or an explosion in some central machine that she now appears to believe in.

woody said...

Just checked it out. This is totally wierdo;

"But what I learned on July 7 2005 was that we are each other's best security. We are the guardians of each other's liberties. I learned this when the bomb exploded and on each carriage of the train, trapped underground in the terrifying darkness and screaming, women and men took each other's hands and comforted and calmed each other, shared water and passed around tissues, while other women and men ran to rescue the injured. Further horror and injury was prevented by people's calm and altruistic response. And in the darkness, you could not know if the person who reached to touch you was female or male, or what race or religion they were. Just a stranger in the dark on whom your own sanity and survival depended. I have held on to that lesson ever since."

She has totally lost it. People standing around in the bombed carriage passing around tissues?

never in that carriage said...

Where did the water come from?

Good point.

Anonymous said...

There are 78 comments on that page in the Guardian.

Anonymous said...

On a hot day (which it was), many sensible people carry bottled water with them, especially if they have a lengthy commute on a stuffy tube at rush hour ahead of them.

Anonymous said...

This desperate attempt to pass herself off as a whiter than white Mother Teresa is sickening. Water and tissues and holding hands like Saints.. indeed. What a transparent fraud. I wouldn't believe it if it did come from Mother Teresa. No wonder no one comments on her obscenely sickly articles.

never in that carriage said...

'On a hot day (which it was), many sensible people carry bottled water with them, especially if they have a lengthy commute on a stuffy tube at rush hour ahead of them.'

And they all carry water for the wounded and hankies around in advance as if they know there might come a point when they'll need to be ministering to the wounded of Calcutta or thereabouts.

Sorry we don't have any time for sheer absurdity.

Rachel may have got this article idea from a Wild West movie, picture the blonde charletanes holding their hankies to their faces and dabbing them and weeping and pretending to be someone else while their Cowboy husbands are trying to get property deeds from the saloon.

Sorry Rachel, we've seen it.

Anonymous said...

'There are 78 comments on that page in the Guardian.'

Yes, and there are five commenters. The one leaving the longest comments is Rachel North. The other few may well be yourselves.

We have all seen that whenever Rachel speaks there is always a huge round of applause from one embarrassing row in the audience.

Next!

never in that carriage said...

In fairness there are a few more than five cranks commenting there in the Guardian. Not many, we observe. The rest of the nation speculates.

never in that carriage said...

Comment calling Rachel "conspiracy nuts" has been removed. Please don't stoop to her level, whatever you observe about the article.

Readers can find the article discussed at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/
commentisfree/2008/jul/11/
civilliberties.haltemprice

Anonymous said...

It hasn't been removed, I can see it.

Just before the 'tired of the dead horses she is flogging comment'

It also contains the sentence 'I have heard that people suffering from multiple personality disorder are capable of extreme conspiracy theories and parallel scams.'

Anonymous said...

Rachel writes: 'I smell an agenda with the NOTW ...'

Might that 'agenda' have anything to do with exposing the fraudulent claims of a certain Ms North?

The fact that Ms North has deliberately avoided drawing attention to this discussion amongst the sickophants on either her blog, Urban75 (or Blairwatch) speaks volumes!

That said, elements of the mainstream media are now on the case (indeed, there might even be a bit of a scramble to get the 'exclusive') but it must be acknowledged that the evidence of her scam must be absolutely irrefutable.

never in that carriage said...

We are interested in the nature of a scam. We do not share Rachel's desperate drive for exclusives.

Please.

Anonymous said...

Rachel has an inbuilt need to make exclusives out of her beans on toast. The Internet has tried everything from sending her to Coventry to sending her comments that try to point out that there are other people in the Universe who might be giving birth, witnessing disasters, acting for charities, running elections, dying of starvation.

It is never any use. If Ms North wishes to run a story on her beans on toast the whole country MUST applaud her fart.

Anonymous said...

I think it is about time Rachel's stunts were exposed.

She is having quite a few games with the public.

Anonymous said...

'That said, elements of the mainstream media are now on the case (indeed, there might even be a bit of a scramble to get the 'exclusive') but it must be acknowledged that the evidence of her scam must be absolutely irrefutable.'

You might have might have misunderstood the anon who was refering to Rachel's frenzied desire for exclusives.

Anonymous said...

Here is a comment from the damn woman's web site where she is rooting for honours.

.....And it is wrong to snub members of the public who did so much to help on one occasion, whilst giving out awards to members of the public who helped on another occasion. The chaos in the aftermath of the bombs, and the mistakes made leading up to 7/7 might jar embarrassingly with the official picture of 7/7 that the Government likes to put about, but that is not an excuse to sideline those whose actions saved lives and whose heroism continues to exact a toll on their health and family/professional lives, often for years afterwards.

Most people did what I instinctively did, in the shocked aftermath; I only tried to survive and then to get away out of danger, holding tight to others to keep going, calling for calm because that was what we needed to do to survive and avoid further injury. It takes a special kind of courage to walk towards danger, instead of fleeing from it - to look at the unthinkable, and to decide to try to help, no matter what the cost to yourself and your loved ones - then, and afterwards.'...

Doesn't it just about make you puke?

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/search?q=obe

Its a big change from her first version of events isn't it? In which she explains that she told people who were screaming in pain to shut up so she could hear the driver. Prince Charles smiles and nodds.

Anonymous said...

Yet another place where Rachel is regarded as a deceitful piece of suspect business

http://www.woof.typepad.com/

"Rachel from North London
Rachel from North London writes about her experiences after the 7/7 explosions. Some of it is interesting, a lot of it is complaining about how the Government hasn't done enough to help her. Those of us who were affected by IRA bombings in London (I think in paricular of St Mary Axe) didn't get any help. But we also didn't bang on endlessly about it, demanding that everything was sorted out for us.

One thing we certainly didn't do, in our position as a sacred cow of the weeping left was to move into politics and start whinging about how other people could do their job better. Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but these are opinions concealed within a Trojan horse of other values and views. If it was a pre-conceived method to push an agenda it would be clever, as it is it is merely opportunistic. And crass opportunism at that.

One might even call it lazy and deceitful."

In her habitual stampede to blot out anyone who WOOFS loudly at her crap she has posted a comment on it that's longer than the blog post.

I had to post it to you as your remarks on her incredibly long comments she posted to her own article in the Guardian brought it to mind.

"Disagree politically with me by all means, but don't make up stuff I never said. I've said the Govt. hasn't done enough for victims, not me. I've set up a group of survivors who go to the pub regularly, and have all sorts of political opinions, often which disagree with my own. Which is fine, we're all in ti together and many things are more imprtant than politics. The point for me, as an Labour voter, is being lied to, attacked and lied to again, and the Govt. claiming to do much for the vitoims and passing draconian laws in their name whilst leaving vulnerable people in the lurch. I haven't ever demanded everything is 'sorted ou't for us, I've got on with sorting out support, counselling, medical advice, legal advice, myself , for myself and for others affected. I was back at work, with a blown out eardrum and sticthes 2 working days after the bomb killed 26 in my carriage; you are not talkign to a perma-victim here. As to Clarke, I was impressed by him at our meeting, but the lying about the numbers of dangerous rapists who had not been deported as they were meant to got my goat? Why? The illegal immigrant who left me for dead after raping me is supposed to be deported on release. Shouldn't have been here in the first place, shouldn't be let out free when he's served his sentence. The way things stand, is likely to come after me on release and finish the job of attempted murder.

I'd like you to find me a woman whose been blown up by terrorists and raped by an illegal immigrant who thinks Clarke is/was doing a good job,

and I'd say your efforts to paint me as some kind of ranty victim are pretty lazy and deceitful myself. Probably just lazy, tp be fair.

Sometimes, the personal IS the political sunshine, and vice versa, like I said, disagree with my politics,m but don't make up bullshit lies: I hav every little patience wit it, whether an insignificant blogger or a Secretary of State."

We are all told about how this seventeen year old allegedly attacked her and must pay with his life ( a likely story)

never in that carriage said...

We have had to remove two of yesterday's comments due to the jokes in them.

Please keep converstion civil and don't stoop to Rachel's level at any time.

Anonymous said...

You have to ask; why did she 'play dead' to escape this teenager who could have been drunk? What would he conclude? Then she runs screaming out to the street and breaks out in a screaming fit that shocks police so she says, she says the police were in total shock.

There must have been good reason for him to defend the case and plead that it was consensual. If there was forensic evidence he would never have been able to enter a not guilty plea.

Rachel has never had a criminal wound on her.

Anonymous said...

'Why? The illegal immigrant who left me for dead after raping me is supposed to be deported on release. Shouldn't have been here in the first place, shouldn't be let out free when he's served his sentence. The way things stand, is likely to come after me on release and finish the job of attempted murder.'

If this seemingly vulnerable teenager was innocent after all what chance would he have with Rachel's blog massacres going on every day?

Anonymous said...

Why she does keep drawing attention to him obsessively?

Telling her story over and over again>

If it was justice done and dusted he was banged up like that he'd be the least likely topic of conversation.

Anonymous said...

I saw that. On her blog last year. She said she went in and he suggested that it was consensual and that she stood there holding hands with the famous 'J' and a whole army of police officers. Something like that. It had no credibility she told it like a soap.

Must have been her word against his.

Anonymous said...

Beg pardon, but your spelling of 'charletane' is incorrect.

charlatane
nf (char-la-ta-n')

* Celle qui s'efforce, par ses paroles, d'attraper les gens. Les marchandes du Palais sont des charlatanes. [Richelet, Dict.] Ce que j'ai toujours aimé en vous, madame, parmi plusieurs autres genres de mérite, c'est que vous n'êtes point charlatane. [Voltaire, Correspondance] J'aime mieux la charlatane Mlle Durancy [une actrice] qui enchante le public. [Voltaire, Correspondance]

Adj. La race charlatane des devins.

+

Ces charlatanes nouvellement arrivées à Paris, Anti-menagiana, p. 230.

It is quite correct as a description of Rachel North.

Anonymous said...

Psudo-sloane goes out drinking; gets drunk, gets horny and goes for a one-night stand. Gets laid, sobers up after orgasm and cries rape. Has some difficulty explaining no evidence of forced entry but being an accomplished blagger convinces Police and Jury whilst committing perjury.

Any similarity between this account and any other high profile case is entirely co-incidental.

Anonymous said...

You frequently speak of 'chemical bombs', are there any other kind of bombs, i.e. bombs that don't involve chemical reactions?