Tim Ireland

Tim is the sole author of Bloggerheads.

Homepage: http://www.bloggerheads.com/


Posts by Tim Ireland

Nadine Dorries: Go Compare

[NOTE - Because I'm not a plagiarising prick like Paul Staines or Ian Hislop and I don't take credit for other people's work, I must begin with a BIG 'thank you' to Iain Marley for his excellent Excel work on the current expenses, and to Unity for digging out the Marketing Management (Midlands) Ltd data from archived expenses. Both of them are proper gents.]

You’ve got to hand it to Chris Gill, editor of Bedfordshire on Sunday; he made a pretty good show of holding Nadine Dorries to account with this little article, but it’s an underarm throw at best, and easily batted away.

Nice one, Chris. Way too look like you're doing your job.

This article also declares that Dorries was “cleared of any wrongdoing” but does not mention that this was after a Parliamentary investigation in which Dorries could only explain herself by saying that she had lied to her constituents about where she lived most of the time. The article also manages to completely avoid any mention of the subsequent police investigation or the fact that this matter has since been passed on to the CPS.

Do you know what this reminds me of? This reminds me of the Downing Street memos that revealed Murdoch’s flunkies and Blair’s flunkies had been coordinating objections from The Sun and the government response and the subsequent tabloid response ahead of time, so as to better maintain the illusion that this tabloid was acting in the interests of their readers, and not operating as The Downing Street Echo.

Yes, it is absurd to compare Dorries to the Prime Minister. So I’m going to do what Chris Gill didn’t do, and look a little closer at the data, then compare Dorries to every MP, just to show him how it’s done. (Assuming, of course, he wants this job done right at all.)

First of all, if you take the expenses for all MPs and apply a total to each MP, you are mere moments away from a league table of the most expensive MPs:

MPs with greatest total expenses claims (May 2010 – October 2010):

Simon Hart (Con.) – £35,256.26
Nadhim Zahawi (Con.) – £31,902
Nadine Dorries (Con.) – £31,673.17
Keith Simpson (Con.) – £29,916.44
Jane Ellison (Con.) – £28,752.82

(Source: Parliament’s searchable archive of MPs’ expenses from 2010 onwards.)

[Psst! Please do note that the five most expensive MPs are all Conservatives. It is the Conservatives who are only in power because of a coalition agreement, but pretend to have a popular mandate as they impose their ideology on us under the guise of austerity measures. This is yet another indication - as if you need one - that the whole thing is a Tory con.]

Nadine Dorries isn’t just more expensive than the Prime Minister or a couple of local MPs, she’s more expensive than almost every MP in the House. Gosh, I wonder how Chris Gill and his staff at Bedfordshire on Sunday missed that one. I assume simple addition isn’t beyond them, but just in case numbers do cause confusion in his office, here is a graph comparing the recently-published expenses claims of all MPs, with Dorries highlighted:

'Explain, as you would a child'

Moving on to another matter that received no mention in Bedfordshire on Sunday; let’s look again at the very strong indications that Nadine Dorries has continued paying her close friend and neighbour Lynn Elson out of the public purse.

The following is a collation of all known payments since 2008* from Nadine Dorries to ‘Marketing Management’ (full name; Marketing Management Midlands Ltd), a company owned and operated by Nadine’s good friend, close neighbour and drinking buddy, Lynn Elson. Under that data, you will see the claims that I recently contended were very likely to have been made to Marketing Management Midlands Ltd (the amounts in bold):

Nadine Dorries – Confirmed Payments to Marketing Management (Midlands) Ltd

Pty Yr —- Date ———— Allowance Type ———- Expenditure Type —– Amount

08/09 ___ 30/09/08 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,290.00
08/09 ___ 30/09/08 _____ Comms Expenditure _ ____ General Costs _______ £6,554.75
08/09 ___ 01/11/08 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,525.00
08/09 ___ 01/12/08 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00
08/09 ___ 06/02/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00
08/09 ___ 04/03/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00

09/10 ___ 06/11/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00
09/10 ___ 11/06/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00
09/10 ___ 21/07/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00
09/10 ___ 06/10/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £4,025.00
09/10 ___ 06/10/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00
09/10 ___ 16/12/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00
09/10 ___ 21/12/09 _____ Staffing non-payroll ______ Agencies etc. _______ £3,450.00

Nadine Dorries – Suspected Payments to Marketing Management (Midlands) Ltd

Pty Yr —- Date ——- Expense Category —– Expense Type —– Amount

10/11 ___ 11/05/10 ___ Staffing __________ Professional Services (Staff) ___ £3,525.00
10/11 ___ 11/06/10 ___ Staffing __________ Professional Services (Staff) ___ £3,525.00
10/11 ___ 31/08/10 ___ Staffing __________ Professional Services (Staff) ___ £3,525.00
10/11 ___ 15/09/10 ___ Staffing __________ Professional Services (Staff) ___ £3,525.00
10/11 ___ 14/10/10 ___ Staffing __________ Professional Services (Staff) ___ £3,525.00

(Source: Parliament’s searchable archive of MPs’ expenses from 2008-2010.)

[NOTE - There was also a payment of £9987.50 (£8500 + VAT) in 2007 which prompted a complaint from a former researcher.]

1. Note the very similar amounts (one an exact match) with very similar classifications.

2. The pre-2010 payments to Marketing Management were labelled for ‘PR, media and research’, ‘public relations, media and research’, ‘media and research retainers fee’, ‘research and secretarial service’ and/or ‘media and research’. Two out of the five payments from 2010 onwards (in bold) were labelled ‘media and research’.

3. The remaining three of these five recent (identical) amounts (in bold) were simply labelled ‘MM‘ under their Short Description, presumably by the submitter of the claim (Dorries or her staff) if not the IPSA team. Dorries is the only MP with entries using this label as a part of any description. I suspect MM is short for ‘Marketing Management’.

4. Dorries has yet to deny these payments were made to Marketing Management (Midlands) Ltd, and her past conduct has shown that she or one of her little gang of thugs will issue a shrill if not overly hostile denial if there is even the smallest opportunity to highlight and capitalise on the slightest inaccuracy or discrepancy. However, the only objection raised so far (courtesy of Phil Hendren of ‘Dizzy Thinks’, another close friend and neighbour of Dorries’) has been this; “Why have you put a [Bloggerheads] imprint on an image that is a screenshot from Crown copyright content?”

Excuse me while I gloss over that crime of the century and carry on looking at these expense claims…

There is good reason to suspect that all of these recently-revealed payments were made to Marketing Management (Midlands) Ltd., which is owned and operated by Lynn Elson. Has Dorries simply continued paying her close friend out of the taxpayer’s pocket while quietly redefining/relabeling her role?

Lynn Elson has a background in media sales and marketing, NOT in research. Though she may have some undeclared expertise in marketing research, this is not the same as political research, not by a long shot. Political research is a role in which Lynn Elson has no little-to-no documented experience, never mind the kind of expertise that would justify monthly retainers of this scale.

If the money was spent with Lynn Elson and/or her company, what services were provided in exchange for this money? This question is especially pertinent when you consider that Lynn Elson’s proclaimed area of expertise is PR (Public Relations), as Dorries has suffered a series of public relations disasters since the election, and Lynn Elson has been instrumental in dealing with the fallout in ways that cannot be denied.

If we are to give Nadine Dorries the benefit of the doubt and assume that near to all of this money went on research along with whatever definition she applies to ‘media’, it still doesn’t look too clever.

Take a look at the five MPs who claimed the most for media-related expenses (e.g. ads in the local paper, websites, etc.) and research combined:

MPs with highest expenses claims relating to media and/or research (May 2010 – October 2010):

Nadine Dorries (Con.) £20,033.75
Nick de Bois (Con.) £9,332.98
Rory Stewart (Con.) £9,126.97
Keith Simpson (Con.) £8,488.10
Therese Coffey (Con.) £7,764.50

(Source: Parliament’s searchable archive of MPs’ expenses from 2010 onwards.)

[Psst! All Tories at the top of the table. Again.]

Even this is being far too generous to Dorries, as most of the MPs who came within shouting distance of her under this comparison did so because of payment of an annual subscription to ‘PRU’ (the grandly-titled Parliamentary Resources Unit) that really should be halved if we’re to provide a fair comparison.

Take a look at that margin, even without this adjustment; Dorries is ahead by a remarkable amount, even when she is treated with great generosity in this selection/interpretation of the figures.

And it’s actually quite likely to be far, far worse than this looks; this comparison was made in this way because Dorries classified part if not all of these expenses as relating to ‘Research and media services’, but I doubt very much if any of this money was spent on research, and if it was, I sincerely doubt the taxpayer got value for money.

I would think the extraordinary level of expenditure alone warrants some added scrutiny by the media if not the authorities, even if the most likely recipient fails to set off alarm bells left, right and centre.

What was this money spent on? What does Dorries have to show for it? Even if it was spent more on research than media/marketing/PR, how does Dorries justify this extraordinary level of expense that is double that of any colleague coming anywhere near this level of expenditure? What was this ‘research’ for? Hopefully not something to do with her ongoing religious mission to reduce access to abortion.

Oh, and why isn’t the editor of Bedfordshire on Sunday asking these questions and/or reporting the matter of her previous expenses claims that has not only been forwarded to the police for investigation, but subsequently passed on to the CPS?

Chris Gill, the editor of Bedfordshire on Sunday, is either soft in the head or soft on Dorries. Bedfordshire is being let down by their MP, and the man who is supposed to keep her honest hold her to account.

Thank you for your kind attention, and for sitting quietly through all of this data. Here is your reward:

Go Compare

Cheers all.

Nadine Dorries and Marketing Management Midlands Ltd

Below is a table of recent expenses claimed by Nadine Dorries for staffing classified as ‘Professional Services’. Previous to this, such claims have been reported as payments for “PR, research and media services” conducted by her close friend, Lynn Elson, operating under the company name Marketing Management Midlands Ltd (more), and seeing as Dorries is an often-hysterical liar likely to misinterpret if not deliberately distort any attempt to confirm/clarify this point, I’m simply going to take it was read that nothing has changed since the 2010 election.

17 grand!

1. Note the total; £17,625 over 6 months. This far exceeds any similar expenditure from any MP I’m aware of. The challenge is on; can anyone find any MP who spends as much on PR as Dorries apparently does?

2. Again on the total of £17,625 over 6 months; some people are lucky to earn this amount of money in a year, never mind 6 months. Does this company do any substantial marketing work for anybody else? Assuming that Lynn Elson is still the sole worker/director in this PR company and all this money is going though her two-bit operation, does she need to?

3. Judging by the abbreviated accounts for the years prior to these claims, Lynn Elson’s company Marketing Management Midlands Ltd (Companies House Number: 03827061) really doesn’t do much business at all. In fact, I would think it is fair to ask if the business could exist/survive at all without regular payments from Nadine Dorries:

Balance Sheet 2009

Balance Sheet 2010

4. Lynn Elson of Marketing Management Midlands Ltd certainly doesn’t feel the need to advertise her services with a website, which most providers of this type of service would regard to be a minimum requirement.

5. Marketing Management Midlands Ltd also appears to be run from a residential property. I would be more precise with the details, but I am currently hampered by Nadine’s propensity to fly off the handle about things like this. Of course, this wouldn’t be an issue at all if Dorries was paying these large amounts of money to a professional firm with proper offices, instead of a close friend making calls from her kitchen.

6. The first of the 5 payments of £3,525.00 is dated 11/05/2010, but Dorries was not an MP during the election that took place that month (i.e. she was a candidate from 06/04/2010 to 06/05/2010). Is this payment for services before the election, during the election, or in the 5 days after the election? Yes, I realise incumbents often continue to serve their constituents as best they can while officially classified as candidates, but if this expense arose from marketing, promotion or even research during the election period, there are some serious questions to be asked about how appropriate this claim is.

7. Prior to a belated complaint to police about my attendance at a public meeting, Dorries does not appear to have made a formal report to police about my conduct, and instead has repeatedly attempted to portray me as a stalker and danger to others in an ongoing trial-by-media. This process has involved several carefully coordinated media leaks, releases and appearances. How much of Nadine’s marketing/PR expenditure relates to this ongoing smear campaign, and if there is any expenditure of this type, is it right that the taxpayer should foot the bill for this all-too-personal vendetta of hers?

8. A similar question arises about expenses claims themselves. In late 2010, Dorries was forced to go on a PR blitz when it was revealed that she had lied to her constituents about her living arrangements. How much of this expenses claim relates to her attempts to stave off public criticism following the Commissioner’s report into her previous expenses claims?

-

UPDATE (6:30pm) – I have now confirmed that this expense was claimed/classified as “Research and media services”. At present, because the receipts have not been published, it is not certain that Dorries is still making these payments to her close friend Lynn Elson, or to/through an alternative provider. Perhaps someone would care to ask her. If I do, she’ll just use that as an excuse to go off her nut again.

UPDATE (6:45pm) – Confirmed: the address Lynn Elson’s company is registered under is also her residential address. I certainly won’t publish/publicise it, though. Not only would Dorries have kittens, but I’m not a total cloaca like some of Dorries’ supporters who use sensitive data like this carelessly and/or as a method of intimidation (see: Iain Dale and Phil Hendren).

Jonathan Lord (MP for Woking): Smears

This is an excerpt of a conversation I had with Jonathan Lord (Conservative MP for Woking ) in December 2010, in a chance meeting at a fundraiser for the children’s charity I volunteer for:

Jonathan Lord – Excerpt #1

There is one clearly-marked edit that involves claims by Dominic Wightman and his associates that I am not inclined to air, even though they are entirely untrue.

The relevant post about the single-bedroom flat that Anne Milton rented so she could put a Guildford address on the ballot paper is here. You may note in the audio that Jonathan Lord is extremely reluctant to talk about the property or even admit to visiting it, when the evidence I have seen suggests that it was used as a drop-in centre for members of his campaign team if it was used at all.

All the details I blogged about her family in this entry were a mocking reference to the stalking smears that had already begun at this stage, and I included them because all of these details were revealed in her own damn campaign literature.

Much like Dorries is now, Anne Milton was then feigning distress about a stalking campaign that didn’t exist when in fact she saw so little risk that she was waving her damn children around in public for political gain… and she was also claiming on the relevant nomination/ballot papers that she/they lived locally when in fact she had simply rented a single bedroom flat. But the idea that I was stalking her was just as absurd as the idea that she and her family lived in this poky little flat in a low-rent neighbourhood. This point may be lost of some people now that the relevant evidence has been deleted from the Conservatives.com website, but I have a copy of this document in my archives should anyone wish to challenge me on this point.

In the exchange you can hear in this audio clip, I clearly explain to Jonathan Lord how the accusation of stalking relates to the crime of harassment, and how it is perceived by the majority of people. I also relate to him the details of the single incident that – if distorted – might be (and has been) successfully presented as evidence of stalking/harassment, and yet he still agrees (off the record) that what I did did not amount to harassment.

I was blogging about Anne Milton’s campaign. Jonathan Lord was heading that campaign, and yet said nothing when Anne Milton declared as part of that campaign that I had “stalked her with a website”. He later repeatedly refused to even acknowledge that activists working under him had repeated this smear via a series of anonymous comments/websites.

To this day, he refuses to make a public statement making his position on this clear. Later in the conversation, he even reveals that Anne Milton could not at any stage (then or now) say that I had even libelled her on my site. His only complaint was that my blogging about her was ‘petty’ and ‘relentless’. It was not petty, because later in this conversation he admits there was a point to some of what I had published. I was relentless because these lying bastards would not even address the material on my website when they themselves acknowledged (privately, natch) that I had a point.

For example, I still contend that I had a point when I pointed out that Jonathan Lord should have identified himself as Anne Milton’s campaign manager when he appeared in her literature giving this shining endorsement. And, if you’ll excuse me, isn’t this deceit petty? Aren’t the extraordinary measures Milton, Lord and their activists took to disguise it petty?

We are loving the Amme, we are!

The people accusing me of stalking Milton maintain that I had no point to make and was simply fixated on an innocent woman, and here we come to what’s going to be revealed in the next audio clip.

My major beef with Milton is that she and the Guildford Conservative Association (that Jonathan Lord was Chairman of at the time) turned a blind eye to evidence that local Conservative activists had smeared an innocent man as a paedophile.

The Conservative activist Iain Dale even has the audacity to imply that I imagined all of this as part of the mental illness he repeatedly projects onto me (as he often does with others).

Well, It was real, it happened, I still have the evidence to hand and my next move with Jonathan Lord is to reveal the real reason why he took no discernable action in response to the evidence I presented to him at the time.

(Psst! Also in this same conversation, Lord admits that no internal investigation like the one Mike Chambers described took place; it was more of an informal chat. Some “stern words” in private. Yeah, big deal.)

Meanwhile, now that Jonathan Lord cannot deny knowing how some people use the accusations made by Milton and her activists at the time, I will ask him again why he does not come forward and make his own views on this known.

It is not my fault that he cannot do this now without making it clear that he saw the evidence I presented to him about the smears of paedophilia and took no action, or that he did not actually bother to look at the evidence in the first place (I suspect it is the latter). So while I know it is going to hurt him, he had plenty of opportunities to address any or all of this with minimal fuss long before now and he chose not to.

In fact, he’s digging himself even deeper by remaining silent today, and if he waits any longer it is going to look even worse for him.

FFS, he was standing right there when I was working as a volunteer with local children and it didn’t even occur to him how accusations of stalking (and the more recent accusations of paedophilia aimed at me by other Conservative activists connected to Anne Milton) might undermine that. This poisons any claim he might make that he is and was involved in politics because he is driven by any concern for the community. His true priorities are revealed when he is confronted by this situation and still spends the whole time trying to cover his arse. What a bastard.

Jonathan Lord knows what’s going on and cannot deny it. Further, he knows how these smears put me and my family in danger. And yet I have to go to incredible lengths to have him admit publicly that they are untrue. Perhaps he will regard this concern to be petty. I certainly plan to be relentless about it. If he’s going to complain that I have revealed statements that he wanted to keep off the record, I have a single-word response to that; diddums.

-
UPDATE – Jonathan Lord turned a blind eye: Jonathan Lord took NO discernable action against Mike Chambers and Dennis Paul when they involved themselves in a smear campaign where an innocent man was branded a paedophile, and he did so for entirely political reasons. Jonathan Lord admits that he did no more than have informal conversations with these two Conservative candidates, in private and entirely off the record, because an election campaign was in progress.
-

To: Steve Hilton (an open letter)

Dear Steve,

Being a long-standing member of the Conservative communications team (and currently a key member of the communications team for Prime Minister David Cameron) I would expect you to be well aware of the Conservative response to the half-baked plan by Damian McBride and Derek Draper to publish false rumours about the private lives of senior members of the Conservative Party and their spouses, because you probably helped to write it.

At the time (i.e. back when Gordon Brown and Labour were in power), it was the position of your office that the Conservative party would not stand for this sort of thing, and the Prime Minister’s office should not stand for this sort of thing.

Today, I am here to confront you with details of a long-standing smear campaign that you personally have known about for months (if not years) and repeatedly failed to act against, and I am going to attempt to compel you, and your boss, to finally take action.

Anne Milton
(Conservative MP for Guildford, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health)

You may not be aware that this whole thing started with a phone call from one of your party activists to my home in the opening stages of the 2005 general election. This person claimed to work for an ‘independent survey company’ and, via an extraordinarily clumsy and obvious push-polling script, pressed several key points of the campaign to elect Conservative candidate Anne Milton. We had signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) long before this call arrived, but the person calling did not apologise and offer to remove us from their database when advised of this. Instead, they developed an evasive attitude when asked about the origins of the call, then hung up.

Happily, earlier in the call, they had given the name of what they claimed to be an independent corporation/charity (Geneva), so I shared this detail with Anne Milton when I contacted her to complain about their conduct and inquire about the source of the call. She claimed to be unaware of the organisation or the caller, and offered to look into it, though she would/should have been aware the whole time that Geneva was in fact a Conservative party call centre.

I discovered this myself at about the same time I heard from a chap who had a local Tory party representative turn up unannounced at his door, wanting to discuss a letter he had written to the local paper that dared to be critical of this same candidate’s campaign.

I then started to blog about Anne Milton and her campaign, and quickly discovered that many if not all of the people posing as average members of the public in her campaign literature were in fact average members of her campaign team. Anne Milton’s only public defence for this was absurd in the extreme (at one point she tried to blame it on the post office; I presume she meant they had mixed up party literature with generic campaign literature) and it was at this stage that she began to dismiss queries about my blog and its contents with mild implications and then quite specific claims that I was stalking her.

Anne Milton recently denied saying anything that may have even given people the impression that I had harassed or stalked her in any way, but I can prove this to be a lie.

Further, I can prove the involvement of two of her activists in the publication/promotion of a series of anonymous comments/weblogs that not only repeated this smear, but also smeared me as a bad father, a computer criminal, and an undesirable alien.

There was also an anonymous weblog published/promoted by these same activists that smeared one of their direct political opponents as a paedophile. I referred these matters to your party office (CCHQ) and to the Parliamentary office of David Cameron. My complaint was referred back to the local association for action. They took none. Both of the activists involved were subsequently endorsed by Anne Milton and the local association as Conservative candidates for local council.

Jonathan Lord
(Conservative MP for Woking)

At the time, Jonathan Lord was Chairman of the Guildford Conservative Association. Initially, he sought to excuse his inaction by saying that the target of the ‘paedophile’ smear had not complained, and that the action of anonymously accusing him of paedophilia and publishing personal phone numbers and details of his whereabouts was not against the law as far as he could see.

Obviously, this is poppycock, even if we are to accept a highly selective interpretation of harassment law. What Draper and McBride did wasn’t a criminal act and the Conservative party came out hard against all of what they had planned, even though only one proposed target (Nadine Dorries) came out and complained about it.

Lord also claimed at the time that he took no action because I had not written to him about the matter. Again, this is purest poppycock. I had emailed him about this, and email is a perfectly valid form of written communication, and far more efficient when providing URLs of a series of live blogs/comments that should have been the focus of his concern. It was a stupid requirement that I put this on paper, and I interpreted the request that I do so as a form of subtle intimidation; Lord’s office had so far protected the people who had published details about my private life, and offered no explanation for the earlier unannounced visit to the home of a critic, and Lord should have been well aware that I would be hesitant to offer him or anyone else in his office my home address in these circumstances, even if he was so impossibly backward as to think my sending him a hyperlink on paper would be preferable to sending an email.

The further excuse that Lord currently offers for his inaction was given on an off-the-record basis during a chance meeting at a fundraiser for the children’s charity I volunteer for. I will return to this point later in this letter, but for now let’s just say that it doesn’t do him any favours, and an off-the-record admission about this matter is about as much use to me as a chocolate teapot when certain people are contending publicly and privately that I lied about some or all of it.

Iain Dale
(Conservative Party activist. Failed as Conservative candidate for Norfolk North, rejected as Conservative candidate for Bracknell and Maidstone & The Weald.)

Iain Dale was advised of the smear campaign targeting an innocent young man as a paedophile, and yet flat-out refused to take a stand against it, despite positioning himself as a leading/principled blogger at the time. Dale later alternately implied and claimed that I had imagined if not invented the whole thing, and also began publishing anonymous comments from Conservative activists supporting Milton, repeating the claims that I had stalked her.

When confronted about these and other comments he allowed on his site (but only against his political enemies, natch), Dale began to repeat the smear himself, and soon cottoned on to how neatly self-reinforcing it was.

Please excuse me as I paraphrase to elucidate:

X: “Y is a stalker!”
Y: “How dare you! Where is your evidence?”
X: “Well, look who’s here; it’s the stalker!”

Dale also went on to claim that I had not only stalked Anne Milton, but that I had gone on to stalk another Conservative MP; Nadine Dorries. He could not then and cannot now support either allegation, but he refuses to retract or even defend what he has repeatedly published on his site and shared privately with fellow Conservatives.

He will, however, repeatedly cite phone calls made at a time when he was knowingly libelling Tom Watson as a smear merchant while exploiting a smear campaign that falsely named me as a convicted paedophile*, and via a significant lie of omission he uses this to support a claim that I stalked him, too.

As part of this effort, Iain Dale also repeatedly claimed to have reported me to police for harassment. Recently, he was forced to admit that he has never filed such a report, but he continues to maintain that I am guilty of harassment, and is often forced to cite my response to his allegation(s) as evidence that supports his initial accusation(s).

(*A popular theme among Conservatives, I’ve noticed. I’ve often wondered why.)

Patrick Mercer
(Conservative MP for Newark)

Both the man who carried out the smear campaign falsely accusing me of child rape and the man who I believe initiated it were close associates of Patrick Mercer, and worked in close association with that MP as (please, feel free to laugh) amateur anti-terrorism operatives.

Mercer was at this time Chairman of the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism. When I confronted him with evidence that his source(s) had been fabricating evidence of Islamic extremism, Mercer’s office repeatedly refused to comment or take action.

Following contact with Iain Dale (see: the paedo-smear campaign against me that Dale sought to exploit) Mercer himself then responded by answering questions from third parties by claiming that I was an “electronic stalker”.

Like Iain Dale, both of these men claim to have reported me to police for harassment, but cannot provide evidence of ever having done so; most likely the complaints they speak of amounted to nothing or they are making the whole thing up. The latter is almost certainly the case with one of these men, as he has gone on to make entirely false claims on behalf of local police about my involvement in a range of crimes (which not a crime itself, you may be surprised to learn).

Mercer currently wishes to distance himself from these men and their actions, but he refuses to retract his entirely false claim of harassment that he made in response to my concerns and the concerns of others about these men and their conduct.

Nadine Dorries
(Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire)

By the time the 2010 general election came around, Nadine Dorries had begun privately repeating the smear initiated by Iain Dale; despite endorsing similar blogs targeting Labour MPs, Dorries maintained that my blogging about her amounted to stalking/harassment, and further claimed that I had, under my own name and via a series of false identities, sent her abusive messages. None of this was true, but this allowed her to answer any questions raised on my website about her conduct in much the same way as Milton, Mercer and Dale had previously.

However, (a) you would think she would know better after the Draper/McBride incident, and (b) by this time Dorries was aware that the claim that I had stalked her and others was being published alongside my home address on a series of anonymous websites by some self-styled cyber-vigilantes associated with Mercer’s amateur anti-terrorism operatives.

As with previous attacks from this quarter, an attempt was made to distribute my home address to people likely to be hostile to me, and/or in a way likely to make them hostile towards me. This began with the claim that I was a convicted paedophile, then carried on with a claim that I was a willing ally of religious extremists, but with the increasingly specific/public outbursts of Nadine Dorries, these people were able to make claims that appeared to be substantiated by a Member of Parliament.

One key entry included my home address alongside the claim that I had stalked women and sent death threats to MPs, and both of these claims relied heavily on the increasingly irrational if not disgracefully calculated outbursts of Nadine Dorries.

Knowing this to be the case, Dorries stood up in front of a hustings meeting in May 2010, claimed that I had stalked Patrick Mercer, claimed that I had harassed Anne Milton to the point that police became involved, and further claimed that I had stalked and harassed her to such an extent that a police investigation was currently in progress.

At the same time, Dorries was under investigation for expenses claims relating to a property that she officially classified as her second home, but had difficulty explaining why she had made repeated entries on her blog that gave the impression that it was her main home. It is on record and entirely clear from the subsequent report that Dorries told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that she had deceived her constituents about the location of her main home for entirely political reasons (i.e. to give the impression that she lived primarily in the constituency). She thought this put her in the clear and was entirely unprepared for the backlash that followed this revelation. She responded by again claiming that I had stalked her, and further claiming that police had specifically advised her to give misleading accounts of her whereabouts for reasons of security.

I have no history of stalking Nadine Dorries in any physical sense, and she had no cause to believe this, even if she is so dim-witted as to have allowed herself to be convinced that I was stalking her electronically. Worse, Dorries used my attendance at a public meeting in May 2010 to defend her claim that I had physically stalked her in the many years/months previous to this, and used Conservative activists aligned to her to spread this claim on blogs and in the media though a series of entirely strategic claims and distortions that not only stretched the truth to breaking point, but challenged the very notion of time and space.

Months after her hustings outburst, after being challenged to provide evidence to support her claim that a police investigation was in progress, Dorries sought to initiate a police investigation after the fact, and succeeded to a small extent in that police are now investigating my presence at a public meeting that I was invited to. This alone, while it is a complete waste of police time, did not cause me alarm… but Dorries then went on the leak news of this to a supportive local newspaper, leading to an entirely biased article that has set off my attacker(s) all over again, and once again allowed them to base their ongoing revenge attack on the word of a Member of Parliament who is in turn endorsed by a mainstream party (i.e. your party).

Rachel Whetstone
(Former Political Secretary to former Conservative leader, Michael Howard, currently European Head of Communications for Google.)

The bulk of the anonymous attacks on me (i.e. those that police are extremely reluctant to investigate/prosecute because of the potentially needless expense involved) are/were enabled by services owned and controlled by Google, including Blogger.com, YouTube and Gmail, and their search engine’s response to the public side of this smear campaign. While I recognise that Google do not have complete control over my attackers’ choice of provider(s), I do take issue with Rachel’s attitude and conduct regarding this matter:

- Rachel refuses to acknowledge that UK police regard the repeated false claims of paedophilia as a crime (harassment) and subsequently refuses to remove them. She has since referred me to the generic help desk based in the US, and they currently advise me that I can have them removed ‘simply’ by proving a negative (i.e. that I am not a convicted paedophile) in a US court.

- Rachel also cannot or will not explain why, when Blogger.com staff claim to have a turnaround time of 48 hours for removal of sensitive data such as home addresses published in bad faith, why it took over 3 months to remove the data in my case, not just on Blogger.com, but on YouTube as well. Further, she cannot explain why their search database with continue to store and distribute this data long after it has (eventually) been removed from Blogger.com/YouTube pages under their control.

- After she repeatedly refused to even discuss the detail of either of these matters, I dared to ask Rachel if her position had anything to do with her politics. She immediately took the position that she refused to discuss any of it because I had dared to ask this question. (She’s wasted at Google; get this woman back into politics!)

Rachel also pretends to be entirely ignorant of (and above) much of the detail of this ongoing smear campaign, but Michael Howard’s wife Sandra Howard made a key diary entry on the Conservatives.com website that would have been cleared for publication by Rachel Whetstone (assuming she was doing her job properly). This diary entry carried the specific claim that my action of blogging about Anne Milton amounted to “stalking her with a website”, and it named Anne Milton as the source.

OK, so Rachel isn’t currently a Conservative activist or operative in any formal sense, and she stands the best chance of anybody in convincing people that she’s not corrupt, and is instead merely incompetent (a holding position much like that of your former colleague Andy Coulson, as it happens), but she is your wife so I would hope that you might be able to sway her opinion somehow, perhaps with a casual conversation over breakfast, not least because these ongoing smears threaten my safety, the safety of my family and my work with a well-known children’s charity. (Not very ‘Big Society’, now is it?)

If it is not about politics for Rachel and she claims that she is only doing her job, then perhaps you can convince her to get on with that job; she has yet to clarify Google’s position on what they do and do not regard to be legal with respect to their Terms & Conditions of use, and she has yet to explain why it took months in my case to remove content that they claim is normally removed in a couple of days. On the latter point, if it’s a universal problem and not specific to me, then she may need to do a little follow-up work to make sure Google doesn’t become the provider of choice for those engaging in harassment and other forms of bullying.

Conclusion
(10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3….)

As you did previously with ‘Smeargate’, I would expect that you still maintain the position that the Conservative party would not stand for this sort of thing, and the Prime Minister’s office should not stand for this sort of thing.

Further, because I can provide plenty of evidence to support everything I assert in this open letter, I invite you to challenge me on it, or insist that you (finally) take a stand against it.

That, or you can instead take the position that the Conservative party WILL stand for this sort of thing, and the Prime Minister’s office SHOULD stand for this sort of thing. If you do so, I’d appreciate a cogent argument explain why you’re above the conditions of civility you impose on others.

How silly of me; I almost forgot the ‘third way’. Obviously, you may also choose the path taken by so many other Tories before you and insist that you do not have to take a position either way because I am stalking you.

I am wary that you are likely to try this, which is why this public letter is going to be my only letter to you if you choose to be a cloaca about this; after I have made reasonable efforts to ensure that it has reached you, I am going to give you 48 hours to respond, and then we’re done; we will have nothing further to say to each other, because I will know exactly where you stand if you don’t even have the balls to challenge me to produce evidence.

If you fail to respond, then I will know that you intend to stand by the actions of your activists, your MPs, one of your boss’s cabinet members, and your wife, and I shall act accordingly.

Now, now… don’t be judging me by the standards of your fellow Conservatives; I have no intention of embarking on a new career in the dark arts. I will instead be bringing extended periods of light to the party.

This process will begin with the fundraising required to launch one civil action after another against people who cannot possibly hope to substantiate what they have claimed in court. I’ll need to generate publicity for this, which is why I’m so glad that I’ve held some of the chunkiest nuggets in reserve.

If I do not get a satisfactory response from you in 48 hours, I will start going public with everything I am legally entitled to reveal, starting with everything shared with me off the record by Jonathan Lord (oh, and also a damning conversation with Jeremy Hunt, who needs to be especially wary of digital recording equipment given his portfolio).

To be clear; every courtesy I’ve ever extended to Conservatives will go out the fucking window, including confidentiality. I will pause only long enough to side-step those rare Tories who have already taken a public stance against this and I will release every scrap of text, audio and video that I have captured or collected (often secretly) since it became clear to me that Tories would be standing by their own on this for as long as they could keep the details from the media.

With the safety of my family at stake, how can I do less? I’ve played nice for long enough. I even tried backing off once, and that’s when your dirtbag activists took it up a notch.

I cannot stress enough that this would only be the start of a mere fundraising process; not only would I need to make these revelations as entertaining and as engaging as possible in order to raise as much money as possible, but once I raise the funds required to do so, it is my intention to take civil action against one target after another in as public a fashion as possible. And I’ve got letters and email and audio and video that some of these people can’t even begin to guess at.

If I am to be forced to dedicate myself to this shit sandwich your fellow Tories have made for me, I am going to make sure that you and everyone associated with your party is forced to take a big, juicy bite. Nom nom nom nom.

Alternatively, you can simply maintain the position you and your boss David Cameron claim to have held all along; that politicians should invite scrutiny from bloggers like myself, and that there is no place for smears like this in politics.

I sincerely hope to hear from you well within 48 hours so we can settle this matter as cordially as possible soon after that. If this cannot be done, I hope you recognise why I will be pulling out all the stops and dedicating myself to the task of clearing my name while exposing the rot at the core of your party, and I wish you luck in the inevitable attempt to smear me in response, because you are going to need it with the paper trail I’ve got and the fair warning you’ve received.

Cheers

Tim Ireland

-

Andy Coulson: innocent until proven guilty

[See also: Andy Coulson and Andy Hayman: Friends]

Lately, we have been treated to the ‘earnest’ opinion of one Tory cloaca after another reminding us that Andy Coulson is innocent until proven guilty… as if there is no cause for concern about the way London’s Metropolitan Police Service repeatedly turned a blind eye to available evidence and re-opened their investigation into phone-hacking only hours after Tom Watson demanded it be handed to another police force. You couldn’t shut these fuckers up about the stench of corruption they insisted they could smell everywhere before the Tories took over. In fact, one of Coulson’s loudest cheerleaders even repeatedly assured us of the guilt of Tom Watson during ‘smeargate’, based on evidence he knew to be false at the time. Iain Dale later part-justified this deliberate libel on his assumption that Tom Watson must have known something because he worked in the same office as Damian McBride of Satan*.

However, in this instance, Iain Dale tells us that “Coulson’s accusers can go to hell”, even though Coulson ran the relevant office, and it was and is standard protocol for him and every other editor in the land to check the source of every major story. For Dale to pretend not to know this when he big-notes himself as a responsible publisher goes beyond the absurd; it is an insult.

Dale, like other tabloid scum of his type, is entirely flexible on the matter of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and his position appears to depend entirely on whose side the accused is on.

(*Psst! Iain’s still rewriting history on this one, too. His latest self-serving interview with Watson is enough to make you sick and, strangely, during this same interview, the subject of Coulson and Watson’s ongoing attempt to hold him to account never comes up. Yet Dale still claims his junk-mail magazine Total Politics couldn’t possibly be biased, when it couldn’t be otherwise with old tilt-head at the helm. Dale is a proven liar, and even his categorical denials about this have turned out to be outright lies. Strangely, even though he has all that Ashcroft money lining his pockets and claims Bloggerheads.com is chock to the brim with libel about him, he has yet to sue. In fact, the only time a claim of libel was ever raised formally, his lawyer quietly dropped the matter after he was challenged to identify a single instance of libel on this site. I guess that’s what you get for signing off on a client’s letter instead of doing your own homework.)

Oh, I do apologise. I’ve inadvertently strayed into an area where the stakes are merely a minor smear about my stalking people that’s been put about by Iain Dale and his dirtbag mates, and how that feeds the accusations/delusions of the man who’s been watching my house (see: irony), when what I really want to do today is show you how flexible Andy Coulson is on the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when someone gets shot in the head.

Here we turn the clock back to the opening days of June 2005.

Following the rejection of a third inquest into the shooting of Harry Stanley by London Metropolitan Police, the two officers involved in the shooting had just been arrested and interviewed, following an investigation by Surrey Police involving new forensic evidence.

Andy Coulson was at this time the editor of News of the World, and he came out hard in defence of London police in several subsequent editions of this ‘news’ paper. After some research at the British Library Newspaper Reading Room in Colindale (soon to be closed, er, I mean ‘improved’) I have to hand some full-page scans from two of those editions, and I invite you to inspect them.

The first of these scans is dated June 12, 2005, and it presents to readers what the article describes as “dramatic new evidence that could clear two police firearms officers,” stating that “these amazing pictures, uncovered by News of the World, show the policeman could not know he wasn’t holding a gun”:

Andy Coulson, News of the World, June 12 2005

Click for hi-res if you wish to read the full article.

1. They show that, do they? Looks a tad contrived to me.

2. I’d rather police only killed someone when they were left with no choice because they were certain that person was carrying a gun. (Or maybe wearing a bomb vest. Or perhaps taking part in a peaceful protest.)

3. Gosh, I wonder how News of the World uncovered these amazing pictures.

Note also the reader ‘jury’ survey, conducted on the back of an earlier opinion piece by Michael ‘Deathwish’ Winner, that clears police. Oh, and also take a look at the enormous picture caption under their ‘evidence’ that echoes a letters-page call to “end this witch hunt”.

Public pressure was a major factor in the subsequent investigation/inquiry process (Coulson’s paper even makes a big deal about the expenditure to date), and this clearly prejudiced stance by the News of the World was a major push to influence public thinking in favour of the police.

The next week, Coulson even had the audacity to run the dead man’s police record past readers as if this somehow excused the decision by officers to shoot him. Without a lick of shame, News of the World describe it as the ‘rap sheet from hell’ (i.e. this is where he must have ended up after police shot him) and even imply that Stanley may have intended suicide (i.e. he deliberately goaded police into shooting him):

Andy Coulson, News of the World, June 19 2005

Click for hi-res if you wish to read the full article.

See? The blood they shot him in wasn’t cold at all. Why, if you stir it fast and furious enough, the friction alone generates just enough heat to justify a bullet. (Or maybe two, just to be sure. There’s no margin for error in this job.) That, or it was Harry Stanley’s idea to get shot in the first place, perhaps even to make police look bad. Surely no dastardly act was beneath him; one need only look at his record.

Again, one can only guess at the possible source of this amazing scoop.

(ahem)

It should be obvious from his stance on this issue that Andy Coulson contended that the police were innocent until proven guilty (and so incredibly innocent that an external investigation into their conduct must stop), but the bloke they shot in the head must have earned it, because he totally looked guilty… judging by what the police a unnamed source told him.

Less than a month after the latter article, Andy Coulson was busy making excuses for some other London police who shot another innocent man; Jean Charles De Menezes. The same man in charge of that botched operation was also in charge of the later lackadaisical investigation into the conduct of staff at News of the World.

I put it to you that the London Met may have deliberately held back on their investigation into News of the World and the conduct of Andy Coulson and his staff as a favour to a mate (and/or a source of auxilary income), if not a special allowance for a tabloid scumbag who knows where the bodies are buried. Literally.

Inquiries to date by the London Met should be subject to an external/independent inquiry, regardless of any new evidence they and their News of the World cronies claim to have found behind a cupboard. If it turns out that any hint of corruption is evident, the London Met should be taken off the case immediately.

Hell, I’ll go even further than that; what should happen here is exactly what Andy Coulson was trying to halt/prevent after Harry Stanley was shot by police; there should be a full investigation by Surrey Police that looks into any new evidence of alleged phone-hacking.

Anything less risks corruption if not loss/destruction of evidence and a dramatic downturn in public confidence in London’s Metropolitan Police Service and the criminal justice system generally; not something police need in the capital, especially when they are tasked with policing major demonstrations against the Conservative machete-without-a-mandate that Andy Coulson worked for at the highest level until just last week.

Nadine Dorries: Psalm 139, abortion, hatred and evil

Recently, Nadine Dorries took part in an interview with Ed West which was published in the Catholic Herald. A modest individual who has appropriated the identity of the historical figure Archbishop Cranmer complains here that this interview does not gain the attention it deserves because it has been “largely ignored by most of the left-leaning, abortion-promoting MSM.”

Late last year, Dorries was in conversation with this same individual on Twitter when she said the following:

“And the Liberal Synod contains many cowards who focus on the ‘hip’ issue of the day and not what is relevant to congregations” – Nadine Dorries (source)

“the CoE has a shameful weak and cowardly history re abortion – no surprise with a Liberal apologetic Synod” Nadine Dorries (source)

“Most faiths support their own text, Synod envoys told me Psalms were mere ‘poetry’ and not to be used for guidance” – Nadine Dorries (source)

“‘I knew you in your mothers womb’ is not to be believed, It is apparently poetry.” – Nadine Dorries (source)

There was no question about Dorries having an opposing view to that of the Church of England and, despite an attempt by ‘Cranmer’ to enlighten her (1, 2) she appears to still hold this view so strongly as to again accuse the church of ‘cowardice’ for not supporting her position, which she sees as the natural/obvious one.

(Note how in this excerpt, with the aid of this ‘journalist’, she leads into the issue by portraying all objections to her conduct as hateful vitriol, and categorises all of her opponents as opponents in the abortion debate. The importance of this will become clearer as we proceed. Hang in there.)

Those unfamiliar with the world of blogs and social networking site Twitter will not fully appreciate how much hatred Dorries attracts over this issue, the majority of which seems to come from men, who devote an almost demented amount of time tapping at keyboards explaining why they hate this woman. “What have I done to justify this level of vitriol?” Dorries asks. “What’s it about? The only controversial issue I’ve ever taken up is abortion, and that’s the only hook to hang it on.”

Yet she is not even “against” abortion as such, in that she does not wish to re-criminalise it.

“I’m neither pro-choice nor pro-life,” she says. “I take the middle ground, and I find it hard to understand why anyone – especially feminists – could disagree with what I say if they are really concerned with women and their health issues.” Both sides of the argument, she says, are “ghettoised” on the issue.

One of the problems, I suggest, is that perhaps the pro-life movement is seen as exclusively religious, although there is no reason why it should be. In fact, she says, she doesn’t even get that much support from the churches.

“I need religious support,” she says. “It is our core support. I need the churches being more involved, and the churches have been pathetic, pathetic, during the abortion debate in their support for what I was trying to do.

“The Church of England was the worst and the only person in the Catholic Church who made any comment was Cardinal O’Brien. Everybody was silent because the churches were weak and cowardly in their position.

“I was even told by one envoy from the Church [of England] that Psalm 139 was ‘just poetry’. Weeks later they timidly came out and squeaked their words of support, which were no use to me at this point. The churches have really angered me during this debate.”

Now, it cannot be stressed enough here that Dorries is pushing for a literal (or more literal) interpretation of the book of Psalms.

There is a word for this kind of thing; fundamentalism.

Further, hers is a notion that the mainstream church rejects, which in turn causes Dorries to be openly hostile to them.

There are words for this kind of thing, too, but Dorries and people like her object to these words to being used to describe them, not least because they have been used to such good effect to damage a competing religion. In fact, if I were to use these words accurately, her gang of useful idiots would probably accuse me of casting Nadine Dorries as a suicide bomber because of the way these words have been used inaccurately by others. For now, ‘fundamentalism’ will do.

Dorries has previously denied being a religious fundamentalist (more/context), and even if she sticks to this denial on the basis that the pejorative version of this word does not apply to her as far as she can see, these repeated attacks on ‘cowardly’ churches betray her position and destroy any pretence that she holds anything like the middle ground of the abortion debate.

It is at this point that we turn to the relevant passages from the collection of sermons in Psalms that she speaks of and repeatedly attempt to see matters from the point of view of Nadine Dorries. (Seriously going somewhere with this. Hang. In. There.)

During this process, I will be turning from the matter of more general interest (Dorries’ clearly religious views and how they impact on her role in the abortion debate) and instead focusing on a more personal matter and how that relates to the public interest, because something quite worrying occurred to me when I had cause to look closely at Psalm 139 this morning.

(Note – I have included the text from the King James version of this religious text, but have also linked to a site that gives varying translations/interpretations of each line.)

Psalm 139 (excerpt)

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Personally, I interpret Psalm 139 as a flowery tribute to the perceived omnipresence of the author’s chosen deity; He is so all-powerful and so all-knowing that He knows us before we exist and after we die.

There are some who view these lines as an extended and purpose-specific reference to life developing in the uterus and their nominated deity’s role in that; some even go so far as to repeat the word ‘womb’ again in place of the ‘lowest parts of the earth’ in 139:15, and it is no doubt on the strength of this interpretation and others like it that Dorries sees this sermon as a repeated assurance that God has been hand-stitching each and every one of us in the womb, meaning that it is His word that life begins from the zygote onwards if not before (see: onanism) and He has a special plan for every cell cluster in every womb on the planet, regardless of its developmental progress.

You can see how taking this position might influence the thinking of someone who campaigns on the subject of abortion; taking this passage as guidance makes every abortion a murder (but I suspect Dorries fears taking a clear position on this because of what she has previously explained away as a prejudice against religion while exposing her own prejudice against another religion).

It is here that we proceed to the latter half of this same sermon, and turn our focus on the more personal matter that will, initially, mostly be of interest to readers of this blog:

Psalm 139 (excerpt)

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.

20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

The person who wrote this sermon groups all those who do not adopt his religion as his enemies, and wishes them to die while casting them as bloodthirsty. Some interpretations even describe all of these ‘wicked’ people as ‘murderers’. The author even calls them out as ‘haters’ in the same breath as expressing what amounts to an unreasoned and extreme hatred of them. (As you can see, this is a much older game than many people suspect.)

The first version of this I read today was in modern English here, on a site dedicated to Psalm 139, and it strikes me as being plainer and more in line with Dorries’ thinking on this:

139:19 – If only you would put the sinners to death, O God; go far from me, you men of blood.

139:20 – For they go against you with evil designs, and your haters make sport of your name.

139:21 – Are not your haters hated by me, O Lord? are not those who are lifted up against you a cause of grief to me?

139:22 – My hate for them is complete; my thoughts of them are as if they were making war on me.

I hate what she does and the way that she treats other people, but I resist hating Nadine Dorries herself where possible. I’m human, but I try. I certainly don’t claim to be better than others because I hate her, even in those moments when I do.

Further, I do not wish that Nadine Dorries would die. You may think differently.

I know Nadine Dorries thinks differently about me, because she relies on this passage for guidance and feels so strongly about it that she is willing to oppose the Church of England in its defence.

Reading this passage, it becomes clear that Nadine Dorries hates me. She hates me with every fibre of her being. She hates me as if we were at war. But, like the author of this sermon, she sees this as a blessed mission ordained by God, and casts me as the hater.

I do not think it is unreasonable to suspect that when Dorries is confronted with circumstances where she might lessen my suffering, she would choose to do nothing and let her chosen deity get on with it (or maybe even choose to help her chosen deity along from time to time) not because what is being done to me is in any way right, proper, appropriate or humane, but because Dorries believes it is God’s will that I suffer because sees me as an opponent of His will and therefore a force for evil.

I further suspect that, in the mind of Dorries, everything bad that’s happening to me and my family isn’t the work of a lone, bitter, corrupt Tory with a grudge stirring up anti-social elements at the fringes of society and his party, but is instead the work of God, who seeks to punish me for daring to oppose Him.

Not only do I suspect this to be the case, I suspect Dorries even makes indirect reference to this belief in the same interview:

She describes herself as being a “bit low” following the press treatment of her private life, the expenses scandal (which she describes as “unbearable”) and the story in that morning’s Mirror alleging that she is being investigated for her expenses.

“It’s a ridiculous story, and its been planned to put out on the day I’ll be on breakfast TV on abortion,” she says. “All it is is nasty, Left-wing politicking.

“I can’t believe that journalists by and large can be happy people because I don’t think its possible to write in such a vitriolic and hateful way and be happy, and for good things to happen to you.”

Bad things happen to bad people, you see. And they happen (or will happen) because of what Dorries assumes to be opposition to her position on abortion. Therefore, this is not the work of Dorries, but of God. In fact, it is God who guides her hand when she hyperlinks to the man who has been watching my house and publishing directions to my home for anyone else who might care to take an interest, and it is God who guides her mouth when she repeats/reinforces his smears to the extent of inventing police investigations that never took place.

If it is as I suspect (and I think I’ve produced some pretty strong supporting evidence to support my suspicions), then this should be of concern to any constituent of Dorries that she perceives as her enemy (i.e. an opponent of her religious mission); when confronted with your suffering, instead of doing her duty as an MP, Dorries is far more inclined to do what she perceives as a higher duty to God.

Unless, of course, Nadine Dorries would care to state that she only fervently believes in part of Psalm 139.

-

Housekeeping (an urgent appeal)

Hi folks.

I expect to bring you some important updates today (Thursday 20 Jan), if not soon after that. I don’t want to say or even hint what the update concerns, as I do not wish to imply that the following is in any way connected:

AN URGENT APPEAL

PLEASE BLOG OR TWEET ABOUT THIS, BUT ONLY* LINK TO THIS PAGE (i.e. on bloggerheads.com), BECAUSE IT IS WHERE RELEVANT UPDATES WILL BE POSTED:

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2011/01/housekeeping-an-urgent-appeal/
(or http://j.mp/gvMjb5 if using Twitter)

(*Basically, because I do not want people dashing about gathering header data any longer than is necessary. I’m sure you understand.)

OK, ‘shouting’ over. All done. Are you all ready? Good. Housekeeping:

If you have received an email or have been made aware of any kind of electronic message from/about a person who claims to have knowledge of material retrieved from my rubbish bin, I would greatly appreciate (a) hearing about it, and (b) receiving the full headers of the relevant notifying email so I might collate a package of evidence for presentation to the police as soon as it possible.

- If you are using Outlook Express / Windows Mail:

Right-click on the message while viewing the Inbox/folder it sits in and you should be able to choose the option ‘send as an attachment’. Address it to me, and type ‘housekeeping’ in the subject field. You can also put a message in the text area saying ‘howdy’ etc. before sending, but there is no need if you are pressed for time; it’s the attachment I’m interested in. This will send me the whole email, headers and all, and I will (hopefully) be able to retrieve the relevant IP data from the sender. Please send to: bloggerheads DOT com AT gmail DOT com

- If you are using Gmail:

While viewing/reading the email itself, look to the top right hand corner of the email and you will see the word ‘Reply’. Do not click this. Click the downward-pointing arrow to its immediate right and choose ‘Show original’ from the pull-down menu. On the page full of code that opens in a new tab or window, hit ‘Ctrl+A’ (Select All) then Ctrl+C (Copy), then open an email to the address below, type ‘housekeeping’ in the subject field and finally, in the body of the email (where you normally type the text/message), hit Ctrl+V (Paste). This will send me the full headers of the email as text and I will (hopefully) be able to retrieve the relevant IP data from the sender. Please send to: bloggerheads DOT com AT gmail DOT com

ALSO, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE EMAIL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED A COPY

Police may (I stress may) wish to contact some recipients, and may require access to the original, or a statement from you verifying that you are the source of this data. The original is worth hanging on to. Please keep it somewhere safe.

If you have been contacted via a Twitter message, please advise me of the relevant username via email – bloggerheads DOT com AT gmail DOT com – and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

If people are shy about coming forward, I will point out that on its own it may not look like much to some people, but I have good reason to believe that recipients of the email I am concerned about are holding evidence of a criminal act. You may view things differently based on what little you can see (or maybe even have views about me or my politics that make you wonder why you should bother) but by withholding the information I speak of, you risk the appearance of complicity.

I do not exaggerate for the sake of generating any false impression or accusation here. This post contains no intimation of who this is about, so there is no point. I have no desire to conduct any trial by media, or release the relevant information to the public; the intention is to collate a package of evidence and send it on the police. ASAP.

If you are the type of person who would rather insist that you contact the police directly (or even insist that they contact you) then I am sorry, but you would really need to be an exceptional case before I would agree to handing out the relevant contact details of very busy people and/or asking police to fetch individual scraps of evidence the themselves, especially when time is of the essence and it is in everyone’s interests to nip this one in the bud. You could email me and ask if you like, but do not sit on this data. Sitting on this data would be a mistake.

So, to summarise, if you know what I am talking about because you have received an email/message like the one I describe, everything most people need to know to do something about it is above. If you have received it in email form and experience any difficulty in sending me a copy of the message complete with headers** then please contact me and I will endeavour to guide you through the process to the best of my abilities and with as little fuss as possible in the time available to me.

Cheers all. Back soon with that update I spoke of as soon as is possible.

(**I assume in this post that almost every owner of a Mac will know how to do this. Thus the seemingly Windows-centric view.)

Conservative Central Office: how not to be seen

OK, here’s how it works around here:

Everybody who visits my site will enjoy the usual level of privacy they would expect from any other site. BUT if you are the type of person who owes me an answer and pretends not to be aware of certain facts so you might hide behind the illusion of plausible deniability, then I am quite likely going to track your visit(s) to the posts on my site that you pretend you haven’t seen, then I am quite likely going to call you on that, even if it means embarrassing you in the process. In fact, if you really piss me off, I am probably going to go out of my way to embarrass you (not least because you deserve a spotlight all to yourself so we can finally see you and hear what you have to say for yourself).

Yesterday, the staff of Conservative Party Chairman Baroness Warsi refused to acknowledge that Nadine Dorries had lied about a criminal investigation that never took place (that she claims took place in response to a report she never made).

In doing so, they attempted to leave me, and my complaint, in limbo. In this way, they could pretend to be unaware of the full facts (as Iain Dale and Nadine Dorries have repeatedly done) and thereby avoid any position that might compel them to take action… or at least a position.

The bad news for them is I gave them a very specific URL in the email I sent, which allowed me to identify/isolate their IP address (194.203.158.97)…

… and verify that staff at Conservative Central Office had seen and read my post and all the details they would like to deny seeing yesterday at 2:02pm, 2:31pm, 2:53pm, 3:45pm and 4:43pm, and again today at 10:48am. Some visitors even took the time to read other Dorries-related posts, including some on the Nadine Dorries Project.

Baroness Warsi may later be able to claim that she was unaware of all of this, but she will no longer be able to pretend it was the fault of a single, under-enthusiastic staff member (as Patrick Mercer did).

So now the good people at CCHQ have seen the detail, and can’t deny seeing the detail, just what in the hell are they going to do about it? My guess is ‘still nothing’ until some negative publicity kicks in.

Speaking of which, I was curious enough to look up edits to Wikipedia made by people using this Conservative Central Office IP address, and the removal of this little nugget (in red) amused me:

I’m sure there’s more to find. Have a browse for yourself.

Iain Dale, Shane Greer, Total Politics, political smears and harassment

Recently, I published a segment of a discussion held under the Chatham House rule. This rule was first violated by Iain Dale and Phil Hendren through their misrepresentation of its contents and the nature of the discussion. They continue to misrepresent its contents and the nature of the discussion, so here we are at another point where I have to reveal the actual contents so you might decide for yourselves what really went on. The close of the discussion makes the conditions under which I breach a pledge of confidence crystal clear.

To be equally clear on two major points:

– Iain Dale did not agree to take part in this discussion when he found out my children were being targeted; he agreed to take part in this discussion in reaction to the negative publicity that followed the revelation that my children were being targeted. Because that’s the kind of guy he is. Total bastard. Oh, and thanks to everybody on Twitter who helped with that. You’re all champs.

- Iain Dale ‘cooperated’ in much the same way that he ‘called Patrick Mercer’ (he didn’t) and ‘reported me to police for harassment’ (he didn’t), and the following conversation is being published to clear this up and address other aspects of his and Hendren’s continuing misrepresentations.

(Next time, Hendren/Dale, don’t be calling me a liar when you know you can’t back it up, and when you know how it complicates an ongoing campaign of harassment. The Chatham House rule is not enforceable by law, I don’t expect to ever engage with you or anyone like you under that banner ever again, and when the safety of my family is at stake, all bets are off.)

Dale’s ‘kind’ offer of ‘cooperation’ – and the wider conversation – collapsed into nothing soon after Dale’s employee at Total Politics (Shane Greer) turned up. It was soon after this that it became clear I was being railroaded (with a smile), despite the risks to my family. Worse, I was being berated for not sitting back and taking it. Surely if I cared about my family, I’d let Iain have his way…

From here, I’ll let the conversation speak for itself. As it culminates with a link that is crucial to context that heavily references Dominic Wightman (the person who is the main subject of the most recent police investigation), I’ve decided against avoiding mention of his name as I have in many recent posts, but I would remind Dale and Hendren (and Greer) that there is far more sensitive information in our conversation that could interfere with this ongoing police investigation and/or put my family at risk, and I urge them to use caution in their inevitable attempt to counter this with further publication(s) of carefully selected nuggets that ‘prove’ this or that.

I’m happy to stand by every statement of fact and back up every speculation with supporting evidence, but there is a lot they could release at this stage that would immediately undermine the efforts to address an ongoing campaign of harassment through the criminal justice system (i.e instead of merely pretending that to have filed a report with police and lying about police investigations that never took place).

This final segment of the group conversation is entirely unedited, with the exception of the email addresses (which have been removed) and some notes in [brackets].

From: Shane Greer
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Iain Dale, Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

Hi Everyone,

Until now I haven’t involved myself in this email exchange as the issues involved don’t directly relate to or affect me. Moreover, I don’t have anything like the relationship history the rest of you do. However, I would still like to do what I can and, if nothing else, I thought I might at least be able to act as a voice of encouragement.

I must admit, when I saw Dizzy’s first email I thought nothing was ultimately going to be achieved. How wrong I was. The willingness shown on all sides to move things forward has been tremendous, and the fact that a relatively civilised exchange is taking place between Iain/Dizzy and Tim is an achievement in itself. Well done to Sunny for acting as the de facto mediator in all of this, and to Richard for providing additional context.

I don’t see that there’s anything I can really add to the proceedings, and with that in mind I’ll simply wish you all the best of luck.

Best,
Shane

-

From: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:21 PM
To: Shane Greer
Cc: Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Iain Dale , Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

Shane,

Keeping in mind the matter of context and hyperbole, early in 2009, I sought to contact you to ask you about the posts you and another staff member of Total Politics (Gavin Whenman) made accusing me of being an “obviously unbalanced” bully; i.e. on what grounds you defended the claim today or if you were actually only trolling as you claimed at the time:
http://www.shanegreer.com/2008/01/30/feeding-the-trolls/

Yours was one of the few sites carrying anything like what Dale was claiming and Glen Jenvey was repeating at the time.

Iain saw (or sought to portray) this attempt to contact you as an attempt to harass him, so I did not get very far with it, but as you’re here now, I would ask; do you stand by your assertions or were you only trolling?

Further, given the fallout from your claim and others like it and how these were eventually used against me in the worst possible way, do you agree with Gavin Whenman’s judgement that I was an “obsessive bully… intent on blowing minor attacks against him out of all proportion”?
http://www.gavinwhenman.com/2008/02/06/tim-ireland-an-internet-bully/

Tim

-

From: Shane Greer
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:30 PM
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Iain Dale , Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating
Hi Tim,

I understood the aim of this thread to find ways to help you and your family to avoid being harassed by Wightman Flowers et al. Others have urged you not to revisit issues from the past and concentrate on what can now be done in the future. I do not intend to do revisit this, apart from pointing out that Gavin Whenman’s blog – and indeed my own (now dormant) blog – are unrelated to Total Politics. Again, I wish you all the very best and good luck in resolving the issues you face.

Shane

-

From: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM
To: Shane Greer
Cc: Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Iain Dale , Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

How is it unrelated? It clearly influenced Iain’s thinking when he accused me of stalking him; a position he continues to defend and I have the letter to prove it. It is one of the few instances of the type of accusation that Wightman relies on today in order to protect himself, and it’s certainly worth noting that you all think (or appear to think) the same way and work for the same organisation under the same publisher.

You also defended it at the time in a way suggesting that you didn’t really mean it, but only said it to stir the pot. Given that I am now facing accusations very similar to what you defended as troll-bait, I will dare to press you on the matter.

I do not regard it to be irrelevant at all. You could withdraw it now and it would still be relevant to the matter at hand.

Tim

-

From: Iain Dale
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:33 PM
To: Tim Ireland , Shane Greer
Cc: Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Iain Dale , Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

This is now going round in circles. I have now asked at least four times for the details of the police in Guildford which I thought you wished me to contact. Sunny has also asked exactly what it is you want me to do to take this further, and yet all you seem to want to do is go off on tangents. Shane sent a perfectly proper and conciliatory email, expressing empathy and all you do is throw it back it in his face and try to reopen old wounds. That is not in the spirit of this conversation.

I am beginning to think we are now not getting as far as we thought we were if this is an indicator of what lies ahead.

If the threats you face were clear and present, and you felt the police was the only way of stopping them surely the first thing you would do is help put me in touch with whichever officer is dealing with it. And please don’t return to Nadine. She is irrelevant. I answered your nine point request for evidence in what I thought was a helpful and constructive way.

I fail to see what else now I can do.

Iain

-

From: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM
To: iain.dale@totalpolitics.com
Cc: Shane Greer, Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Iain Dale , Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

To be clear: I do not regard this repeated offer of yours to be in any way reasonable, but I do agree we are talking in circles.

You base your repeated accusations of stalking on evidence you can’t produce or won’t discuss. You do recall citing my attempt to contact Shane Greer as evidence of my harassing you, yes?

Unless you’d care to admit that your accusation had no foundation, I am going to address the justifications you use to prop them up, and that includes what you said and did about Dorries, Mercer and Milton, because it is these accusations that Wightman is hiding behind.

If you still don’t understand that, I hope to explain myself better in a further email, and will explain carefully what I expect and need from you or others.

Please do not risk any repeat of the implication that this is not an urgent matter, and/or not being treated by me as an urgent matter; I am wary of wasting what may well be my final chance to address this through the criminal justice system, and there’s stuff going on that’s none of your business and eating up a lot of my time.

Tim

-

From: Shane Greer
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM
To: Tim Ireland , Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Iain Dale , Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating
Dear all,

My email earlier was intended to encourage you in what I felt at the time was a reasonably productive engagement between the individuals in this thread. For what it’s worth, I still wish you all the best of luck.

However, given Tim’s aggressive reaction to my email, I see no reason for my continued involvement.

I will not be reading any future emails in this thread.

Best,
Shane

-

From: Iain Dale
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:49 PM
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Shane Greer, Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

Well that’s me told. I too have little time at the moment (for reasons which will soon become clear) and feel I have gone out of my way to be conciliatory. If you continually write in this aggressive way do you really expect anyone to cooperate? Perhaps your friends might impress on you the fact that if you continue in this confrontational manner you will get precisely nowhere.

From Thursday I am abroad for 5 days and won’t be responding to emails. Especially ones like the ones below.

From: Tim Ireland
Sent: 14 September 2010 18:47
To: Iain Dale
Cc: Shane Greer; Sunny Hundal; Dizzy Thinks; Iain Dale; Richard Bartholomew; Justin McKeating
Subject: Re: [evidence request for Iain and any related discussion]

To be clear: I do not regard this repeated offer of yours to be in any way reasonable, but I do agree we are talking in circles.

You base your repeated accusations of stalking on evidence you can’t produce or won’t discuss. You do recall citing my attempt to contact Shane Greer as evidence of my harassing you, yes?

Unless you’d care to admit that your accusation had no foundation, I am going to address the justifications you use to prop them up, and that includes what you said and did about Dorries, Mercer and Milton, because it is these accusations that Wightman is hiding behind.

If you still don;t understand that, I hope to explain myself better in a further email, and will explain carefully what I expect and need from you or others.

Please do not risk any repeat of the implication that this is not an urgent matter, and/or not being treated by me as an urgent matter; I am wary of wasting what may well be my final chance to address this through the criminal justice system, and there’s stuff going on that’s none of your business and eating up a lot of my time.

Tim

-

From: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:18 PM
To: Iain Dale
Cc: Shane Greer, Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

Iain, I do not think you are cooperating, and I tire of being berated for being aggressive etc. when it the repeated accusations published by some on this list that had contributed so much to this threat, especially when they have nothing to support it and no wish to talk about the circumstances that led to the opinion they know is being passed off as fact.

What I originally wanted from you was your contribution to a statement; you claim to be unaware of this and want to call police (or – at a stretch – have them call you) and wing it when you have already shown a complete refusal to back down in any way on your assertion that I stalked you and three MPs (Further, you expect me to trust you on this after what you did after agreeing to call Mercer?)

You also berate me for wasting time when it has taken you a year and a half to even explain yourself.

If you are not even willing to take a position on Milton, Mercer and Dorries, where does that leave us? YOU published the accusations yourself and/or contributed to their accusations.

Tim

-

From: Iain Dale
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:27 PM
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Shane Greer, Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

I’m going to leave it to everyone else to decide who has been co-operating and who has been aggressive. What a pity the olive branch has been picked up and slapped in all our faces. Perhaps I shouldn’t have expected anything else, but you know, I did.

If you really can write “Further, you expect me to trust you on this after what you did after agreeing to call Mercer?” after the lengths I have gone to to explain in great detail what happened on that in previous emails here, then I despair. I don’t think there is anything now I could ever say to you that you would either accept or believe. If that is the case, we might as well call it a day now and not waste any further time.

Everyone else on this thread has gone silent recently. It might be helpful to have some interventions from others, because clearly we are now at an impasse, wholly, I would suggest of Tim’s making.

I won’t be contributing any further at this stage.

Iain

-

From: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:34 PM
To: Iain Dale
Cc: Shane Greer, Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

Well, I was going to run the next part by the list but I fail to see the point now.

Rest assured that, although I am forced to go public again from this point, the Chatham House Rule will be respected…. all that [has] been shared in confidence will be kept in confidence.

But I will not tolerate any description of my demeanour outside this list that I cannot challenge because of any agreed need for private discussion; that itself would be a major violation of trust.

Tim

-

From: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM
To: Iain Dale
Cc: Shane Greer, Sunny Hundal, Dizzy Thinks [Phil Hendren], Richard Bartholomew, Justin McKeating

As I said, I was going to run much of the ‘state of play’ content in this account by the list, but there was little point:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2010/09/house-of-cards/

Regrettable, but here we are.

I’m greatly disappointed that these measures are required, and that so much time and effort has been wasted, but perhaps some of you can take comfort that you’ve only wasted some of your week; Wightman and those who continue to provide him with cover have robbed me of well over a year.

Tim

Well, there you have it. Iain Dale and Shane Greer were confronted with material that Wightman was relying on in his attacks on me (i.e. material that is presently the subject of a police investigation), but they refused to discuss this material, never mind substantiate or retract it, despite their knowledge that my family were at risk. Then, and today, their highest priority was saving their reputations, and that of Dale’s junk mail magazine Total Politics.

As a final note, for those who are new to all of this, here is what Iain Dale describes as ‘calling Mercer’.

Iain Dale deliberately exposed me to danger, abuse and ridicule knowing he couldn’t back up any of what he had said, done or published, and he continues to do so today. The same applies to his dirtbag mates Shane Greer and Phil Hendren, and a small crowd of lesser Tory limpets.

Proof: Nadine Dorries lies about police investigations [UPDATED]

[NOTE - Please see the close of this post for an important update.]

The results of my information request to Bedfordshire police are in, and it doesn’t look at all good for Nadine Dorries, who has repeatedly claimed that she reported me to police for harassment in both London and Bedfordshire, and further claimed that this resulted in a police investigation into my activities.

I can now prove that Nadine Dorries made these claims without EVER making a valid complaint/report to police about my conduct, and this development changes matters significantly.

Dorries’ repeated accusations and implications that I stalked/harassed her (and was recognised by police as a danger to her) are highly damaging and downright dangerous, and now she can’t even claim that she was merely mistaken or confused on a couple of points; her entire account was an invention.

Nadine Dorries, a lawmaker still endorsed by the Conservative party, told lies about a police investigation that never took place and made repeated misrepresentations in the name of two police forces, and did so when she knew she had not even made a complaint about me (or that the police had rejected her claims to such an extent that it didn’t even generate a preliminary reference number).

Worse; she did this repeatedly for personal/political gain while knowing that she has been contributing to an actual campaign of harassment (the subject of a series of genuine reports to police and actual police investigations), and knowing that the people targeting me claim to do so on her behalf, often in direct response to her allegations. Dorries has even linked to the site of one of the main ringleaders (where he reveals the exact location of my home) and sought to make contact with this person.

There’ll be more than a few new readers as a result of this latest revelation, so it’s time for a long-overdue summary of events/circumstances before I get to the meat of this sandwich. Please bear with me.

Background and recent developments

Nadine Dorries is the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire. In the past week or so, it was revealed that she was in a “romantic” (see: sexual) relationship with another woman’s husband. To defend her position, Dorries published claims that the wife of her boyfriend was a violent/abusive alcoholic who had an affair with an Australian riverboat captain. No, I’m not kidding.

Shocked to find herself still under fire, she went on to claim that her husband* also had an affair. As with many of the claims she has been making recently, this one is based on her version of events that took place a decade ago. Dorries claims she never mentioned it before now for the sake of her children.

(*It is unclear at this stage if she and Paul Dorries are still married, divorced, or if they were never married in the first place. Perhaps someone would care to ask her a direct and specific question about it.)

Dorries now finds herself repeatedly branded a liar in the Daily Mail, the same newspaper that previously supported this far-right MP, her ‘controversial’ views on abortion, and many of her attacks on political enemies… but still she continues to defend her position and attack her detractors with all-too-personal revelations, shocking distortions and wholly unsupported allegations.

This approach is entirely typical of Dorries; she plays ruthlessly with the reputations of those she perceives as enemies, mostly with deeply personal attacks containing untruths ranging from distortions to outright lies.

I know this from bitter experience; after I observed this behaviour and had the audacity to report on it, Dories accused me of stalking/harassing her, two other Conservative MPs, and her friend Iain Dale.

Anne Milton, Patrick Mercer, and Iain Dale

I want to deal with the latter series of accusations first, if I may, just to remove any doubts new readers may have, then we’ll crack on. Promise.

Dorries claimed that I stalked numerous MPs, repeatedly naming Conservative MPs Anne Milton and Patrick Mercer. She specifically claimed that I had “harangued the MP for Croydon*, Anne Milton, to the point where she had to involve the police.”

(*Anne Milton is the MP for Guildford, not Croydon.)

There was (and is) no complaint against me involving either of these MPs. The truth is that activists/associates connected to both of these MPs harassed me or others to such an extent that I had to involve the police. On four separate occasions.

Anne Milton’s lot published a series of anonymous sites/comments smearing a Lib Dem opponent as a paedophile and me as a hacker and computer criminal; as part of the latter effort they named the company I worked for (along with a list of clients), claimed I had been dismissed for downloading porn at work and made a series of entirely untrue claims about my personal life, including my wife and my children specifically. When she became aware of this, Anne Milton conducted a full internal investigation then referred the matter to police. Just kidding; she did nothing to stop it, and went on to endorse both men as candidates for local council.

Patrick Mercer’s lot published a series of anonymous comments/sites smearing me as a paedophile, then as an associate of religious extremists and a traitor to this country, then as a stalker of women who sends death threats to MPs. The latter group of – get this – amateur anti-terrorism activists (all of whom previously worked for/with Mercer) have been the subject of three investigations relating to harassment targeting not only me, but my wife and my children. The investigation into the latter events is ongoing at the time of writing. More on this soon.

Neither Anne Milton or Patrick Mercer are willing to speak up and contradict Dorries for reasons that should be obvious (they would subsequently have to face the consequences of their actions and those of their associates/activists), so they leave me exposed to these accusations for entirely political reasons, but they cannot and will not support Dorries with evidence of my stalking/harassing them, because there is none.

The same applies to wannabe-MP and friend of Dorries, Iain Dale, who was recently forced to admit that he hasn’t reported me to police for harassment either, despite repeated claims of this action that he has used to assure others of my guilt. (Dale’s position on ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is entirely flexible depending mainly on if he is talking about his political enemies or his political allies.)

Dale has also repeatedly been in a position where he could prevent the harassment targeting me and has repeatedly sought to worsen the problem rather than resolve it, even to the extent of refusing to cooperate with a series of police investigations.

Iain Dale refused cooperation when I was being smeared as a paedophile, he refused cooperation when one of the people targeting was confirmed by police as a suicide risk and greatly agitated by claims published on Dale’s blog that Dale knew to be false, and he refused cooperation when others targeting me were threatening to come to my home and start a fist fight. He even initially refused cooperation when he was informed that the campaign had extended to targeting my children, and only consented to a carefully limited discussion in the face of the overwhelming negative publicity that followed my going public with this. He now pretends that a single useless offer he made between police investigations amounts to cooperation during all of them, and that he was unaware of the people targeting me prior to this offer of ‘cooperation’. This too amounts to nothing more than yet another bunch of lies from one of the most petty and deceitful bastards I have ever known.

Iain Dale is also the main public source of the earliest accusations that I stalked Anne Milton and Nadine Dorries. He continues to publish this on his site as a statement of fact while privately defending it as opinion based on evidence he refuses to discuss, never mind produce. Further, the accusation of “electronic stalking” made by Patrick Mercer appears to be based mainly on Dale’s claims, and not his own personal experience. Dale is also more than likely to have influenced Dorries’ decision to rely on this smear in the face of mounting evidence that she lied about her expenses claims.

Iain Dale has the audacity to present all of this as a ‘no smoke without fire’ situation when he knows damn well that he is the primary source of the smoke.

Now, getting back to Dorries, as promised:

Dorries did not tell anything near the truth when she made these accusations; if anything it is near the opposite of the truth. The same applies to her accusations about my stalking/harassing her; in accusing me of stalking/harassing her, Dorries has provided ammunition for the people harassing me.

This is not a matter of her word against mine or my opinion differing from hers; I can produce evidence and crime reference numbers in support of everything I put to you here and in earlier posts; Dorries, by contrast, will only answer questions about her accusations by repeating the accusations and hiding behind them; i.e. she will often claim he cannot discuss the evidence of my stalking her because I am stalking her.

Here is a perfect example:

“I have had to report him to the Met police on two occasions, and one of them is under investigation, and I’m really sorry, but this is a case.” – Nadine Dorries

But none of what Dorries has claimed about this is true. It is a calculated, damaging and highly dangerous smear that she has repeatedly broadcast to hide her lies and corruption from the public. Most of these lies have to do with some difficult questions about her expenses.

Dorries lying about her expenses and/or living arrangements

During the 2010 General Election, Nadine Dorries was under investigation by the Parliamentary Standards Authority for her expenses claims. To avoid damaging admissions at events where she faced questions from the public, Dorries would tell the electorate things that were technically true but wholly misleading. (An example; she would say she did not have a mortgage and therefore could not have ‘flipped’ homes… when the matter being investigated in her case was rental payments and the suspected switching of ‘main’ homes for immoral/illegal monetary gain.)

It was in these circumstances that I was invited by constituents to attend the final Mid Beds hustings event before polling day and record/broadcast the event on video.

I later discovered that Dorries had made a series of demands of the organisers of this event that would result in her arriving late and leaving early, without facing any direct questions from the public, and without having to face a write-up of the event in local papers before the election. This alone was extraordinary behaviour in relation to an event designed to accommodate more than one self-important candidate, but when Dorries discovered that it was me operating the camera equipment she went ballistic, instructed her staff to call police and demanded that I be thrown out.

When this didn’t happen, Dorries interrupted the meeting (twice) to claim that I was guilty of stalking other MPs and under investigation by police for stalking her, before storming out.

To this day, the only evidence Dorries has presented to support this accusation was my presence at the same event where she claimed a police investigation was already underway.

Please keep this attempted distortion of time in mind, because it is a favourite tactic of Dorries. In fact, what follows is a clear example:

Dorries closed her site and Twitter account almost immediately after winning her seat in the subsequent election. When confronted about the Flitwick event by the local press, she said she had been forced to close her online presence on the advice of police, and sought to portray me not only as a stalker, but as a person with a violent, criminal character; she claimed to have received advice specifically about me and the danger I presented to her, but only decided to close her web accounts after the stabbing of the MP Stephen Timms. It was soon established that Dorries closed her web accounts a week before Timms was stabbed; it could not have been part of her decision-making process, and was clearly included to damage me further and make her sob-story more compelling.

Months passed, and it turned out that Nadine Dorries was indeed being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for potential expenses fraud. The main issue raised by the Commissioner was her blog; entries on it repeatedly gave the impression that Dorries resided mainly in the constituency, when she had made substantial claims on the basis that her constituency home was her second home.

Dorries explained this discrepancy to the Commissioner by claiming that 70% of her blog was fiction, and that she had given a false impression to her constituents (and her local association) about her living arrangements for entirely political reasons; i.e. to give the impression she lived in her constituency and spent a great deal of time there.

Crucially, Nadine Dorries made no mention of stalking in this decision-making process when presenting evidence to the Commissioner. The only mention of anything approaching harassment involved some unpublished claims about her neighbours who dared to testify that she stayed in her ‘second’ home most nights, and a moan about a Telegraph reporter paying her ‘undue’ attention.

But when the Commissioner’s report was published, Dorries was surprised (!) by the backlash in response to her self-confessed deception of the electorate. She then claimed that she meant “30% fiction” all along, and then back-pedalled to the point where everything on her blog was true, with the exception of some minor changes for the sake of security. It was at this stage that she relied heavily on a story distributed widely in the media about an ongoing problem with stalkers that necessitated little white lies about where she was exactly and what she was doing specifically. As part of this story, Dorries claimed to be the target of four stalkers and named me as the primary stalker.

Here we return to the tactic of time distortion; the entries that Dorries claims were edited to throw stalkers of the scent were published BEFORE any concern she claimed to have about stalking. Further, Dorries sought to make much of a single visit to her constituency by myself and another critic, but there is no evidence of Dorries facing anything like the pursuit that would necessitate the kind of tactical deceit she describes. (Though she had earlier implied that the late Frank Branston, then the Mayor of Bedford, was lurking inappropriately outside her constituency home.)

Also, much if not all of the information queried by the Commissioner would be entirely useless to anyone wanting to physically pursue Dorries, not least because so much of it was published after the fact.

Further, prior to this claim and many times after this claim, Dorries has been woefully indiscreet about her comings and goings, often giving advance notice of her movements. She has also spoken mockingly and gleefully of my concerns about this being dismissed by the Mid Bedfordshire Conservative Association chairman as the work of a ‘nutter’. These are not the acts of someone who is genuinely concerned about someone wanting to do them a damage and operating according to specific police advice; police do not often advise that you poke such people with a stick.

But there is more damning evidence to do with the claims she has made about this supposed police advice, and the last segment of it arrived in the mail recently.

Dorries lying about police involvement/investigations

Nadine Dorries claimed she reported me repeatedly to the London Metropolitan Police for harassment. Dorries also claimed that she reported me to Bedfordshire Police for harassment, and even made an entirely nonsensical claim on behalf of their Chief Constable (see; “triggering section 5 of the Public Disorder Act”).

I made FOI/DPA request to both forces so I might see what they had on file about me. Last year, I blogged about the response from the London Met, who showed NO record of ANY complaint/report against me.

The result from Bedfordshire police is in… and they too show NO record of ANY complaint/report against me. [see: UPDATE]

The one, single, solitary scrap of data that Bedfordshire Police revealed was exactly what I expected to see; the information I volunteered when I approached the police officer who attended the hustings event at Flitwick (i.e. where Dorries claimed I was already under investigation by police for harassing her).

In fact, the only evidence Dorries offers today that I stalked her is my presence at the event where she claimed I was already under police investigation.

(BTW, it was a public event, I was invited by locals, I had the permission of organisers, and I have plenty of witnesses to support this. So even if she can establish that I have a functioning time machine, she’s got nothing to go on.)

Dorries has repeatedly failed to produce any of the reference numbers that would have resulted from a valid report/complaint, and now I know why… she NEVER made one.

This is the final piece of the puzzle, and it makes everything Dorries has said and done about this look a thousand times worse.

Dorries has not only repeatedly lied about reporting me to police for harassment; when she claimed there was a police investigation as a result of one of her complaints, she knew this to be a calculated, deliberate lie. There is no room for confusion on this front (unless we are to accept that Dorries is so delusional as to be unfit for office).

Worse still; I am the target of actual harassment that is at present the subject of an actual police investigation, and Dorries knows this and knowingly contributes to the problem with her lies.

Dorries contributing to actual harassment

One of the subjects of this investigation has repeated the claim that I stalk/stalked Nadine Dorries and others alongside details of where I live. There have been further publications related to this same campaign of harassment making false claims designed to disrupt my marriage and my family life, and others accusing my children of criminal damage. One of the most alarming publications involves an account where the main ringleader targeting me describes giving locals a guided tour of my street so they might see the front door of the stalker living in their midst. This same account provides the reader with everything they need to turn up at my house should they decide to take an interest. The same author has accused me of involvement in religious extremism, hardcore pornography and paedophilia.

Many of you may be unaware of a further complicating factor; I now do extensive volunteer work with a children’s charity. The people who supervise my work are fully abreast of this situation, and very understanding, but I have already been in a position where I have had to explain a few things to some curious young Google users, and I am sure it is only a matter of time before concerned parents/guardians take an interest. Worse, I have been unable to blog any details about the work I have been doing in support of this charity because of a series of bastard Tories intent on destroying my reputation because I dared to expose their lies and corruption. (‘Big Society’, my arse.)

Nadine Dorries has gone beyond refusing to cooperate with the relevant police investigation (see: Iain Dale); she has involved herself with the primary subject of that investigation, even inviting email contact, and linking to the website where he reveals the location of my home.

Further, there can no longer be any doubt that Dorries told a deliberate lie about police reports that were never made and a police investigation that never took place, and it is clear she has done this repeatedly to avoid the fallout from questions arising from her expenses claims.

(NOTE – The Sunday Times yesterday reported that this matter has now been referred to the CPS by police. This is not the only police investigation that Dorries has been the subject of recently.)

Dorries has even gone so far as to suggest that I have been following her around, further implying that police gave her advice because they feared I might be/turn violent. She has done this knowing that there are people out there repeating her claims alongside my home address in the hopes of prompting violence against me and/or making me fearful of same.

If Nadine Dorries has ever received any advice from police about harassment, it was entirely generic. If she hasn’t invented the relevant conversation, she has wholly misrepresented it.

If Nadine Dorries ever called police to complain about my conduct, even with the lily-gilding that’s inevitable with any account given by Dorries, it never went to the stage where any officer suspected a crime may have occurred. If it had, Dorries would have been provided with at least a preliminary reference number if not a crime reference number.

Dorries was challenged to produce any such reference number. She failed to do so. Eventually, she promised to go and ask a Chief Constable for something she should already have had on file and/or could get within an hour by calling the switchboard like a lesser mortal. I suspect she responded to this challenge by making a further attempt at a complaint in order to generate a reference number so she could again play games with her magic time machine. Here, I invite you to read between the lines of the post by Dorries that followed this promise with another series of entirely false allegations and further accusations of harassment:

“I am an elected member Tim. You harass me on an almost daily basis, including my staff and my Chairman. I am expected, even though you aren’t one of my constituents, to take it. I am expected to tolerate your inappropriate level of intense attention, as were the MPs you harassed before me.” – Nadine Dorries

The best Dorries can say is that she complained about me to police very recently, only to be told that my behaviour was entirely within reasonable and legal boundaries. And yet she and her dirtbag mates continue to spread the lie that I stalked/harassed her and others. I suspect she will later attempt to defend it by claiming she meant ‘harassment’ in an entirely different sense, but there is no escaping the fact that Dorries talked about this as if it were the subject of a police investigation, when she had no reason to think or even suspect that an investigation was in progress.

What Nadine Dorries has repeatedly broadcast is a calculated lie that she had repeatedly sought to rely on so I might serve as her alibi for her failure to properly account for her expenses claims; she did it at Flitwick to avoid going on the record about her expenses claims, and she did it again as the closure of the Commissioner’s investigation into those same expenses claims.

Further, Dorries and her supporters appear determined to continue to smear me as a danger to her and others regardless of any attention I may grant her (see: the 70% defence) and the stated intent of at least one individual is to harangue me to the point where I am forced to leave the country.

Finally, to be clear on this point, despite all the accusations from this small circle of far-right Conservatives, there has never been a single, credible complaint against me about anything like this, even to the point where police have taken a mild interest. I have an entirely clean record, and unlike some of Dorries’ more ardent supporters, I do not have a hostile/irrational nature or a history of violence.

Will the Conservative party continue to turn a blind eye?

Here I will remind you that Dorries is supposed to serve the public as a lawmaker, but I have contacted CCHQ about this and been repeatedly fobbed off; the Conservative Party are aware she has lied about a police investigation that never took place, and they continue to endorse her. It’s clear she will sail through any complaint process with the all-too-accommodating Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and there is no point reporting her conduct to a Speaker whose authority she rejects.

I’m really quite surprised and alarmed that the system does not work better to protect the public from MPs bound to serve them even when those MPs go entirely off the rails, but here we are; if CCHQ continue to pretend that none of this is happening, I am left with no option I can see but civil action against Dorries. This activity may have to extend to concurrent/further action against Dale, Mercer and Milton.

The problem with this remaining option is that Dorries is notorious for battling mere criticism with counter-accusations, and I suspect she is likely to counter-sue. Even if every one of her counter-accusations turns out to be entirely unsupportable, I would need to take a very long journey through a time-consuming legal battle to establish that, and even with a firm likely to take this case on a pro bono publico basis (no comment on specifics, sorry), this will involve an enormous investment of my time.

I am confident that the evidence supports everything I have published about Dorries (and others), but to establish this I would need to complete this long journey; the prior deceitful conduct of Dorries and her supporters (Dale in particular) makes it clear that any cessation prior to victory in court will be portrayed as a victory for Dorries and a vindication of her position, which will leave me right back where I started; with Dorries and a small gang of Conservative wannabes and hangers-on gleefully repeating a smear that puts me at risk, and puts my family at risk.

The staff of Baroness Warsi, Conservative Party Chairman, are aware of all of this bar the most recent revelation (even though they pretend otherwise). I will be contacting them again today in an effort to have them moderate Dorries behaviour and force a public apology, or withdraw the whip.

If this effort fails, it is very likely that my next conversation with you will be about long term plans for fundraising so I might have the time/capacity to take Dorries on in the courts.

-

UPDATE – I’m sure you’ll be amazed to learn that the staff of Baroness Warsi fobbed me off yet again today. The same thing happened in 2006 when I contacted Anne Milton’s office (and then CCHQ) with evidence that her activists were smearing a young man as a paedophile. The same thing happened in 2009 when I contacted Patrick Mercer’s office (and then CCHQ) with details of his associate(s) smearing me as a paedophile. I know what comes next if I dare to press the point; Warsi and/or her staff cry ‘stalker’ either privately or publicly. Meanwhile, I’m supposed to take my medicine and keep my mouth shut and Warsi gets to pretend that she was never informed, the poor dear. The ‘Tory scum’ chant appears wholly justified from where I’m standing.

-

IMPORTANT UPDATE (20 Jan) – It turns out there is, at present, a police investigation. Police had not contacted me about it until yesterday (19 Jan 2011). It relates specifically to the hustings event at Flitwick. There is no crime reference number for this as yet, because there is no crime. I was perfectly happy to speak with police and answer their questions (and I still am), but there is very little I can share publicly about it at this stage, and police didn’t raise anything that I haven’t already published/addressed (as text or video), so you’re not missing much.

Obviously, this revelation does not change or undermine the central thrust of this post or the vast majority of what I specifically assert in it. If it had, significant changes would have been made to the headline and body of this post to reflect this. For now, this update will suffice, as nothing has changed about the following:

Dorries made her accusation about there being an investigation in progress at a time when no relevant police force can confirm her ever having made a complaint. I still intend to hold her to account for that, as you should.

-

FURTHER UPDATE (19 May)That investigation closed with police finding NO evidence of harassment or stalking, but Dorries, inexplicably, continues to imply otherwise. Nadine Dorries has been making most if not all of this ‘stalking’ nonsense up, and it is well past time for her to stop.

-