Rachel North from Planet Zog

Rachel North is a young woman from north London who was on a train hit by Islamist terrorists on July 7th last year.  I first crossed 'pens' with her over at The Sharpener  (I can't find the link but it was about a month ago) and then again yesterday and today on her own site - although you will be hard pushed to find much because she censored me first before banning me!  Apparently I "insulted" her by, amongst other things, suggesting that she was mounting a political platform on the backs of the dead and wounded.  It was certainly a robust accusation but, I like to think, not quite up to, or down to, her own standards when she implied that I was a Fascist!  Anyway, she is one of the leading lights of an orchestrated campaign insisting on a public enquiry into the actions and policies of the security services.  At this point it is worth printing the exact words of the petition:

"We, the British Public, call for a fully comprehensive Public Inquiry into the July 7th 2005 London Bombings.

Only this can provide us with the information we need as to what actually happened, how it happened and why it happened so that we will be better prepared to prevent such a tragedy happening again.

We, the Public were attacked. We, the Public have questions. We, the Public want our questions answered, independently, transparently and honestly."

Let me examine this more closely.  The signatories to this document are not "the British public", they are just 'signatories to a petition', no more, no less.  They demand to know what, how and why it happened.  I can only suppose they are even more ignorant than I already suspect because I know the answers to those questions already and with, I believe, a fair amount of accuracy, they are, after all, to quote a phrase, "Bleedin' obvious"!  Again, the claim is made that "We, the Public, were attacked."  No they weren't!  A tiny handful of people were attacked, grievously and viciously, and the resulting death toll was slightly less than a week's worth of road deaths.  Is Rachel North campaigning for a public enquiry into road traffic policy? I think we can assume a 'no' to that!

But let me dwell on the final sentence: "We, the Public want our questions answered, independently, transparently and honestly." First there is the assumption that any questions that Rachel North, in her disguise as "the British Public", cares to dream up, must, a fortiori, be answered by government ministers and officials.  Well, once you grant that sort of 'right' then you can kiss goodbye to any sort of governance because our governors will all be too busy answering busy-bodies like Rachel North - and me, 'cos I've got quite a few, too!  What seems to have escaped the notice of Rachel North is that we have a system of government here called parliament in which our representatives ask the questions on our behalf.  Now, to Rachel North in all her mixture of anguish, pomposity and outrage, it may seem inadequate, to which one can only respond by telling her that whilst it's not perfect, it seems to have served us fairly well for a couple of centuries and on the face of it, it seems a lot more sensible than her 'Charter for Self Important Busy-Bodies".

Should you doubt her political wisdom, to say nothing of her common-sense, consider her next requirement, that is, that the questions be answered "independently".  Some one should tell her, gently, that there are no independents - everyone has an opinion.  If she can name one report in which the tribunal members had no previous opinions on the subject I shall send her a bunch of flowers by way of apology.  Of course, the best amongst them will try valiantly to dismiss these previously held beliefs and some may well succeed but the point is no one else will believe them!  Because every one has an opinion, only those who agree with the enquiry result will accept it, and those that don't, won't!  (Which is part of the reason why Rachel North, herself, refuses to accept two of the enquiries that have already taken place but laps up the one that goes part way towards her opinion.)

When it comes to the "transparency" she calls for in a "public" enquiry, it transpires, under hot questioning from me, that she would accept part of it being held in camera.  Instantly the "transparency" turns opaque and every Tom, Dick or Rachel who doesn't like the outcome will cry 'foul'.  I leave others to judge her political acumen when she actually asks that her questions be answered "honestly"!  All I can reply is, "Honestly, what planet do you live on?"

I am sorry for Rachel North, the young woman who suffered a dreadful danger and shock; but I cannot show any mercy to a silly young woman whose agitations, encouraged and lapped up by the press in general and the BBC in particular, are likely to do our country even more damage as we struggle to fight a war the like of which we have never seen before.

Comments

[Tom Tyler]

As I'm sure you already know David, I'm in agreement with you on this, and have made my opinions known on my blog here:
http://tylertinkertailor.blogspot.com/2006/06/debate-re-war-on-terror.html
(includes a link to the Sharpener article).
Although I didn't say so, I too suspect that what lies behind Rachel's call for a public enquiry is not so much a desire for "the truth", but rather "the opinions she would like upheld as truth" (ie, Islamic terrorism is all our fault and we should pull out of Iraq and learn to "love" and "understand" the terrorists instead of engaging them in battle).
Yet another "Cindy Sheehan" voice, as if we needed any more....

Yet the sad fact is that (whether due to the incessant whingings of the press/BBC etc or otherwise), Rachel's opinions are probably broadly shared by the majority in this country, and opinions such as yours and mine form the minority of public opinion (at least, that's the way it seems to me, from conversations and so forth). Few people either believe, or are willing to face up to the fact, that radical Islam is at war with us. It's as if the ghost of Neville Chamberlain has returned and taken possession of the minds of about 75% of the population! This situation needs to be rectified urgently, as Melanie Phillips summed up the danger of not doing so in a recent interview: "After the London bombings [...], a senior London police officer went on TV and said that the words Islam and terrorism did not go together. If a threat is so badly misunderstood in this way, it will not be defeated."

[ill man]

So you're saying the poor woman has a form of Stockholm Syndrome Tom? Care to go and discuss that with her or any number of people who don't happen to concur with your reductive and utterly retarded attempt at reasoned thought?

[Tom Tyler]

No, sick man, that's not what I'm saying at all. I suggest that it is your powers of reasoned thought which fall short of the mark here:
Wikipedia: "The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in a hostage, in which the hostage exhibits seeming loyalty to the hostage-taker".
Sorry, when and by whom was RN taken hostage? I must have missed that part of her story.

[Yo yo]

But *why* is radical islam at war with us?

[Larry Teabag]

"...as we struggle to fight a war the like of which we have never seen before...."

Given that you point out the feeble number of casualties that radical Islam has managed to inflict upon us ("slightly less than a week's worth of road deaths"), I can only assume that the war you wish us to fight is one against the motor car. Good man!

[David Duff]

That is almost 'NIB'-like in its fatuity, Larry, as you may come to learn when militant Islamists get their hands on something a tad bigger than a bag of farm fertilizer, or whatever.

[fjl]

To David Duff,

Yes.

Thanks for your mail.

I feel alot of pity and compassion for the others who have only Rachel to rely on.

..fear not you are not the only one who has been sent a plethora of R North e-mails and driven up the wall! :-)

Never mind it is all a foolishness, and will of course die down.

[ill man]

I said A FORM of Stockholm syndrome. Your insinuation is that she feels nothing but sympathy and understanding for the plight of those who almost killed her. Ok, maybe I used the wrong terminology but I think you know what I was clumsily trying to get at.

Tom, I assume you have read the Koran, given that you categorically state that 'Islam' and 'Peace' are mutually incompatible. I'd hate to hear that you have merely swallowed all the right wing media horseshit and not recieved any of your information straight from the horses mouth.

[Tom Tyler]

I bought a copy of it once, but it was nowhere near as good as the NME. All it had was articles on heavy rock music and interviews with guitarists from Guns n Roses and Zeppelin etc. Not my scene at all.

[reasoninrevolt]

Positions are different from opinions, they are rational and based on facts, opinions are based on supposition. She is asking for an inquiry independent from the government and specifically the security arm of the government. Considering their vested interest in a particular story about terrorism, I find her request highly reasonable.

[Rachel]

Dear Mr Duff,
I'd appreciate it if you could allow me to clarify something for readers directed here from another blog which contains a great deal of defamatory content, alleging that I, other members of the public, the police, Special branch and the CPS are all engaged in some kind of vendetta against the blogger, (who was incidentally arrested 2 weeks ago, and bailed, pending investigation of her PC & hard drive which were seized as part of the police investigation into harrassment charges.)

The blogger makes the following defamatory and untruthful allegations concerning communications between yourself and myself:

'this person [David Duff] contacted me and told me he'd also been bombarded with harassing, aggressive, self important and distressing emails from Rachel. He feels her way of going on is tantamount to a 'charter for self important busybodies', and less than uninformed.'

I should like to clarify that I have never 'bombarded you with harassing, aggressive, self-important and distressing emails' and to claim this is not only untruthful and defamatory.

In fact, we have corresponded once before, on one day, by email, and the correspondence relates to you querying why I did not pass a comment made by you on my blog.

I said 'Just to let you know disagreement is fine, but personal attacks which add nothing to the debate will be binned. Your call. If you can't manage to post without insults, then please don't bother'

This related to a comment which you attempted to post on my blog in which you said my volunary work with survivors in setting up a PTSD support group, my writing a blog and campaigning for an independent inquiry into 7/7 was 'standing on the backs of the dead and wounded of 7/7'. I explained to you that I found this deeply offensive and that was why I was not publishing your comment. You then apologised and sent another comment, which I did publish.

You have sent, in total, 6 communications to me ( 3 emails, 3 comments) and I sent 4 emails to you in reply explaining why your first comment was not being published.

Our previous communication was in the form of a comments discussion following a blog post I was invited to post on The Sharpener political discussion blog, which was on the subject of terrorism.

http://thesharpener.net/2006/06/12/hearts-and-minds/

A lively debate then followed in which you and I and many others all debated the points I made, as is normal on The Sharpener. I enjoyed our debate and you said that you did too.

The blogger who is making these defamatory statements about me is someone who has caused me huge distress for many months, and whom I have now had to report to the police for harrassment of me. She initially left dozens of over-friendly comments on my blog, then abruptly demanded I cease publishing my opinions, and cease campaigning for a public inquiry. After which I was sent many abusive emails, in which she referred to me as a hag, a bitch, a malicious slut, a blackmailer, mentally ill and so on. Requests to her that she cease harrassing me and sending obscene emails and comments were met with the bizarre charge of 'bullying', a charge that her blog readers will see she now lays at the feet of not only myself, but a local web designer, some Victorian history researchers, the Thames Valley police officer who ordered her arrest, Special Branch and the Crown Prosecution SErvice. Oh, and a local magistrate.

You may draw your own conclusions, I am sure, about this blogger and her world in which she seems to be the victim of a quite extraordinary conspiracy against her.

I am perfectly happy for people to politely disagree with my views, and I have published comments from you and many others in which this happens - as anyone can see from my blog.

I only refuse to publish comments which are spam, pointless personal insults, or hate-comments ( racist, anti-semitic and so on) or cut-and-paste conspiracy theories.

I am sorry to pop in and comment at such length here, but I felt the peculiar charges made by this blogger about the nature of our correspondence deserved a public refuatation.

Mr Duff, you and I have disagreed, as we are politically many miles apart, but I reiterate that I enjoyed our debate on the Sharpener. I also repeat that I would never bombard you or anyone else with 'bombarded harassing, aggressive, self-important and distressing emails'

Cheers

RN

[fjl]

If anyone is interested in Rachel's false allegations, please come and see my response on my blog. I am aware that she has bombarded this person ( and others ) with emails, because there is evidence on it on my hard drive. From this blogger himself. Rachel has been lying to police, and will be well exposed. Her allegations are entirely untrue: she is an extremely malicious troublemaker. Her dreadful communications are partly evidenced on my blog.

If she had any confidence in her statement to police she wouldn't be coming here and carrying on with more libel and harassment.

[David Duff]

Ladies, ladies, you are at risk of resembling a pair of drunken biddies fighting outside a pub!

STOP IT, both of you!

But if you are enjoying it so much that you really can't stop, then please do it somewhere else. The blog equivalent of ladies wrestling in mud holds no attraction for me so please do it elsewhere.

[fjl]

well said ;-) sloosh a bucket of water over her.

:0)

[fjl]

Could I also add please David that I am not charged with any offence, contrary to Rachel's libel.

[Rachel]

I have no interest in corresponding with FJL, here or anywhere else, the matter remains in the hands of the police who are conducting an investigation into her behaviour following her arrest and bail. My single comment was addressed to this blog's author, David Duff, and is pertinent to the content of his post, which is about the interaction between myself and him. I considered that he may be interested to know that someone is making entirely false claims about what he has said and what his interaction with me has been. And to be linked in any way with the claims made on Ms. FJL's blog is likely to undermine his 'credibility' amongst sane and rational persons.

[fjl]

er.. not according to David they're not. Some of these 'sane and rational persons' have been reported to police for stalking and harassment many times over, and use dowsing rods on a daily basis. Rachel is very unlikely to pull her false allegations off. David sounds entirely credible to many of us :-)

She slings mud again, demonstrating her increasing need for a good shower.

:0)

[fjl]

..and can we not just say 'sane and rational people?' Why does the nastiness always have to be written inus shakespearianus contextus?

[fjl]

Just to say I've made light of it as I don't want David upset, but I am taking the false alleagtions and hurtful libellous announcements seriously. The 'we' in the post above refers to Rachel.