Andy Coulson and Andy Hayman: Friends

[UPDATE (27 Jan 2010) NEW POST -Andy Coulson: innocent until proven guilty]

-

To follow this recent post about John Lennon, and in response to the perfectly formed announcement of Andy Coulson’s complete and total innocence, I thought I would blog something about true friendship, because I’ve seen evidence that it can exist between tabloid scum and (some) public figures…

FT.com – Coulson knew officer in phone hacking affair

Andy Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World, said on Friday he was on friendly terms with the senior police officer who oversaw a criminal investigation that sent one of his reporters to prison for hacking into the mobile phones of the royal household.

Giving evidence to a Scottish criminal court, Mr Coulson said he remembered having tea with former assistant commissioner Andy Hayman and “may well have had lunch with him” as well.

But he denied that he had been in possession of personal information about the officer that the News of the World could have used to prevent Mr Hayman mounting a thorough investigation of the scandal.

Of course he didn’t have dirt on the man; that’s not how friends behave.

Let me show you how friends behave:

In 2005, Andy Coulson was editor of News of the World, and Andy Hayman was head of Specialist Operations, leading the investigation into the London bombings of July 2005.

An innocent man by the name of Jean Charles de Menezes was shot on Hayman’s watch. Here’s how Andy Coulson shaped the response:

Andy Coulson: friends

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

As you can see, the headline doesn’t read ‘police kill innocent man'; instead, it offers readers a decidedly (ahem) loaded question. The article also seeks to lead the public with a series of mitigating circumstances that would go some way to excusing what police had done… if any of it were true:

– The article states as fact that Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing “a bulky winter coat despite the warm weather” (i.e. something conspicuous that might have hidden a bomb belt). He wasn’t.

– The article states as fact that the police shouted a challenge to Jean Charles de Menezes “screaming for him to stop”. They hadn’t.

– The article states as fact that Jean Charles de Menezes then “made the decision that cost him his life” and “vaulted over the ticket barrier and ran down the escalator”. He didn’t.

As you can see, when police shot an innocent man and Andy Hayman’s arse was on the line, Andy Coulson acted like a true friend; rather than rely on any of the investigative journalism that News of the World is supposed to be famous for, Coulson chose instead to take a friend at his word and not bother looking at or into any of the pesky detail.

Later, in 2006, Andy Coulson was editor of News of the World, and Andy Hayman was the officer in charge of the inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking affair

When it was suspected that News of the World had targeted hundreds if not thousands of innocent people and Andy Coulson’s arse was on the line, Andy Hayman acted like a true friend; rather than rely on any of the investigative skills the police are supposed to be famous for, Hayman chose instead to take a friend at his word and not bother looking at or into any of the pesky detail:

Guardian – Police ‘ignored News of the World phone hacking evidence’

Police who investigated the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World obtained previously undisclosed telephone records which showed a vast number of public figures had had their voicemail accessed – and then decided not to pursue the evidence…

Guardian – Phone-hacking inquiry left a mountain of evidence unexplored

Here’s the riddle. If the Guardian, the New York Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches can all find numerous journalists who worked at the News of the World who without exception insist that the newspaper routinely used private investigators to gather information by illegal means, why can’t Scotland Yard find a single one who will tell them the story?

In their original inquiry into the phone-hacking affair, in 2006, detectives arrested the paper’s royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, and charged him with listening to messages on the royal household’s mobile phones. Goodman refused to answer questions.

Scotland Yard then interviewed not one single other journalist, editor or manager from the paper. Detectives took this decision despite holding evidence that – we now know – clearly identified other News of the World journalists who were involved in handling illegally intercepted voicemail.

In their recent inquiry, which ended fruitlessly last week, they attempted to interview only three journalists, all of whom were identified for them by news organisations.

They approached those three not as witnesses but as suspects, warning them that anything they said could be used to prosecute them: two gave interviews in which they declined to answer questions; the third challenged them to arrest him in handcuffs, and so they never even spoke to him.

There are some who might describe this as something dangerously close to corruption, but obviously such people are reactionary leftist scum with an anti-Murdoch agenda…. the same type of people who would dare to raise an eyebrow at Hayman later leaving the police to work for News International as a columnist.

Clearly, what we are looking at here is nothing more than innocent goodwill shared between two men who know and trust that their good friend is on the level. Surely this is a quality to be applauded in these deeply cynical times.

*See also: Bloggerheads – News of the World vs. Big Society: snakes in the grass

Related blogagge: Septicisle – Coulson in knowing nothing shocker

UPDATE (27 Jan 2010) NEW POST -Andy Coulson: innocent until proven guilty

-








Posted in Old Media, Rupert 'The Evil One' Murdoch, Tories! Tories! Tories! | 14 Comments

John Lennon: ‘friends’

Please join me as I mark the 30th anniversary of John Lennon’s death by observing the tabloid scum of the day feeding off his corpse:

The

The Sun – Thursday, December 11, 1980

Front Page: Red-hot bride-of-the-monster action.

Inside: A super Sun exclusive about the superstar, by Don Short “the man who knew his secrets” because he “travelled with John Lennon and the rest of the Beatles” in the 60s. It is not specifically mentioned that he did so as a Daily Mirror journalist, but a clearer picture of Short’s true relationship with Lennon does reveal itself in the caption of this awkward image that is posed if not composed, plus Short’s tale of an attempt to be nearer to his ‘friend’ by climbing the back wall of the Beatles’ castle accommodation and “into an upper suite with lattice windows”:

John

For those in any doubt, here are some revealing mentions of Short by the Beatles themselves, as they clearly describe their attempts/intentions to keep their secrets away from this person:

We still didn’t know anything about doing it [LSD] in a nice place and cool it and all that, we just took it. And all of a sudden we saw the reporter and we’re thinking, ‘How do we act normal?’ Because we imagined we were acting extraordinary, which we weren’t. We thought, ‘Surely somebody can see.’ We were terrified waiting for him to go, and he wondered why he couldn’t come over, and Neil [Aspinall], who had never had it either, had taken it, and he still had to play road manager. We said, ‘Go and get rid of Don Short’… – John Lennon (source)

I felt this bad vibe and I turned around and it was Don Short from the Daily Mirror. He’d been hounding us all through the tour, pretending in his phoney-baloney way to be friendly but, really, trying to nail us. – George Harrison (source)

These accounts make it very clear that Short was allowed to play the friend, but was never trusted as one.

Sunday

Sunday Mirror – Sunday, December 14, 1980

Front Page: Grieving May Pang finds comfort with her pet cat and a front page exclusive interview about her 18 month affair with Lennon (from 1973 to 1975).

Inside: I’ll spare you the details. (Summary: there aren’t many.)

The

The Sun – Monday, December 15, 1980

Front Page: A celebration of a moment of silent dignity in memory of John Lennon, interrupted only by OMG, THE FACE OF HIS KILLER! EXCLUSIVE!

Inside: Don Short tells the story of John Lennon’s divorce from wife Cynthia and his great love affair with Yoko Ono, but runs out of what he can pass off as first-hand material (statements made/passed to himself or press generally) about halfway through. Perhaps as an attempt to make up for this, he also offers us sidebar news of a ‘secret sex pact’ between the Beatles (which amounts to an alleged agreement not to sleep with each other’s partners).

That scraping sound reminds me that we’ve been at the bottom of the barrel for longer than is healthy, so (for now) I bid you farewell and good tidings:

Happy Christmas (War Is Over)

A Merry Winterval to all!








Posted in Humanity, Old Media | 2 Comments

DayX: I sure hope Peter Ould doesn’t rape any children today

Rather than hide this is in the closing paragraph like tabloid scum, I wish to make it clear from the outset that I have seen no evidence even hinting that Peter Ould has raped a child.

Of course, that’s not to say it didn’t happen, but it would be wrong to engage in such speculation without supporting evidence. The fact that unseen evidence might still exist somewhere is neither here nor there.

Of course, that’s not to say it would never happen in the future, but it would be wrong to engage in such speculation based on nothing.

Of course, he is an Anglican priest, but it would be wrong to judge him and all other priests on the actions of the minority of an entirely different set of (Catholic) priests.

Of course, he is a supporter of Conservatives, but it would be wrong to judge him on the basis of wild assumptions made following the actions of the minority of sexual deviants within that party.

Of course, he does have a history of homosexuality, but only homophobic morons like Paul Staines and Richard Littlejohn equate homosexuality with paedophilia.

However, if I were to operate from a position of prejudice, my view of Peter Ould’s capacity for child rape would be very different. In fact, if I were sufficiently prejudiced against priests, Conservatives, homosexuals, or this man personally, I could very easily take the position that he must be guilty of child rape, or certain to rape a child in the future.

Similarly, any photo of this man in close proximity to children would be likely to set me right off, as it would look very different to me than it would to other people who did not share my prejudice(s).

Further, I could influence how others interpreted such photos, simple by engaging in speculation likely to engage or reinforce prejudice(s) in others.

(Psst! Supporters of Nadine Dorries who have the idea in their head that I’ve stalked that MP; a significant clue is within your reach, but I urge you to feel your own way forward from this point so you may later claim to have discovered it on your own.)

And it is on that note that I reproduce the very first tweet engaging in speculation about damage to the Cenotaph during the kettling of students in Whitehall on 24 November 2010:

Peter Ould speculates

This was re-tweeted by 14 people, mainly far right (or ‘true blue’, if you prefer) Tory commentators and/or their followers. The idea spread though overlapping networks and, as time passed and footage of students near to the Cenotaph was shown on TV, the idea soon evolved into tweets stating as fact that the Cenotaph was vandalised and/or some of the hundreds of poppy wreaths surrounding it were thrown on a nearby fire.

First, it should be stressed that students sought and gained permission to protest, and wished to walk down this street and be on their way. But the police chose to block their way in both directions and enclose them in this area using a method known as ‘kettling’ (that they claim is designed to calm crowds… much in the same way that a kettle ‘calms’ water to boiling point).

Some people were unimpressed/outraged when students subsequently formed a crowd (!) then later set a fire near to the Cenotaph, but police set the venue for this crowd and there has so far been no evidence of students defacing this memorial or disturbing the poppies around it.

There were many camera-equipped helicopters above them (two from networks running live footage) and dozens of media cameras around them; most of the latter were drawn to the fires by the same mysterious forces that drew them to the vandalism of a police van and bus stop.

None of them recorded any damage to the Cenotaph or the poppies surrounding that memorial.

If at this point anyone wishes to wander off along the tangent that says the students should not have set fires anywhere near the Cenotaph, then by all means be my guest, and go with my blessing… and a reminder from me that there was a dirty great barrier around the Cenotaph that may not have been entirely visible from your vantage point inside the living room.

Speaking of the view from the living room, let’s take a look at two tweets describing exactly the same helicopter shot, but from differing political perspectives:

Perspective

For one person, this disgraces what they think Teh Troops fought for, while for another, this encapsulates what they think Teh Troops fought for. And they’re looking at exactly the same thing.

For another example, let’s take a look at what the BBC broadcast at 5:05pm (this being the source of the majority of later ‘eyewitness’ tweets):

Cenotaph

V/O: “The wreaths from Remembrance Sunday still lay on the Cenotaph, surrounded by hundreds of angry and frustrated young people.”

Let’s look at that same voiceover from two different perspectives; one confirms the wreaths lay undisturbed, while the other has them in imminent danger:

The wreaths from Remembrance Sunday still lay on the Cenotaph, surrounded by hundreds of angry and frustrated young people.

The wreaths from Remembrance Sunday still lay on the Cenotaph, surrounded by hundreds of angry and frustrated young people.

In this case, your perception of what you were looking at could have been significantly altered not just by the volume of the television or what was specifically said by the broadcaster, but by the prejudices you brought to the exchange.

Add to this that the fire is a red thing with black and white shapes in it right next to a pile of red things with black and white shapes in them, and you are not too far from a short mental leap where the two are associated in unfortunate ways.

But having reviewed the relevant footage again and again and again, I can assure you that at no time did I see a poppy wreath being thrown in the fire.

However, with the luxury of a rewind button and other data sources, I was able to determine that there was a barrier surrounding the Cenotaph (i.e. those who look disturbingly close to the poppies are merely resting on the barrier).

If at this point anyone wishes to wander off along the tangent that says nothing happened only because the barrier was there and/or that it was there because students have a habit of desecrating war memorials, then by all means be my guest, and go with my blessing… and a reminder from me that you may still be operating under the influence of prejudice.

(ahem)

I should stress that I am NOT claiming that the event never happened as described by some tweeters. That would be impossible to do, even with access to all available footage. One actual witness claimed to have seen wreaths thrown (just not onto a fire). Another “saw young students closing the barriers up at the Cenotaph so none got trampled and damaged” (but, if this is true/accurate, we do not know if the barriers were initially disturbed by natural crowd movement or an individual with fuckwit intentions).

But this post is mainly about speculation and prejudice and those influenced by it to the extent that they later claimed to witness something they didn’t actually witness.

At best some of these people later clarified that they meant they saw it on TV. Others claimed it was reported by the BBC (at approx 4pm; prior to the footage I have access to) that poppy wreaths had been thrown on a fire. I have spoken to a member of the BBC who was present with camera crew inside the kettle, and he does not recall anyone reporting this event, or the event itself.

But watch this tweeter change their story before retreating to ‘I saw it on TV’ (read from bottom up); she clearly added ‘from the Cenotaph’ in her mind, even if she heard the words ‘wreath’ and ‘fire’ in the same sentence as others claimed to:

tweets 01

Here’s another who initially comes across as an eyewitness before admitting he’d seen it on TV, and falling back on an as-yet-unnamed witness… but note that he too appears to have added the detail of ‘from the Cenotaph’ (again, you will need to read from the bottom up)

tweets 02

From what I can see, I think it fair to suspect that words were spoken by someone during the BBC’s live broadcast that may have given the impression that poppies were burned, and these were spoken over footage of the Cenotaph. Subsequently, several people made the same leap in unison (followed by a similar event roughly one hour later).

Here’s someone who actually rode past the Cenotaph the next day [later that same day; my bad], and projected damage onto it under the influence of earlier tweets (bottom up, folks!):

tweets 03

I should mention for the sake of accuracy that these are excerpts of wider conversations, and I’ve included a question from me for the proper context in the last. I should also add that the author in this last example expressed support for the students and their cause… but this person (like others) still came under the influence of those who tweeted claims they could not substantiate.

On this note I should also make it clear that not everyone who tweeted about damage to the Cenotaph and/or poppies thrown into the fire was a Conservative; some of them may merely have been influenced by earlier prejudices or may have been prone to certain conclusions/assumptions for other reasons.

However:

– Along the way there were varying degrees of prejudice, and I would argue that the more prejudiced you are in a case like this, the more likely you are to ‘see’ things that you didn’t actually witness. I would question how fair or wise it is to do so without linking to supporting evidence, or giving a false account of your supporting evidence that you don’t link to. (Case in point; this may or may not show what the headline describes, but at least you have the opportunity to make up your own mind, even if it is influenced to some extent by the headline written by the photographer, and I am by no means claiming or giving the impression that I have witnessed an event that I did not actually witness when I link to it.)

– The people who tweeted the initial speculation based on nothing but their own prejudice were the type of Conservatives who are so conservative that other Conservatives tend to be embarrassed by them, and with good reason.

– The later allegation of wreath-burning was later leapt on by those aligned against the students (i.e. in line with Conservative policy enacted by the coalition).

And it is on this note that we return to Peter Ould’s tweet:

Peter Ould speculates

What reason did he have to tweet this other than his own prejudice? What purpose does it serve to speculate in this way?

Perhaps these are questions he can ask himself if he can get past any issues he may have with my headline.

(Psst! Clue. Within reach. Feel your way forward.)

Related Post: Anorak – Student Demo 2 In Photos: Will They Urinate On The Cenotaph?.

A Much Earlier Post: G20: Callum Winton may wish to revise his eyewitness statement(s)

UPDATE – One of the authors mentioned in this tweet reports abuse in response to this post. That is against the spirit of this post and my site, and not a nice or constructive thing to do. Oh, and Peter Ould has described this post as defamatory, but has tweeted plans to ignore it. Pity. Well, it’s his call if he wants to ignore me now when I say I beg to differ on the point of defamation, and invite him to simply point out, specifically, how I have defamed him.








Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 6 Comments

Total Politics spam from Exact Editions

FFS. Once again, I’ve been spammed about Total Politics. (Here’s an earlier effort; this one direct from Total Politics staff.)

To: Webmaster

From:
Emma Bradfield
emma.bradfield@exacteditions.com

Message:
Hello

Total Politics, the lifestyle magazine dedicated to all things
political, is now available as a digital edition through Exact
Editions.

You can preview it here: [LINK SNIPPED]

Hope it’s of interest!

Best wishes
Emma

The person who sent this did not even take a moment to glance at what was then the most recent post on my site or an of my entries about Total Politics. Had she done so, she might have seen before sending her email that her offer is of NO interest to me; she may even have had formed the beginnings of a clue that I regard Iain Dale, the publisher of Total Politics, with nothing but contempt. I don’t think I’m wrong in suspecting this person is simply trawling political blogs for contact details/forms so she can spam the authors, without taking any care to determine if what she’s pushing might actually be of interest to them.

Iain Dale is not only a vindictive bastard who takes politics far too personally, he is a liar, a scoundrel, and a rogue publisher with bias on par with a putting green on the side of a cliff. I have ZERO interest in reading his two-bit magazine that itself relies heavily on its status as junk mail to keep its circulations figures up (it is “distributed freely to all MPs, MEPs, peers, political journalists, members of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, and all senior councillors down to district level” whether they want it or not).

I’d say that Iain Dale needs to sort this out, but one of our earliest disagreements was over an obvious spamming by him that he refused to admit to on the basis that he only sent the unsolicited email to a few about 8 over 30 recipients, before trying to project the spamming charge back onto me by objecting to my linking to supporting evidence in comments on his site. So even if he’s going to pretend that he’s entirely unaware of this promotional push for the online version of his own damn magazine…

… I doubt he’d admit to it being spam in the first place.

Oh, and before anyone asks; yes, I am pretty darn sure that this is a genuine email from the good people at Exact Editions, because the same IP address used for this email was used to make these edits to Wikipedia.

(You will find equally-illuminating edit histories here and here. There’s a word for this kind of behaviour, but it escapes me at the moment.)








Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 7 Comments

Forsaken

Right, I’ve just run out of patience with Forsaken (in Taunton), the Christian, pro-life organisation cited by Nadine Dorries in the House of Commons as if they were an established ‘pro-women’ charity (more).

Dorries accused me of harassing the good people at Forsaken after I dared to ask them about their status as a charity and how long they had been running (key passage in bold):

Tim Ireland, you have been warned.

(Posted Thursday, 4 November 2010 at 16:40)

Following my debate the other evening to introduce informed consent and the subsequent final statement from the Minister which was;

Having in place informed consent, appropriate counselling and the right support for women at this vulnerable time will ensure that we do not fail them for the future.

The sharks are already circling.

The purpose of the debate was to keep very firmly away from the ideological positions of pro-choice and pro-life. I made a point in the debate of stating that in the process of establishing informed consent, women should be given information which is, clear, accurate, void of political ideology and provides options underpinned by a network of support. I stated that both pro-choice and pro-life campaigners should have input and be in agreement. My debate was pro-women.

I very clearly state that one of those options should be adoption and how that can be achieved and how women can be supported through. I make no apology for this. There are many fantastic people who have been through the adoption process, who would have been aborted had their birth mother been pregnant today.

I mentioned in the speech the charity ‘Forsaken’. I didn’t say registered charity. I would imagine it is too new to have reached those dizzy heights. It is a pro- women charity, not pro-choice or pro-life.

Already, Forsaken have had the infamous Bloggerheads, Tim Ireland, on the phone this morning. Probing, asking questions about their status, amking the usual inappropriate comments etc. Usual Tim Ireland, agressive ‘I have a right to know all about you’ style.

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

Members of the public are not.

If you put into place your usual method of operation of continuous telephone calls, blogging, blitz emailing thousands of ranting words etc to people going about their daily business, I am sure the Police may take a strong view.

You have been warned. I will not tolerate anyone else being subjected to your intense, inappropriate, abusive behaviour, simply because they have some, even the most distant, association to me.

Especially good people, who are simply trying to help others.

(Psst! For those who are new to all of this, I deny stalking anyone, and Dorries is having a LOT of difficulty coming up with ANY evidence to support her case.)

I have dared to ask Forsaken a series of further questions about these accusations, knowing that every email I send risks playing into Dorries’ hands (it’s an old trick Dorries has used before; accuse someone of stalking, and when they contact you to object – bingo! – there’s your evidence).

Forsaken have replied to a limited extent, but have not given me permission to quote them or publish the relevant correspondence in its entirety.

So, instead of any formal statement from Forsaken about what really happened, here are the two email messages I sent them before Nadine’s accusatory outburst:

On 03 November 2010 at 15:26 bloggerheads.com [AT] gmail.com wrote:

]  Hi,
]
] You just received a message via the contact form of your website.
] The message was sent from http://www.forsaken-taunton.org.uk/contact/.
] You can change the e-mail address form messages are sent to. Just log in
] to your website, click on the form and change the e-mail address in the
] text box “Send message to the following e-mail address”.
] Your message:
] ————————————-
] Name: Tim Ireland
]
] E_mail: bloggerheads.com [AT] gmail.com
]
] Phone:
]
] Question: Nadine Dorries described you in the House of Commons as a
] charity. You are not registered with the Charity Commission. Was Dorries
] mistaken, perhaps? Would be grateful if you could clear this up for me.
] Cheers.


[reply from Forsaken, basically saying they were under the turnover threshold that would require them to register]

from Tim Ireland
to “info [AT] forsaken-taunton.org.uk”
date Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM
subject Re: Message via www.forsaken-taunton.org.uk

Nadine Dorries spoke of you in the House of Commons as if you were an established institution. How long have you been operating? Is this your first financial year?

Tim

Does it match the description Dorries gives of the exchange and/or what she portrays as the style of my email correspondence? No.

(Psst! It does include the type of unforgivable behaviour that Nadine’s mate Iain Dale cites when he defends junking my correspondence instead of reading it; I dared to ask what he would describe as a ‘barrage’ of questions in response to an initial answer. In the case of Dale and Dorries, the initial answer is usually a lie, or at least incomplete/misleading. That’s why they get upset when you ask further questions; it is not about harassment, it’s about someone threatening their precious house of cards. It is in this deceit that they graduate from ‘liar’ to ‘lying scoundrel’.)

Further, Forsaken have confirmed that NO PHONE CALLS were made to their office by me, so where Dorries gets this from is anybody’s guess. Perhaps she’s making it up. Perhaps someone gave her false information. Perhaps she has a very active imagination. (Do note the trouble I am going to here to not make assumptions when operating with limited evidence.)

As for whether I had good cause to suspect Forsaken (and/or those championing them) of being less-than-accurate about their status as a charity, I present to you a partial scan of Page 2 of their book that arrived the other day:

forsaken

Here I will remind you that Forsaken are at a stage where they are (in their words) “making contingency plans for completing the registration process”.

If the erased word before ‘charity’ is ‘registered’, I think that warrants some serious questions about when this book was printed, and how many copies went out without this clumsy, white-out correction that so neatly sums up their two-bit operation.

Why don’t you try asking them about that? I’ve had it with Forsaken; their charitable instincts appear restricted to those who support their clouded agenda, and I shan’t be bothering with any further correspondence.

Similarly, I’ll be passing on my copy of their self-published book of five anecdotes for someone else to review.

If Forsaken can’t be bothered to give me the time of day when I’m falsely accused of harassing them and they know how further attempts to contact them will be portrayed (see also: Nadine’s fellow Conservative MPs Anne Milton and Patrick Mercer), then I really don’t think I can read their publication with any of the objectivity I promised.


Related (earlier) post: Nadine Dorries: the fiction saga continues

NOTE – I really shouldn’t have to publish my correspondence like this; by law, it is up to Dorries to back what she claims with evidence, but the relevant law supports the rich and the powerful, and I’m just some poor shmo who dared to confront an MP who appears to be a congenital liar. One of Nadine’s more virulent supporters (using the nickname ‘Tom Paine’ while using falsified email and IP address details) helpfully suggests that I give everyone blanket permission to publish every scrap of correspondence I ever sent them. While taking the position that I subject an elected representative to undue scrutiny, he (or she) demands that I subject myself to an absurd level of scrutiny. I don’t think I’m wrong to suspect that these messages come from someone who is far closer to Nadine Dorries than they would care to admit.

UPDATE – The following is for the Anglican priest who initially challenged me to publish this correspondence, then ignored that component before issuing this stream of drivel, presenting an entirely new (and equally unfair) challenge:

Peter Ould

For those in any doubt, even those who do not know the difference between an absolute statement and a valid question, I present a scan of the page with the white-out scraped off:

Forsaken are not a registered charity

The question remains; how many copies of the book went out without this correction? Meanwhile, it is entirely acceptable to ask (as I did); did Forsaken try to pass themselves off as a registered charity?

UPDATE – Meanwhile, further ‘evidence’ bandied about by Dorries in support of her position gets royally fisked here:

Ministry of Truth – Dorries’ Abortion Risk ‘Plethora’

UPDATE (19 Nov) – A review of the contents of the book by Cath Elliott:

Cath Elliott – But then I found Jesus. The end.

In the introduction the mystery unnamed editors tell us:

“This book is about the reality of post abortion. The women who suffer in this way tend to feel forsaken, unable to express what they are suffering.“

and the book then continues with the tragic heart-breaking true-life stories of women who’ve had abortions, and who’ve gone on to regret it, but who’ve all then managed to finally find peace and forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

Awwww.

So basically, in a nutshell, the stories in this book/pamphlet/anti-abortion-religious-tract boil down to: ‘I was young. I didn’t know what I was doing. I had an abortion. I lived to regret it. But then I found Jesus. The end.’

And this from Richard Bartholomew:

Richard Bartholomew – Some Notes on Forsaken Book Promoted by Nadine Dorries MP

… the charity has published a book, also called Forsaken, which was referenced by Nadine Dorries in a recent Parliamentary debate:

…I shall finish by mentioning a book which is to be launched this month. It is published by the charity Forsaken, which is neither pro-life nor pro-choice: it is pro-women. For two years, the charity has put together the stories of women suffering from post-abortion syndrome. Reading the book is so heart-wrenching that we just want to reach out and take their pain away, but we cannot. There is no going back. We cannot make it better; abortion is a procedure to end life-it is final.

Having seen the book, there is no way that it can be described as ”neither pro-life nor pro-choice” – it is blatantly anti-abortion, with two very obvious aims: (a) to make women contemplating abortion feel that they shouldn’t do it; and (b) to persuade women who have had abortions to convert to Christianity…

… The book ends with some short Appendices, outlining “Post Abortion Syndrome” and supposed risks to physical health, and giving the contact details for Alternatives, a counselling service linked to the same church as Forsaken (the Living Light Christian Church, a local moderate Charismatic church).

I think it’s fair to say that Dorries has misled the House about more than Forsaken’s status as an established charity.








Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 7 Comments

Stalking: what if Nadine Dorries can’t even prove she ever made a complaint?

Let me start by explaining the context of Nadine Dorries’ claims about stalking while (*gasp*) backing my position with evidence:

Nadine Dorries made significant expenses claims on the basis that a property within her constituency was her second home, but the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was aware of entries on Nadine’s blog that gave the impression this constituency property was her main home.

To explain this discrepancy, Nadine Dorries told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that the published accounts from her blog, including those portraying her main home as being in the constituency, were “70% fiction”. She explained the political thinking behind this decision quite clearly (more):

I often posted comments on my blog relating to [name of town] in my constituency. Since I first rented in the constituency, I made a song and dance about being at the property. I have mentioned it on my blog a number of times. This was done to comfort my Association. The previous MP only visited the constituency occasionally—sometimes only as often as once every six weeks—and they were keen that I reversed that impression. His lack of time in the constituency contributed to his de-selection. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 25 January 2010

Nadine Dorries put it to the Commissioner that she sought to ‘reassure’ her association and her constituents by only appearing to live inside the constituency. This was duly accepted by the Commissioner and included in the report.

The outcry that followed the publication of her “%70 fiction” claim took Nadine Dorries entirely by surprise. After saying that she really meant ‘30% fiction’ all along, she then went on to say that everything she published was entirely true, and only minor dates and place names had been changed, on the specific advice of police (more). The relevant report does not show any mention of this to the Commissioner at any time during the 15 month investigation.

Dorries further claimed that this advice was given by police in response to their awareness of a stalking threat against her, and named me as the main threat (if not the only reason why this alleged advice was issued).

This is a claim that Nadine Dorries has been spreading via her not-a-blog and Twitter account, and I have good reason to believe she has also transmitted this claim and variations of it to several media outlets (though none have run with the detail naming me; even her blogging friends Iain Dale and Paul Staines refuse the carry the weight of her claims, and normally they’ll print any old thing that makes Teh Left look bad).

To support her claim that she was advised by police to publish misleading accounts about time spent in her constituency because of a potential threat to her person from me, Nadine Dorries continues to maintain that I stalk her, and that I have stalked other MPs before her.

I will deal with the latter charge first:

Nadine Dorries claimed quite specifically that I had in the past harassed Conservative MP Anne Milton to the point that police had to get involved*. She also claims that I similarly stalked Conservative MP Patrick Mercer. I know that Dorries cannot possibly substantiate her claim, because I have NEVER been approached by police about anything like this, and it is standard protocol for police to contact any named person who is accused/suspected of this kind of behaviour.

It should also be pointed out that Anne Milton and Patrick Mercer are right now, rather than stepping forward to verify Dorries’ account, doing all they can to avoid comment.

And I really shouldn’t have to do this, as the onus is on Dorries to support what she claims with evidence, but unlike many people, I can readily prove that I have a clean record.

Surprise #1: I went through a CRB check last year**:

CRB check

Of course, if we’re to allow all possibilities and maybe even engage our imaginations to some small extent, there remains a period after CRB clearance where fresh complaints may have been filed against me (i.e. where I have suddenly turned to evil deeds leading to complaints, investigations or even prosecutions). So while this document contradicts any claim or implication that I am known to police for having stalked or otherwise criminally harassed Anne Milton or Patrick Mercer or anyone else prior to mid-2009, I may have been at it hammer and tongs since then.

Nadine Dorries does claim to have made numerous complaints to police about me, and while she has been avoiding mention of specific events/dates throughout, we do know that she claimed to have forwarded emails from me to the London Metropolitan Police on or about if not before 17 February 2010 (her exact words; “have fwd all emails etc to the Met Police who are reviewing with the harassment unit”).

Again, I shouldn’t have to do this, as the onus is on Nadine Dorries to produce the relevant evidence such as log/incident reference numbers (issued when a complaint is made) and/or the relevant crime reference numbers (issued when an investigation begins), but…

Surprise #2: I have already done a subject access request and it brought back NO record of ANY complaint about me being filed with ANYONE in the London Metropolitan Police***:

subject access met

Surprise #3: I got a similar result when checking the Police National Computer:

subject access national

It is clear that Nadine Dorries cannot produce a crime reference number to back up her claim that I was under investigation by police for stalking/harassing her. She shouldn’t be asking for what she already has, and it’s been two weeks since she promised this data that most people can get inside of an hour:

Dorries

Because this MP appears to think that she should be discussing her allegations of minor crime directly with the local Chief Constable, it does not take a great stretch of the imagination to picture Nadine Dorries making a complaint and being so impossibly self-important as to assume an investigation, so for a long time, to my mind there remained the possibility that Nadine Dorries was merely very confused about what had gone on and perhaps even genuinely frightened by some of the action(s) she attributed to me.

However…

While my more recent subject access request to Bedfordshire Police may yet reveal a note from the log book of the officer who attended when Dorries called police to the Flitwick hustings (more), apart from this event (i.e. the event at which she claimed a police investigation was already in progress), I suspect Dorries cannot produce any evidence that she ever made any kind of complaint about me, when she claims to have multiple complaints.

There is a police force contracted to the House of Commons, but every officer is an officer of London Metropolitan Police, their job focuses on the entire community using the House (i.e. including the public, it is NOT a private police force for MPs, as Dorries seems to think), and I have confirmed that while they pass on serious complaints to plain-clothed officers they themselves issue log/incident numbers on the spot when a serious complaint (e.g. of harassment/stalking) is made through them.

– Can Nadine Dorries produce any log/incident numbers that will establish the date and nature of any complaint made though any police officer stationed in the House of Commons?

– Can Nadine Dorries produce any log/incident numbers that will establish the date and nature of any complaint made to any officer/department/station within London Metropolitan Police?

– Can Nadine Dorries produce any log/incident numbers that will establish the date and nature of any complaint made to Bedfordshire Police?

There is no sign of anyone anywhere in the police system raising concerns about my being a threat to Nadine Dorries or anyone else. Where does this claim of hers come from, where police have been so concerned about what I might do to her that they advise her as early as May 2009 if not earlier to make misleading statements on her blog for her own safety?

If Dorries cannot even prove that she made a complaint, what can this be other than the crudest of inventions?

Before you attempt any answer to that question, let’s also consider that when she was telling this same sob story back in May 2010, she claimed that it was this same police advice coupled with the stabbing of Stephen Timms that finally convinced her to close her blog and Twitter account down, but it was later established that she closed her blog and Twitter account down a week before that event (more).

What can this be other than a deliberate attempt to invent false detail designed to associate me with violent crime?

Dorries also made claims of “explicit” emails/messages from me that she refuses to produce (even under the Data Protection Act) and more recently made claims about “inappropriate comments” in “aggressive” phone calls where no phone calls were made (more).

In the latter instance, she dragged a small interest-group into her fictions and made entirely false claims on their behalf.

Previously, I’ve held on to the hope that Nadine Dorries was so hilariously self-important that she made some complaint(s), then filled in the blanks with occasional bouts of hysteria and delusion.

Increasingly, I’ve become concerned that she may have lied about quite nearly every bit of it, deliberately attempting to portray me as a violent criminal for no other reason than to scare critics off and have me serve as an alibi for her lies and corruption.

What Nadine Dorries published on her blog as fact then later described as “fiction” was designed, by her own account, to “reassure” her constituents by giving a false impression that she lived primarily at the constituency property. There would be no call for this as a pattern of deceit even if security were an issue, but there is NO evidence to support the idea that it ever was. Further, most of the blog entries that are problematic for Dorries were written before I ever met her or even became dimly aware of her. She claims the police advised her to lie on these occasions to specifically protect herself from my attention!

The (presently) linear nature of time itself conspires against her, she made no mention of any of this to the Commissioner, there is no evidence of police ever being concerned about me as risk to anyone, and – most damaging of all – Dorries appears to be unable to establish that she ever made a complaint.

At some stage Nadine Dorries may have spoken to a Crime Prevention Officer in Mid Bedfordshire or the House of Commons, and that person is likely to have given her generic advice about avoiding unwanted attention online, but this would be a long way from what Dorries described.

On what basis does she claim that police regard me to be a danger to her and other MPs?

Why does she persist in this deceit, even when police have (by now) advised her that she hasn’t provided anything worthy of investigation? If she’s not careful, it will begin to look like he is trying to mobilise the anti-social elements that have been publishing my home address alongside the dangerous accusations that I stalk women and send death threats to MPs.

(Psst! If you’re new here, I should explain that I’ve been the subject of a genuine campaign of harassment and Nadine Dorries is now dangerously close to looking like a willing party to harassment while claiming to be a victim of it.)

It is an irresponsible, dangerous and selfish fiction that Dorries engages in when she make claims in the name of police about my being a danger to her or anyone else.

The official Conservative Party position is that it is a matter between me and Dorries, and it is probably going to stay that way for as long as they can keep it down to a dull roar. Meanwhile, I am expected to take civil action to combat an MP telling what I can prove to be a lie about a police investigation that never took place. That alone is a disgrace. Dorries didn’t lie about a church social; she lied about a criminal investigation… and she’s a bloody lawmaker!

And if she cannot produce the log/incident numbers she should already have to hand, it is going to start looking like she invented the whole damn thing.

See also: Exposing Nadine Dorries and the little gang of Conservatives who cried ‘stalker’ (get coffee!)

(*Police did in 2006 have cause to interview a Conservative activist working very closely with Anne Milton. His name; Mike Chambers. Milton has so far refused to comment on the internal investigation that Chambers claims took place before Milton and the Conservatives went on to endorse him as a candidate for local council.)

(**I had this CRB check done so I could work with children. That may be news to you. It’s something I’d love to be able to blog about, if it weren’t for the ongoing genuine harassment situation that I have to deal with. If you recall it involved a concerted attempt to portray me as a convicted paedophile, then you might begin to understand the extent to which it has disrupted my life. I won’t pretend I’m acting purely on police advice, but I am running a blog that is 70% silence at the moment. Meanwhile, I am accused of ‘obsessing’ over Dorries and associated issues because often the only thing I can blog about is the slow progress in the battle against the lies and distortions of hers that contribute so much to an ongoing campaign of harassment against me.)

(***It is possible that a complaint about me overlaps/overlapped with an ongoing investigation into a mysterious other party in a matter so serious it warrants suspending the usual protocols for dealing with claims of harassment. But this is about as likely as a 21-week-old foetus punching its way out of an incision in the uterus.)

(MINI-UPDATE – I again typed “75% fiction” instead of the correct figure of “70% fiction”. Post corrected accordingly. ‘Mid Bedfordshire Police’ has similarly been corrected to ‘Bedfordshire Police’ where appropriate; Bedfordshire Police police Mid Bedfordshire. And FlitWick.)

(MINI-UPDATE – ‘Tom Paine’ or whoever you are, the email address you submit with your comments is not genuine. I have no way to reach you if I wish to discuss the body of your comment. It’s a requirement I have for any substantial comment.)








Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 10 Comments

Bonfire Camera III – 3 cameras above the fire

Guy Fawkes Night Bonfire Camera III (2010) – 3 cameras above the fire

After a last year’s failure to get off the ground using helium, this year I sought to get above the fire using a (10 metre high) Clark PU 10 Telescopic Mast roughly 40m away from the fire. Footage from all three cameras was then sped up digitally and set to Mercury, the Winged Messenger (The Planets, Op. 32) by Gustav Holst.

It’s very pretty, if not as dramatic as Year One (more).








Posted in Video | 2 Comments

Nadine Dorries: the fiction saga continues

Nadine Dorries published an extraordinary attack on me on her not-really-a-blog last night, and followed this up by ignoring all criticism of it on Twitter (branding it “hate tweets from lefties and the odd misogynist on the right.”) and only thanking the two people who supported her attempt to (again) divert attention away from her lies with further lies.

She's so brave

Because Dorries is prone to making unmarked changes to her published outbursts, I include the full, original text below and counter it with the simple and confident statement that more than 70% of it is fiction (that which is not a gross distortion of the truth is a lie):

Tim Ireland, you have been warned.

Posted Thursday, 4 November 2010 at 16:40

Following my debate the other evening to introduce informed consent and the subsequent final statement from the Minister which was;

Having in place informed consent, appropriate counselling and the right support for women at this vulnerable time will ensure that we do not fail them for the future.

The sharks are already circling.

The purpose of the debate was to keep very firmly away from the ideological positions of pro-choice and pro-life. I made a point in the debate of stating that in the process of establishing informed consent, women should be given information which is, clear, accurate, void of political ideology and provides options underpinned by a network of support. I stated that both pro-choice and pro-life campaigners should have input and be in agreement. My debate was pro-women.

I very clearly state that one of those options should be adoption and how that can be achieved and how women can be supported through. I make no apology for this. There are many fantastic people who have been through the adoption process, who would have been aborted had their birth mother been pregnant today.

I mentioned in the speech the charity ‘Forsaken’. I didn’t say registered charity. I would imagine it is too new to have reached those dizzy heights. It is a pro- women charity, not pro-choice or pro-life.

Already, Forsaken have had the infamous Bloggerheads, Tim Ireland, on the phone this morning. Probing, asking questions about their status, amking the usual inappropriate comments etc. Usual Tim Ireland, agressive ‘I have a right to know all about you’ style.

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

Members of the public are not.

If you put into place your usual method of operation of continuous telephone calls, blogging, blitz emailing thousands of ranting words etc to people going about their daily business, I am sure the Police may take a strong view.

You have been warned. I will not tolerate anyone else being subjected to your intense, inappropriate, abusive behaviour, simply because they have some, even the most distant, association to me.

Especially good people, who are simply trying to help others.

When speaking to the House about abortion on Tuesday (transcript), Dorries gave the impression that Forsaken was an established and sizeable charity, but their ‘About Us’ page tells an entirely different story:

Forsaken

I contacted Forsaken (by email only) to make enquiries about their status as a charity, and included a follow up question about how long they’d been operating under the income threshold that stops them from having to register as one. I have now dared to send a third email asking them to confirm that I have not called them, and I will let you know if they get back to me.

In the meantime, here are two posts that look closer at some of the things that Nadine Dorries claimed in the House of Commons recently. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to find that not all of it adds up, and some of it appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the House:

Forsaken?
Forsaken, Alternatives, and Living Light: Opposition to Abortion in Taunton

The rest is Dorries assuring us that police may take an interest in things I might do in the future, but there is one item of potential interest, and it is this:

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

Last week, Nadine Dorries finally offered to produce crime reference numbers that would support her nonsensical claims about police investigations, but none have emerged, and she even appears to be making excuses about why can’t produce a single log/incident number that would at least verify that a complaint was made.

Let that sink in, because if Dorries cannot even produce evidence of her making a complaint to police, her claims that they went on to launch an investigation appear even more calculated, if not insidious.

Further, I suspect that “I am expected… to take it” is the nearest we’re going to get to an admission that it is only recently that Dorries has spoken to police about this, and that they have responded by telling her that she hasn’t got anything near a case. I suspect she may even have been advised by now that MPs are expected to subject themselves to a reasonable level of scrutiny and claims they make in the House may be legally fact-checked by members of the public who (*gasp*) aren’t even her constituents.

I expect this has come as a bit of a shock to the MP who thinks she should be reporting my perceived crimes directly though the local Chief Constable, thus the intensity of the outburst.

I have no statement to make about my intentions re: potential civil action at this time, but otherwise comments are open below and you can find me here on Twitter, answering questions and keeping up with the latest.

UPDATE – Links to related blog posts below:

Descent into madness?
Dorries, Again, Yes I know….
Nadine Dorries – Attack is Not Always The Best Form of Defence
Nadine Dorries Sends “Warning” to Tim Ireland over Charity Query

CRUCIAL UPDATE – Nadine Dorries has just linked approvingly to an article by Dominic Wightman attacking me and calling me a ‘stalker’. I’m not at liberty to spell it out at the moment, but the implications of this should be clear to anyone familiar with the wider situation (more).








Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 7 Comments

Nadine Dorries tells lies, digs hole, etc.

This article by David Allen Green that is very much about Nadine Dorries and what she told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has resulted in a string of remarkably similar comments underneath that article from an unknown number of people pretending to be more than one person, with strikingly similar views on it being less about the corruption and lying and All About Teh Stalking. Two examples:

randomgrainofsugar
01 November 2010 at 16:18
Slightly over the top don’t you think? I notice you don’t mention the stalker/nutter Tim Irealnd who gatecrashed our public meeting to film her? Or the fact that she was altering name, dates etc on the advice of the Police to protect her family and staff from people like him. She was cleared of an investigation into her expenses and didnt have top pay a penny back.Not the case with Labour MPs. That was the real story.

A voter
01 November 2010 at 16:27
Tim Irealnd is a man well known to the Police. he can ‘debunk’ all he likes. He even posted a video on you tube of his being caught filming her whilst pretending to be someone else and lying to the meeting organisers.If she was my wife, I would want her to cover up where she was. he is seriously weird.

I “gatecrashed their public meeting” and was caught filming her… on my own camera in a planned live broadcast. There are some days when satirising it becomes near to impossible.

This evening, Jim Hamilton kindly took the time to explain the situation as it stands to one of Dorries’ remaining supporters on Twitter. I didn’t have time to get a fresh summary together today, and this does nicely (thank you, Jim):

Jim Hamilton

On Monday 1st November 2010, said:

OK, where to begin. First, you are majoring on how Mrs #Dorries was “cleared” by the HoC standards and privileges ctte. Based on Mrs Dorries submission that 70% of her blog was, in effect, lies. This was a written submission to the House authorities, and Mrs Dorries had every opportunity to change her position before the investigation ran its’ course. She waited until this evidence (and be under no illusions, it is evidence) was accepted and the investigation closed to casually say that the evidence was in fact incorrect. The only two conclusions possible from this are (a) She lied to the commons to achieve a fraud on the public purse or (b) she routinely lied to her constituents. Assuming, for the sake of the argument that (b) is the case; first, this is morally reprehensible to me as her constituent – largely through her cavalier attitude to this breach of the covenant. Her position that she only changed some details to protect herself from “stalkers” is interesting. She has been unable to provide evidence of this serious offence having been comitted. I spent 6 years working at a reasonably senior level in the Criminal Justice system and can say a few things about Mrs Dorries claims. 1. If you report a credible suspect for “stalking” they will be interviewed by the Police, either under arrest or by voluntary attendance at the Police Station – the named blogger has had neither happen to him. You will also be issued with a Crime reference number, you will not have to ask for this, it will be provided freely. Mrs Dorries, despite being given the opportunity to provide this has failed to avail herself of the opportunity – why would this be? There is no risk to her in the slightest. If any interaction with the police has taken place – and there is absolutely no evidence that it has – one can only deduce that they have decided that there is no case to answer and that Mrs Dorries (admittedly vocal) critics are operating entirely within the law, and their rights as citizens of this country.

In short, Mrs Dorries has accused people of crimes, publicly and without evidence to back the assertion – nor even a logical argument to provide the benefit of the doubt, she has revelled in the way she has either misled parliament or her constituents.

The conclusion? – She needs to be deselected by the Conservative party, a by-election needs to be called and if (as is likely) a Conservative is returned to the seat, so be it – but let it be an honourable, decent, hard working constituency MP – rather like her neighbour in NE Beds, Alistair Burt.

This is not a party political issue – no matter what I and others think of the parties of government, it is a matter of public probity and decency.

Sorry, couldn’t say all that in 140 characters

That’s about the size of it. On Friday (Oct 29) Nadine Dorries promised to provide dates of complaints and relevant reference numbers. She claims an investigation followed one of many complaints involving four different stalkers. For every proper complaint she made, she should be able to identify a log/incident number, the file for which would reveal the date of the relevant complaint(s). For every investigation, there should be a crime reference number. Today, no supporting data has emerged.

Dorries has yet to produce any evidence that police gave her anything like the advice she claims to have received from them – i.e. to mislead her constituents about her whereabouts – which is the purpose of this story she offers the press (which greatly contradicts the story she gave the Commissioner). She has yet to produce evidence to support her now months-old claim that a police investigation was in progress, and the language she is using at the moment appears to suggest that she cannot even provide evidence of making any complaint, which would make the matter even more of a disaster for her.

Currently she is reduced to making nonsensical claims in the name of the local Chief Constable, making major unmarked edits to the wildly inaccurate if not entirely false claims she publishes on that ‘blog’ of hers, and shouting ‘puerile’ at an article composed mainly of the findings of a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

UPDATE (02 Nov) – A chunk of the opening sentence was missing, and has now been reinstated. Dorries is up and about and mouthing off, but still unable to produce any evidence backing any of what she claims.








Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 12 Comments

Rally4Sanity London: an important message

It is just past midday on 10.29.10 29.10.10. There are now less than 24 hours to go before midday on 10.30.10 30.10.10. That makes it impossible for anyone to apply for police permission to stage a London demonstration in favour of sanity (or anything else) at 12pm tomorrow within the confines of the designated area displayed in the map below.

If you wish to have a rally to restore sanity anywhere in or near Parliament or Downing Street midday on 30.10.2010, there is now NO way to gain permission to do it legally; the official deadline passed days ago, and even the short notice deadline would require the use of a time machine. That’s the law.

(See: Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005)

If you wish to hold an urgent and spontaneous demonstration outside Scotland Yard or the Home office in protest, this too is illegal without police permission (see map).

rally4sanity map

The KeepFearAlive rally for London does have police permission to stage a demonstration within the designated area (from 12pm-2pm), and we will also be demonstrating in favour of the law that grants us this exclusive privelege:

London/Westminster Rally to Defend SOCPA and Keep Fear Alive
12pm Saturday 30.10.2010
Old Palace Yard SW1 (map)
Wear BLACK, or a BLACK costume. (No excuses!)
Authorised placards ONLY please!

Placards and further details: http://www.bloggerheads.com/keepfearalive/ or http://j.mp/KeepFearAliveUK

Subscribe to the mailing list to confirm your attendance and discuss the event.
Join the London MeetUp group.

In summary, for anyone wishing to demonstrate in favour of sanity anywhere near Parliament tomorrow, I present one of the authorised placards for our event:

Fear Poster 02

I look forward to seeing my fellow fear-mongers at the event. Click here for further details and downloadable placards. Don’t forget to wear the blackest of your black shirts.

Fear Flyer








Posted in The War on Stupid | 3 Comments