Old Media

To: John Rubinstein (of Rubinstein Phillips LLP)

Hi folks. Pardon the housekeeping, but a certain dark corner needs a sweep and some daylight. On with the open letter:

Dear Mr Rubinstein,

I completely reject any notion that I have harassed or stalked your client in any legal sense that you can hope to establish, or that I intend to do anything that is not my legal and moral right.

Regarding language, you are wasting your breath on this tired old chestnut. It has taken months of harassment and threats of violence at the hands of people using your client’s false accusations against me to bring me to the point where I use swear words to describe him. I would add to this that I take offence at some of the language your client uses (and the tone you took with me over my nationality).

Your client made accusations of stalking and harassment quite publicly and very dishonestly. Those public accusations are the primary reason I seek to make contact with him, as he refuses to stand by them on his site, but at the same time he will not withdraw them or issue any kind of correction, even though he knows they are being used against me in a wholly inappropriate manner. (This, I regard to be quite deliberate, especially in light of how he knowingly used a very similar tactic to libel the MP Tom Watson.)

Further, your client went on to spread these accusations privately, by his own admission.

At the time of the Tory Party Conference, my (ex-directory) home address was being widely published alongside your client’s false accusations of stalking. I will assume you are not implying that my decision to contact him at this particular time was politically motivated, as this is beneath you (if not your client).

Contrary to what you claim, your client appears to have at the very least received communications from Dominic Wightman (in the form of comments) and, I suspect from his previous carefully-phrased denials, Glen Jenvey also.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt regarding what you report about your staff and assume that they have trouble telling the difference between aggression and frustration. I asked yesterday that you simply confirm receipt of my email, and your staff were insisting that this involve a phone call with you. I have no desire to be subjected to further patronising/xenophobic comments from you, and nor do I wish to open myself to accusations that I am somehow needlessly burdening your client with billable activities.

Getting away from the alleged discomfort of your staff and back to online ‘toughs’ repeatedly publishing my home address alongside your client’s obviously false and quite strategic accusations of stalking:

I will continue to pursue this regardless of my limited time and resources until your client moves either way. I have little choice, and I will not tolerate him leaving an untested accusation out there, especially when he is aware that it is being used in this way.

Knowing what is happening and how it is disrupting my personal and professional life, your client is, in effect, using thugs in place of the courts. If he weren’t, surely he would withdraw the accusation that he made publicly or test it in court. (Or, at a stretch, engage in a further ‘trial by new media’ that doesn’t involve him engaging in lies of omission and/or hiding behind anonymous comments on his own website.)

You have asked me to stop calling/emailing your client. I have repeatedly asked your client to stand by his claims or withdraw them.

As for your repeated insistence that I use legal muscle to deal with this, your client has, by his past behaviour, left me in little doubt that he would only use this to imply that I am somehow guilty and/or a hypocrite and enemy of free speech:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/telegraph-takes-down-nadines-blog.html

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/draper-watson-call-in-lawyers-to-put.html

In short, your client is a liar, and he has been lying since the beginning of this sorry affair, when he agreed to call Patrick Mercer, then didn’t, then lied about that, then lied to his readers about his being ‘stalked’ to mask his own shameful conduct after he put politics (or some personal beef) ahead of principle.

I was being falsely accused of *paedophilia*, Mr Rubinstein. I do not take such accusations lightly, and I know exactly what is going on when your client, a self-proclaimed community leader, can’t be bothered to make a single phone call to address that, and then almost immediately afterwards pulls out all the stops to play-act as a warrior against smears, refusing my calls and emails while knowingly libelling a political enemy and blogging rival as a smear-merchant.

That he would then (through you) go on to describe my concerns about being smeared as a convicted sex criminal as a “pre-occupation with accusations… of paedophilia” is the icing on the cake.

I contend that Iain Dale’s accusation of stalking is nothing more than a political weapon. He uses it without shame, knowing that it led to attacks and threats directed at me from the very first day he first made it, and eventually escalated to a point that he (only privately) recognises is beyond the pale.

In light of this, I make no apologies for any attempt to contact him, or for calling him a ‘bastard’, because he’s certainly been acting like one.

Cheers

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

PS – You object to me contacting you, while insisting that I am free to publish what I please (within the law) on my website. So I have replied with this open letter on my website, and not burdened you with any emails or calls about it, lest I unwittingly distress you or your staff. Hope that’s OK.

Right, now that’s out of the way, I have some ART to attend to. Back soon.

How Iain Dale libelled Tom Watson (and me)

“I didn’t libel Tom Watson. if I had done, he would have sued me.” – Iain Dale (source)

Today, in the High Court, The Sun issued an apology to Tom Watson (more) and agreed to pay a “substantial sum in damages” (plus costs) for the “acute distress, humiliation and embarrassment” caused.

Take a look at what The Sun have apologised for specifically:

The Claimant was not copied in on, nor did he know about any of the emails between McBride and Draper until Friday 10 April, when the matter was first drawn by the media to the attention of Downing Street. He did not have any involvement in or knowledge of the “Red Rag” website. Accordingly, the Claimant did not lie when he publicly denied involvement by way of press releases issued first by him on 12 April and then on 14 April by Carter-Ruck solicitors on his behalf. (source)

The origin of the false claim that Tom Watson was CCed on the Draper/McBride emails is officially unknown; the person who first aired it via a mainstream channel was the Conservative blogger Iain Dale.

Iain Dale included the ‘CC’ claim in an article published by the Mail on Sunday on Sunday 12 April 2009. Iain’s story has changed a few times, but let’s take this recent version as gospel, just for laughs:

In the original text submitted to the Mail on Sunday I alleged that Tom had been copied in on the Damian McBride emails. I did so because I was told that by a senior Labour source that this was the case. I also published it on my blog in THIS post at 5.45 on the evening of 11 April. At 6.20pm I received a call from Guido Fawkes who told me that Tom Watson had not in fact been cc’d on the emails he had seen, although he was referred to. I immediately reworded the blogpost and wrote a replacement paragraph for the Mail on Sunday column, which was sent to them at 6.30pm. In retrospect, instead of amending the blogpost I should have written an Update at the bottom. However, I needed to get the Mail on Sunday piece corrected. Unfortunately, despite me sending it in what I assumed to be good time, the change wasn’t made so the wrong paragraph was printed. This was cockup, not conspiracy.” – Iain Dale (source)

If we’re to believe Iain, then the urgent need to send a single email on early Saturday evening led to his failure to issue a correction on the original post for the rest of the night and all of the following Sunday and Monday (no correction was posted there until 11.30am on Tuesday 14 April, even though Iain managed to post a small ‘clarification’ elsewhere at 4.15pm on Monday 13 April) but the fact is that Iain had plenty of opportunities to issue a correction and chose not to.

In fact, at the time, he was knowingly deleting comments (mostly from me) asking him to post a correction, but I’ll get back to that and more right after we look at the libel left standing:

1. The libel that remained (and is still present on his website)

Initially, Iain removed from the offending post the text that read; “Tom Watson, who sat next to McBride in the Downing Street bunker and was copied on on all the emails to Derek Draper” but left in place the following:

“Tom Watson is Minister for the Civil Service. What did he do when he received these emails? Did he berate Damian McBride and tell him to stop abusing his position? No. Instead, he either tacitly or overtly encouraged McBride to send more.”

There was (and is) NO proof that Tom Watson received these emails at all, so it is false to assert that he was in a position to object and conclude that he “tacitly or overtly encouraged McBride to send more”. The evidence simply doesn’t support the premise. This passage was/is libel. End of.

This text was NOT removed from the body of the post until days later, and (in a classic indication of how careless Dale is with comments) remains live on his website even today:

screen capture of comment

One of Iain Dale’s favourite tricks is to deny that something is libel on the basis that it is an honestly-held opinion (e.g. in his mind, this applies when he publishes claims that I am “clearly psychotic”). Here, he has taken it that one step further and based a (false) assertion of fact on that opinion, and he still doesn’t recognise that it’s libel. Extraordinary.

Further, this text (especially minus any correction) clearly gave the impression that the ‘CC’ claim stood, when instead it was based on nothing more than Iain Dale’s certainty that Tom Watson must have known what was happening at a nearby desk on a colleague’s computer, and here we come to the lie of omission:

2. The false ‘CC’ claim, and the lie of omission that followed

According to Iain’s own account, the ‘CC’ claim was also live on his website for a short period on Saturday 11 April 2009 before Iain removed it…. but remove it is all he did. At the time he published no correction about his false ‘CC’ claim and (crucially) continued to publish comments (his own and others’) that asserted Tom Watson’s involvement as a matter of fact, not opinion.

Here you need to take into account the size and nature of the audience Iain was playing to at the time. Let’s take the single day of Sunday 12 April; Iain’s audience has jumped from average of 5,000 to 8,000 visitors on a Sunday to somewhere near 18,000 that particular Sunday (source). The following diagram – which is to scale – compares his enlarged circulation for that day to the approximate daily circulation of the Mail on Sunday on the same day (source), and The Sun on the next (source).

comparison of circulation figures

Exactly how these audiences overlap and where Iain’s extra ~10K visitors came from on that day remains uncertain, but it’s fair to assume that a good portion of them are likely to have arrived after being exposed to the false ‘CC’ claim, and it’s fair to say that only a handful of them left corrected on that point for all of Sunday the 12th and most of Monday the 13th; indeed, according to Iain’s own account, if you wanted to learn the truth before Tuesday, you needed to be (a) a journalist, (b) who asked about the ‘CC’ claim specifically

(Psst! This same diagram may also provide clues about Tom Watson’s decision to sue over what was published in The Mail on Sunday and The Sun but not on Iain Dale’s Diary, regardless of how influential Dale himself may have been in sharing/publishing the central falsehood.)

3. Deliberately careless comment moderation

Iain Dale did all of this with Blogger.com-hosted comment moderation turned OFF; this meant that comments would be published immediately, without being checked by Iain first.

If someone went too far in what they claimed about Tom Watson (or anyone else), then Iain Dale would allow them to run free for however long he was away from his screen, before erasing (some) comments without so much as an ‘oops’ for the record. This is not something he allows on his site when there are serious accusations levelled against him or his friends, but for some reason he thinks it’s fair to subject political enemies to this risk when it suits him.

There were repeated instances of people taking advantage of the shoddy moderation over the long weekend, using the platform to launch attacks on Tom Watson, and even to imply that I was somehow involved with Draper/McBride. Iain Dale was repeatedly (and quite dishonestly) using ‘sloppy’ moderation to his advantage in this way while efficiently deleting all of my submitted responses, and refusing to acknowledge my emails or answer my calls.

(Further, this was happening at a time when someone was actively publishing false claims about me being a convicted paedophile, a valid concern that Iain charmingly describes as a “preoccupation” of mine.)

Iain Dale knows that – in blogging especially – deleting data after the fact is not the same as not allowing it to be published in the first place, especially when you have a choice to engage moderation controls and decide against it (for selfish if not downright malicious reasons). While the deleted comments may (eventually) be removed from Iain’s website, they will have been read and retained by anyone subscribing to the relevant thread, and automatically syndicated on external websites beyond Iain’s control within minutes of their publication. (I am sure that Iain knows all of these things and more because he is soon to appear as an expert witness, speaking on the subject of responsible comment moderation.)

But when the mob was at its height and calling for blood, Iain Dale not only maintained a major lie of omission but did so while playing it fast and loose in comments; he refused to address or correct false accusations levelled at Tom Watson (and myself) in his posts and under comments, he deleted comments calling for a correction of his earlier post, and he refused to engage comment moderation… until the moment he stood accused of libel and instead accused me of harassment. Then Iain engaged comment moderation (and re-introduced anonymous comments) before publishing dozens of comments alleging my involvement in criminal activity and making false statements about my mental health.

I cannot link to the relevant post, because Iain has since deleted it. But as with the CC claim, in the minds of many of his readers, the accusation stands and will continue to stand until he issues a correction.

Conclusion

Iain Dale not only libelled Tom Watson, he knowingly misled his readers about it.

Iain also libelled me in the process, and he refuses to issue a correction of the since-deleted post/ comments, even though he knows that his accusations are being used against me.

These are just two examples of Iain Dale knowingly using lies against his political enemies… and according to Iain’s own standards, what I say must be true if Iain doesn’t sue me, right?

“I didn’t libel Tom Watson. if I had done, he would have sued me.” – Iain Dale (source)

-

UPDATE – See also:
David Cameron: also putting political agenda ahead of principle

Jimmy Carr: legend

1. I can’t really say that I’m a fan of Jimmy Carr, but I do admire his ability to go certain places, and his willingness to go there (in between corporate gigs). And here he is going there and doing that:

“Say what you like about the servicemen amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are going to have a fucking good Paralympics team in 2012″ – Jimmy Carr

2. The thrust of this joke should be obvious, as should the fact that it has not been made at the expense of the ‘servicemen’ it mentions. It is not a frivolous piffle or a cheap gag at a wounded person’s expense, and I suspect some people are being deliberately obtuse about that. Most of the population probably never think of the wounded that emerge from service in our desert adventures, because the same people who talk with calculated pride about the upcoming Olympics would rather you didn’t look past the figures for fatalities, which are bad enough. This joke drags you right into the middle of that with one deft stroke, and will probably leave you there (and/or echo in your mind), especially if delivered as one of the last jokes of the evening, as this one was.

3. It does this while managing to be genuinely funny at the same time [insert joke at Carr's expense here], and it has done so for weeks on end without incident. The only outrage has resulted from tabloid newspapers presenting it out of context, and bracketing it with attacks from a range of right-wing rent-a-quoters.

4. Looking at the activity on Twitter, the number and nature of tweets show a small number of people reacting to the tabloid beat-ups, but no overwhelming public outrage driving it. This is, in short, the kind of deliberately manufactured and beat-up campaign that Jan Moir falsely claimed she was the victim of when she refused to apologise for her disgraceful attack on the late Stephen Gately (more).

5. You may recall that, after her hateful and homophobic attack, Jan Moir refused to apologise, while the Daily Mail stood by her, allowing her to keep her job and providing her with legal/PR support. You may also remember earlier this year when Derek Lambie and Paula Murray enjoyed a similar level of support from their tabloid masters after a disgraceful attack on the childhood survivors of the Dunblane massacre in the Scottish edition of the Sunday Express (more). No-one lost their job over either outrage.. but when Jimmy Carr makes a move that is nowhere near as misjudged (or malicious), suddenly the whole mob from both tabloid groups is on deck calling for his career to end. What a bunch of hypocrites.

6. Oh, and take a look at the bloke who’s leading the calls for an end to Carr’s career:

“This was a remarkably dim and foolish thing to joke about. It’s not funny and this man’s career should end right now. I understand his desire to shock but there are certain subjects you just can’t make fun of and one of those is the sacrifice of our troops – especially this close to Remembrance Sunday. It was a very tasteless mistake. Somehow his style of comedy has blinded him to what he is saying. It is too late for an apology.” – Patrick Mercer

Yes, this is the same Patrick Mercer who presents himself as a credible authority on extremism and terrorism, but doesn’t think that placing his trust in two discredited ‘terror experts’ (and then lying about that) should end his career (more | latest). Hell, he doesn’t even think it warrants an explanation.

7. Conclusion: this tabloid campaign against Jimmy Carr is a pathetic deceit of feigned outrage and gross hypocrisy.

8. There may be a joke in this; what some writers will run when they have’t got a leg to stand on and all that…. but being a humourless lefty, I couldn’t possibly comment.

Dominic Wightman: follow the leader

Dominic Wightman has, since the very beginning of the more recent attacks on me, denied having anything to do with the ‘Cheerleaders’ who are doing the bulk of the dirty work (which mainly involves the repeated publication of my home address, but has recently escalated into none-too-subtle threats of violence).

Yesterday, he issued a further public denial, insisting that I was “paranoid” and describing the idea of their working together as “ludicrous”.

He has also encouraged Richard Bartholomew to share these recent emails with me:

“It must be easy for you both with so many enemies and the electronic stalker with so much paranoia to see a bloc assault. You’re wrong and the authorities have been made aware of the lies behind the suggestion I have yoked powers with these Cheerleaders as one might call in the Picts… no need for their help. I have emailed… twice now to tell them to stop providing you people with smear material with their base attacks. Also to suggest to them that silence works better…. I have no sway over these baying hordes.” – Dominic Wightman

“As one of Tim’s friends it might be a good idea for you to point out to him that he cannot contact me by email. He sent me an email at 11.11 am this morning regarding some alleged posts / tweets by someone else. He acknowledged on his blog that I sent him a cease and desist letter three weeks ago which he has now infringed. I have today informed my lawyers of his infringement. If he emails me again, I shall not hesitate to inform the police. To help him deal with his problems I have now blocked his email address. I’d greatly appreciate your intervention in this matter – I get the impression Tim cannot help himself or perhaps does not understand the gravity of his actions. He has attempted thrice in recent weeks to contact me through third parties but, as agreed (since my cease and desist is a forced mutual arrangement) I resisted replying.” – Dominic Wightman

I have no idea what he’s talking about with these “third parties”, unless he’s referring to my recent efforts to have the Conservative MP for Guildford Anne Milton clarify what her relationship is with this man and/or his [blood relative] (answer; she has met the former “before, in passing” but will not discuss the latter on the basis that they are a constituent).

As for my sending him a single email since he shoved his absurd ‘cease and desist’ demand through my letterbox, well – H-E-double-toothpicks – just call me guilty (with one hell of an excuse).

As with Iain Dale’s equally absurd legal threats (that Wightman is mimicking), they are meaningless enough on their own, but rendered completely inert when the person who claims they just want to be left alone manipulates others into attacking me and/or attacks me themselves while hiding behind anonymous comments*.

(*If Iain Dale would care to deny making anonymous comments on his own website, I am happy to start the conversation there, but it would end with irrefutable evidence of his knowingly taking advantage of them, even if he did not author them himself. And just in case Iain has forgotten our conversation of last year, this post should remind him that I am capable of identifying participating IP addresses on certain types of Blogger.com-hosted weblogs.)

A lot of what has been published about me on YouTube recently is, in the view of others, obviously Wightman’s work, but it’s hard to establish or prove anything in that environment (unless someone is as stupid as that Grant Shapps fellow).

However, in recent days, someone has strayed out of that environment and posted this message to a Blogger.com-hosted weblog:

This comment describes me as a “nutter and a bully” that “for years has abused and stalked his victims”. It not only matches the Cheerleaders justifications for their attacks almost word for word, it rather cheekily drops a hint about where I live during that group’s campaign to reveal my home address to people/groups who are hostile to me.

Oh, and the IP address used to post it is exactly the same as the IP address used by Dominic Wightman to send the recent email (above) to Richard Bartholomew.

There’s other correlating evidence, but from the IP data alone, there is little doubt that the above comment was made by Dominic Wightman himself.

Wightman’s legal threats are less than bluster; they are dishonest in nature, as he has no plans to maintain anything but the illusion of a dignified silence. In fact, he seeks to launch unwarranted attacks against me while accusing me of launching unwarranted attacks against him.

As for his claim that I am “paranoid” and his assertion that any notion of his working together with the Cheerleaders is “ludicrous”… well, I’ll let this email exchange with Dominic Wightman (using his ‘Richard Walker’ alias) speak for itself:

From: Tim Ireland
To: Richard Walker [Dominic Wightman]
Cc: Richard Bartholomew
Date:Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Subject Re: Update

    Have u guys ever wondered who the journalist is in the Jenvey recording?

Often. But I didn’t think it polite to ask.

Tim

-

From: Richard Walker [Dominic Wightman]
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: Richard Bartholomew
Date: Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Subject Re: Update

Ludas Matyi aka Charlie Flowers. Chief Cheerleader (likely the only one there is as far as I know).
I met him the month before after I had been put in touch by him online with Gina Khan – the Muslim activist who gets bricks through her window from [snip]‘s mates. Thought him odd. Odd enough to collect an insurance policy on Jenvey with.
Turns out he did rather well.
I don’t like all his childish crap on the web and me feels he is suffering from one too may LSD hauntings, still, when he’s sane he’s an agreeable fellow. Van driver.
Between you and me of course…..

So there’s (Cheerleader) Gina Khan quoted by Wightman himself as the person who introduced him to (Cheerleader) Charlie Flowers (the same man who is now offering to drop by my house so we can settle matters with a fist fight).

Wightman then went on use Flowers in carefully-planned venture against his former partner Glen Jenvey (Flowers went in posing as a reporter, armed with questions provided by Wightman).

Ludicrous? Try instead ‘entirely f**king plausible with a clear precedent’.

If you are going to be a liar, you need a far better memory than Dominic Wightman’s, and if he’d care to take a closer look at our past email correspondence, he might realise that I have little interest in attacking him, and only wish to set the record straight on recent events.

-

UPDATE – See also this updated post by Richard Bartholomew, which includes further evidence of Dominic Wightman’s duplicity. The cheeky bastard is (consciously or otherwise) mimicking Dale to the extent of hinting that I might be inventing these attacks just to get attention/him/Tories.

Meet Charlie Flowers (aka Ludas Matyi)

Charlie Flowers (aka ‘Ludas Matyi’) is the ringleader of a group who call themselves the ‘Cheerleaders*’; they turned up at the beginning of the Jenvey saga, and continued to pester myself and others until Dominic Wightman intervened. Now it’s in Wightman’s interests that I suffer for what he did to me (!) these ‘Cheerleaders’ have suddenly/mysteriously returned with a vengeance, and have been repeatedly publishing my home address online and broadcasting it to audiences that are hostile to me alongside claims that I am a bully, a stalker, a Nazi, and an ally of religious extremists. The refusal of certain bloggers (and a serving MP) to intervene or even clarify what they claim to be fair comment has greatly enabled these people, but that’s a matter for a later post.

(*They are also members of a band called the ‘Fighting Cocks’. I have snipped the signature with the links to their MySpace, Twitter, Facebook etc. pages, as I do not want to start a trend of offering free website publicity in exchange for threats/intimidation. Oh, and here, Charlotte Gore finally gets the free publicity she’s hungry for. Well done, you. Thanks for your input. Hope you enjoyed the passing mention.)

The short version is that I suspect Dominic Wightman of (again) manipulating others into doing his dirty work for him. Unless he has been using multiple false identities, Charlie Flowers has been doing the same in two ways; by having his hangers-on use their accounts for the primary instances of harassment, and by seeing to it that my home address is sent/broadcast to people the ‘Cheerleaders’ think will line up and have a go.

Recent repeated messages from a Cheerleader member nicknamed ‘Shooter’ insisted that – contrary to what I and others had claimed – they were willing to engage in their attacks while using their real names, so I dropped a line to the two members of their group who used their real names online, and had reliable contact details (Dan Wilde and Gina Khan). A copy of my email to Dan Wilde is quoted in the correspondence below. Rather than publicly stand by the actions of the group, Wilde forwarded this email to the ringleaders, who immediately published it alongside a whole lot of ‘Ireland is a Nazi’ nonsense.

They then made what was to be their final entry in their ‘Cheerleadered’ account on Twitter, before it was finally suspended. That message repeated my home address, and finished with the message:

“….AND THERE’S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!”

Now that you’ve got the background, I can allow this recent correspondence to speak for itself:

[Psst! 'Matyi' (Charlie Flowers) failed to give any reason for proposing a fist fight, and consistently refused to put his name to any of this while implying that I am a coward. There is no lie of omission here (as there was in Iain Dale's since-deleted 'Parish Notice' post). I have corrected a typo involving his nickname (it is 'Matyi', not 'Mayti'); further snips and other changes to the body of the emails are in square brackets and the highlight of the correspondence is emphasised in red (for the browsing convenience of those with short attention spans).]

- | -

From: The Fighting Cocks UK (fightingcocks@live.co.uk)
To: Tim Ireland
Cc: fiercebusinessrecords@yahoo.co.uk, danwilde@rocketmail.com, ginakhanmail@googlemail.com, Jonny Yeah (jonny_yeah@koobaradio.co.uk), princesscalamity@googlemail.com, charliewadia@hotmail.com, Plan B Booking (adi@planb-booking.com), Matthew Edwards (misterrivers@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Subject: Straightener

Mr Ireland;
With regard to your email copied in below, I have consulted with Matty H, Rivers, and Dan, and we have decided that the best way forward if you have a problem with The Fighting Cocks is to settle matters with a Straightener.
This can be at any fairground event near where you live, or at a Canvey Island event that runs regularly; we can send details nearer the time. You will need to bring MMA gloves in your size, and you will be fighting me, with one of my crew refereeing.
I expect an answer back within 24 hours, either way.
Yours
Matyi

From: Tim Ireland
Subject: The Cheerleaders
To: fiercebusinessrecords@yahoo.co.uk, danwilde@rocketmail.com
Cc: ginakhanmail@googlemail.com
Date: Monday, 28 September, 2009, 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Straightener

Dear Dan,

Are you in any way involved with the Cheerleaders and/or their past/present attacks on people they accuse of extremism, Nazism, etc.?

This post includes examples of some of their recent attacks (scroll down t the screengrab):

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/09/dominic-whiteman.asp

I ask because certain members are insisting that they are not afraid to engage in such attacks when using their real names, and they object to me (and other) claiming otherwise.

I would therefore like to draw up as complete a list of names as possible for publication (and/or presentation to police), starting with Charlie Flowers and working my way down

Cheers

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

[band-promo signature snipped]

-

From: Tim Ireland
To: The Fighting Cocks UK
Cc: fiercebusinessrecords@yahoo.co.uk, danwilde@rocketmail.com, ginakhanmail@googlemail.com, Jonny Yeah (jonny_yeah@koobaradio.co.uk), princesscalamity@googlemail.com, charliewadia@hotmail.com, Plan B Booking (adi@planb-booking.com), Matthew Edwards (misterrivers@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Straightener

To: Charlie Flowers (aka Ludas Matyi)

I’ve never met you, we’ve had no major disagreement that I’m aware of, you’ve not even managed to articulate what you have against me beyond these recent accusations of stalking that no reasonable person will stand by, and now you’re challenging me to a fist fight (while implicating everybody on this email list in your recent efforts to harass and intimidate me).

Unless you plan on giving me a simple list of the real names* of the people involved in the repeated broadcast of my personal details (something ‘Shooter’ insisted was not an issue) and/or admitting to the role played by Dominic Wightman in this matter, we have nothing further to discuss.

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

(*And contact details, obviously. Email addresses will do if you’re concerned about your own personal security.)

-

From: The Fighting Cocks UK (fightingcocks@live.co.uk)
To: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Straightener

Fight on or fight off?
The Hur al-Ayn girls will be the ring girls- Amarah Hadchiti, Priya Patel, Charlotte Wadia. They’re proud to be H a-A and dying to meet you.
This is the way we settle things here. Give me your mobile and home phone numbers now.
We need to settle this like real men or you need to fade fast mate.

[band-promo signature snipped]

-

From: Tim Ireland
To: fightingcocks@live.co.uk
CC: fiercebusinessrecords@yahoo.co.uk; danwilde@rocketmail.com; ginakhanmail@googlemail.com; jonny_yeah@koobaradio.co.uk; princesscalamity@googlemail.com; charliewadia@hotmail.com; adi@planb-booking.com; misterrivers@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:49:42 +0100
Subject: Re: Straightener

Charlie,

My position is clear; you have not provided adequate grounds for proposing this fist fight (see: “I’ve never met you, we’ve had no major disagreement that I’m aware of, you’ve not even managed to articulate what you have against me beyond these recent accusations of stalking that no reasonable person will stand by”) and despite many assurances from your corner that you and your partners don’t care about the consequences of your recent actions, you have yet to even acknowledge that Charlie Flowers is your real name.

Unless you plan on giving me a simple list of the real names of the people involved in the repeated broadcast of my personal details (something ‘Shooter’ insisted was not an issue) and/or admitting to the role played by Dominic Wightman in this matter, we have nothing further to discuss.

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

-

From: The Fighting Cocks UK
To: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Straightener

Fuck it, I’m coming round to your house in the week. Fight or no fight?

[band-promo signature snipped]

-

From: Tim Ireland
To: The Fighting Cocks UK
Cc: fiercebusinessrecords@yahoo.co.uk, danwilde@rocketmail.com, ginakhanmail@googlemail.com, Jonny Yeah (jonny_yeah@koobaradio.co.uk), princesscalamity@googlemail.com, charliewadia@hotmail.com, Plan B Booking (adi@planb-booking.com), Matthew Edwards (misterrivers@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Straightener

Charlie,

If that’s threat to come to my home and start a fist fight regardless of what I agree to, then please have the courage to put your name to it. Otherwise, we’re done here.

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

-
From: The Fighting Cocks UK (fightingcocks@live.co.uk)
To: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Straightener

You’re getting an invite to a straightener. You approve or decline. I am very up for fighting you to settle this, and my crew are already taking bets. Now either man up or fade away boy. I take it you know how to box?

[band-promo signature snipped]

-

From: Tim Ireland
To: The Fighting Cocks UK
Cc: fiercebusinessrecords@yahoo.co.uk, danwilde@rocketmail.com, ginakhanmail@googlemail.com, Jonny Yeah (jonny_yeah@koobaradio.co.uk), princesscalamity@googlemail.com, charliewadia@hotmail.com, Plan B Booking (adi@planb-booking.com), Matthew Edwards (misterrivers@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Straightener

Charlie,

You still haven’t told me what it is that you want to settle and why. You won’t even make this invitation (or any of the accompanying threats) under your own name. I don’t know who I will be fighting or why.

You appear to imply that I’m a coward in the hope that I’ll act like a fool. Sorry, no dice.

Who am I invited to fight and why?

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

-

From: The Fighting Cocks UK (fightingcocks@live.co.uk)
To: Tim Ireland
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Straightener

I’m Matyi. If you have a problem with the Fighting Cocks, we fight to settle it. I will book the venue with Joe Pyle. You’re either up for it or not, if you contact me again I’ll consider it on, and we’ll book it. If not, we’re done here.

And Shooter can do what she wants.

-

From: Tim Ireland
To: fiercebusinessrecords@yahoo.co.uk, danwilde@rocketmail.com, ginakhanmail@googlemail.com, Jonny Yeah (jonny_yeah@koobaradio.co.uk), princesscalamity@googlemail.com, charliewadia@hotmail.com, Plan B Booking (adi@planb-booking.com), Matthew Edwards (misterrivers@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Straightener

FYI:

I won’t be knowingly contacting ‘Matyi’ (aka Charlie Flowers) again, as doing so may give him the false impression that he has some kind of agreement for a fist fight (with no purpose that he can articulate) when no such agreement exists, and this likely to set him on a path to disappointment (or an assault charge).

Unless told otherwise by anyone having/wanting no part of this, I will be assuming that everybody CCed on this conversation (i.e. everyone receiving this email) has played a willing part in the repeated publication of my personal details, as well as this evening’s attempt at intimidation.

I’ll allow 12 hours for any replies.

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

- | -

The ‘Cheerleaders’ have now published extracts of this correspondence on their Facebook page, accusing me of cowardice (because everybody settles ill-defined differences with fist-fights, don’tcha know).

Obviously, the police will be made aware of all of this, not that this is likely to help with the immediate situation.

Today, I am seriously discussing with my wife not the ifs/buts, but the whens/wheres of moving her and the kids to a safe/unknown location.

Judging by their track record and past trolling technique, I have little doubt that this will lead to jeers from the ‘Cheerleaders’, who will then go on to assure one and all that I’m hysterical and they’re harmless, but even if I’m going to take them at their word on that, I also have to take into account:

a) The many people these ‘Cheereladers’ have sent/broadcast my home address to

b) The lies these ‘Cheerleaders’ have been putting about publicly and privately (see below; like Mercer and Dale, the Cheerleaders choose to be a little more… creative in their accusations when out of the public eye)

c) The 50+ false claims that I am a convicted paedophile that Glen Jenvey (the author) is unable to remove and Google (the host) refuses to delete

We live in a country where paediatricians are the targets of mobs of illiterate tabloid readers, so I don’t think I’m wrong to be this worried…. and I think I have every right to call out the following Conservatives on their ongoing bullshit:

- Perhaps today Dominic Wightman would care to publish a statement about his relationship with Charlie Flowers and the ‘Cheerleaders’.

- Perhaps today Patrick Mercer would care to publish a statement about his relationship with Dominic Wightman.

- Perhaps today Iain Dale would like to clarify and justify what he told Mercer that might prompt him to describe me privately as an “electronic stalker” (and if he won’t make his case publicly, then perhaps he will finally recognise that the time is way past due for him to withdraw what he’s been putting about privately while claiming to ‘ignore’ me).

Or perhaps (and this is far more likely) all three of these Conservatives will continue to stand back and pretend that it’s none of their affair, tell their friends and colleagues that it’s all a lot of fuss over nothing, broadcast claims that I am paranoid and/or imagining things, whisper that I deserve this for being so mean to Tories in general, assure their fellow party members that they are behaving strictly within the laws/rules, etc. etc. etc.

-

[** 23 Feb 2010 - Workable email address removed following a request to my provider made on behalf of Matthew Edwards.]
[*** 16 Mar 2010 - Followed by a copycat complaint on behalf of everybody else.]
[**** 04 May 2010 - Then I decided to move to a provider that couldn't be bullied quite as easily and later reinstated the data when they turned up mouthing off again. They're going to publish my home address then moan about publication of email addresses (associated with a threat of violence, no less)? Fuck 'em.]

Patrick Mercer, Dominic Whiteman and the Cheerleaders

First of all, I should point out that Dominic Whiteman was the name used by Mercer’s (one assumes former) associate throughout their involvement with/via the organisation known as ‘Vigil’, but Dominic Wightman was the named used by bailiffs when they came calling (i.e. after Vigil failed to stay afloat on the illusion of numbers and mere promises of money).

Secondly, I should also make clear that, while I am not at all happy with the company he’s been keeping, Glen Jenvey (now Omar Hamza Jenvey) has ceased his attacks on me and any/all involvement in the shadowy world of amateur espionage. Further, he has also had the good grace to apologise. So while the question of Mercer’s level of involvement with Jenvey and his earlier deceptions remains open, any significant personal disagreement with Jenvey himself is firmly in the past.

Finally, before we get started, for the benefit of newcomers and regulars, I should also point out that these latest attacks on me happen primarily at the instigation of Dominic Wightman (who now also appears to have played a significant role in manipulating Jenvey into his ill-advised attacks). Most of the more actionable publications have been made using accounts in the name(s) of a group of people who call themselves the ‘Cheerleaders’ (who now claim to be terribly brave on the basis that some of their lesser members have been publishing my home address while using their ‘real names’), but this is simply another case of Dominic Wightman manipulating other people into doing his dirty work for him.

Wightman’s recent claims that he has only enjoyed light/tangential contact with these ‘Cheerleaders’ are lies, and I can prove it.

OK, there’s your basic sandwich… now, here’s the meat:

Patrick Mercer was recently forced into a humiliating climb-down after declaring that any suggestion that his office had worked with Jenvey was “a damaging lie”. Leaving aside that this ‘damaging lie’ came from his own earlier statement, Mercer was also proved wrong by evidence showing a working relationship between Jenvey and his office as late as March 2009. This resulted in “sources close to the MP” muttering something about it all depending on what your definition of ‘working’ is.

With tip of the hat to Richard Bartholomew for refreshing my memory, I now bring you further evidence that Patrick Mercer’s office also worked with Dominic Wightman (aka Dominic Whiteman):

Telegraph – Working on the internet from an anonymous city office, the shadowy figures exposing Islamic extremism
By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
Published: 12:01AM GMT 19 Nov 2006

Vigil’s founders believe that the police, security and intelligence services are so overstretched that they need help. The organisation seeks to make Britain a safer place by disrupting and exposing terrorist activity. It is also working with media groups to highlight the threat from Muslim extremists… Only two of its staff are willing to be identified. One is Dominic Whiteman, its director and spokesman… The other Vigil operator willing to be identified is Glen Jenvey, 42, a freelance counter-intelligence investigator from Wiltshire…

Scotland Yard* confirmed it was “working closely with Vigil, particularly its director and spokesman who has made officers aware of chat-room material. This material will be considered and appropriate action taken.”

Patrick Mercer, the Tory spokesman for homeland security, has also worked with Vigil.

He said that he had been impressed by the group’s professionalism. “Anything of this nature that helps the security services has to be encouraged,” he said.

(*Scotland Yard, I will get to later…. if given the opportunity. They’ve been a bit shy about clarifying statements themselves.)

Glen Jenvey was behind this attack.

Dominic Wightman was behind a further attack, and is instrumental in these latest attacks (that include broadcasting of my home address to parties likely to be hostile to me, and repeated suggestions that I go back to the country I came from).

So that’s three attacks by two people who have worked in conjunction with Patrick Mercer’s office as part of that MP’s fight for publicity struggle against extremism/terrorism.

Patrick Mercer could have ended this matter within days way back in January 2009, simply by considering the evidence, (including Jenvey’s accusations that the PCC were in league with extremists) arriving at the obvious conclusion, and making a statement… but this would have undermined his credibility (and, subsequently, that of the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism).

By not doing so, Mercer allowed The Sun to use his endorsement – with or without his knowledge – in their letter to the PCC, and kept the resulting dispute(s) going for weeks and then months; this delay in addressing the issue allowed Dominic Wightman to eventually catch wind of it and seek to exploit it (in order to exact revenge against his former ‘anti-terror’ associates, including Mercer).

Patrick Mercer was then privy to all sorts of information that would have caused him or any sensible person in his position to at least suspect the involvement of Dominic Wightman, particularly after the first and second attacks against me (when details not available to the general public were made available to his office and brought directly to his attention). Patrick Mercer chose not to involve himself or release/say anything beyond a single vague hint (that came weeks too late)… most probably because this too would have undermined his credibility (and, subsequently, that of the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism).

By avoiding any involvement or statement about his past/present relationship with Dominic Wightman, Mercer preserved his reputation in most quarters as a credible man of sound judgement… while he and/or his office staff stood by and allowed me to be smeared as a convicted paedophile, then an alcoholic with long-standing mental problems, and now a stalker.

Further, Mercer appears to have played an active role in the third/latest smear by privately making the quite specific (and false) claim to people asking questions about this matter that I am an “electronic stalker” and therefore not to be trusted.

He does this while knowing that I am being harassed/attacked by people who seek to intimidate me into silence and/or chase me out of the country.

The less charitable among you might be inclined to suspect that he is secretly hoping they will succeed.

Those of you who still have faith in his party or this Parliament will trust that he will not be allowed to do so in the face of this level of harassment, especially when it is now fuelled in part by his own false accusations:

an extract of recent threats and harassment

Suburban Jihad: unleash the polite letter-writing campaign!

Thank you to Hugh Muir from the Guardian for winkling out this reply from “sources close to the MP [Patrick Mercer]” (below).

The Guardian Hugh Muir: The word is out. Cut all links with the Great Fabricator. If only they’d done it earlier

Last week we raised the question of Patrick Mercer, who chairs the parliamentary counterterrorism subcommittee, and had endorsed Jenvey as a man “who needs to be listened to”. The MP strongly condemned Jenvey’s deception, which occurred in January. “My office certainly received information from him but never worked with him,” he said. And that’s fine with us. But not with Mr Ireland’s site, Bloggerheads, for now it publishes an email sent by a Mercer aide to the People newspaper. “I have been in touch with Mr Jenvey about a number of things, but most of all the following, which in my view would combine well to make a very good Sunday story,” it says. All quite collegiate then, but it comes down to the definition of “working” together, say sources close to the MP. Mercer himself had no further dealings with Jenvey, though his officials occasionally received information from him. Sometimes it checked out. Sometimes not. Two months after doubts were raised about Jenvey’s dodgy activities, the link between the fabricator and Mercer’s aides had yet to be broken. A shadowy world, this counterterrorism.

Now which sources would they be, I wonder… The same staff who worked with Jenvey? A fellow Conservative/MP? A wannabe spin doctor? Some blogger? As for the response itself, even though Mercer’s office was clearly working with Jenvey to further that MP’s agenda, apparently it all hinges on what your definition of what “working” means… and what that means is that (a) Patrick Mercer is running for cover, not hiding from stalkers, and (b) no-one associated with this sorry affair has the cheek or balls to come out and say; “At least Jenvey wasn’t on the payroll!”

We must also take into consideration that Mercer initially responded by calling himself a liar.

Here, take a look at those quotes from Patrick Mercer and “sources close to the MP” in the order in which they were published:

“Glen Jenvey is an extremely capable and knowledgeable analyst of fundamentalist matters and ought to be listened to. If he says that this is a risk worth looking at, then we must take it seriously. He and I have done quite a lot of work together, and he is a source of reference for me”

Patrick Mercer quoted in a letter from the Managing Editor of The Sun, to the Press Complaints Commission, 27 January 2009
(source)

“My office certainly received information from him but never worked with him. This was a damaging lie. I have had nothing more to do with Glen Jenvey.”

Patrick Mercer quoted in the Guardian after The Sun admitted that Glen Jenvey had faked the relevant story, 16 September 2009
(source)

“I have been in touch with Mr Jenvey about a number of things but most of all the following, which in my view would combine well to make a very good Sunday story”

An email from Patrick Mercer’s staff/office to The People newspaper dated 2 March 2009 (revealed here at Bloggerheads 23 September 2009)
(source)

…it comes down to the definition of “working” together, say sources close to the MP. Mercer himself had no further dealings with Jenvey, though his officials occasionally received information from him. Sometimes it checked out. Sometimes not.

From today’s follow-up by the Guardian‘s political diarist, Hugh Muir
(source)

This is unacceptable. In fact, when you look at the detail, it’s downright scandalous.

Patrick Mercer not only knows that his office (at the very least) fumbled the ball on the Sugar matter, he also knows that I have as a direct result of my attempts to bring this to light been the subject of three attacks by two of his former associates…. and he still hasn’t stepped in to take charge.

Worse than that; he’s hiding behind un-named sources!

He is doing this even though he knows that the attacks have now escalated to a stage where (oh, you’ll love this) my home address has been repeatedly published online by an unknown number of anonymous attackers, and deliberately broadcast to supporters of Alisher Usmanov, Paul Staines, Iain Dale and now Nadine Dorries.

Meanwhile, Mercer is telling people who are asking questions about this that I am an “electronic stalker”. Iain Dale (a contemporary of Mercer’s and also a very close friend of Nadine Dorries), is confirmed as the source of this claim. It is a claim he has deleted from his website, but not withdrawn. Dorries stubbornly refuses to delete her subsequent comments about my being mentally “unwell” if not “sick”. Mercer, after telling people that I’m an electronic stalker” is now speaking through “sources close to the MP” and isn’t even visibly breaking ties with the person/people attacking me.

So they’re telling their supporters/readers that I’m some mad stalker while knowing that some real bastards using genuine forms of harassment are on my case. Dale and Dorries do this while being fully aware that these same bastards are deliberately taking advantage of the hostile audiences their false claims generate!

You’d think they’d at least pull their fucking heads in, but no.

That’s a nasty bloody mob that Patrick Mercer is hiding behind, and he’s hiding from me (and you) in to avoid fair and long-overdue questions about his conduct, and the conduct of the people he works with and employs.

In fact, here a fresh round of questions for Patrick Mercer’s consideration (if he thinks any of them are in any way unfair, I’ll try to re-word appropriately):

1. Sometimes Jenvey information checked out, and sometimes it didn’t. Did you ‘check out’ the SUGAR IS TERROR REVENGE TARGET story of 7 January 2009 by looking at the evidence before The Sun published?

2. Did you ‘check out’ the SUGAR IS TERROR REVENGE TARGET story of 7 January 2009 by looking at the evidence published at Bloggerheads.com (after The Sun had published)?

3. Regardless of the perceived reliability of that evidence, did you then and do you now hold the view expressed by The Sun to the PCC that “sending polite letters” is “obviously a euphemism” for something far more sinister if/when published on Ummah.com (on the basis that it is a “fanatics website”)?

4. At what stage (and on which date) did you first realise that Jenvey had indeed fabricated the evidence used by The Sun to allege the presence of extremism at Ummah.com, and the active targeting of named celebrities?

5. What was it that finally caused your office to part company with Jenvey? Was it the above discovery, you becoming personally aware of Glen Jenvey’s false claim that his accuser was a convicted paedophile, or something else?

6. Was there ever any stage after you regarded your professional relationship to be over that your office continued working with Glen Jenvey (i.e. in a manner akin to the recently-released email to The People newspaper), but without your knowledge?

7. What disciplinary action (if any) was taken against the staff members who (maybe) worked with Jenvey against your wishes, (perhaps) did not show you relevant ‘Sugar’ evidence or (definitely) did not alert you to Jenvey’s false accusations of paedophilia? What corrective measures (if any) were made to your procedures to avoid a similar compromising breakdown of communication?

8. You appear to be claiming that the quote used by The Sun in their letter to the PCC is now at least two years old. How old was it when The Sun used it (on 27 January 2009)?

9. Did The Sun check with you before using that quote in their letter to the PCC?

10. While they do conflict, you have released public statements about the severing of your relationship with Glen Jenvey. However, there is no statement on record about you severing links with another former associate and amateur ‘terror expert’ Dominic Wightman, and he appears to be suggesting that still support him. If you no longer have a professional/working relationship with Dominic Wightman, on what date did you sever links with him, and why was this decision taken?

If Patrick Mercer’s only answer to all of these questions is “Tim Ireland is an electronic stalker”, then I stand ready to publish every available record of electronic communication between myself, that MP and his office. This evidence would include 80% of phone calls, which I have recorded.

The catch is that this is an ‘all or nothing’ deal*. Mercer either agrees to opening the (available) entirety of my communication with his office to public scrutiny (minus any personal/sensitive data, obviously) or he withdraws his accusation of electronic stalking.

If he’s interested in having the evidence taken into consideration, that is; he may prefer instead to base his judgement and bank his reputation on the word of one man; Iain Dale (a man with a track record of quietly withdrawing claims he knows not to be true rather than immediately correcting them like any responsible publisher should).

Hey, what could possiblie go wrong?

Over to Patrick Mercer for action (or perhaps more hiding under a rock).

Meanwhile, your challenge, dear reader, is to reach out to your local MP and find out what they think about this. No mobs, just a few quiet, well-informed questions to a few MPs.

A “polite letter-writing campaign,” if you will.

It doesn’t matter which party your MP is from, but you probably needn’t bother telling CCHQ or any relevant/senior members of David Cameron’s cabinet about this; they were informed days ago that all this was going on, and they haven’t said or done a damn thing about it.

Finally, I’d like to ask any blogger who’s taken all of this into consideration to write a short article about whether or not the conduct of these Conservatives is entirely wise, fair or proper in light of current attacks against me. After all, unlike Nadine Dorries, I only have one home, and can’t really nip off to a back-up should this matter get out of hand.

-

[*Iain Dale's welcome to a similar offer, but only if he agrees to discussing the evidence on neutral territory, where he cannot exploit various comment cheats as he has in the past.]

-

UPDATE (30 Sep) – Incredibly, Mercer is still trying to mislead the press about this. His latest statement contradicts his earlier claim never to have worked with Jenvey, and gives a false impression about when this working relationship ended:

“I haven’t spoken to Jenvey for over two-and-a-half years. There has been no working relationship between us for some time, and there won’t be one in the future.”

Patrick Mercer quoted in the Nottingham Evening Post, 30 September 2009
(source)

This is the behaviour of a lying, deceitful scoundrel, and I don’t use the words lightly.

Patrick Mercer has some explaining to do

By now you will have seen the news that The Sun have finally managed to swallow their pride and summon their courage enough to deliver a small apology to Ummah.com (with this ickle bit of apology on Page 12 of that tabloid, months after the enormous front page splash that warranted it). The PCC have also ruled on the Jenvey matter, but (disappointingly) make NO mention of the sloppy if not malicious accusatory tactics used by Graham Dudman of The Sun in order to discredit me instead of addressing the evidence (which he did not even appear to look at himself).

I plan to address that matter soon, but first, I would like to draw your attention to this statement by Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, published as part of this earlier report by the Guardian (emphasis mine):

But where does this leave the Conservative security guru Patrick Mercer MP, chairman of the parliamentary subcommittee on counter-terrorism? As 5 Live pointed out, he was foolish enough to use his gravitas to bolster Jenvey’s reputation. “An extremely capable and knowledgeable analyst who needs to be listened to,” he said of Jenvey two years ago. Mercer told us yesterday: “My office certainly received information from him but never worked with him. This was a damaging lie. I have had nothing more to do with Glen Jenvey.” (source)

No, a damaging lie is telling people who are asking about this case and the two subsequent instances of harassment that I’m an “electronic stalker”; a claim reportedly made by Mercer that his office now refuses to discuss.

Patrick Mercer’s office also refuses to comment on that MP’s earlier admission that Iain Dale was the source/origin of this claim. They also refuse to reveal who exactly Mercer has been sharing this claim with.

To summarise (and paraphrase a certain less-than-upright blogger), I think it’s fair to say that Patrick Mercer has done a little more than spill my pint.

Still, it brings me no joy to reveal that Patrick Mercer is either an outright liar, or wholly incompetent when it comes to the management of his Parliamentary office.

The following email (that I’ve had in my possession for quite some time) reveals that – as late as March of this year – Patrick Mercer’s office clearly worked with Glen Jenvey (who, I should stress, is not the source of this revelation); the synergy between Jenvey, Mercer’s staff, his own Parliamentary Questions, and a tabloid newspaper is crystal clear.

That, and they were not only clearly working together, but they were doing so almost two months after the immediately-discredited Sugar story, and after I had produced evidence linking Jenvey to the ‘Richard Tims’ alias (that subsequently linked him to the ‘abu islam’ profile he later confessed to using in his attempts to fabricate evidence of extremism).

I was in touch with Mercer’s office the very day the email below was sent. In fact, I was in touch with the very same person (Edward Barker). Barker made reference to the possible necessity of “voice recognition experts” to verify the authenticity of a voice he quite likely recognised without need for professional assistance. Sure, he may have a point when you take his concerns in isolation, but these concerns seem a little misplaced if not misdirected to me, especially when, at the same time this was happening, Jenvey’s publicly-stated position was that the PCC were in league with extremists.

A lot more caution was warranted at this stage of the game, especially for a man working in the office of Patrick Mercer (former Shadow Minister for Homeland Security, and present Chairman of the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism).

Huh. What am I saying? Caution?! Try distance, and a lot of it.

Mercer’s statement as published by the Guardian might suggest to the unwary that he and his office had parted company with Jenvey immediately after he had learned of the Sugar fabrications, but no formal/announced parting took place until after Jenvey smeared me as a paedophile approximately two weeks later (news the good people from Mercer’s office – and Iain Dale – saw fit not to pass on to that MP, by the way).

Heather Millican from Mercer’s office was today given the opportunity to deny the authenticity of this email. She said nothing. She did not reply to any of my emails about this, she did not answer her office phone, and when I attempted to call her on her mobile, she barked at me that I should not have called her on a ‘private’ number.

So here’s the email, minus one or two of the more private details. Remember; this comes to you as undisputed evidence, when I gave Mercer’s office ample opportunity to dispute it.

I have tidied the formatting so it’s easier to read, but any text/content changes/snips or relevant notes are in [square brackets].

From: BARKER, Edward
Sent: 02 March 2009 17:06
To: [Daniel Jones of The People newspaper (via Gmail)]
Subject: Abu Barra & Co

Dear Mr Jones,

I have been in touch with Mr Jenvey about a number of things but most of all the following, which in my view would combine well to make a very good Sunday story:

(a) Abu Barra audio;
(b) Rahman audio;
(c) Failure of Home Secretary, despite tough rhetoric, to close down any extremist websites.

On (a) and (b) do you have a budget to be able to send the audio files to a voice expert for comparison with video files so we have some basis for relying on them?

On (c), we received last week a Parliamentary Answer which said that no websites have been shut down by police using powers given to them under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006:

-

Written Parliamentary Question (WPQ)

Date of Answer: 24.02.2009

Column References: 488 c695-6W

Member Tabling Question: Mercer, Patrick

Topic: Terrorism: Internet

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK-based websites have been closed down because they contained extremist material inciting terrorism in the last five years.

Answering Department: Home Office

Member Answering Question: Coaker, Vernon

Answer: The legislation that allows a request to be made that unlawfully terrorism related material is modified or removed from the internet is section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006. Section 3 allows for the service of a notice by a constable where he or she is of the opinion that unlawfully terrorism-related material is available on an electronic service such as a website, on the person(s) responsible for that material. The notice requires that the unlawfully terrorism-related material is removed or modified within two working days.However, the preferred route of the police is to use informal contact with the communication service providers to request that the material is removed. To date no Section 3 notices have been issued as this informal route has proved effective but statistics covering the number of sites removed through such informal contact are not collected.

Question Number: 254791

Date Tabled: 03.02.2009

Date for Answer: 05.02.2009

Legislature: House of Commons (HoC)

Chamber/Committee: Commons Chamber

Status: Answered

Session: 08-09

-

What do you think?

Let me know how I can be of further assistance…

Cheers,

Ed

Edward Barker
Parliamentary Researcher to Patrick Mercer OBE MP
T: [snip]
M: [snip]

I’m not really in the mood for a witty one-liner to finish this off, so I will only say this:

Boom.

Patrick Mercer: conduct unbecoming

Patrick Mercer is the Conservative MP for Newark. He is the former Shadow Minister for Homeland Security, and present Chairman of the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism.

It is my contention that Patrick Mercer has now brought his party, his committee and Parliament itself into disrepute, and it is with no small amount of reluctance and regret that I declare this to be so and set out my case.

I have heard from trusted sources that Patrick Mercer is a valuable contributor to the fight against extremism; his most-praised quality being his willingness to speak with all sides.

However, I have good reason to doubt his judgement if not his sincerity, not least because I have now been royally smeared by two of his former associates, and he and his office still won’t give me the time of day.

These are the five issues that I will be dealing with in this post, phrased as charges that I level against that MP. I accuse Patrick Mercer of the following:

1. Outright refusal to use appropriate/modern facilities in any of his public role(s)

2. Poor management of staff

3. Failure to act on the evidence regarding Glen Jenvey’s forgeries

4. Failure to act on the suspected involvement of Dominic Wightman, and the smears that followed

5. Failure to comply with FOI and DPA legislation and procedures

- | -

1. Outright refusal to use appropriate/modern facilities in any of his public role(s)

You may read this charge and consider this needless garnish (i.e. the type of petty point-scoring normally bandied about by some of the shoutier tabloid bloggers), but the fact is that Patrick Mercer’s refusal to use even a simple desk-top computer is greatly hampering his work, and was a major (though not sole) contributor to the events outlined in this post.

From my perspective alone, if he were more willing/able to personally receive email or read web pages, he would have been in a far better position to manage much of what is described below.

-

2. Poor management of staff

Instead of using this modern yet common technology, Patrick Mercer relies on staff to handle his emails, and has only second-hand access to the web. Leaving aside the appeal that must surely go out that someone ‘think of the trees’, on at least one ocassion, this has led to a situation where the staff he is overly-dependent on have let him so down badly as to associate him with the kind of smear that would make McBride and Draper blush (see below).

There is no sign or record of any punishment or process undertaken to address or correct this situation since things went so horribly wrong earlier this year. Indeed, the two staff members involved, Heather Millican and Edward Barker, are still employed by his office, and still conducting themselves in exactly the same way that did so much to bring about the first disaster:

-

3. Failure to act on the evidence regarding Glen Jenvey’s forgeries

The Sun newspaper has today quietly published this statement that neatly declares their innocence and spreads the blame (something I look forward to addressing in an upcoming post). In it, they include this quote from Patrick Mercer

(Jenvey) had been described as “an extremely capable and knowledgeable analyst” by Tory MP Patrick Mercer… (source)

This is an extract from a shining endorsement that was also used in a January 2009 letter to the PCC that I hope to bring you in full later this week. Mercer’s role in reinforcing the reputation of Glen Jenvey (in the same letter that The Sun were using to try to destroy mine) is crystal-clear:

Sun letter to PCC: Mercer quote

I had good cause to contact that MP’s office about what I knew and could prove about Jenvey’s fabrications, and did so. Repeatedly. To NO good effect.

If emails were not ignored, other forms of stalling and stonewalling were used. For example:

After Jenvey had denied ever using the alias ‘Richard Tims’ (in the same letter quoted above), I produced the audio of him happily admitting to using that same alias on a regular basis; Mercer’s office responded by insisting that I deliver the files in MP3 format (when they were readily accessible from the web, in downloadable form) and then suggesting that “voice recognition experts ” would be required to verify authenticity (involving a voice that would have been immediately recognisable to them or anyone else who had conducted a phone conversation with the quietly-spoken Jenvey).

There was from January 2009 onwards at least enough evidence* for any sensible person to start exercising caution in their dealings with Mr Jenvey, but I have data to hand that not only proves that his office was still colluding with him on similar stories, but also actively peddling such stories to tabloid newspapers, and sweetening the pot with promises of a quote from Patrick Mercer, as late as March 2009!

(*Further, at this stage, Jenvey’s main response to this evidence was a claim that myself, the Guardian newspaper and the PCC were in league with extremists. One might forgive the hapless Nadine Dorries for buying that line, but not the Chairman of the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism.)

If Mercer wishes to switch that around and claim that he had doubts about the audio because he suspected Dominic Wightman’s involvement (I can only guess that Jenvey told him of his own suspicions), again we return to the issue of his refusal to use email and/or his office’s refusal to communicate in any meaningful way.

Time and again, his office refused to issue any comment or take any action, even (get this) after they were presented with evidence of Glen Jenvey’s attempts to smear me as a convicted paedophile.

The only time they cooperated was when it was far too late, and Jenvey was already a day into his weeks-long campaign to smear me as a convicted paedophile. At that stage, Mercer himself (finally) issued a statement by phone, but the lengths I had to go to in order to contact Mercer directly led to a costly blow-up with Iain Dale (that continues to this day):

“I disassociate myself from anything that Glen Jenvey may have claimed about Mr Tim Ireland and will be looking carefully into my other dealings with Mr Jenvey.” – Patrick Mercer (source)

4. Failure to act on the suspected involvement of Dominic Wightman, and the smears that followed

Since the aforementioned blow-up with Iain Dale, that ‘leading’ blogger has seen fit to contact Patrick Mercer MP and accuse me of harassment. Every subsequent conversation with that MP has been stilted at best, but it was during one of these rare and generally frustrating conversations that Patrick Mercer made his only attempt to warn me off Dominic Wightman (a man he regarded to be an inherently dishonest schemer), far too late for that vague reference to be of any use.

(In August 2009, during a conversation about Jenvey and my information request, he said that he had not been in contact with Jenvey for months, and then added that he had also not been in touch with Dominic Wightman since that man “went off the rails”. This was the only time Wightman’s name was mentioned by Mercer or anyone from his office. By that stage, Wightman had already smeared me anonymously, and paralysed the investigation and my website with a forged interview that sought to damage a long list of people, including Mercer.)

Mercer’s office was also made aware of the forged interview as soon as it emerged (19 May 2009). The response was muted, at best. Despite my asking, Mercer himself offered no thoughts or clues as to who might be behind it (other than the disconnected hint 3 months later).

Last week, Mercer’s office was informed of Dominic Wightman’s involvement in that smear, and that he had confessed to publishing it twice. I also took the precaution of calling Mercer himself. Both times, I requested that Mercer release “a statement regarding his past and present relationship with Dominic Wightman.”

I contacted his office again yesterday to repeat my request; they offered me smiles and sunshine… but at the time of writing, I am still waiting for that statement

The public record accessible to most people shows Dominic Wightman and Patrick Mercer as allies:

Dominic Wightman and Patrick Mercer

Patrick Mercer (right) with Dominic Whiteman of the Vigil group, Oct 2006 (source)

Patrick Mercer, the Tory spokesman for homeland security, has also worked with Vigil. He said that he had been impressed by the group’s professionalism. “Anything of this nature that helps the security services has to be encouraged,” he said. – Nov 2006 (source)

Further, it is clear from his latest and far more savage smears that Wightman seeks to undermine any suggestion that Mercer no longer supports him:

I can predict the gist of Ireland’s attack already – “Wightman broke my confidence, Wightman has run failed businesses (no mention of the successful ones), Wightman has multiple email addresses (he is already on about one called richardwalkerinstitute which I’ve used for eight years as an ancillary account), Wightman is mad, despite his expensive education Wightman is less intelligent than me and even Mercer says Wightman’s off the rails (Ireland loves quoting from conversations which rarely if ever existed), look at this document which shows Wightman going into an insolvency arrangement yet he lives like a King and is married to a beauty queen, Wightman hates the far left because he was once smacked by a Bolshevik nanny, Wightman has real-world business enemies (no mention that this is because he’s had the balls to give life a go rather than hiding behind a keyboard) etc etc. Snore, snore. Bore, bore. Far left cheers, centre right sneers. And what then?

Extract from Dominic Wightman’s extraordinary attack piece of 13 September 2009

It should be clear to anyone how much help Mercer could (and should) be with a simple statement establishing the truth of the matter. But no.

To paraphrase Michael Caine’s character Governor Baxter Thwaites in the 1985 film Water, it would seem to me that in the eyes of Patrick Mercer, I’m about as significant as the dot above the ‘i’ in the word ‘shit’.

5. Failure to comply with FOI and DPA legislation and procedures

On 05 May, 2009 I submitted a combined FOI and DPA request to the office of Patrick Mercer (extract follows):

All emails and documents sent, received, created or held on the computer(s) used by Edward Barker and Heather Millican that mention my name (Tim Ireland) or my site (‘Bloggerheads’, bloggerheads.com’ and/or ‘bloggerhead.com’). I am primarily asking for emails, but there may also be documents such as RTF and DOC files. I would like copies of all relevant data from 1 Jan 2009 to the present, but special attention should be paid to the periods from 13-16 January, 2-5 March, 15-20 March and 2-5 April

I am well aware that MPs have voted themselves exempt from FOI requests, but I was only asking for information relating to me personally, and given reason to believe that they would cooperate, especially in light of what had gone before.

However, On 11 May, 2009 Edward Barker (Parliamentary Researcher to Patrick Mercer) wrote to inform me that they were “not obliged to respond” to my FOI request, and made no response when I pointed out that he had completely ignored my right to access data under the DPA (when Advice for Members’ Offices is very clear about the matter).

I later called Patrick Mercer directly about my combined request and he assured me that his office would cooperate fully on both fronts (i.e. FOI and DPA) but his office then ignored my email correspondence (on May 14, June 3, and June 10).

I would have expected at least one update email advising me of their ultimate decision on FOI and what might be addressed from a DPA standpoint, but I heard nothing. Over 40 days had passed and still I heard nothing.

I then called Patrick Mercer direct, and he advised me that his position had changed and his office would not be delivering ANY data. Apart from a vague reference to a stalker problem (to explain why he had changed his general position), the only reason Mercer gave for refusing the request was that the data had been… deleted!

Even when I subsequently informed him that the data was still legally ‘held’ by his office, he made it clear that this made little difference to him because, as far as he was concerned, the data was gone and he could not access it, even if he wanted to.

I do not know at this stage when the data was deleted, but I was not informed of any deletions initially in the email of 11 May. There was no final written response to my request (in fact, nothing since the single email of 11 May) and subsequent emails to his office were ignored.

Complaints are now in the hands of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Speaker’s Office.

-

I say again; it is my contention that Patrick Mercer has now brought his party, his committee and Parliament itself into disrepute, and I would hope that I have now made my case.

Further, I would like to say that it reflects poorly on all parties involved in the farrago (including Iain Dale, who I will be writing about tomorrow) when the priority appears to be how things might impact politically, instead of what is right, or just, or fair.

Dominic Wightman has some explaining to do

Dominic Wightman*, Glen Jenvey and Michael Starkey used to be the core members of a team of amateur ‘terror experts’ operating under the name Vigil and working hand-in-hand with Conservative MP – and then Shadow Minister for Homeland Security – Patrick Mercer. (example)

(*aka Dominic Whiteman, aka Richard Walker, etc. etc. etc.)

The group had a falling out in 2007, resulting in Dominic Wightman being disgraced and discredited in the eyes of Patrick Mercer. At the centre of this falling out was a series of accusations and counter-accusations involving an email from Dominic Wightman’s account proposing the fabrication of evidence to suggest that Muslims were planning to plant a bomb in an elderly woman’s wheeled shopping-basket and explode it in a supermarket. (more)

Wightman claims to have then ‘moved on’, but it’s evident that he invested a great deal of time and effort in discrediting his former partners. The best example of these efforts was his recruiting an unknown associate to pose as a reporter and conduct an audio-recorded interview with Glen Jenvey at his home in Wiltshire in February 2008.

While Jenvey willingly took hold of the rope fed to him by Wightman’s fake reporter, there was nothing conclusively damning in the resulting audio (yet) and these and other efforts did little to disrupt the ongoing relationship between Glen Jenvey and Patrick Mercer (though by this stage, Starkey had retreated even further into the background and stayed there).

By late 2008, the relationship between Glen Jenvey and Patrick Mercer had settled into the routine of Jenvey presenting Mercer’s office with what he claimed to be evidence of extremism, planned terrorist atrocities and what have you, whereupon that MP’s staffers Heather Millican and/or Edward Barker would help peddle the stories to tabloid newspapers with promises of quotes from Patrick Mercer (often condemning the Labour government for their inaction over this and other alleged evidence).

Sadly, by this time, Jenvey’s use of false identities and sock-puppet accounts in Muslim forums was generating more ‘evidence’ of extremism than he uncovered. (examples)

It was only a matter of time before Jenvey crossed the line from entrapment to fabrication, the very same thing he had accused his former partner Dominic Wightman of plotting.

Wightman was about to get his chance to settle an old score, and the audio of Jenvey casually admitting to the use of the alias ‘Richard Tims’ was about to become the ‘killer blow’ he had waited so long for. It did little to undermine Starkey, but there were ways around that.

End of Part One. Go and have a sandwich or something if you’re in for the long haul. (Actually, perhaps you’d best not; the next bit gets a bit stomach-churning in places.)

-

In early 2009 I caught Glen Jenvey posting fake evidence of extremism to a website (using the name ‘abu islam’) and then selling that story to The Sun, a tabloid newspaper with a widely-recognised anti-Muslim agenda. (more)

Via a letter from The Sun to the Press Complaints Commission, Jenvey issued a firm denial of any involvement with the ‘Richard Tims’, the name used on the account that linked him to the fraudulent postings under the name ‘abu islam’. Public denials were rarer and far less firm, but eventually Jenvey issued a very similar denial via an interview with a Christian activist/writer by the name of Jeremy Reynalds. (Though he used a series of sock-puppet accounts to deliver range of absurd counter-accusations, Reynalds’ writing was the only channel through which Jenvey issued any public statements under his own name until well after this story had moved on to other matters.)

Relevant posts on Bloggerheads eventually drew the attention of Dominic Wightman, who at first suggested clandestine delivery of audio in his possession, and then instead initiated a meeting in a nearby pub, where that same audio was transferred from a USB stick in his possession to my laptop.

(Currently, Dominic Wightman portrays me as a vain and greedy man taking credit for his work, but at the time he insisted that he remain anonymous and that every effort be made to avoid revealing him as the source.)

While there is no question regarding the authenticity of this audio, it is now clear that Dominic sought to shape the information that was released on my website, with Starkey being a key target regardless of any involvement in Jenvey’s present use of false identities to plant false evidence of extremism on Ummah.com and other Muslim community websites.

Jenvey was refusing to answer questions directly and, at the same time, giving Starkey only very limited information about what was unfolding, despite his associate’s name emerging on my website.

Similarly, it was proving impossible to get any meaningful response from the office of Patrick Mercer, even after Jenvey responded by posing as a Daily Mail reporter and repeatedly posting false accusations about me being a convicted paedophile to dozens of websites.

Jenvey now claims that Dominic Wightman not only provided him with my (ex-directory) home address prior to this, but also briefed him by phone with claims that I was a mentally unstable paedophile who needed ‘sorting out’.

I will readily note that the key elements of this claim are impossible to prove and that Jenvey has lied in the past, but he has made these claims in light of a full confession to police, with no apparent attempt to minimise what he has done, and it is now clear that Dominic was at the time also privately over-stating to me what Jenvey might be capable of when pushed to the edge (though he was kind enough to point out that Jenvey would probably pull up short of burning my house down).

However, my real issue is with with what Dominic did next, and I can prove every scrap of what follows the following introduction and speculation (the latter mostly made necessary by Wightman’s vague and nonsensical claim to have ‘brought me down’ as a public service, accidentally-on-purpose).

The disagreement with Iain Dale that followed will be detailed in coming days, but to summarise, Dale responded to my repeated attempts to discuss his failure to call Mercer and his refusal to contribute to a police statement (despite his involvement) by publicly accusing me of harassment. This resulted in a seres of anonymous attacks against me, and Adam Macqueen (a writer for Private Eye and friend of Iain Dale) likening me to a “nutter on a bus”.

(speculation)

I suspect that by the stage I had written an open letter to Ian Hislop on May 11, asking him to address this “nutter on a bus” smear (which stands as the only public response from anyone at his magazine about their taking credit for my Jenvey scoop), Dominic Wightman was concerned that I had ‘lost focus’, and that I showed far too much caution in use of the information he was repeatedly feeding me about Starkey.

(/speculation)

On May 19, Dominic Wightman emailed me with a claim that he had chanced upon a document hosted at scribd.com that purported to be a genuine interview with Glen Jenvey, conducted and published by Jeremy Reynalds. He even asked me if I had written it, before listing a series of likely suspects (culminating, inevitably, with Starkey).

Reynalds immediately denied any involvement, but even after it was clearly established as a fake, this ‘interview’ presented me and/or up to half a dozen people with a potential problem that could not be addressed with simple exposure.

I will explain this position in detail in a moment, but first I need to make clear that is has only recently been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dominic Wightman published it by submitting personally it to both scribd.com and articles-heaven.com

Wightman denies actually writing the fake interview, as if that makes any difference. He claims to have ‘found’ it elsewhere before uploading it in document form to scribd.com and as text to articles-heaven.com (though this claim is somewhat undermined by document properties that show 71 minutes of editing time, which is a long time to spend on a simple ‘copy and paste’ by anyone’s standards).

Regardless of authorship, Wightman clearly published both versions, and brought the first version to my attention.

I was as determined then as I am today to keep the full contents of that document out of the public domain, because even though the document contains very little in the way of truth, it still had and has the potential to cause great damage or embarrasment to a long list of people (including the man we can now safely describe as his primary target; Michael Starkey).

For this reason, I am only going to include passages that refer to little old me:

Obviously all of this is presented as if it’s from Glen Jenvey’s point of view, but you also need to keep in mind that Dominic Wightman still regards this content to be among the most harmless in the forged interview:

GJ: Basically they are friends with other extremists from the political left including a stupid blogger Tim Ireland and they together have tried to smear me. But they have failed miserably to smear me because the press in Britain has continually ignored them and their story about me while continuing to accept the validity of my stories.

JR: So Tim Ireland is someone who smears those who expose the wrongdoings of Islamic extremists?

GJ: Yes. Basically he is just a small-time carping Australian blogger and self-confessed alcoholic who lives in a council house in the South of England who likes to hassle people who go about their daily business so he can make a name for himself. He is someone who will get into bed with anyone for any small story even people who carried out 7/7. He has upset a lot of people and has lots of enemies after him including the cops and some members of the press.

JR: Is it true that you posted material on the Internet suggesting Tim Ireland was a paedophile?

GJ: No there is no proof of that. Tim Ireland has a history of being unstable and he probably posted that sort of material himself. He even calls himself Manic. Manic by name – manic by nature. The man is a loser. If he didn’t post the material himself it was [snip] who is well known to the police and has a history of criminal activity as well as a dysfunctional family.

Again, I will stress that Wightman himself regards this to be the lighter material.

I should also point out that Dominic Wightman is even today still trying to justify his use of the description “self confessed alcoholic” in this context, despite my being teetotal.

I had just recently declared my complete incompatibility with alcohol in support of a friend with a far worse problem than mine (who later lost his battle with drink and depression and subsequently took his own life); to have this used against me in this way was a real kick in the guts, but if Wightman was expecting the flurry of rage followed by an ‘outing’ of the document, he was to be sorely disappointed. Instead, what he got was more caution.

And that’s where the recent radio silence came from, folks.

The forged interview was carved using information already in the public domain. It could’ve been the work of just about anyone. But there were too many potential targets (each with their own list of enemies) and too many possible sources, with thanks in no small part to at least two people in the publishing industry who should know better than to exploit their position in the way they did (and there’ll be more about that later this week, assuming this post fails to bring either or both of them around).

What Glen Jenvey did with those paedo-smears was quite extraordinary, but so was the subsequent reaction of Iain Dale and Adam Macqueen. Even if I were able to bank on being a primary or even secondary target of this forged interview, it could have been the work of any one of the tens of thousands of people who read Iain Dale’s weblog, most of whom would have had at the time what they then considered to be good cause to teach me a lesson; there were certainly multiple instances of people lashing out at me following Dale’s grossly misleading claims of harassment, at least one of whom decided that, yes, I deserved to be smeared as a paedophile. And while I considered it highly unlikely that any professional journalist would have attempted something like this, the possibility of a fan of Private Eye crafting this in their ‘defence’ was also there and could not be ignored, especially in light of the timing; there are plenty of people who read and enjoy that magazine who fail to appreciate the importance of walking the walk on matters of integrity.

Again, I’ve only used myself as an example here (it’s all about me, dahling), but I hope you can appreciate from this example alone the potential problem this forged interview presented to half a dozen people, not least because there was some unknown person out there who was willing to smear anyone and everyone in the worst manner possible, just to get what they wanted.

I regarded that person to be dangerous. (I still do to a certain extent, knowing that they are not only capable of this, but more besides. It is clear that Wightman is involved to some degree in a recent anonymous threat to reveal my home address to “everyone (I’ve) ever pissed off”.

However, none of the conditions that made his stunt so effective can be easily replicated (otherwise I’d be a fool to flag the danger to me or anyone else).

In fact, here’s an example of something that would be impossible to replicate (even if you can’t appreciate the rarity of so many intersecting people acting like selfish, unthinking bastards at the same time):

The second version on articles-heaven.com was, it now appears, uploaded on May 13 (like the scribd.com version) but because of a backlog on that site, did not appear until the weekend after Glen Jenvey was interviewed and confessed all to the police. At the time it appeared as if someone was trying to kick things off all over again regardless of a need then – and now – not to savage Jenvey (or even mention him in any way beyond the truths that have since been established well beyond doubt).

At that time, and at every stage since ‘finding’ the document, Dominic Wightman was in regular contact with me, well aware of the anxiety I was feeling, and well aware of his contribution to it (though he still quite inexplicably claims to have been oblivious to being the primary cause of it, while simultaneously having no regrets because he could not have planned it better).

And yet he said and did nothing to alleviate that anxiety… and continued to say and do nothing until the information I provided led police right to his door.

He then insisted that we meet immediately (not likely), then tried to deny and minimise what he had done to varying degrees, then tried to convince me that I was guilty of the same or worse, and then tried to smear me again, this time in such a way that might make people think I was deserving of such treatment.

I’m not. No-one is.

If I thought otherwise, then I would have ‘outed’ the forged interview and brought it into the public domain (as he no doubt expected me to) long before I established the source of the piece and their likely agenda.

Dominic Wightman is now effectively neutralised. He has no credibility to speak of, and his response to being caught using false identities to smear and intimidate his political enemies has been a pathetic attempt to replicate the effort.

Sadly for him, he appears to have no understanding of the many forces that amplified his earlier efforts while hiding him from view, and does not recognise the damage he is doing to his own reputation while seeking to destroy mine.

(And now, if no-one minds, I am going to “borrow” a YouTube video I have “no permission to use” and use it as a final punctuation point on this post.)

- | -

UPDATE (15 Sep) – Dominic Wightman waited until we were all tucked up in bed last night before shoving this through our letterbox (or having some helpful chap do it for him):

Wightman's letter

a) You may recognise the tactic used recently by Jag Singh and Paul Staines of MessageSpace; using a pointless legal-sounding letter to play the victim while conveying that all-important message; ‘I know where you live’

b) I can’t say that I recognise all of the initials on that CC list. Perhaps the picture will become clearer if the promised email ever arrives.

c) He must have long arms if he delivered this by hand all the way from Venezuela (where he claimed to be based in his recent attack piece; one of the dozens of outright lies and fabrications in that article).

d) This is the second time he’s implied that I might interfere with his family life somehow. Given that his [blood relative] lives less than a few miles from me, perhaps he’s worried that I’ll tell on him.