The Political Weblog Movement

Nadine Dorries: The People’s Pamphlet

1st Apr 2010

Posted by Tim Ireland in The Political Weblog Movement

No, we don’t plan to take 4 weeks away from work/families to hound Nadine Dorries, park a van outside her house and basically stalk her on the campaign trail. That would be just a little bit OTT.

The joke is this is all too close to the fantasy that Nadine Dorries and others hold to.

The People's PamphletThe punchline is that while all the van/stalking crap is fake… The People’s Pamphlet is real.

The relevant wiki is brought to us by the capable and clever Dave Cross (cheers, Dave):

Fellow Traveller’s Wiki: Home of the People’s Pamphlet

Anyone claiming this to be a personal attack of bile and vitriol is going to look a little bit foolish (not to mention dishonest), as it’s designed from the ground up to be as relevant and issue-driven as possible. The whole exercise revolves around deciding on the best issues to put forward, and the fairest (yet most effective) way to present them.

Transparency? The whole thing will be built/negotiated in public, which normally would give the subject plenty of time to prepare for any of the questions raised… but the difference with Dorries over many other MPs is that there are now far too many pertinent questions that she has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid, and by now she cannot afford to answer any of them with any honesty.

So, unlike the baseless, childish and pathetic #kerryout attacks (1, 2), this will be an issue-driven campaign that will be more transparent than anything that’s come before it.

We will be strongly encouraging people to contribute under their own name, and if you’re attached to any party-political campaign/team, you won’t be able to take part.

Also, the project has its own safety-valve; without sufficient support and consensus, nothing gets printed/delivered.

Each contributor will be asked to make a minor initial donation at the point of registration (to keep the site ticking over and keep timewasters away) but we intend to organise the primary/major donations via the wiki, too; with contributors pledging what they can (if they are in agreement with the direction of the letter/pamphlet) toward a goal of (yet to be fully determined/finalised) printing/delivery costs.

If you don’t like where the letter/pamphlet is going, you pull out. Simples. If you agree with where it’s going, we expect to meet you at the lock-off point; where you put your money where your mouth is and sign your name to the letter/pamphlet.

Further, like any wiki, this has the potential for expansion, and while there are very few MPs who are quite so mendacious and reckless with the truth as Nadine Dorries, we are open to the idea of expanding the project to cover other candidates, for as long as we can do so credibly, sensibly and safely.

But first we’re going to start discussing and forming a letter/pamphlet that we intend to deliver to every household in the constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, and we invite you to join us.

And no, this time we’re not kidding.

Jeremy Hunt – archives and accountability

11th Mar 2010

Posted by Tim Ireland in The Political Weblog Movement

1 comment

Last night I attended a Social Media Summit hosted by Lewis PR and Salesforce.com and run/moderated by Paul Evans.

A number of people spoke on the panel, including Jeremy Hunt.

Jeremy Hunt is the Conservative MP for South West Surrey (which will become my constituency after boundary changes) and, more importantly in light of the subject matter, he is Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. If the Tories scrape through at the next election, he will, in effect, become the Minister for Teh Internets.

Hunt also puts himself about as a bit of a blogger, and a believer in social media.

At last night’s event, Hunt declared that social media has led to MPs being more accountable.

There was a loud cough/splutter from the audience. That was me. Sorry.

In 2006, two Conservative activists closely associated with neighbouring Conservative MP Anne Milton anonymously smeared a political rival as a paedophile. I emailed Hunt about this at the time. The wannabe Minister for Teh Internets decided that this behaviour was not only a seedy and unseemly political tactic, but a wholly unacceptable use of the medium, and a general risk to the online community he wanted to represent.

Just kidding. In fact, Jeremy Hunt decided to say and do precisely nothing about it then, and he avoids any straightforward discussion of his decision to put party ahead of principle to this day.

We did have a discussion (of sorts*) about it on his ‘blog’ once, and I would link to that right now, but I can’t, for the same reason I’ve put the word ‘blog’ in scare-quotes; it’s gone.

Not only is that conversation gone, but the post above it is gone, too. In fact, everything Jeremy Hunt blogged about in 2008 and 2009 (along with every comment entrusted to him) has been disappeared into the ether.

The way Jeremy Hunt puts it; he only maintains a recent/immediate ‘archive’, which appears to amount to the last 30-odd posts. Everything else just… disappears. I’m not sure at this stage if a date-stamp kills them, or if they’re pushed into the void by each new post (like new facts in Homer Simpson’s brain) but either way, sooner or later, down the memory hole it goes. Bye-bye!

Even if you’re aware of the URL of an old entry (or work it out from the naming convention) you won’t be able to access it. Here’s entry 229; it’s the earliest live entry visible (from Jan 2010). Try entry 228 or anything earlier, and you’ll either get an error page or be bounced back to the front page.

Hunt gave me some waffle about “immediacy” to explain it, but this is not in keeping with his approach to his press release archive (which goes all the way back to 2004) and it completely dodges the issue of accountability.

Every other blogger on the scene understands the importance of maintaining an archive (with the possible exception of Iain Dale, who has a bad habit of editing/deleting old entries without notation)… but Jeremy Hunt regards it to be unimportant.

How does Jeremy Hunt’s ‘blog’ make him any more accountable, if he’s not willing to simply stand by his previous utterances?

What does this say about his attitude toward those who take the time to contribute comments and participate in conversations on his site? Do they know their contributions will soon be deleted as an irrelevance?

Also, Jeremy Hunt is an MP, familiar with a little thing called Hansard, and one hopes he’s not blind to the importance of (and the principles behind) that archive. Would he have that only go back 2-3 months as well? How about the LexisNexis and/or the British Newspaper Library? Will Jeremy Hunt be proposing we make those archives more ‘immediate’ if the Tories get in?

Finally, as I mentioned, this is the guy who wants to be Minister for Teh Internets… and he doesn’t appear to have the slightest appreciation of or respect for one of the core principles of online publishing.

(Oh, and – as I mentioned – he’ll also turn a blind eye when local sock-puppeting Conservative activists wish to smear an opponent as a paedophile. Which is nice.)

As he was racing off to something that was – I assume – far more important than my question about archives and accountability, I showed him a copy of a page he had ‘disappeared’ (I have trust issues with some of the local Tories, so I saved a copy of our paedo-smear conversation to my hard drive).

Hunt actually had the audacity to claim that he was accountable for material he had ‘blogged’ in the past, because someone else had bothered to archive a single page of content for their own records.

Unfortunately, this only begins to approach ‘near enough’ (if not ‘good enough’) if all of the past content is archived by a third party, and then published in a navigable/indexable form. So that’s what I’m going to do, starting with whatever I can gather from these scraps in the WayBack Machine. Obviously, I’m going to need to be a top search result for ‘Jeremy Hunt’ for this to be sufficiently visible, but this shouldn’t be a problem; it’s what I do best, and my version of his blog will offer a wealth of relevance (that he clearly regards to be irrelevant).

I doubt Jeremy will be happy that my version of his blog will allow additional comments that are beyond his control, but that’s the price you pay for outsourcing simple accountability.

-

[*Jeremy Hunt also cheats at comment moderation, but I'll leave that for a later post.]

NOTE – The Bloggerheads archive goes all the way back to 2001, and there are NO changes to any of this without notation (example).

Meet Dougal Blimey

16th Dec 2009

Posted by Tim Ireland in The Political Weblog Movement

1 comment

Conservative Change Channel – Rupert Murdoch and other great Australians

There’s a new character on Conservative Change Channel by the name of Dougal Blimey. I hope you enjoy meeting him as much as I enjoyed creating him.

Incidentally, I was working on Dougal’s back story last night and was delighted to learn that there is already a firm using the name ‘Godwins Law’.

To: John Rubinstein (of Rubinstein Phillips LLP)

3rd Nov 2009

Posted by Tim Ireland in Old Media

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)

28th Oct 2009

Posted by Tim Ireland in Old Media

3 comments

“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

Attempt no landing there

8th Oct 2009

Posted by Tim Ireland in The Political Weblog Movement

4 comments

For the avoidance of doubt;

- I am busy, and working behind the scenes on the main story; what Patrick Mercer and his staff are hiding (and, to a lesser extent, the lengths they will go to in order to keep it a secret).

- I did not write the email that Dominic Wightman is using as his latest plot device; but I invite you to read his illuminating response to it.

- If you receive anything that claims to be from me and it seems unexpected, unusual or in any way out of character, please use this address to check with me first (noting the ‘s’ in bloggerheadS’):

( bloggerheads DOT com AT gmail DOT com )

- I am also working on objects of artistic merit at the moment, so if there are no new developments on the main story, I will probably not be blogging, but instead building. Your most likely ‘live’ feed during this period is my Twitter channel.

Cheers all. Please write a letter to your MP if you haven’t already done so.

-

UPDATE (09 Oct) – Unity – Second Tabloid Terror Threat Story Exposed as a Fake

I predict another awkward silence from Patrick Mercer, and Daniel Jones of The People. What Wightman will have to say about it is anybody’s guess.

Dominic Wightman: follow the leader

1st Oct 2009

Posted by Tim Ireland in Old Media

7 comments

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)

30th Sep 2009

Posted by Tim Ireland in Old Media

19 comments

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

28th Sep 2009

Posted by Tim Ireland in Old Media

5 comments

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!

25th Sep 2009

Posted by Tim Ireland in Old Media

7 comments

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.

«12345»102030...Last »