Tim is the sole author of Bloggerheads.
Posts by Tim Ireland
30th Apr 2012
From the outset, I would like to make clear that I have both a legitimate personal and public interest argument for outing the author of the Twitter account @TabloidTroll (aka ‘tabloidman’) in that the account has been used (a) to libel me, and (b) to engage in abusive and circumstantial ad hominem attacks on a series of witnesses/contributors to the Leveson Inquiry, including Richard Peppiatt, Tom Watson, Hugh Grant, and those attached to the Guardian, the Media Standards Trust, and the ‘Hacked Off’ campaign.
The author of the @TabloidTroll account portrays himself as an ‘industry mole’ and this kind of behaviour as ‘whistle blowing’, even to the extent of claiming that outing him would be a criminal offence under something he calls the ‘Whistleblower Act’. This is a risk I am willing to take, not least because the Whistleblower Protection Act only applies in the United States, and though here in the UK we do have something called the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, it has no bearing on my position, or what I am about to disclose.
Last Sunday, a Direct Message was sent to the registered account holder for @TabloidTroll. It contained a unique URL leading to a page on my website. The recipient visited that URL, and my site, and replied to the DM confirming that he had done this.
Very soon after this, I emailed Dennis Rice of Dennis Rice Media Limited (Twitter: @DennisRiceMedia, Site: moneyforyourstory.com, Company No: 06646525) and asked him for his response to the already-public allegations that he was the author of @TabloidTroll.
The IP address of the person who received the Direct Message for @TabloidTroll (and subsequently visited my site) was exactly the same as that used by Dennis Rice to read and respond to my email.
Here we turn to key extracts* from the relevant correspondence, and I will remind you that at this stage, Dennis Rice is only responding to the already-public allegations that he is the author of Tabloid Troll:
(*There were further questions put to Dennis Rice that I choose not to publish at this time, mainly to keep this article focused on the core evidence, and not what I may or may not suspect about motive, or his involvement in further anonymous accounts.)
Dennis… Do you have any comment to make about your alleged involvement with the Twitter account ‘@TabloidTroll’? On what basis would you claim/imply that the anonymity of someone behind an account like @TabloidTroll is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act?
Dear Tim – I am of course aware of Tabloidman, as I follow his/her tweets. I certainly am not, nor have ever been, him/her. Any suggestion that I am would be both untrue and damaging to my freelance employment in the national press and to my personal reputation. As regards the Whistleblower Act I have to confess I am unaware of such an Act – though I am prepared to take you on your word that such an Act exists. I have not the faintest idea how one could apply it to Twitter… Hope this clears this up for you. Best Regards, Dennis.
Thank you, Dennis, for your reply. I would like to be very clear on your denial, if you don’t mind… Would you consider it correct and accurate to say that aside from following the account on Twitter using @dennisricemedia, you have NO connection to the @TabloidTroll account at all? That it’s not run by you, or anyone close/known to you? That’s it’s not an account you have any access to in any way?
Dear Tim – I am not Tabloidman, or whatever he/she is called. I repeat that stating I am would be profoundly damaging. That is all I am going to say on the matter. My lawyers will deal with anything anyone would be foolish enough to print – alleging or otherwise – that I am. Thanks for your time.
Note that the second denial pulls up short of denying a connection to the @TabloidTroll account that might include a claim that an unnamed ‘friend’ runs the account (i.e. in much the same way that Andrew Gilligan claimed that an unnamed “partner” was behind a sock puppet using the name ‘kennite’ to praise his work and attack his enemies).
Note also that at this stage, Dennis Rice has no clue that the IP data he has just provided indicates that he is the main account holder for @TabloidTroll when it is balanced against the Direct Message to that account and the subsequent visit to a unique URL on my site.
So on Monday I emailed Dennis Rice, as per my obligations as a publisher, in an attempt to disclose and discuss not the mere allegation of his connection to the @TabloidTroll account, but the evidence tying him to it:
My apologies for bothering you with a further question, but my website statistics show a visit from your IP/device yesterday. Would you mind awfully confirming which page(s) you visited, when you visited them, and how you came to be aware of the URL you visited first last night?
The email was read, but Dennis Rice offered no reply.
However, soon after this, the @TabloidTroll account was used to make contact with the Twitter account that sent the Direct Message containing the URL/visit that Dennis Rice had just been asked about; this message from @TabloidTroll requested the phone number of the sender of the Direct Message (!) and when this was refused with a counter offer of email correspondence, contact ceased.
So on Wednesday I contacted Dennis Rice again by email:
Dear Dennis – Let us both acknowledge the reason why you have no ready answer for your visit to my site on Sunday and simultaneously cut to the chase: I intend to publish an article naming you as the person behind @tabloidtroll on Twitter and would be grateful if you could answer the following questions… [snip questions]… I require a response by 5pm on Thursday 27th April 2012.
The email was read (this time from three vastly different locations in the UK), but there was no reply.
By this time, Richard Peppiatt and Tom Watson had been advised of my findings, and my intention to publish them.
On Friday, the @TabloidTroll account was used to have yet another anonymous pop at Tom Watson, and Tom responded with a probing question based on his knowledge of an undisclosed settlement paid to Dennis Rice by News International. Key tweets from the relevant exchange appear below.
(If you are a regular here at Bloggerheads, you are about to experience a glorious pay-off. Pun intended.)
tom_watson – @tabloidtroll when did you last receive a payment from news international?
tabloidtroll – @tom_watson saying I am in the pay of News Int is also actionable. Whatever happened to the days when our MPs had brains? Deep sigh.
tom_watson – @tabloidtroll Did you not get your settlement for appearing in Glenn’s notebooks? No need to answer.
tabloidtroll – @tom_watson @dennisricemedia Ha, not you too? Ricey told me about the loon stalking him. Be careful of the company you keep.
tabloidtroll – @tom_watson Think Thames Valley Police will want to talk to you. They are currently investigating your (clearly unchecked) source.
1. ‘Ricey’. Because they’re mates. Not the same person, but mates. (rolls eyes) On that note, here’s one of my very favourite tweets; ‘Ricey’ bigging it up for his old mate @TabloidTroll (in reponse to a series of tweets about ‘Hacked Off’ including ugly insinuations about the Guardian and the Scott Trust, the Financial Times and Pearson, the Media Standards Trust, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs):
dennisricemedia – I think @tabloidtroll is raising some interesting questions tonight. We shouldn’t have a body asking for more accountability yet not itself
2. I immediately checked with Thames Valley Police and I can confirm what most regulars will already suspect, given the reliable patterns of behaviour exhibited by those who seek to gain personally or politically from the use of multiple/false identities:
a) Yes, after initially denying it, when confronted with hard evidence linking him to a web account used to bully people anonymously, Dennis Rice went to police and accused me of criminal behaviour. The exact nature of the allegation is unknown at this stage, but it would appear to centre on harassment, and not the phantom Whistleblower Act.
b) Yes, Dennis Rice also declared there to be a police investigation in progress (implying some level of guilt on my part) when all that had happened at that stage was he had contacted police, and his complaint had been logged by police.
Should an officer be assigned to the matter on the basis that a potential crime is suspected, I look forward to discussing the matter with them and inviting them to investigate the matter so fully as to determine the likely authorship of the @tabloidtroll account for themselves… assuming that Lord Justice Leveson doesn’t take an interest before then.
Well, I’ve kept you long enough already. Those who are uncertain about the full ramifications of Dennis Rice being intimately involved with the @TabloidTroll account (if not the sole author of same) are invited to search for ‘tabloidtroll’ using Snapbird (which will give you access to some 2000+ tweets much faster than Twitter will) and comparing the output to that of ‘dennisricemedia’.
You may also choose to balance this against the kind of material Dennis Rice produces and the publications he sells this material to.
On a final note, touching for but a moment on my own chosen profession, you are also invited to witness the first tweets by Dennis Rice and gaze in wonder at the emergence of an SEO and online marketing genius (link):
UPDATE – The twitter account previously at @DennisRiceMedia has been renamed and rendered private, robbing the public of the capacity to balance that output against that of @TabloidTroll. Aw.
UPDATE (24 May) – Near to a month has been wasted while I have patiently waited for Thames Valley Police to respond to a complaint from Dennis Rice, but I rather suspect that this was the point of the exercise. Through @tabloidtroll, Dennis even declared there to be an investigation in progress when there was no investigation (i.e. as if his call to police triggered an immediate response that somehow established my guilt). Here’s a sample of relevant tweets:
Technically, an investigation did take place very recently (and very briefly), but in the words of Thames Valley Police I was “not a suspect” and they had “no intention of interviewing me or anything like that”. So, now that Thames Valley Police have established what any experienced reporter should have known all along, I present to you the complete and unedited contents of the email from me that Dennis Rice portrayed as a ‘nuisance message’ before pretending that police suspected my acts to be criminal in nature:
To: Dennis Rice
From: Tim Ireland
Date: Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Let us both acknowledge the reason why you have no ready answer for your visit to my site on Sunday and simultaneously cut to the chase:
I intend to publish an article naming you as the person behind @tabloidtroll on Twitter and would be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. Have you received payments from any subsidiary or associated companies of News Corporation in each/either of the last two years?
2. You were named as a target for Glenn Mulcaire. Have you received any out of court settlements from News Corporation or subsidiary or associated companies? If yes, did you sign a confidentiality agreement?
3. Have you been commissioned to write articles, provide commentary or produce content for social media regarding the hacking scandal and the people involved with the investigation?
4. Have you been contracted to work for any PR companies who are contracted to News Corporation or any of its subsidiary or associated companies?
5. Is there anything else you would like to say regarding your decision to establish a pseudonymous twitter account?
6. To what extent were you inspired by Glen Jenvey in your ‘sell your story’ initiative, which you must recognise is very similar to his?
(Note: Jenvey began sellyourstory.org in July 2008, I reported that initiative on my site in January 2009, and moneyforyourstory.com was registered in February 2009)
7. Would you care to clarify or retract your remarks – published through the @tabloidtroll account – about my “sinister” conduct as a blogger, the “little dodgy stunts” you claim to have seen evidence of in multiple copies of Private Eye, and my behaviour toward Patrick Mercer in relation to what you describe as the “manipulation” of an unnamed “far right activist”?
I require a response by 5pm on Thursday 27th April 2012.
For the record, the only answer Dennis Rice has offered to any of these questions is; “Help! Police!”
Well, police don’t think it’s any of their business, despite what Mr Rice claimed through the ‘Tabloid Troll’ account, so he is invited once again to answer any or all of them.
(Sorry it’s in public this time, Dennis old bean, but you brought this on yourself. If you want the luxury of private questions or advance notice of anything I intend to publish about you in future, the onus is on you to either clarify your position regarding your willingness to accept correspondence, or provide me with contact details for a lawyer or equally appropriate third party. You know how to reach me.)
20th Apr 2012
The following is the full and unedited text of an email sent to the named officer and the media department for Bedfordshire Police in response to their repeated failure/refusal to take action against false allegations made by the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries (and others) against me (and others).
I have on multiple occasions requested from Bedfordshire Police the detail of several false, damaging and often downright dangerous allegations made against me, the majority of which have since been proven to be innacurate accounts and gross distortions where they have not been suspected lies if not demonstrable lies. You have shown no interest in any of these findings, despite multiple indicators that you have been lied to by a Member of Parliament who you know damn well has repeatedly gone on to completely misrepresent the outcome of an investigation by your officers for entirely political purposes.
(You even appear unwilling to ask a single question of a third party that would quickly establish that this MP definitely lied to you. An initial failure to ask this question might indicate incompetence; a refusal to ask it stinks of corruption.)
Among the false allegations passed to Bedfordshire Police; fabricated evidence with the obvious intention of give people the false idea that I am clinically psychotic, and a danger to others.
After failing to disclose an instance of this being passed directly to your investigating officer(s) during an investigation, Bedfordshire Police then failed to disclose it again in response to a legitimate subject access request after that investigation, and you now claim that you cannot disclose any detail about its source because of a further investigation.
If this fabricated evidence has any bearing on your current investigation, then why are you not investigating its origins?
If it it not relevant to your current investigation, then on what grounds do you refuse disclosure today?
I believe this evidence has a direct bearing on a current investigation by Surrey Police; it forms part of my complaint, and I would like to know on what grounds you refuse me the data I require to make them fully aware of its significance. This point is epecially important given that Terry Davis appears to have passed it to Surrey Police minus any real context (after making no sincere attempt to determine its origins), and they failed to investigate it as a result.
Like you, Surrey Police also refused to disclose this fabricated evidence to me in response to a subject access request under the Data Protection Act, and had I not pressed the matter, I would never have discovered that Bedfordshire Police were aware of three items of evidence where previously I was only aware of one.
When Terry Davis passed this data to Surrey Police, he said that it was passed to him at the tail end of his investigation; he did not appear to disclose the context in which it was sent, or give any indication about who might have sent it to him. If he did, then Surrey Police have some serious questions to answer about their failure to investigate, but of course I cannot call them on that while you continue to obfuscate.
You should already know the answers to the relevant questions I asked you about this fabricated evidence; I asked them weeks ago. You had no answer then, and today you sound disturbingly like a panicked MP at a certain hustings event.
On that note, I will close by also asking an additional question:
I presented to Terry Davis audio evidence that I specifically advised the Chair of the relevant Flitwick hustings about the broadcast she claimed to have no knowledge of. Can you explain to me why there is no mention of this in the resulting report?
Please be advised that I plan to publish this letter in full at 4pm today if I do not receive a reply that I believe to be earnest and adequate.
And so here we are. I got a (one-line) reply, but I do not believe it to be earnest or adequate.
Plus, there’s a bonus punchline; Bedfordshire Police today announced that someone else who made false allegations has been charged with wasting police time and given a fixed penalty notice… but local MP Nadine Dorries has so far got off scot-free. See if you can guess why.
3rd Apr 2012
In late 2006, two Conservative activists including an executive with a local fundraising group Guildford Conservatives sought to anonymously smear an opponent as a paedophile, and me as an unfit parent and an undesirable alien with commercial interests in pornography. Their names: Mike Chambers and Dennis Paul.
I complained to Conservative HQ and David Cameron’s office at the time, but – quite incredibly – the matter was referred back to the same body (Guildford Conservatives) for action. Unsurprisingly, the local MP Anne Milton and then-Chairman Jonathan Lord took no action. When confronted about this, Jonathan Lord initially claimed nothing was done because I didn’t put my complaint in writing (!) and later said that the whole matter was addressed to some extent, but only ‘informally’ and ‘off the books’… but he also admitted that essentially nothing was really done about it because local elections were in progress by the time my complaints reached him (in early 2007).
Ultimately, the whole thing was swept under the carpet. Crucially, no signal was sent out to local activists that this kind of conduct would not be tolerated. Worse, Dennis Paul sought to explain the evidence against him with false accusations of criminal behaviour that Mike Chambers has since testified were widely accepted as true in that local circle of Conservative fundraisers.
So it should come as no surprise to you to find that in 2009, two years after what can only be described as a cover-up, almost exactly the same thing happened again, again with me as a target, again involving a fundraising group connected to Anne Milton, and tellingly involving specific/unique claims of criminality put about by Dennis Paul.
Dominic Wightman (pictured right), who I have since discovered was then a member of the Conservative Party and an executive member of Shamley Green Conservatives, sought to smear me as a paedophile and then a stalker of women.
I later found out that privately he claimed he acted against me in this way because “Tim Ireland lives 3 villages from me and my local supporters (including the MP [Anne Milton]) want Ireland downed.”
When initially contacted about this, The Conservative Party would not even confirm or deny if Wightman was a member of their party.
Douglas Morpeth similarly refuses to confirm or deny if Wightman was an executive on the Shamley Green Conservatives fundraising committee. Douglas Morpeth further refuses to confirm or deny if he is/was the President/Chairman of the Shamley Green Conservatives fundraising committee, and while he helpfully implies the claims about two heart attacks in 2009 are untrue (see below), he is very vague about this and uses it as an excuse to refuse contact (i.e. as if it is me creating/broadcasting such inaccuracies, and not Mr Wightman).
Some of this reticence is likely something to do with Douglas Morpeth being a retired accountant and knowing exactly how bad it looks when a man serves as an executive on his fundraising committee while being an undischarged bankrupt.
Whether Dominic Wightman ever declared his 2009-2010 bankruptcy to Douglas Morpeth or anyone else on the committee is unknown at this stage, but Morpeth knows now that Wightman was bankrupt back then, and would probably really, really like to avoid talking about it in the future.
Dominic Wightman has since quietly resigned from Shamley Green Conservatives and even let his Conservative membership lapse; he has also stated quite bluntly that he has done the latter so he is better able to attack me and other ‘enemies of Conservatism’. He has since continued his smear campaign, sometimes under his own name, and sometimes through the use of false identities, and sometimes a mix of the two (such as the time he posed as a large black female nurse from Bedford and interviewed himself).
To give you a better idea of the truly insidious nature of Wightman’s accusations, after he was caught smearing me secretly/anonymously, he sent me dozens of emails, repeatedly pressing for a face-to-face meeting so he might explain himself in person, and when I refused and instead pressed him for details by email, he put a letter through my door late one night demanding that I cease contact with him.
That’s where he left his explanation for his previously smearing me as a dangerous paedophile; any attempt by me to ask him about it would result in him instead portraying me as a dangerous stalker. Clever, huh? As with Iain Dale, who sought to gain politically from this same smear, Wightman will sometimes deny his involvement from a safe distance, but he will not dare to discuss any specific evidence and/or answer for his conduct in any detail, and he (like others) has found the accusation of stalking to be very effective on this front.
In fact, his conduct has had a demonstrable influence on the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, who has not only linked to this man’s website (despite being advised that it included directions to my house), but incorporated many of his smears into her own narrative.
Dorries has since gone on to personally invest so heavily in the ‘stalker’ lie herself that she even incorporated false claims originating from Dominic Wightman in a complaint to Bedfordshire Police. (Both parties have since gone on to make misleading statements about the outcome of that complaint to the extent of pretending that it resulted in a caution, which is entirely untrue.)
Back in 2009, when the evidence first started to emerge that Dominic Wightman was the primary source of multiple smears against me, Wightman simultaneously accused me of harassing him while anonymously attacking me online and repeatedly engineering the repeated publication of my home address (often alongside the false claim that I stalk women). I was kind of alarmed by all this at the time, and I must admit to missing a crucial scrap of evidence:
Douglas Morpeth was, previous to September 2009, listed as a patron of Dominic Wightman’s website, ‘Westminster Journal’, and this reference was quickly removed soon after Wightman knew he had been found out… but what really should have tipped me off was the claim by Wightman that I should not dare contact this man for fear of giving him a fatal heart attack:
“Regards the chap who I appointed Patron of Westminster Journal, Sir Douglas Morpeth, I have mentioned to his family that you are counting down to an attack – this is a particularly pertinent point because, expecting this and come-back from the LTTE for an article due out this next 10 days, I got his family to get him to sign a resignation letter back in April when his health (90′s) started failing. If you want a copy I’ll send it to you. He had a massive coronary in July and had another attack a couple of weeks ago…..I have no doubt there will be massive legal repercussions if he gets mentioned in light of him being on his deathbed.” – Dominic Wightman (Sep 9, 2009)
A witness confirms that Wightman requested the removal of Morpeth’s name from his site, and the reason given was “Morpeth was dying, and his family did not want the name there”… but this request was not sent in April of that year, it happened 3 days before the above email was sent!
It is clear from the timeline and the relevant correspondence that Dominic Wightman urgently sought to remove any reference to Douglas Morpeth as patron from his site before he used that site to launch an extended smear campaign designed to cover up the original smear campaign that he conducted when he thought himself safely anonymous.
It is unknown at this stage if this was a spontaneous attempt to protect Morpeth and/or a wider circle of Conservatives, or if it was something that happened as a result of Morpeth’s direct request because he knew exactly what Wightman was up to.
Years later I was reading through the old correspondence and it finally occurred to me to contact Douglas Morpeth by email and ask him a few questions.
Morpeth wasn’t dying, or dead, by the way… but it would be hard to tell from his initial response to my email. Morpeth initially took no action and offered no reply, but saw fit to forward our private correspondence to others, including Wightman. When pressed for a reply after a month of silence, he was exasperatingly evasive.
Not long after this (the weekend before the CPS inexplicably dropped their case against Wightman after his threats or violence against me), Wightman sought to intimidate me via an anonymous email that implied I would be up on a manslaughter charge should Douglas Morpeth suddenly drop dead as a result of my daring to ask him any further questions.
However, it is with complete confidence and an entirely clear conscience that I publicly accuse Douglas Morpeth of contributing to the corruption of the Shamley Green Conservatives fundraising committee and the subsequent cover-up.
I also challenge Douglas Morpeth to explain his position on entrusting an undischarged bankrupt with cash-handling and other fundraising tasks under his watch.
I further challenge the Conservative minister Anne Milton and the Conservative MP Jonathan Lord to finally take a public stance against the use of dangerous and damaging smears as a political weapon. They do themselves and the public no favours by continuing to allow and exploit multiple instances of false claims of criminality up to and including child rape.
PS – Douglas Morpeth lives directly opposite Dominic Wightman’s family home. I’d show you the relevant evidence, but I’m not inclined to publish any details that might be falsely portrayed as my behaving in the same manner as Mr Wightman, who previously broadcast my ex-directory home address and even published specific directions to my house in an effort to intimidate me.
UPDATE (11 April) – On 8 April I tracked Douglas Morpeth’s receipt of my email making him aware of this article. He made no effort to communicate any response to me, but less than 24 hours later, I was smeared as a paedophile again (i.e. in the first attack of its kind since the 2009 event). This time the author decided to incorporate my volunteering with local children into this damaging and dangerous lie. Conservative MPs Anne Milton and Jonathan Lord still refuse to attempt to draw this matter to a close by taking a public stand against this kind of conduct. Jeremy Hunt, my local MP, and also a Conservative, refuses to even discuss the possibility of conducting any diplomacy or casework that might draw this matter to a close. I used to wonder why people used the word ‘scum’ next to ‘Tory’ so readily. Those days are long behind me.
UPDATE (16 April) – Douglas Morpeth’s only response to all of the above? A vague denial about being in touch with Dominic Wightman recently. Everything else stands unchallenged. Meanwhile, Dominic Wightman has published a series of false claims and implications (while pretending to be someone other than himself, naturally), including the entirely false suggestion that the email I quote above has been fabricated or falsified in some way. In response, I publish the entire email below, including the part where he bragged (not for the first or last time) that he was able to libel me/others without consequence, due to his being an undischarged bankrupt at the time. Further, given that I have never targeted anyone’s family in the way he implies and he later saw fit to broadcast and publish details of my home address alongside entirely false allegations of stalking and extremism, the threat to my family (and that of Richard Bartholomew’s) is quite stark.
From: Dominic Wightman [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To: Tim Ireland
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Subject: Your lack of writing
Did that two days ago.
While you’re there, we’ll keep family out of this – I have no interest in making yours or Richard’s, or others, feel uncomfortable where they live and I’m sure you don’t mine. This point is particularly pertinent related to 2 untimely deaths regarding Vigil funding (July05 and Nov06) – mentioning either of these blood relatives, either obliquely, will be tantamount to mentioning family and I will respond in kind. “Blood relatives” will do for comment. Mentioning Tom Mills’ ugly sister etc …. totally pointless but others won’t hesitate if you or the lefties mention my family.
Regards the chap who I appointed Patron of Westminster Journal, Sir Douglas Morpeth, I have mentioned to his family that you are counting down to an attack – this is a particularly pertinent point because, expecting this and come-back from the LTTE for an article due out this next 10 days, I got his family to get him to sign a resignation letter back in April when his health (90′s) started failing. If you want a copy I’ll send it to you. He had a massive coronary in July and had another attack a couple of weeks ago…..I have no doubt there will be massive legal repercussions if he gets mentioned in light of him being on his deathbed.
Finally, for all of you, and Murray, I’ll only play the Schillings card and release the Uzbek files if, like Spinbotch and suggestion of financial malpractice, testimony of flawed witnesses is mentioned to insinuate points against me, if unproven emails are aired or if anyone is blatantly libellous. That’s the great thing about Surrey – from one village to the next when you’ve lived here long enough there is always someone willing to help stick the knife in. Remember I’m placed to lose nothing financially.
First statements coming out on Friday.
Have a super day.
“Testimony of flawed witnesses” and “unproven emails” refers to Glen Jenvey telling police that he had an accomplice in his attempt to smear me as a convicted paedophile (that he refused to name at the time, but later revealed to be Dominic Wightman), and the evidence that Wightman sent Glen Jenvey my ex-directory home address via email while simultaneously posing as an ally and feeding me damaging material about that same person (some of it genuine, some of it distorted if not falsified). Wightman later based his denial of involvement in the 2009 paedo-smear on a claim he knew to be a lie (that lie being that police had always thought Jenvey acted alone; Wightman not only knew otherwise, he tried to convince me that another of his perceived enemies was responsible).
If Dominic Wightman is genuinely concerned about any contact/mention re: his family, it is most likely rooted in his fear that his mother might find out what he’s been up to. For the record, I have so far resisted the temptation to simply pop round and tell on him.
UPDATE (14 Aug 2012) – In recent correspondence, another serving executive was given no choice but to confirm that Douglas Morpeth was and is President of the Shamley Green Conservatives fundraising committee. It has taken OVER A YEAR to have this simple fact confirmed by any executive on that committee, including the President himself. Shortly after, Douglas Morpeth finally confirmed that Dominic Wightman stood as an executive on his fundraising committee. He declined to confirm the specific dates of 2005-2010, most likely because of the combined embarrassments of this issue and the bankruptcy issue.
19th Mar 2012
There’s been rather a lot of fuss in recent days about an apparent break-in at Ed Miliband’s Commons offices. Police are investigating and speculation is rife.
Personally, I think everybody should calm down and take a leaf out of the Holy Book of Dorries.
Nadine Dorries claims that almost exactly the same thing happened at her constituency residence in 2010; she says she returned to her constituency home to discover that the front door had been removed from its hinges. She further claimed that nothing was actually missing from the house and the only thing the intruder(s) appeared to be interested in were her office filing cabinets, which had all been opened and rifled through.
This was in early 2010, just prior to a general election, and it took place at a time when Nadine Dorries’ paperwork was of particular interest to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards… but did Dorries make a fuss and call the police? No, she did not. She did take the time to report several critics and a political opponent of ‘stalking’ her, but obviously that was/is a far greater and more legitimate concern than any piddling paperwork that might have been viewed or stolen by unknown burglars (even if Dorries’ incursion does sound far more professional than Miliband’s ‘forced door’ incident.).
I’m equally confident that if Dorries ever mentioned it to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, it was only in passing; perhaps as a possible explanation for her inability to produce paperwork supporting her expenses claims.
Because, as we all know, Nadine Dorries is not one to make a fuss unnecessarily.
5th Mar 2012
The following is for the attention of John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in reply to his initial response to the allegation that I will repeat in summary form here:
It was my understanding after direct conversations and correspondence with John Bercow’s wife, Sally Bercow, that a ‘peace deal’ had been brokered between that couple and Nadine Dorries to the effect that she would not act in an aggressive manner towards them if they did not act in an aggressive manner towards her. (If you are not familiar with Nadine Dorries, the laughingly absurd inequities of such an agreement may not be immediately clear to you. Read on.)
John Bercow has now denied that any kind of ‘peace deal’ had been brokered, and described my allegations as “defamatory remarks made against a named Member of Parliament” in an email that – now I look closely at it – does not make it entirely clear if this refers to himself, or Nadine Dorries, or both. Whatever the case may be, it was clearly important that he speak with his wife, and I said so in my reply. I then sent a Direct Message to Sally Bercow via Twitter to suggest that she speak with her husband.
That was on Friday. I’ve allowed them the grace of an entire weekend to formulate a response, and have heard nothing.
So this morning I invite Sally Bercow to explain the following exchange of private messages on Twitter (in response to an RT in my public stream). I further challenge John Bercow to answer any of the points raised in the open letter that forms the bulk of this post.
bloggerheads Tim Ireland
RT @Gaijinsan21: This new Bercow/Dorries love-in is doing nothing to abate my contempt for @Nadine_MP alas, it’s just damaging my faith in @SallyBercow.
01/18/2011 Reply Retweet Favorite
18/01/2011 21:45 SallyBercow
bloggerheads @bloggerheads Hi Tim – I’m sure you think I’m a sell-out but I just had to win Nadine over – she was on air abt J & I every week! Xxx
18/01/2011 21:48 bloggerheads
SallyBercow I figured that was your motive, but did not want to say so and thereby undermine it… even if I do think you are wasting your time
18/01/2011 21:49 bloggerheads
SallyBercow I predict she’ll be at your throat(s) the first time either of you take a reasonable position against something she really, really wants.
18/01/2011 21:50 SallyBercow
bloggerheads Well she hasn’t sounded off about us for at least 6 weeks! I hear what you say though x
18/01/2011 21:52 bloggerheads
SallyBercow You’re sweeping the ocean back with a broom. She’ll rush in like the tide when she wants something, just you wait and see.
18/01/2011 21:53 SallyBercow
bloggerheads Yes maybe…
[Unaltered extract of a private exchange between myself and Sally Bercow, conducted using Direct Messages on the Twitter platform, in response to my public RT (top) that prompts the conversation. All messages are verifiable, should the matter go to court. Sally Bercow has an equal level of access to these DMs through her own account, and I will be delighted to explain to her how to access them independently so she may verify the accuracy of the text and the wider context of our conversation. I would also be delighted to discuss any further Direct Messages she may wish to disclose if she feels that they undermine my point or contradict my position in any way.]
My prediction that Dorries would lash out if challenged has yet to be tested, because – to my great surprise and disappointment – John Bercow has yet to challenge Nadine Dorries on anything of substance. In fact, 6 weeks after this exchange took place, John Bercow nominated Nadine Dorries for a position on the Panel of Chairs:
The Speaker has nominated Nadine Dorries to be a member of the Panel of Chairs during the present Parliament (Standing Order No. 4(1)). (source: Votes and Proceedings: 31 March 2011)
The Panel of Chairs comprises the Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means, and not fewer than ten Members nominated at the beginning of each session by the Speaker. Members of the Panel are appointed by the Speaker to chair Public Bill Committees and other general committees. They may also chair debates in Westminster Hall and act as temporary chairs of Committees of the whole House. (source)
This position by the Speaker is only part-defensible if Nadine Dorries’ behaviour had improved markedly in the 12 week period between her last public attacks on the Bercows and her appointment to the Panel of Chairs. If some form of improvement were apparent to the Speaker, I would dare to suggest that he was operating from a limited if not entirely self-centred perspective.
This brings us rushing headlong to the point where I accuse John Bercow of allowing corruption to once again infect Parliament.
John Bercow may claim his wife did not understand the situation, or that he was unaware of the situation with his wife and Nadine Dorries. Sally Bercow may claim that I have failed to understand the situation; she may even admit some small amount of fault to the extent that she has described the situation carelessly or inaccurately. But if you read on, you will see that his recommendation of Nadine Dorries to a position of responsibility puts John Bercow in a very precarious position, whatever the situation:
Dear Mr Speaker,
I am about to explain to you the grounds on which I accuse you of allowing corruption to infect Parliament.
I wish to begin with your use of the word ‘antediluvian’ in pre-Speaker days that drove Nadine Dorries first to a dictionary, and then into a rage. Even if this incident does not accurately indicate your awareness of the fundamentalist claptrap that Nadine Dorries peddles in the House, it reliably informs us that you know from experience how Nadine Dorries can explode at mere criticism.
Further, having subsequently been on the receiving end of her attacks, you are in a unique if unenviable position; you know that Nadine Dorries is capable of attacking someone’s reputation in a way that is clearly unwarranted, using material that is grossly distorted where not wholly invented.
This knowledge alone should have prevented you from trusting Nadine Dorries with any role crucial to the integrity of Parliament; you have witnessed her acting without integrity.
But my challenge to you today goes beyond this; I seek to establish that Nadine Dorries falls so far short of the demands of Parliament and society generally that she does not even rate the description ‘reasonable person’.
A child acting in this way would be excluded from school, not made prefect.
I will open my evidence by formally bringing to your attention to the contradiction between what Nadine Dorries told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and what she told the public after the relevant Standards and Privileges Committee report was published…
Nadine Dorries was claiming expenses on a constituency property on the basis that it was her second home. However, many entries on her website indicated that it was in fact her first home. A core ruling of the Standards and Privileges Committee report was that they accepted Nadine Dorries’ story about entries on her website giving the wrong idea about how much time she spent in the constituency for entirely political reasons:
“I often posted comments on my blog relating to [name of town] in my constituency. Since I first rented in the constituency, I made a song and dance about being at the property. I have mentioned it on my blog a number of times. This was done to comfort my Association. The previous MP only visited the constituency occasionally—sometimes only as often as once every six weeks—and they were keen that I reversed that impression. His lack of time in the constituency contributed to his de-selection. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 25 January 2010
The MP you nominated for the Panel of Chairs confessed to misleading her constituents and association about the amount of time she spent in the constituency.
When the public confronted her about her “70% fiction” moment, Dorries claimed that she had been the subject of physical stalking to such an extent that police had advised her to fictionalise her movements on her blog for her own protection.
If Nadine Dorries had done the same thing with a court judgement, she would be found in contempt; it was a complete misrepresentation of the investigation, and of a major basis for the ruling.
The MP you nominated for the Panel of Chairs knowingly misrepresented the position of two police forces in her efforts to distort the public’s understanding of a ruling by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
DCI Christopher Lee, stationed in the Houses of Parliament, can tell you if Nadine Dorries has faced any genuine threat of physical or even electronic stalking, and if it is true that, in light of the risk she describes, Nadine Dorries was issued with instructions to falsify details of her whereabouts as described. He won’t tell me, which I find odd, because according to Dorries, I’m supposed to be that stalker
Bedfordshire Police will be sure to contradict me if I am wrong in my understanding of their position that Nadine Dorries says ‘stalker’ when she means ‘critic with a web presence’, though we are at present in dispute over my understanding of assurances they gave me about what would happen if it emerged that Nadine Dorries had been lying to them.
On the subject of lies that Nadine Dorries told police, here come some demonstrables that also concern you and the credibility of Parliament:
“I shall finish by mentioning a book which is to be launched this month. It is published by the charity Forsaken, which is neither pro-life nor pro-choice: it is pro-women. For two years, the charity has put together the stories of women suffering from post-abortion syndrome… One woman in the book describes how even when she told the anaesthetist that she was changing her mind and was having doubts, he pushed her to go ahead. He did so because, if she changed her mind, he would not have been paid. There is the same process as for the counselling. If the woman does not go ahead with the abortion, the clinics are not paid for the counselling, and therefore they need to know that she is going ahead before she is given the counselling-and we can imagine the process that ensues.” – Nadine Dorries, House of Commons, 2 Nov 2010 (source)
The group that Nadine Dorries spoke of here was ‘Forsaken in Taunton’; they were not the mature and unbiased charity that Dorries described. They were clearly very new. They were so new, they had not yet registered as a charity, but had made the mistake of printing the words ‘Registered Charity’ on their literature ahead of any paperwork going through. They also had a deeply religious agenda, which calls into question Dorries’ assurances to the House about the source of the anecdotal evidence she sought to air in Parliament, and later in public.
(The allegation that the abortion counselling process had been corrupted by a profit motive has been repeated many times since by Nadine Dorries, but she has yet to produce any evidence of the corruption she describes above in what she refers to as ‘the abortion industry’.)
I published evidence supporting my contention that Parliament had been misled in this instance. Nadine Dorries reacted by making entirely false allegations about my behaving inappropriately toward ‘Forsaken’, who to their credit saw fit to immediately contradict her claims about emails (few in number, and entirely appropriate) and phone calls (never happened at all, entirely invented detail from the ever-inventive Dorries).
When subsequently under pressure from the public to produce evidence of a police investigation that never existed, Nadine Dorries prompted an investigation into my attending a public meeting to which I was invited by giving Bedfordshire Police a grossly distorted account of events.
(Psst! Even if it could be successfully argued that I had committed a crime or maybe risked coming near to committing a crime by attending that event, this would not go anywhere near establishing a pattern of harassment as required for Dorries’ story to hold, and even if it did it would still require a time machine to work. I’m supposed to be her worst stalker out of a group of people who are supposedly physically stalking her, and I’ve been in her presence once, for entirely legitimate reasons, after the period where she claims to have been physically stalked.)
As part of a ‘report’ to Mid Bedfordshire Police, Nadine Dorries repeated to their detectives the claim about the calls to Forsaken, after she had been contradicted by the alleged recipients. She also told Bedfordshire Police that I was a “notorious computer hacker”, making the crucial error of telling a demonstrable lie in the name of the law firm Carter-Ruck.
The MP you nominated for the Panel of Chairs makes false accusations of criminality to police on behalf of well known law firms.
I invite you to ask Carter-Ruck if they told Nadine Dorries or anyone else if I were a “notorious computer hacker”. They won’t say anything to me. Maybe it’s because I’m so scary with my computer hacking and what have you.
Bedfordshire Police, while doing very little to discourage Dorries’ repeated attempts to politicise their investigation, were kind enough to point out that they held the position both before and after the investigation that I had committed no crime. Nadine Dorries’ own lawyers are quoted in the resulting report (that you’re welcome to inspect) as having exactly the same position.
And yet the MP you nominated for the Panel of Chairs seeks to misrepresent Bedfordshire Police to the extent of falsely declaring that their investigation ended with my being issued with a caution, which is an outright lie, and not the result of any mere confusion (as she has repeatedly been allowed to pretend):
“One particularly obsessive man recently followed me round with a camera, whipped up online hysteria against me and eventually had to accept a police caution for harassment.”
Nadine Dorries, September 2011
(source: Self-penned article in Daily Mail)
Note in this more recent example, Dorries is using the same phantom stalkers to discourage and poison any scrutiny of a demonstrably false prospectus. And after a week of being contradicted by evidence from the people she sought to discredit in this way, she brought her original package to the House as if none of that had happened.
The MP you nominated for the Panel of Chairs brings discredited evidence to Parliament as if it has not been challenged.
Dorries was then soundly defeated in the vote that followed, but subsequently rewarded (what?) by having her soundly rejected concerns about counselling taken seriously to the extent that an all-too-opaque panel process is now discussing potential changes to the abortion counselling process on the basis of an entirely false prospectus.
One member found the whole process so inequitable that she resigned from the panel. Dorries responded by claiming that this person was sleeping through meetings. Much of this rested on Dorries’ word, which carries a certain authority in matters of Parliamentary process, and that’s entirely thanks to your patronage, Mr Speaker.
After all, why would Nadine Dorries lie about what happens in meetings when the Speaker puts her in charge of meetings?
Well, I will tell you my best guess: She would mostly likely lie about what goes on in meetings even though the Speaker puts her in charge of meetings, because the Speaker has allowed himself to be compromised by a vindictive liar (even if it is as he claims and the compromise was not one of his intention/design).
A Parliamentary Standards Authority report doesn’t go the way she wants it to, so Nadine Dorries tells a lie to excuse/cover a damaging admission that was crucial to the ruling.
That lie requires her to prove that a police investigation took place when she cannot even provide evidence of having made a complaint, so Nadine Dorries lies to police to get an investigation going.
The investigation does not turn out the way she wants it to, so Nadine Dorries lies about the outcome.
She then uses the same lies to discredit and intimidate critics while discouraging any scrutiny into her expenses and/or an ongoing attempt by anti-abortion fundamentalists to influence Parliament without making their interests and intentions known. It is here I remind you that when you campaigned for the position of speaker, you claimed that you would act in a way that would prevent “fertile ground on which extremists feed”.
The boundaries that control you and me and other reasonable people have no meaning to this person; she crosses them with rampant aggression, all while claiming victim status on the basis of her being a woman (a ‘maverick’ with a merely ‘controversial’ outlook doing it her way in a MAN’s world, baby!).
Nadine Dorries also shows a clear pattern of telling lies of behalf of people/groups that she thinks will lend them credibility, which is not only dishonest, but incredibly reckless.
You should know all of this from experience if not mere competence, and this is why I find it so easy to believe that you turn a blind eye to her inappropriate conduct, just like so many others who dare not cross her for fear that she will go off in their face.
Meanwhile, Dorries’ appalling behaviour continues, and it is clearly getting worse as she is allowed to carry on unchecked.
Last week, I was announced as a front row guest in the BBC’s The Big Questions; at some stage between 9:15pm Saturday night and 5:30am on Sunday morning, Nadine Dorries was in contact with producers of that show, by Twitter, email and phone, telling them that police had issued me with a caution for stalking her, and warning them of dire consequences should I be allowed on live television. A further party they won’t name (!) also contacted staff to repeat the lie about computer hacking, once again attributed to Carter-Ruck.
As a result of these outright lies, I was excluded from the front row debate, and deliberately placed in the audience with no microphone. The debate I was invited to but then not allowed to take part in was on journalistic ethics, by the way. The only way Dorries was connected to the event was through the deepest of ironies.
Nadine Dorries had no business calling producers in the way she did, it appears she has since managed to bully them into obscuring actionable evidence, and I cannot help but compare this to what she claimed I did to ‘Forsaken’. Just who is stalking who here? Just which one of us really needs to be cautious about announcing their movements ahead of time?
Dorries engaged in this extraordinary intervention the day before her meeting with BBC director general Mark Thompson. I find myself wondering if this came up during the relevant exchanges but I am worried that we may never know for sure. I specifically instructed production staff on the day to preserve the relevant data because I wished to access it under the Data Protection Act; they later claimed the relevant correspondence had somehow “expired” in the day(s) that followed my request.
Oh, and on this note I almost forgot:
Nadine Dorries claimed I sent her “vile, abusive messages”, but then refused to produce the emails/messages she claims I sent her, even when compelled to by law under the Data Protection Act.
The MP you nominated for the Panel of Chairs clearly does not think the rules apply to her, and openly defies the law when it suits her.
I could go on. For a week.
I have an army of witnesses. Rock solid evidence.
You have a shouty lady who tells lies.
Surely you are aware of Dorries’ now-infamous claim that a “gust of wind” caused her to accidentally cast a rule book out of a window. Rule book. Literally. Out the window. And she blogged that she’d done it. She’s utterly shameless.
Mr Speaker, there is so much more to this that I can show you, but do I really have to go further than this to have you acknowledge the folly of your ways?
Ultimately, do you really dare face the public and tell them that you nominated Nadine Dorries for the Panel of Chairs in good faith and still consider her fit for the role because you genuinely think her to be both capable of balance and worthy of trust?
As disappointing as this would be from someone in your position, part of me is actually looking forward to watching you try.
Typically I’d close by explaining what specific action I’d appreciate in response to my letter , but to be perfectly frank with you, it should be bloody obvious without my having to point it out to you, and if you seek to further shield Dorries from accountability – as you give every indication of doing – then the next move is probably best made by your replacement anyway.
There it is.
Updates to follow, as and when. Cheers all.
UPDATE (7th March) – As Richard Bartholomew notes in his post, Sally Bercow’s only response to all of this is an ill-defined claim that it is “utterly absurd”. The Speaker, meanwhile, has gone from angry charges of “defamation” to stone cold silence. If the correspondence from Sally Bercow were not accurate, she would be able to produce evidence to this effect, but she cannot do this and she does not see fit to articulate any defence of her position; instead she just attempts to discredit mine with vague pejorative terms. Having tracked all relevant messages, I can say with confidence that John Bercow can no longer claim to be unaware of Dorries’ corruption, and there is as of now no doubt about his wilfully turning a blind eye to it. A man of integrity would have followed this up, checked a few things with police and Dorries lawyers’, and sought to determine the accuracy of the allegations laid out in this post. John Bercow shows no sign of having done this, and if he has done this and chosen to remain silent anyway, that only makes it worse.
29th Feb 2012
This may interest you; my emails to the police officer that Nadine Dorries named in her letter to the Bedfordshire Chief Constable. Christopher Lee works for a Met CID unit based in the Houses of Parliament that Dorries has repeatedly referred to as ‘the House of Commons Police’.
I wish to be crystal clear when I state that DCI Christopher Lee is fully aware that the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has been sharing, distributing, broadcasting and publishing lies and distortions on his behalf in an ongoing deceit about her expenses claims. For reasons he is keeping to himself, DCI Christopher Lee knowingly allows this MP to politicise his department toward this end in an all-too-personal dispute with myself and other critics she accuses of stalking her/others.
Nadine Dorries pretends that she has been physically stalked to the extent of receiving special instruction from Christopher Lee’s department to lie on her blog about her whereabouts, and only Christopher Lee’s ongoing silence allows her to persist in this deceit.
Through an underling, Lee insisted that half of my questions be addressed via an FOI request, and half via a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. The London Met dragged their heels on both requests, charged me *two fees* for the latter request, and in the end only provided the one single response to Question 18 in the former request:
I can confirm that it is not within the remit of any police force, to enforce the Data Protection Act (DPA). This falls within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO possess powers (entry and inspection) under Schedule 9 of the Data Protection Act. If required, the ICO would deal directly with the courts to obtain warrants so there would not be any involvement from any police force.
There was also a vague response about any matters of import being referred to the London Met for action that neatly avoided answering any actual questions.
Below is my initial email, along with a follow-up email.
Christopher Lee has also been advised of my intention to publish this morning, and so far there has been no response.
I publicly accuse Christopher Lee of knowingly allowing his department to be politicised, and subsequently contributing to the corruption of Parliament.
If he continues to ignore this matter after I have published this, it will only show that he has no answer to that.
Enjoy the correspondence. Cheers all.
From: Tim Ireland
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:43:36 +0100
Subject: Nadine Dorries, and claims made on your behalf
Here is the detail, as promised.
I apologise in advance for any headaches that may come your way from this email, but Nadine Dorries has been making claims about me on behalf of you/your department that are designed to give an entirely false impression about my status as a criminal, harassing/stalking her and others, when I’ve done nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite, in fact. This has been feeding if not prompting undesirable behaviour targeting me. I am leaving that detail out of this letter as far as I am able (the matter is complicated enough without it, it’s not your problem, and it’s already on its way to court) but the detail is yours for the asking if you have any doubts about my call for urgency at the tail of this letter.
I also apologise if the following seems overwhelming in its detail, but Nadine Dorries has been using a false claim of stalking to avoid valid and due scrutiny for quite some time now, and I have only just learned your name through a subject access request to Bedfordshire Police (you are mentioned in a letter to them from Dorries, and the relevant passage appears in this email). Prior to this, I had made a subject access request to the London Metropolitan Police, which returned no mention of any complaint or investigation.
This document will take you through a timeline of key claims and statements made by Conservative MP Nadine Dorries since Jan 2010, along with my subsequent questions to you, so you might appreciate them in context.
Nadine Dorries is made aware that a man named Charlie Flowers has been publishing my name and ex-directory home address alongside the accusation that I ‘stalk women and send death threats to MPs’. She only pretends to report him to police.
A self-styled cyber-vigilante Charlie Flowers claimed to be broadcasting my address alongside the accusation of my stalking a variety of Tory MPs, including Nadine Dorries, on behalf of Dorries herself (along with two other bloggers). He further claimed that he had informed her of this. Expecting to expose Flowers as a liar or fantasist, I confronted Dorries about it, and got no answer beyond repeated public-facing claims that my emails amounted to nought but abuse and/or the rantings of a ‘nutter’. Dorries was subsequently confronted by others about this through Twitter, and she responded as follows:
“I have fwd all emails etc to the Met police who are reviewing with the harassment unit”
Nadine Dorries, 18 Feb 2010
When she was later confronted about evidence of any complaint about Charlie Flowers, she claimed through a third party that she meant that she had forwarded emails from me to police (ie she made a complaint about the emails from me confronting her about this), and did not mean to cause any confusion.
Q1. Has Nadine Dorries ever sent you any emails that she regarded to be inappropriate?
Q2. Has Nadine Dorries ever sent you any emails that she regarded to be inappropriate that were (a) in my name or (b) presented to you alongside any suggestion that they came from me?
(If 2a applies, I would like to see all emails in my name that were sent to you, please. If you think it necessary, you may regard this to be a subject access request under the Data Protection Act, with my request to cover any reference to any mention of “Tim Ireland” or “Bloggerheads” and associated email addresses. Please advise if this is necessary and the relevant processing fee and details will be sent to you with all speed.)
Dorries objects to my presence/filming at a hustings in Flitwick.
Dorries was rumoured to be under police and Parliamentary investigation for her expenses claims, and Dorries had so far managed to avoid any questions about it. Bedfordshire constituents who were concerned the meeting would not be recorded invited me. I was there because I wanted the meeting on record, too. We arranged permission in advance, and I introduced myself upon arrival, double-checking with the Chair before beginning the broadcast to be run alongside the recording. Dorries had already pushed the meeting back so it would be too late for any result to be reported in the local newspaper, and she arrived late and planned to leave early so she might avoid open/unplanned questions.
I made no secret of who I was or what I was doing there, but Dorries, having arrived late, only came to know I was there when my name was announced by the Chair, after the hustings had started. Dorries sought to have me ejected from the room, claiming that I was a serial stalker of multiple MPs who was, at that time, under investigation by police for stalking her.
“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, 4 May 2010
(Hustings, recorded on video)
Q3. Had you received any complaint about my conduct before May 4 2011, from Dorries or any other MP? Have you received any complaint(s) since? If so, please provide dates and details, including any reference numbers (incident, crime, non-crime, etc.).
Q4. Have I ever been under investigation by the Met CID based in the Houses of Parliament?
Dorries made further claims to local press to reinforce her accusations through some appalling emotional manipulation; having no evidence to present, she talked up the threat and sought to portray me as a violent character.
“Tim Ireland lives in Guildford. He is not a Mid Bedfordshire resident and therefore I am not answerable or accountable to him in any way whatsoever. I have been in consultation regarding his behaviour with the Westminster division of the Metropolitan Police, and the House of Commons police, for more than a year. Their advice was to close down my blog and Twitter account and thereby remove the ‘oxygen’ upon which he fed. As an election was imminent, I ignored this advice. Following the Stephen Timms incident last week I have decided that I should pay attention to the police advice and have therefore closed down both Twitter and my blog for the time being.”
Nadine Dorries, May 2010
(Letter to editor of Bedfordshire on Sunday)
Dorries closed her blog and Twitter account an entire week before Timms was stabbed; she has no justification for associating me with a stabbing, and she is either lying, or very confused about which way time flows.
Q5. Is it accurate to say that Dorries had, in May 2010, been “in consultation regarding [Tim Ireland’s] behaviour with the Westminster division of the Metropolitan Police, and the House of Commons police, for more than a year”?
Q6. Have you or any other police officer in the Houses of Parliament advised Nadine Dorries to close down her blog and Twitter account in order to avoid my attention out of concerns for her safety? If so, in what context was this advice given, by whom, and when?
Dorries is cleared by the Standards Commissioner over her expenses claims for a Bedfordshire rental property.
Dorries claimed the expenses under question on the basis that it was rent for her second home, but her blog/site entries gave impression that is was instead her first. She answered this problematic contradiction with claims to the Commissioner that she had deliberately given a false impression of time spent within the constituency to ‘reassure’ her constituents about her commitment to them. In the published report she was quoted as saying that the blog she wrote about constituency matters was “70% fiction, 30% fact”
There was an immediate backlash that Dorries did not appear to be expecting at all. It was at this stage that the MP gave an entirely different excuse to the public, one she made no mention of to the Commissioner; she claimed that she had been the target of stalking, and had subsequently been advised by police to disguise her movements through the use of minor fictions about time/dates on her blog.
There was no doubt about her claiming to have been physically stalked, and I was indentified as the main if not only stalker on the basis that I attended the Flitwick event (i.e. the only time I have ever knowingly been in her presence, at a public meeting that I was invited to).
Last night Miss Dorries said the police had advised her to ‘disguise’ her movements on her blog. She said: ‘I have during the course of this inquiry, and before, attracted unwanted and inappropriate attention.’
Daily Mail, 22 October 2010
On Monday, the Boulton blog again ran a negative story and legitimised the very man I had been advised to disguise my movements from, Tim Ireland. Not only has this man stalked me, he can telephone my constituency office so many times in a morning, the staff disconnect the phone, making it impossible for constituents to make contact. He never telephones the London office. He possibly suspects those calls would be recorded. I have reported Tim Ireland to the House of Commons police on three occasions and the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police explored the option of triggering section 5 of the Public Disorder Act. The House of Commons Police informed me that Mr Ireland had actually rang their office demanding to know if he had been reported. He had and they were seeking advice from the Met harassment unit.
Nadine Dorries, 28 October 2010
Q7. How many times has Nadine Dorries complained to your office about my behaviour, and on which date(s)?
Q8. I do recall contacting your office and seeking clarification on some of what Dorries had claimed, but I was assured that I should pursue my enquiries with a nearby Met office (Charing Cross, IIRC), as this would be where any complaint of this type would be referred. Is this accurate, and/or should I have been referred to the Met in this way?
Q9. Have you or any other police officer in the Houses of Parliament advised Nadine Dorries to disguise her movements on her website in response to any stalking threat? If so, was this advice given specifically or even partly in response to concerns for her safety arising from my activity? If so, in what context was this advice given, by whom, and when?
Following many statements like this, Dorries was under pressure to produce evidence of any investigation, and was eventually challenged to produce an incident or crime reference number (for example) or anything else that might establish that she had at least made a complaint. She offered to go and retrieve from police something that she really should have had on file herself at the time, and she said no more about it until developments that followed in 2011.
Q10. Were you or your office contacted by Dorries (or her staff) in pursuit of any relevant police reference numbers in late 2010 or at any other time? If so, what was your response?
Bedfordshire Police advise me that they had begun an investigation in late November 2010 which carried no crime report because – as yet – “there is no crime”. I am invited to participate in an interview under caution.
Police told me at the time that the investigation was in response to a letter written by Nadine Dorries in July 2010. The investigation did not get underway until November 2010. The letter was addressed to Bedfordshire’s Chief Constable, and mentioned you specifically:
“I reported his behaviour sometime ago to Christopher Lee of the House of Commons Police”
Nadine Dorries, 12 July 2010
(Letter to Chief Constable Gillian Parker)
Q11. Did Bedfordshire Police contact you about this complaint or their investigation? Did they enquire about your alleged investigation(s)? What was your response?
Q12. Are you aware of ANY genuine stalking threat to Nadine Dorries, and if so, did you advise Bedfordshire Police of that threat at this time or any other?
[NOTE - I have redacted Question 13 and the surrounding content, as it refers to a powerful revelation I have yet to publish, and Bedfordshire Police deserve a chance to respond before I publish it. Back to the letter...]
May 2011 – present
The investigation closes finding NO evidence of harassment, never mind stalking. Dorries presses on regardless.
Dorries repeatedly tried to give people the impression that I was issued with a caution as a result of this investigation.
This is not the only example (there are many in which she names me), but her intent is most apparent in this reference to me in an article she penned for the Daily Mail just last week, while seeking to associate me with death threats she claimed to have received as part of her most recent abortion-related campaign;
“One particularly obsessive man recently followed me round with a camera, whipped up online hysteria against me and eventually had to accept a police caution for harassment.”
Nadine Dorries, September 2011
(Self-penned article in Daily Mail)
There were repeated instances of my being associated with these threats by Dorries, but never in so many words. It was all about putting my name in close proximity to the threats she claimed to have received. Example:
“The Toady[*] programme this morning used Twitter as an opinion source for their abortion piece. Did they use the Tweeters who issue the death threats I wonder? Or Bloggerheads, who was interviewed by the Police for five hours in Guildford and then on tape and under caution, issued with a warning under section 2 of the Harassment Act with regard to his conduct in relation to the Act in respect to myself.Or maybe one of the Tweeters who email the poisonous emails or Tweets opinion based on zero fact. I think that maybe it’s time for questions to be asked regarding the BBCs obsession with Twitter.”
Nadine Dorries, 6 September 2011
[*BBC Radio 4, ‘Today’]
Earlier, Dorries had made this specific claim about the death threats she claimed to have received:
“Last week the Police rang after tracing the author of one of the death threats and asked me should they prosecute, I said no. I said no because I assume that people write such things and then probably regret it later. That policy has changed from today.”
Nadine Dorries, 31 August 2011
Q14. Is this comment made in reference to your office? If so, is this an accurate portrayal of events? (I’m just a layman, but it was my understanding that a genuine/serious death threat would lead to an investigation no matter what the recipient might wish.)
Q15. Did Dorries ever intimate to you any claim or suspicion that I was associated with any threat against her, or the cause or author of any threat to her?
Q16. Are you aware of any present threat to Nadine Dorries, ranging from harassment to death threats?
Q17. Are you aware of any past threat to Nadine Dorries, ranging from harassment to death threats?
And we are so nearly there. One final question with a change of topic to cleanse the palate:
Q18. Is it within your remit to enforce the Data Protection Act if an MP has been advised by the ICO that their Parliamentary office is in breach?
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter.
I’d welcome any immediate feedback you might have about these questions, or outside of these questions. Beyond that, your soonest response in full would be most appreciated. A man who reacts in unfortunate ways to Dorries’ outbursts is due to appear in court on 10 November and I’d like this matter to be resolved by then, if not long before.
From: Tim Ireland
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:35:01 +0000
Subject: Nadine Dorries
The Conservative MP Nadine Dorries claims to have filed a complaint against me with you personally. She was very clear about this in her complaint to Bedfordshire Police and I have paperwork in my possession that confirms this. Dorries further claims to have sent you copies of emails from and concerning me, which represents personal data that I have a right to access and inspect under the Data Protection Act.
After kicking this into the long grass under a demand that I submit my questions under FOI/DPA (and keeping me waiting weeks longer than the appropriate deadlines), the Met came back to me today with an answer that basically said nothing and revealed less.
If there are no emails to show, I wish to have that confirmed in very clear terms, please. You should not be standing by and allowing your department to be politicised in this way
An MP is using a false accusation of harassment to silence and intimidate critics (including her opponent at the last election), and she is using your department to do it. Nadine Dorries quite specifically claims that in May 2010, she had been “in consultation regarding [Tim Ireland’s] behaviour with the Westminster division of the Metropolitan Police, and the House of Commons police, for more than a year”
If any complaint was filed as Dorries claims, then I have a right to any resulting report that names me or otherwise indentifies me, even if all it does is rule out an investigation. If no such complaint was made, or if it was no valid complaint was made, again this needs to be confirmed in very clear terms, not with some vaguie get-out clause about investigations that may or may not be in progress; Dorries has previously hidden behind this specific uncertainty and she will continue to do so for as long as she is allowed.
All I seek from your office is a straight answer to some entirely legitimate questions. Why do you seek to frustrate my efforts rather than simply answer them?
UPDATE (02 March) – It is 5pm on Friday afternoon. My recent emails to DCI Christopher Lee about this matter have this week been read many times in multiple machines, at least one of which is inside the Houses of Parliament. And yet DCI Christopher Lee doesn’t see fit to contradict me when I accuse him of allowing his department to be politicised, and subsequently contributing to the corruption of Parliament. Interesting, no?
Stand by for major revelations about the Speaker next week. In late 2010 and early 2011; his wife Sally Bercow told me that she and her husband and brokered a ‘peace deal’ with Nadine Dorries. I recently revealed this on Twitter and announced to him my intention to publish my full account and supporting evidence. This afternoon, his office described this as “defamatory remarks made against a named Member of Parliament”.
17th Feb 2012
On Tuesday 7 February, there was a moment in the Leveson Inquiry when Sun editor Dominic Mohan sought to distance himself and even the previous editor from a deeply personal and abusive attack on Clare Short, the MP who had dared to question the appropriateness of using soft pornography to shift mainstream newspapers.
The full transcript of the relevant exchange between Robert Jay Q.C. (Counsel to Inquiry) and Dominic Mohan is available here (more) if you would care to see the full exchange and the surrounding context. I have used an edited extract below in order to highlight key points:
Dominic Mohan: I think that it’s worth looking at Page 3 in a wider context, and in the Sun’s context of women’s issues that we cover. A lot of the Page 3 girls, they’re much more than models. They’ve become ambassadors for the paper… They’re good role models*.
Robert Jay Q.C.: Can I deal with a number of points which are around Page 3. One of them is before your time. Under tab 17 — this is before your time as editor — I don’t have the date, but this is a piece which is rudely critical of Clare Short, isn’t it?
Dominic Mohan: It is.
Robert Jay Q.C.: Is this appropriate language, do you think, to use, Mr Mohan?
Dominic Mohan: It’s not probably something I would run now, no.
Robert Jay Q.C.: To be fair, I’m sure this isn’t you, and we don’t have a date for it, but we have an earlier piece for which we do have a date, tab 18. This is January 2004, when you’re working for the paper but you’re not editor. I think you’d left Bizarre by then. Where were you in January 2004 within the Sun?
Dominic Mohan: I think I would have — after I left Bizarre, I became a columnist. I had a weekly opinion column in the paper.
Robert Jay Q.C.: Did you have any involvement in this piece we’re looking at?
Dominic Mohan: No. I don’t believe I did.
Robert Jay Q.C.: Is it the sort of piece which the Sun would run now, do you think?
Dominic Mohan: Possibly not in that way, no. I mean, I think there is an article in — actually, I’m not sure it’s in this piece. It was in one of the submissions from one of the women’s groups, but I ran a similar piece — sorry, I ran a piece in the run-up to the last election where — which was about Harriet Harman and Lynne Featherstone because they were claiming they wanted to ban page 3, but I didn’t use that kind of language that was used in the previous article. It wasn’t as — we weren’t on the offensive in that way.
Robert Jay Q.C.: Not as offensive, frankly.
Dominic Mohan: Possibly.
Robert Jay Q.C.: Possibly or probably when one looks at it, Mr Mohan. What do you think?
Dominic Mohan: As I say, I don’t think I would run it in that way now, although I do think — I mean, clearly “fat and jealous” is in quotes. It is a quotation from somebody.
A “quotation from somebody”, says Mohan, heavily implying that the words are not responsibility/work of The Sun and leaving it that.
Being a cynical, curious and somewhat resourceful type, I went to the trouble of looking up the 2004 item/edition that Mohan part-defends here, and it is entirely clear to me, as it should have been to him, that the “quotation from somebody” came from certain “ambassadors for the paper” whose role Mohan defends on the basis that they are “good role models”. Of course, here we assume that this is one of those rare instances where statements printed by The Sun in the name of Page 3 models are actual statements from Page 3 models, and not an invention of the editor (then Rebekah Wade/Brooks, who would have OKed the picture rendering Clare Short topless and the image comparing her to the back of a bus).
Further, the editor clearly endorsed the ‘fat and ugly’ quote in that day’s editorial…
… and even saw fit to run a Page 3 on the subject, just to stress the point for those one-handed readers with shorter attention spans:
It’s getting to the point where Lord Justice Leveson might want to seriously consider calling past and present Page 3 girls to the inquiry, not just to answer this point, but also some serious questions about other editorials in their name.
[*The original transcript contains an obvious error, where Mohan is quoted as saying Page 3 girls are 'role moulds'. I have corrected that here for clarity... and to avoid getting needlessly personal.]
9th Feb 2012
I’ve recently had cause to submit a subject access request to the advertising network MessageSpace. After spending weeks dodging the issue, Jag Singh finally issued a cursory response, but ultimately refused to disclose the data he had earlier acknowledged I was due under the Data Protection Act. Jag Singh also failed to disclose paperwork involving my ex-directory home address and how he came by this sensitive information.
When first confronted about the source of this address, which was not readily accessible by any legitimate means, Jag Singh claimed that he “forgot” how he came by it.
When compelled by law to produce any and all paperwork that included that same address, Jag Singh claimed that it had been “thrown away”.
So please be advised that you would do well to avoid sharing any personal data with MessageSpace, because if you find yourself on the wrong side of Jag Singh or anyone involved in the offshore company that operates out of his open-plan office (see: Global and General Nominees, the contraceptive device used by gossip bloggers Paul Staines and Harry Cole), then there is a very good chance that those personal details will be handled inappropriately, if not used against you in a needlessly intimidating manner.
[Psst! Click here to see Paul Staines complaining about someone handling his personal details inappropriately.]
UPDATE (16 Feb) – I can confirm that Jag Singh has no comment to make about any of the above. Instead of facing up to serious questions about their handling of sensitive data, MessageSpace choose to avoid the issue, and for as long as this post remains live without a further update, that’s the way it stands. I mention this last bit because Jag Singh has an unfortunate habit of pretending matters have been settled when they have not.
26th Jan 2012
“Sometimes, Robin, being certain is merely being wrong at the top of your voice.” – Batman
It was almost 6 months ago that I first wrote about my concerns about the behaviour of News of the World in the weeks after the disappearance of Milly Dowler. At the time, I also expressed some concern about the subsequent response to News of the World by Surrey Police. Since then, more information has come to light. It is not comforting on either front.
With the publication of this letter especially, it is now clear that police were misrepresented to a great degree in the 14 April 2002 article analysed in this post, not least because the News of the World all-too-readily gave the appearance of speaking on behalf of police, both in print and during their pursuit of tabloid fodder (even to the extent of claiming to be working in conjunction with the police when interrogating members of the public).
This does not put Surrey Police in the clear. Far from it.
As far back as 13 April 2002, Surrey Police were aware that News of the World had accessed Milly Dowler’s voice messages. Police report in this letter that they were told quite bluntly by one of the reporters involved that “NOTW had got Milly’s phone number and PIN from school children”. To this date there is no indication that any kind of investigation took place. Surrey Police, in their 17 Jan 2012 letter, skip from mentioning the extensive investigation into Milly Dowler’s disappearance to saying; “Surrey Police did not arrest or charge anyone in relation to accessing Milly Dowler’s voicemail”
I will return to this point toward the end of this post.
(Oh, and you will probably want to keep this same point in mind for a later post that I dare not even hint at right now. If you’re a long-time reader, you will totally plotz.)
This recently-released letter details correspondence where the police suspected the involvement of a hoaxer in a recruitment company’s phone call to Milly Dowler’s mobile phone more than a week after she had gone missing. By all indications, police couched their phrases accordingly. For example, in a core statement, Surrey Police said there was “the possibility that a hoaxer might have been involved.”
Now watch that suspicion portrayed as rock-solid belief in the resulting article (14 April 2002):
Within a week, Surrey Police had determined that the hoaxer plaguing their investigation was not involved in any approach to the relevant recruitment agency as described by News of the World. Neither was the mysterious phone message anything to do with Milly Dowler herself, or anyone who knew her; it was just an unfortunate coincidence. But News of the World would not listen. By this stage (20 April), they were “110% certain” that 13-year-old Milly Dowler had run away from home and was out looking for work on the other side of the country:
A day later (21 April 2002), News of the World published extracts from the personal diary of a 13-year-old friend of Milly Dowler (who should NOT be assumed to be the source of any phone details, and should NOT carry any guilt/blame for trusting these tabloid scumbags in any instance). Note how News of the World give the impression that they are revealing this intimate detail at the behest of police detectives. The opening paragraphs even risk giving the impression that access to this diary was offered/granted to News of the World by those same unnamed police detectives.
Also note that they spare a final inch to have an oh-so-subtle shot at Surrey Police. Keep in mind here that News of the World were at this stage “110% certain” that the police were looking in the wrong place for Milly Dowler, who they believed to be looking for work up north… when she had by this stage been dead for near to a month:
Let’s add to this that the line of questioning they aimed at a 13-year-old girl is bloody obvious. This vulnerable child is saying her friend would not run away because some sod from a tabloid has been asking if she’s really, really sure about that. The scope and cost of the arrogance of News of the World is breathtaking.
On that note, here’s the editorial from that issue (21 April 2002). The editor makes a point of mentioning the possibility that Milly Dowler simply ran away. Based on what?
It is also worth mentioning that News of the World suffer here from that peculiar tabloid ailment of being quite unable to admit error or fault. There is no mention on 21 April 2002 of their being entirely wrong about the recruitment agency story a week earlier.
In fact, a week later (28 April 2002), they use the arrest of the hoaxer to give the impression that they were right about the recruitment agency/call article all along. The mention of phone calls in this passage adds to this illusion. I can assure you that in my experience this is quite common, and usually quite deliberate. I even know tabloid-style bloggers who behave in this way. I don’t like them very much:
Also note that once again the oh-so-superior News of the World have taken the time to have a shot at Surrey Police, portraying them as slow to respond if not incompetent. In their view, detectives were wasting their time on kidnap/homicide-oriented nonsense. News of the World were “110% certain” that 13-year-old Milly Dowler was alive and well and seeking work.
Where Surrey Police do deserve criticism is in their inexplicable willingness to be repeatedly treated as Rebekah Wade’s bitch.
I would very much like to hear a response from Sussex Police. I’d like to know more about the “routine review” of the Milly Dowler investigation described here and what it entailed. I would particularly like to know why Sussex Police failed to call Surrey Police to account for failing to call News of the World to account. I’m only a layman, but I rather got the impression that such reviews were meant to be some form of quality control beyond the influence of locals and any associated bias.
23rd Jan 2012
Well, my scanner had flatbed kittens last week, but in the end this minor delay turned out to be a very good thing indeed. Not only did Tim Bell fail to offer any challenge to my publishing quite clearly (and accurately) that he was a shameless liar and convicted public masturbator, he made it absolutely clear that he is entirely unrepentant about deceiving the public, and fully deserving of what is to follow.
So, before we go to the PR industry with this one simple demand…
PR companies/professionals should reveal the name any profile(s) they use to edit Wikipedia, state this plainly in the ‘About Us’ section of their website, and link back to that same website from their Wikipedia profile(s).
… we are going to warn the public about this shady operator and in doing so (a) reveal the limits of Bell Pottinger’s reputation-management capabilities (b) display the capacity of powerful lobbying tools now accessible to the general public, and (c) show quite clearly why PR/marketing professionals can no longer afford to conduct themselves in the way that Tim Bell has been for most of his adult life.
If you would like to join this lobbying group, all those who agree with the above stated aim are welcome, and from today I begin the first round of recruitment by inviting experienced bloggers especially to contact me with:
1. Name or nickname
2. URL of your main/personal blog
[MINI-UPDATE - Note I said 'experienced bloggers especially'. This does NOT equate to 'experienced bloggers only'. New(ish) blogs will still carry sufficient authority to be useful, so don't be thinking your blog is too insignificant or not good enough. So long as your blog is mature enough to have gathered a positive response or three, you should be good to go. Happy to make this clear.]
Shortly after, I will then send you a random* chapter from Mark Hollingsworth’s book The Ultimate Spin Doctor: Life and Fast Times of Tim Bell, along with a copy of the Index and Notes/References (for participants who may wish to explore a relevant chapter/publication for more information).
From there your task will be to publish an extract of the book from your chosen chapter, and write an original article to accompany it that attempts to put the material into context or otherwise educate your readers about its significance.
I’m greatly tempted to list some of the wonderful revelations lurking in this book that have yet to become properly evident to Google and other search engines, but rather than ruin any surprises, I will simply ask you to imagine a version of Forrest Gump based primarily in the 80s and 90s, featuring a far less sympathetic lead character who staggers from one disaster to the next with barely a thought for anybody but himself and those who might contribute to his success.
It is about to become clear to anyone who searches for Tim Bell’s name why he should not be trusted with anyone’s reputation, and that the main reputation he has been working on all these years is his own ill-deserved reputation in reputation-management.
If you’d like to join the project, and you have a seasoned blog in good standing, please do get in touch.
PS – Yes, I am perfectly happy for anonymous bloggers to participate in this stage especially for as long as Tim Bell continues to pretend that it was (and is) acceptable for Bell Pottinger to edit Wikipedia anonymously and otherwise engage in secret lobbying. You will not be expected to withdraw your article should he suddenly change his mind on this front (not least because your actions will not equate to his unless you’re an opponent or business rival of Bell’s who just happens to have a long-standing anonymous blog in their arsenal), but personally I will cease handing out chapters to anonymous parties and linking to same should Tim Bell suddenly pledge to change the habit of a lifetime.
(*Where I am familiar with a particular blogger’s strengths, I reserve the right to choose a chapter that best suits their unique capabilities and/or their familiarity with some of the relevant names/issues.)