tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post7628514876847741933..comments2014-03-20T14:41:19.314-07:00Comments on Rachel "North" was never in the bombed July 7th carriage?: Lindsay's situationnever in that carriagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-17748548159066806502008-07-11T02:17:00.000-07:002008-07-11T02:17:00.000-07:00We explain that we are not responsible for the com...We explain that we are not responsible for the comments that have been sent to this blog quoting newspaper reports and gratuitously going into graphic detail about July 7 incidents which is not a thing we encouraging at all.<BR/><BR/>We believe that these comments are being sent by Rachel's supporters who are intent on causing ructions. They appear intent to promote Rachel's version of events as an untouchable Holy Grail. <BR/><BR/>Which is dangerous rubbish as we have demonstrated. In fact her versions of various events are full of bizarre contradictions and falsehoods.never in that carriagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-90805785742295737062008-07-08T23:25:00.000-07:002008-07-08T23:25:00.000-07:00Anon wrote: 'A scam is only worth doing if you get...Anon wrote: 'A scam is only worth doing if you get something out of it.'<BR/><BR/>Some scams are undoubtedly initiated purely to achieve financial gain. However, any desire for financial gain is dwarfed by Rachael's need to feed her apparently out-of-control ego by being the centre of attention. Even this blog will inadvertently be serving that purpose.<BR/><BR/>If we were able to examine Rachael's list of 'favourites' it would most likely consist of all the blogs and forums discussing her ... whatever the angle. It is also quite probable that a single PC would be inadequate to feed her need to be keep 'up to the minute' on what is being written about her. Consequently, expect to see a bank of screens (a la a 'city trader') on her desk.<BR/><BR/>She will also have a Blackberry or similar device to facilitate access to the internet chatter when 'on the move'. As she probably has this set on 'Alert' whenever a new post appears on any blog or forum mentioning her, it must be going off constantly ... which of course serves to provide the nourishment for this flawed ego.<BR/><BR/>Deep down the Rachael ego longs for the day in court (even if though it knows it will result in the exposure). Ultimately Rachael's Higher-Self may decide that enough is enough and create a situation where she knows that her game is on the brink of being up.<BR/><BR/>At this significant juncture, she will have to decide whether to withdraw or to go forward and face the ultimate humiliation of exposure.<BR/><BR/>The latter option is highly likely because ultimately the ego doesn't really care how the media attention is achieved. <BR/><BR/>If Rachael has any 'control' over the situation (which I doubt), she will realise that her words and actions over the past three years are being subjected to increasing scrutiny and know that it is time to withdraw. Alternatively (more likely) the ego will be unable to pass up the opportunity for being the subject of a few million more words.<BR/><BR/>I wish her well but she must be aware the nature of universal law is such that the Truth will ultimately prevail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-12018928870668534412008-07-08T14:22:00.000-07:002008-07-08T14:22:00.000-07:00Debate has to be subjected to this grotesque intru...Debate has to be subjected to this grotesque intrusionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-90248273040956934342008-07-08T14:19:00.000-07:002008-07-08T14:19:00.000-07:00We have deleted a comment we wrote in response to ...We have deleted a comment we wrote in response to Rachel's Internet people as we do not wish to cause any upset with graphic detail.<BR/><BR/>However it's important to make the point carefully.<BR/><BR/>When the report states that people escaped with "miraculously minor injuries" - this means, obviously, minor injuries relatively speaking. It does not mean that those poor people who were on the bombed carriage escaped with only a broken ankle. Enough said. <BR/><BR/>Rachel's Internet people seem determined to make out that 'Miraculously minor injuries" means, "without a scratch." Of course it doesn't. It means that they lived and were badly injured and didn't die. Poor people.never in that carriagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-60324213102178513182008-07-08T14:11:00.000-07:002008-07-08T14:11:00.000-07:00This seems to be Rachel's way of telling us that s...This seems to be Rachel's way of telling us that she finds the whole thing most amusing.<BR/><BR/>I wish we did.<BR/><BR/>We want to be liberal with comments but those we received in favour of Rachel North's argument are so debased we refuse to print them.never in that carriagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-50809198326147150802008-07-08T14:00:00.000-07:002008-07-08T14:00:00.000-07:00HA HA HA. I'm so pleased that I have comprehensive...HA HA HA. I'm so pleased that I have comprehensively thrashed your points, one by one, and showed you what rubbish this blog is.<BR/><BR/>You are now so embarassed and humiliated that you won't even publish my comments any more. You can't even see the irony of your last comment. Do you think I care that you are claiming that my points which prove 100% what bollocks is on this site are 'atrocious' and you are too upset and crying too much to publish them anymore?<BR/><BR/>You are not just a loser, but a bad loser who is so easy to argue against because you can be easily tripped up by links you have published yourself!<BR/><BR/>This is a sick blog and it was a dirty job but someone had to take you apart. <BR/><BR/> Job done. I have completely won and you have been OWNED.LOL.<BR/><BR/>I'm off for a pint.<BR/><BR/>LOL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-63036904732673764502008-07-08T13:50:00.000-07:002008-07-08T13:50:00.000-07:00Well said. See that lot show themselves for what t...Well said. See that lot show themselves for what they are. Disgusting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-88719856646922784682008-07-08T13:46:00.000-07:002008-07-08T13:46:00.000-07:00We have received a comment from "someone" who is d...We have received a comment from "someone" who is desperate to insist that we have linked to an article explaining that survivors were dragged out from beneath corpses "without severe wounds". This person has sent us several comments.<BR/><BR/>All in aid of confirming that Rachel could have survived Lindsay's bomb blast from two metres away.<BR/><BR/>This commenter's behaviour is appalling.<BR/><BR/>This commenter's behaviour is so self absorbed and dreadful that we have decided not to publish their comments. In principle we not censor comments but this is incredible.<BR/><BR/>We find it astonishing that Rachel or her supporters are going to these extremes in their desperation.<BR/><BR/>Now these desperate people are admiting that the 'case' for someone surviving close proximity to a bomb hangs on the fire fighter's story about one woman being dragged out of " the epicentre" of the bombing with a wounded ankle. It is this article that they are referring to apparently.<BR/><BR/>Firstly, we don't know whether this woman's ankle was the only thing that was wounded about her. The fire fighter doesn't say.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that the " epicentre" of the bombing described means " right next to Lindsay."<BR/><BR/>It means the carriage itself of course.<BR/><BR/>We accept that those who were less wounded than others will have been at the far end of the "epicentre" ( the carriage) and that others on the rest of the train will have suffered trauma.<BR/><BR/>We will not be publishing ranting messages from Rachel's Internet people who are clearly twisting reports about the injured and dying in their desperation to make some sort of point.<BR/><BR/>It is atrocious.never in that carriagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-72558014332511707862008-07-08T13:30:00.000-07:002008-07-08T13:30:00.000-07:00She is pitiless. I've waited a long time but now I...She is pitiless. I've waited a long time but now I can see how low she will stoop.<BR/><BR/>good work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-61865246846110097712008-07-08T13:19:00.000-07:002008-07-08T13:19:00.000-07:00We deleted one of our comments because it interrup...We deleted one of our comments because it interrupted the flow of the discussion. <BR/><BR/>We said that our main point is that Rachel is stating that she stood two metres away from the bomber.<BR/><BR/>No one else is claiming this. Except for one Walter Mitty character! This is all she and C4 can produce.<BR/><BR/>We don't mean to overly focus on this poor old man who lost his memory coming under the influence of Rachel North. It looks as if he is a bit of a jolly old Walter Mitty character of his own accord. Possibly. <BR/><BR/>But this George did meet Rachel North. She records it herself, on her blog. We believe that she might have filled his head with ideas while he was in a vulnerable condition.<BR/><BR/>This man was not three feet away from a bomber. He didn't remember what happened for ages. He suffered trauma.<BR/><BR/>It is a cruel act to tell him that he was three feet away from Lindsay when he obviously was not.<BR/><BR/>It seems that RN and C4 will do anything for a story.never in that carriagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-1240402590345070672008-07-08T13:04:00.000-07:002008-07-08T13:04:00.000-07:00Day by day, point by point, her credibility is sur...Day by day, point by point, her credibility is surely slipping away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-60042801715724368262008-07-08T12:56:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:56:00.000-07:00why do you think someone would make up such a stor...why do you think someone would make up such a story when it can be so easily checked?<BR/><BR/>by all accounts she has lost her job and her book publishers have gone bust so you can't say she has made any money out of this.<BR/><BR/>there are several other people who have written 7/7 books and dozens of other people who have appeared in the media.<BR/><BR/>I can't see any reason for you to describe what happened to her as a scam, if it is a scam it is pointless since she has made no money from it. Why would anyone bother?<BR/><BR/>She already had a terrible story to tell about the rape, she could have stuck to talking about that if she wanted to talk about trauma. <BR/><BR/>She was obviously on the train, she couldn't have faked it, so I don't see what difference it makes whether she was 2m or 3m or 4m or 5m or 6m from a bomb - so what?<BR/><BR/>Why would anyone want to be famous for being blown up? Why bother campaigning for an inquiry and why bother making a support group for victims who could easily find out if she wasn't there? you have to look at who benefits - Cui bono?<BR/><BR/> A scam is only worth doing if you get something out of it - what has she got out of it? Nothing that I can see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-77451465606208793302008-07-08T12:34:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:34:00.000-07:00I'm not Rachel, by the way, as should be obvious t...I'm not Rachel, by the way, as should be obvious to anyone looking at my IP address location and checking to see if it has been run through a router.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-80071120060143465022008-07-08T12:33:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:33:00.000-07:00There is no evidence that has been published on th...<I>There is no evidence that has been published on this blog of anyone being close to a bomb and walking away unharmed. There is no such evidence in the public domain except Rachel North's charletanism.</I><BR/><BR/>What are you on about?<BR/><BR/>You published the evidence YOURSELF! on the first day of this blog! You took the evidence from the paper, published in 2005 and in the public domain ever since.<BR/><BR/>From the link that YOU provided....<BR/><I>He found her bolt upright, sitting still in some sort of private hell. For an hour she had remained, unblinking in the gloom, <B>hemmed in by corpses on either side.</B></I><BR/><BR/>'Hemmed in by corpses'.<BR/>Not at the end or the front, but hemmed in by corpses - people next to her had died because of the bomb but she was alive. That is what hemmed in by corpses means.That means she was so close to the bomb that people around her died.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>She was an ordinary commuter who found herself at the <B>epicentre</B> of Britain's deadliest terrorist attack</I><BR/><BR/>'Epicentre'. Epicentre, surrounded by corpses on either side. She had minor injuries. She was close to the bomb, so close that she was hemmed in by the corpses of those who were killed by it, at the epicentre of the attack - shocked, and she had minor injuries. Read it - you linked it.<BR/><BR/><I>Blue Watch dragged six people alive from carriage 346A, <B>some with miraculously minor injuries. The elderly woman sustained only a sore ankle</B></I><BR/><BR/><B>Dragged out alive</B> from the bombed carriage, where she had been so close that either side of her she was hemmed in by corpses..<BR/><BR/>'Some with <B>miraculously minor injuries'</B><BR/><BR/>The elderly woman had only a sore ankle.<BR/><BR/>Woman. Epicentre. Corpses. Bomb. Sore ankle. Survived.<BR/><BR/> There is your evidence, provided by you, on your blog, on the first day - why are you now ignoring it? Don't you read things properly that you choose to link to?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-74673062568209277342008-07-08T12:23:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:23:00.000-07:00"And I looked about me in carriage one as we neare..."And I looked about me in carriage one as we neared Kings Cross and I realised that I was in the 'wrong' part of the carriage. Not near the front of carriage one, where I'd survived, and where I'd travelled ever since, but in the middle. Where the bomb had been". <BR/><BR/>Is this a confession from the arch- scammer of some sort? The "wrong" part of the carriage. Did she realise now that she would have to adapt her fairy tale? Jermaine Lindsay and the damage were in the middle of the carriage. Speculating on her relative position she thought she'd better come up with a bigger and better Billy Goats Gruff. She'd earlier claimed to have been in the "wrong" part of the carriage to make a news story that would continue to run and run. She now decided that she'd been in the middle of the train, two metres away from Jermaine Lindsay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-82070606173092431512008-07-08T12:12:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:12:00.000-07:00Ignoring the gratuitous Walter Mitty intterruption...Ignoring the gratuitous Walter Mitty intterruption; it's very peculiar that Rachel gets back on the train and examines it in September 2005. Youd almost think shed be keen to avoid carriage 1, but she subjects it to scrutiny?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-4447276504604757572008-07-08T12:03:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:03:00.000-07:00I think we have got the arch scammer herself on li...I think we have got the arch scammer herself on line. <BR/><BR/>Unless we can't read with our own eyes:<BR/><BR/>George walked away from the scene with minor injuries, telling no one about his story.<BR/><BR/>He lost his memory ( lost his mind in that respect).<BR/><BR/>His memory was 'brought back' when he heard a little boy crying.<BR/><BR/>He would not see a Doctor all this time.<BR/><BR/>He now believes that he survived a bomb three feet away from a bomber without injury. ( He may also believe in UFO's).<BR/><BR/>At some point between the last two points he met Rachel North.<BR/><BR/>This is not a credible witness!<BR/>The barrister would bring him down in five minutes.<BR/><BR/>Produce a credible witness who can honestly say that they survived close proximity to a bomb without injury. Better still, produce the CCTV.<BR/><BR/>There is no evidence that has been published on this blog of anyone being close to a bomb and walking away unharmed. There is no such evidence in the public domain except Rachel North's charletanism. Unless you want to say that it happens all the time and that you've been reading the X-files Rachel, you might be better taking your vitriol somewhere else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-8234338081227040612008-07-08T11:41:00.000-07:002008-07-08T11:41:00.000-07:00Oh for god's sake.You are pathetic.First you want ...Oh for god's sake.<BR/><BR/>You are pathetic.<BR/><BR/>First you want evidence of bombed people surviving without injury, even though you yourself had already published such evidence with the firefighter story, then you dismiss and ignore a witness, claiming he has 'lost his mind' (no he says he had delayed shock after his horrific experience - ever heard of delayed shock and severe trauma?), then you accuse Rachel of controlling the survivors ( how? does she live in all their houses and screen all their calls and emails from reporters?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-87700430839237382352008-07-08T11:38:00.000-07:002008-07-08T11:38:00.000-07:00anon, we deleted your comment because it confused ...anon, we deleted your comment because it confused the flow of the discussion bang in the middle there. You made these interesting points:<BR/><BR/>'And Rachel has a strong link with C4 who are not likely to want to admit to the embarrassing blunder of presenting her baloney to the public'.<BR/><BR/>Rachel is capable of manipulating an elderly passenger to get him to support her story. It figures she would have tried it. She is always very domineering with some of her 'fellow passengers' and never lets enquiring people go near them. Did that coment come from Rachel~ by any chance?<BR/><BR/>Can C4 find anyone to call a miracle apart from one distressed and nervous elderly person and Rachel North?'<BR/><BR/>That is interesting.'<BR/><BR/>We support your line of questioning and challenge the arch scammer to produce a credible witness who can say that they were three feet away from the bomber and survived without injury.never in that carriagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-9545223979608801402008-07-08T11:28:00.000-07:002008-07-08T11:28:00.000-07:00You would make a point better if you weren't so de...You would make a point better if you weren't so desperate to make it.<BR/><BR/>We are saying that because George apparently was disturbed for whatever reason to the point that he lost his mind and his memory completely for moths, he is not a credible witness. That doesn't necessarily make him a charletan. He is not trying to make money while selling his outlandish tale. The poor man lost his mind, so he says, and was unable to recall anything for months, and now he believes that he is a walking tale of the extraordinary. (That could be a Walter Mitty saga, equally.)<BR/><BR/>He may believe in UFOs ... we don't know.<BR/><BR/>"Are you seriously suggesting Rachel brainwashes and mind-controls passengers and screens their emails and phonecalls? How could she 'stop inquiring people going near them'?"<BR/><BR/>No.<BR/><BR/>"What 'enquiring people'? Do you not think people have a free choice about who they choose to speak to or answer emails from or have meetings with? How could Rachel control all the passengers and 'tie up' George?<BR/>Are you also saying she controls channel 4"<BR/><BR/>Rachel repeatedly writes things like 'we have ways of knowing who was on that train.' She makes these comments about reporters who try to enquire. She badgers survivors and pins them to her points of view. Her blog makes that out.<BR/><BR/>She also mentioned meeting George.<BR/><BR/>Now we are idiots who know nothing about trama because we question the evidence of an obviously inadmissable witness who has come under the influence of arch scammer Rachel North.never in that carriagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-52142994048921847122008-07-08T11:07:00.000-07:002008-07-08T11:07:00.000-07:00George is described as 'deeply shocked and traumat...George is described as 'deeply shocked and traumatised' - that does not make him a old fool, it makes him 'deeply shocked and traumatised'.It explauins that he went back to work and tried to deal with survivor guilt before it became unbearable and he asked for help. <BR/><BR/> Do you understand anything about trauma or psychology? A psychologist would understand how trauma works and how people have delayed breakdowns and delayed shock/grief many months, often years after an event.<BR/><BR/>I suggest you do some reading about shock and trauma.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-18534262312893199372008-07-08T11:02:00.000-07:002008-07-08T11:02:00.000-07:00Where is the evidence that George met Rachel North...Where is the evidence that George met Rachel North?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-79158171327098531952008-07-08T11:01:00.000-07:002008-07-08T11:01:00.000-07:00She is always very domineering with some of her 'f...<I>She is always very domineering with some of her 'fellow passengers' and never lets enquiring people go near them</I><BR/><BR/> Are you seriously suggesting Rachel brainwashes and mind-controls passengers and screens their emails and phonecalls? How could she 'stop inquiring people going near them'?<BR/><BR/> What 'enquiring people'? Do you not think people have a free choice about who they choose to speak to or answer emails from or have meetings with? How could Rachel control all the passengers and 'tie up' George?<BR/>Are you also saying she controls channel 4?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-39214887572088673112008-07-08T10:58:00.000-07:002008-07-08T10:58:00.000-07:00We answered your comment before it came through. ...We answered your comment before it came through. Here is more.<BR/><BR/>Sir Alan Sugar is not an old fool, neither is the queen... but then they're not reporting that they lost their minds for months. If Sir Alan told us<BR/><BR/>' I am sure I sold half my shares last year. I was in such a state that I couldn't remember for months, but I'm sure it was me' we wouldn't give his story definitive credibility either.<BR/><BR/>The account you want us to believe that authenticates your idea comes from George!<BR/><BR/>Who lost his memory and refused to go to the Doctor, and then met Rachel North, heard a boy crying and remembered everything.<BR/><BR/>We're told.never in that carriagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16953212579512961471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9214531365083169310.post-72104907286041997882008-07-08T10:55:00.000-07:002008-07-08T10:55:00.000-07:00YOU YOURSELF published the story about people with...YOU YOURSELF published the story about people with 'miraculously minor injuries'!!! You published the evidence yourself.You also have the evidence of George, who was a few feet away why are you ignoring it?<BR/><BR/>Why are you not publishing the comment, there is NOTHING abusive in it?<BR/><BR/>Please publish the comments, there is no reason not to if you are interested in looking at the evidence - evidence YOU CHOSE TO PUBLISH YOURSELF.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com