I still really, really want to know – need to know – if the bomb was on my carriage – Rachel North, 9th July
Over the years since 2005, Rachel of North London aka ‘Rachel North’ has been the main government spokesperson about the tragic events of 7/7. While criticising the government for refusing to hold a public enquiry, she has functioned as in effect the only person who will step forth into the limelight and give expression to the government’s view of what really happened.
I have been intensively vilified by her in public, and have noted how the media always believe and reproduce what she comes out with.
She has not ever questioned that four Muslims are guilty.
Her book starts off with her going to work in the morning, waiting at her Finsbury Park southbound Piccadilly line – and opening the pages of Marie Claire the women’s magazine, which has an account she has written about her being raped by a 17 year old black man on 17th July 2002 (7 July – 17 July, get it?).
Rape and Murder?
There had been a rather peculiar fire-alert on that line earlier, so the train she allegedly got onto was the first for half an hour or so. It’s crowded, and so she moves right to the end of the platform. It’s gone 8.30, trains are delayed, and a train goes by too crowded to enter. Dipping into her article, she finds herself crushed by unusually dense crowds of commuters. Then after pulling out of King’s Cross, something explodes. Some broken glass cuts her wrist. She is knocked to the floor. There is no hint that anyone sees any ‘terrorist.’
Then, the story in her book flashes back to her rape experience, and we get treated to pages of excruciating detail we don’t really need. The analogy is set up, of a West Indian young guy raping her (and trying to kill her), then three years later a Jamaican young guy blowing her up. That juxtaposition is ALL the evidence or reasoning we are ever given, as to why the four Muslim lads are guilty. It’s a totally racist argument, with I may add a total absence of rational content. And, of course she supports the police – they gladly make her their ‘victim’ spokesperson.
It’s a book for people who want to be told who to hate. It’s a book for people who just want to be told who is the Enemy. It’s a book for people who don’t want to have to bother sifting through the evidence.
She Moves the Bomb Position…
Was Rachel in the front carriage? Initially, the Met placed the bomb by the first set of double-doors of the front carriage. (one would have thought that the position of a huge hole in the floor was fairly unequivocal) Then, Rachel started blogging about how that was right where she was standing, and so it couldn’t possibly have been there! So, the bomb-blast site had to be moved back to the second set of double doors… I don’t know how convincing you will find that? By way of injuries she had her hair frazzled and some broken glass (not shrapnel) in her right wrist. She recalls being knocked to the floor by the blast. She co-founded the King’s Cross Survivors team.
Upon emerging at Russell Square tube, at around quarter to half past nine, she phoned for a taxi, or for a friend of hers, and a car soon arrived and whisked her off. There is a bit of a problem here in that the mobile phone lines had gone down by then. There was a massive overload of people trying to do just what Rachel here reports, and the whole mobile phone network system crashed.
Rachel Chats to Me
Six months later, our London 9/11 ‘truth’ group was having its monthly meeting, in a pub in the City of London. Ex-MI5 officer David Shayler was to speak. Rachel turned up unannounced, so no-one knew who she was, with a rather tall ‘minder’ lady. I, propping up the bar, suddenly had her talking to me. She started giving me a learned discourse about religious beliefs of Britain’s young Muslims, which she claimed to have been studying (Rachel’s father is a bishop) and the danger of these leading to ‘extremism’. She talked quite fast, I couldn’t quite take it in. She gave me her email address rachelupthepole at yahoo.com (which I did not ever use). She did not have any scars, neither on her face nor her wrist.
Then, she literally invaded and took over the floor from David Shayler – not an easy thing to do! She was arguing, or maybe I mean shouting, at the 911 truth group, about 7/7! They were trying to point out to her, the significance of Peter Power’s anti-terror exercise, she was replying that it was just a coincidence… No-one knew who she was, she but as she walked out of the door it started to dawn upon us.
She wrote some article in The Times about pole dancing. Call me naive but I hadn’t heard of it, the meaning of her email address had to be explained to me. So, a ‘rape victim,’ with the rapist in jail for 15 years, is now teaching pole dancing, uh-huh. O, poor Rachel.
We are not supposed to allude to her real name. One correspondent wrote to me: ‘ I wonder why a ‘traumatized rape victim’ who needs a new identity can then be on TV 24/7 giving interviews. A new identity is for anonymity not to become a public spokesperson something she enjoyed rather too much IMHO.’
Then the death of her Mother synchronises with her book launch - O, poor Rachel.
Here is a video reflecting upon the way RN is used to ‘validate’ the official story for us the British public – and how ‘upset’ she is at people who doubt the story: Operation London 7/7 – Neverending Fakery
The Only Official Storyteller
Andy Hayman’s book about 7/7 – supposedly the ‘inside story’ about Britain’s largest-ever police operation - has the four lads at Luton catching the 7.40 train. I demonstrated that that train had been cancelled way back in 2005, that was the main crack that appeared in the whole official story. So what does it mean, if Hayman just reiterates the 7.40 time three years later? Why did he not shift his story to some other train? I suggest that Hayman (since 2007 a columnist for the Murdoch-owned Times of London) is here saying, do not expect me to tell this official story in public. His book tells the official narrative, hardly deviating at all from the 2006 ‘Official Report.’ I mention this as showing, that Rachel ‘North’ – with her fairly explicit MI5 connections – appears to be the only person who can be reliably put in front of a camera to ‘tell’ the official narrative.
Rachel North gets raped
Do you believe in the following account, as graphically told in Rachel’s book?
17 July, 2002, midnight
- Rachel is living in a flat with her boyfriend in North London, it’s past midnight and he is not yet home.
- She hears the doorbell ring and despite being all alone after midnight she goes and answers it.
- A black man she does not know or recognise barges into her flat.
- He is hardly concerned with robbery but only to rape her. He hits her and kicks her so she in on the floor of the landing, by the front door. This stranger has no basis for knowing there is no-one else in the flat.
- He rapes her. (Most rapes are done by persons who know the victim well, not by perfect strangers.)
- Then he tries to kill her. She escapes by feigning dead.
- He stubs out his cigarette on her face (later on, no-one has noticed scars she might have from this). Did he enter the door smoking?
- He then leaves, after midnight.
- Rachel North, naked and with her arms tied behind her back, is unconscious. (Did the rapist bring rope with him?)
- Time goes by, then she awakes and decides to go outside.
- Two hours after the rape, she storms out of her front door – and there happens by chance to be a police car which had just arrived, called by the neighbour upstairs, and she slumps still naked over its front bonnet – and screams (‘I stumbled down the concrete steps… as a police car screeched to a halt. I threw myself across the bonnet’).
Questions arise over this version of events which he published in Marie Claire, in The Times and then in her book. How did they catch the rapist? Two hours had gone by after he left and no-one had photos of him. Is it physically possible for a stranger to enter someone else’s home and then achieve a rape on the hall landing? He would surely have had to presume that others were present in the flat. The young man damned as a ’rapist’ was convicted for 15 years.
Would the police confirm that they found fresh blood in the hallway, which they identified as being that of Rachel North? Would the upstairs neighbours confirm that they heard enough to make them call the police but yet declined to open the door or answer when Rachel North hurled herself repeatedly against their door after midnight? Would the driver of the police car confirm that he had just pulled up by RN’s front door at two o’clock in the morning, when a bloody, naked woman staggered out of the door, with her hands bound behind her back, collapsed over his front bonnet and then screamed?
No, of course not – none of that happened. The defence’s plea in the courtroom was that the young man, who was not guilty, had been propositioned and invited back home. The judge believed the word of a white woman rather than a black young men. I suggest that, becoming rather drunk in her local, RN fancied a young black man and invited him back, then got worried about her man (who was paying the rent) coming back…
She just happened to be reading her article about this savage rape, when the bomb went off …
From personal experience I confirm that, ’Rachel and her violent Internet henchmen intimidate and abuse people on the Internet.’ I have never experienced mendacity like that of Rachel North, in my life. It always seems to have the purpose and result of demonising someone who can then be collectively hated. Its aim is the creation of a hate-image. The British media seem to acept and promote her vision. Note how in her Times article, this young man (whose name we do not know) is damned and vilified, with no chance of putting forward his point of view.
That is not all. It was alleged that Felicity Jane Lowd had been ‘stalking’ and ‘harassing’ her with offensive emails, about her role in the Piccadilly line train disaster. We get loads of graphic detail about this, showing what a wicked woman FJ Lowde is – and thank goodness she gets a proper jail sentence for it! But hang on, has The Times checked out these emails and confirmed that such harassment really took place? Or is this one more instance of RN giving Britons a hate-figure, on her say-so?