Rachel Elizabeth Bott from North London 'squeams and squeams until she is sick'!

If anyone needed a reason to ignore the frantic ravings of Rachel North they should sample the hysterical post she has just daubed on her site under the heading of "The 7/7 Inquiry battle continues".  I use the word 'daubed' deliberately because her post, whilst it starts quietly enough, soon degenerates into the blog equivalent of a piece of graffiti.  She changes the colour of her typeface and increases the font size, in one case to over twenty.  I believe that 'Letters' editors of the London prints always bin any letters written in coloured ink and with too many words underlined. Rachel's post wouldn't last 5 seconds!  For those unable to bear the almost terminal tedium of ploughing through it all, let me tell you that she is doing to the government what Violet Elizabeth Bott used to do to poor William, that is, threatening to "squeam and squeam and squeam until I am sick".  For all I know the government might well deserve it but do the rest of us?  Every time I switch on my TV, there she is mooing and moaning, and when I open my paper there she is again, determinedly at the front of the crowd for the photo shoot. I now know how William, Ginger, Douglas and Henry felt - poor buggers!

Comments

[Larry Teabag]

Well why not ignore her then, instead of writing endless posts about her?

No, don't tell me: "Would that I could, 'Larry',..."

[David Duff]

You're quite right, 'Teabag', but if I restricted myself to reading only blogs with which I agreed, I'd end up looking like one of those nodding dogs one used to see in the back of Cortinas(*). Also, of course, I would never again visit your, er, unique site.

Sorry, didn't quite catch that ... ?

(*) A type of Ford motor car from before your time, beloved of the 'lumpen proletariat', of which I have fond memories having stitched ... ooops, sorry, I mean, sold several and trousered a very decent wedge off all of them!

[Rachel]

If you want to upset me Duff, you've barely registered.

My beloved mother died 3 weeks ago of a cruel and sudden illness. In the aftermath of that blow, I have continued to fight with other survivors and bereaved families for a public inquiry. I have continued to speak out & handle the media when asked, zas I have doen for 2 years, because the timing of our current legal challenge and the deadlines associated with it meant that the campaigning this last fortnight could not be put on hold, despite my recent bereavement. I have been helped in the spokesperson duties by the pro-bono lawyers and other bereaved family members and survivors. But it has been shattering, and appalling timing for me personally.

If you found my post to which you link emotional, my writing exhausted, my temper frayed and my patience limited - then this reflects the accurate state of my personal life at this sad time.

I do not want your sympathy, or your acknowledgment of this comment. I do not want anything from you at all other than for you to please leave me alone and try to restrain yourself from writing your regular viciously personal public attacks on me. I reiterate that I have never mentioned you on my blog, and wish only that you would leave me alone and turn your venomous attentions to someone else, since I doubt that you are capable of desisting entirely in your apparently compulsively destructive online behaviour.

You will I am sure be pleased to see that I am, as of today, taking a break from blogging and having a public-facing role. Dealing with grief is exhausting, and the spiteful attacks of people like you is something I can, and will protect myself from: there is only so much one person can be expected to take.

[Rachel]

Oh, and go fuck yourself

[David Duff]

Yeeeees, well, you see what I mean about Violet Elizabeth Bott, although that particluar little madam, being a lady at heart, would not have stooped to sailor's language.

Still, it remains amazing to me that some one thrusts themselves forward onto a public platform in support of a contentious political issue and then complains when she is pelted by the equivalent of rotten veg. As a last resort she attempts to take cover behind her mother's death, which she admits, nay, boasts, has not put her off her campaigning. Well, if it doesn't put *her* off, why should it put *me* off?

She then complains that I have mounted a personal attack on her. Rachel, love, read this carefully, I am *not* attacking Rachel North, the person; I am attacking Rachel North, the politician. If you can't differentiate between the two, then get out of politics!

[Rachel]

I am not in politics, I am not a politian. I am not paid to do this.

Do you think this is easy? Do you think this is pleasant? It is exhausting, it is depressing, it is distressing. I do this in my spare time, I give what I can because I believe in what I am doing and I am trying to honour a promise I made to help people who asked me to help them. I am standing with bereaved families and survivors of an atrocity, taking abuse from drivelling spiteful creeps like you, who accuse me first of making a platform on the dead and then hiding behind my mothers death, all because we are asking for an inquiry, one many survivors and bereaved want.

Can't you understand? All your sanctimonious crap about victims of crime, victims of murder, and then when someone who is a victim of a murderous crime stands up with other victims of crime and people whose loved ones were murdered and asks for an inquiry into the crime, all you can do is hurl personal abuse - and then claim it is not personal because the crime was politically motivated! And then you attack me and say I am using my own mother's death to take cover. And you find my language upsetting?

Go and un-fuck yourself then. And look up the word hypocrite afterwards.

[Rachel]

I am not in politics, I am not a politian. I am not paid to do this.

Do you think this is easy? Do you think this is pleasant? It is exhausting, it is depressing, it is distressing. I do this in my spare time, I give what I can because I believe in what I am doing and I am trying to honour a promise I made to help people who asked me to help them. I am standing with bereaved families and survivors of an atrocity, taking abuse from drivelling spiteful creeps like you, who accuse me first of making a platform on the dead and then hiding behind my mothers death, all because we are asking for an inquiry, one many survivors and bereaved want.

Can't you understand? All your sanctimonious crap about victims of crime, victims of murder, and then when someone who is a victim of a murderous crime stands up with other victims of crime and people whose loved ones were murdered and asks for an inquiry into the crime, all you can do is hurl personal abuse - and then claim it is not personal because the crime was politically motivated! And then you attack me and say I am using my own mother's death to take cover. And you find my language upsetting?

Go and un-fuck yourself then. And look up the word hypocrite afterwards.

[Elmer Quigley Gooseburger]

You two should get married.

[David Duff]

You do 'ave a cruel, 'arsh streak in you, Mr. Gooseburger, really you do!

(Er, that's how they speak round here.)

[Larry Teabag]

...when she is pelted by the equivalent of rotten veg

Nope. Try "...when she is drenched by the equivalent of torrents and torrents of raw sewage, used condoms, junkies' needles, and hospital waste."

I think that more accurately captures the spirit of your too many posts on this subject.

Rachel has every right to complain, and if you any manners at all, or the slightest sense of decency, you'd leave this topic alone and never come back to it.

I am *not* attacking Rachel North, the person

Utter, utter cobblers Duff. I mean, really. Do you really believe that, or are you actually completely deluded and unaware of what you write? This is one of your more moderate posts on the subject. In the past you've written long posts with no purpose whatsoever other than to heap spiteful personal insults on her.

Get a grip of yourself David, it really is very unattractive.

[David Duff]

You know, I would never have guessed it but you really are rather a sensitive and delicate soul, 'Larry', beneath that Schwartzenegger swagger. Don't you worry about Rachel from North London, she can take care of herself *and* get her picture in the papers at the same time. But in the meantime, you have your asessment of her and I have mine, and as far as her political persona is concerned I shall continue to throw rotten veg everytime she climbs up on her bandwagon, not because of what she is but because of what she is after.

[Rachel]

And what, pray, am I after? Let me tell you once again. I want the same as all the other survivors and bereaved families who are taking legal action against the Government:

An independent investigation into a mass murder, the better to prevent further such murders in future.

I do not see how you can square your santimonious crap where you express repeatedly concern about murder victims with your attitude towards the families of murder victims, and those who survived the murders, asking for an inquiry into the murderers.

The fact that the murders were apparently politically-motivated means the requests for an inquiry get political coverage and are a political issue. It does not make me, or anyone asking for the inquiry, a politician ,any more than someone involved in the Hatfield rail disaster campaigning for an inquiry is a politician.

You are seemingly unable to grasp this simple point. I, and the people campaigning with me are of all different political opinions. That is beside the point, it is not about politics, but trying to save lives and spare suffering. It is quite clear that the bombers were on the radar of the security services and that they could have been stopped, and that MSK should have been arrested before 7/7. It is clear that there are failings in the system and that is what we are trying to get resolved by highlighting what went wrong so lessons can be learned.

If I was the survivor of a rail crash or motorway pile up I would do the same - ask for an independent investigation, the better to prevent it happening to others.

Do you honestly think I devote hours of my life, unpaid, to this cause because I want to get my picture in the paper?

Do you honestly think I am not negatively affected by the poisonous vitriol and personal attacks spewed out by the likes of you with monotonous and cruel regularity? Do you not think others aren't similarly affected, which is why they flinch at putting their head over the paraphet? But still, they have signed the letter of Claim anyway.

Why do you only attack me, and not all of them?

Do you not see that I would rather not do this, that speaking out like this and trying to honour a promise I made has led to me being harrassed by a lunatic, as well as giving up hundreds of hours of my life and affected my health? Do you have the slightest idea that people might do things for altruistic purposes, because they think they are the right thing to do, or can you only view the world through your hate-filled misanthropic haze of bigoted spite?

You seem to do little but devote your time to spewing out hate on the internet. Which includes graceless and histrionic attacks on me, someone who has never written about you, never met you, and has asked you to leave me alone.

I wonder why.

I wish to God I had never been on that train, made the promise to help in the aftermath. But I was, and I did. I have tried to help by speaking out, as I promised to do. It has cost me a great deal of time, sleep and money.

And as of today, I have decided it has cost me too much. And that's why I've said I am taking a break from blogging, and reading your vicious drivel reminds me why.

[Elmer Quigley Gooseburger]

Don't worry David. It's just a tiff.

[David Duff]

You think some flowers tomorrow will do the job, Elmer?

[Elmer Quigley Gooseburger]

Yeah....

Does she know what your favourites are?

[Larry Teabag]

If Rachel wants to have one of these dropped down David's chimney, I'm in for a fiver...

[David Duff]

Urgh! What a revolting looking, smelly plant - just about right for me, I'd say!

[N.I.B.]

Incidentally, what did you 'catch yourself' before mentioning? That I shouldn't have been conceived because I'm mixed race, perhaps, like when you got banned from Pootergeek?

[David Duff]

'NIB', the internet is a wonderful medium but so far, happily for both of us, it is not possible for either of us to see the other, so I don't know whether you are black, white or polk-dot - and nor do I care. Last night I was about to respond, as I nearly always do to all my commenters, to your reference concerning me and 'Pootergeek', but I suddenly realised that a) it would be exceedingly tedious and b) it would only lead to another series of your nit-pickings, so I decided not to bother.

Take me or leave me, 'NIB', preferably the latter but if the former keep the expletives under control!

[N.I.B.]

Oh yes, the 'nit picking' can be *so* tedious, can't it? That's another difference between the Internet and 'real life' - you can't get people to acquiesce to your arguments by puffing out your chest, looking down your nose and throwing a few snide remarks in their direction. You see, all those people who drift away shaking their heads are not doing so in defeat: they're doing so in pity.

[David Duff]

"drift away".

Chance would be a fine thing!

[N.I.B.]

"Chance would be a fine thing!"

Oh poor poor you, having to put up with criticism! *Deep Sigh*

Hey, here's a thought: You could always get rid of me and those other rotten, persistent critics by *not* posting craven bullshit on the internet.

[Peter Crawpunt]

I am *not* attacking Rachel North, the person...

Mmmm, so hence all this Violet Elizabeth Bott stuff. I see.

Face it, David. You are a repulsive, self-absorbed, attention-seeking, petty little man. But you are never more pitiful and disgusting than when you launch these attacks - yes, personal attacks - against Rachel North, especially, as Rachel points out, given your tedious one-note sanctimony over the victims of violent crime. [Remainder deleted because the commenter is so dim that he cannot read my admonishments to others anymore than he can manage to construct a sentence without a string of obscenities. That is his problem but I cannot think of any reason why it should be mine!]

[N.I.B.]

Snippety snippety snip, and away go Peter's pertinent comments along with the nasty swear words! He had a point you know (before you *censored* it). Where are your sycophants? They can't all be on holiday can they?

[David Duff]

"Sycophants"! Me? "You're 'avin' a larf, aintcha?" as they say on the little 'Memsahib's' favourite soap.

[N.I.B.]

Hilarious!

[Larry Teabag]

I just can't understand why someone would wish to censor other people's comments *simply because they disagree with their opinion*.

"Freedom of speech"? Fascism more like!

[N.I.B.]

Quite, Larry. It is most peculiar that the word our straight-talking host always chooses to censor is the one word that describes him most accurately and succinctly.

You see, while it is accurate, it breaks his Politically Correct Speech Code, the one that can never be broken lest the framed photograph on his desk of his moral hero and political mentor Dear, Dear Uncle Joe Stalin flashes him a disapproving glance.

[N.I.B.]

(Hilariously enough, just after I posted that, I hopped over to John Brissenden's site to find Commissar Duff wishing said blogger dead - again. Yep, he hopes people he disagrees with are dead, but heaven forbid anyone dares to use uncivil langage!)

[Larry Teabag]

Pop quiz folks:

Who said "I insist on my right to use any words I find suitable for any occasion"?

And what about "I refuse to be nagged and scolded into complying with other people's versions of the English language"?

[Peter Crawpunt]

Yes indeed, this is the same fellow who regularly bemoans the "language commissars", who seek to prevent him from using jolly old roustabout terms like "Paki", "hebe" and "nigger" or whatever (I can't remember what's kosher and what ain't, nor the reasons for the distinction).

This is a man who fights tooth and nail against a force which has so far failed to prevent him even once from using any word he pleases, and here he is, completely unable to deal with the first syllable of "countryside" in a grown-up manner.

Anyway, my point was that this obsession with Rachel North is ugly in the extreme, and that even your regular (if slight) posse of reactionary admirers, like Hank and dearieme, are apparently loathe to go near it. Oh, and that David Duff is one seriously unpleasant countryside.