Posted by Tim Ireland at 22 December 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

(This post comes to you with a BIG tip of the hat to EinyWatch, which is well worth a follow if you want to keep half an eye on at least one of these characters.)

I should make it clear from the outset that I do realise that Einy Shah and Hind Essoussi are only minor players in the grand scheme of things, but then so were Mike Chambers and Dennis Paul (the Guildford Tory activists working under Anne Milton who went on to smear an opponent as a paedophile and publish personal/sensitive data about their political enemies when none of the local Tories saw fit to moderate or police their actions).

As with many posts on this site about people whose ambitions override comment sense and/or common decency, this post isn’t really about Einy Shah or Hind Essoussi, but about the more senior Conservatives who fail in their duty to educate and regulate their activists, and instead tolerate any/many ‘indiscretions’ for as long these people remain a useful/deniable asset.

(Young/ambitious people reading this should be aware that if any politician knows you harbour political ambitions but offers you tacit/off-the-record approval of conduct you know to be poor or even illegal, then they are most likely using you; they are using you to do their/party dirty work while knowing that your acts, if discovered, will exclude you from any position of responsibility in future.)

Hind Essoussi is an Area Chairmen (North West) for London Conservative Future, and an intern for both the Conservative Women’s Organisation and Women in Public Policy. She is studying law at the London School of Economics and Political Science and is/was a Law Mentor for the Islamic Society.

Einy Shah is Deputy Chairman of London Conservative Future, and in a recent puff-piece on the Conservative Future websites that states she is “studying law at a London University” her “past involvements” are listed as follows:

– Jo Johnson MP’s office [role not defined]
– Campaign co-ordinator for Jo Johnson MP
– [Boris Johnson] Mayor of London’s Peer Outreach Team
– Department for International Development’s ‘Write Here Right Now’ reporter
– Campaign manager for Loanna Morrison PPC
– Bill Wiggin MP’s office [role not defined]

This same puff-piece includes the following endorsements:

“Every campaign needs an Einy!” – Jo Johnson MP

“By the response she got on the doorstep and my re-election result it is clear that Einy made a significant impact.” – Grant Shapps MP

Now, Einy is the type of person who sees no wrong in creating a false online identity so she can pretend to be an enthusiastic member of the public while campaigning for Tories generally and Boris Johnson specifically, but that’s to be expected if she hangs out with Tories generally and that sock puppeting loser Grant Shapps specifically. She’s been like/at this for a long time and really there’s not much about her antics that surprises me any more.

But what does surprise me is that she would not only engage in what appears to be criminal damage, but go on to publish the evidence on her Facebook profile (under a title that leaves very little room for confusion; ‘Millbank Revenge’):

Einy Shah - Millbank Revenge

‘Millbank’ refers to the Conservative headquarters in London that recently played host to a student fees protest where criminal damage was done to that building. The resulting cry of outrage from Conservative-supporting blogs could be heard from space, and was somewhat justified if obviously feigned at times, but I would argue that even a mock attack in ‘revenge’ sends entirely the wrong message, and that’s assuming the best about what these images show.

For example; this might be an abandoned car that Einy Shah is defacing, or perhaps even an art installation. It may even be an art installation where members of the public are invited to spray-paint what they please on it (even party-political slogans)… but what it looks like from here is criminal damage in favour of the campaign to re-elect Boris Johnson for Mayor of London, painted by someone who has served under him, and worked for this brother:

Einy Shah - Vote Boris

Add the title ‘Millbank revenge’ to the photo collection and it looks like quite deliberate criminal damage with a specific agenda in support of the Conservative party and government policy… but who/what is it aimed at exactly? If this is a campus, it’s the arse-end of it; it appears to be a loading area or a car park. Surely if one is to adopt the position that this is a justified attack of revenge for the Millbank event, then Einy Shah and Hind Essoussi should be kicking their way in through the front door of a local student building and spray-painting the lobby.

Also, not only does this look like a loading area or a car park, but it could easily be mistaken for the loading area or car park for one of the many council estates in London. I’m not saying that’s what it is, but by not going through the front door and making clear where they are, the ladies risk giving the impression that they have reacted to a protest about student fees by defacing the homes of people who have done nothing more than dare to live in the poorer part of town (i.e. almost as if their thinking is that they can do as they please in what they regard to be a shithole).

Returning to the struggle to assume the best about these photos, it could be that this plywood is Hind Essoussi’s property, or property in her care. It could even be that she was specifically asked by the owner of the plywood to leave a message for the bin-men to leave the item alone (with a cryptic ‘PS’ about Dane hearting some guy called Boris for that personal touch, in lieu of a Christmas tip):

[MINI-UPDATE – Of course, it’s most likely not about ‘Dane’, but some chap named ‘Dave’. Dave heart Boris. Bless.]

Hind Essoussi - Boris 2012

But even if we’re not looking at evidence of a criminal act here, questions need to be asked about what Conservative Future is teaching these young activists. First of all, if you are going to announce the re-launch of “Web Cameron”, you should at least get the main brand/keyword right (it is ‘webcameron’) even if you can’t be bothered making it legible. There is also the small matter of campaigning for ‘change’ when your lot are already in government:

Hind Essoussi - webcameron/change

Einy Shah was asked what these photos might show, but she first deleted the relevant album then pretended not to know what I was talking about because the link I provided was ‘missing’. When shown copies of the photos that had been preserved elsewhere, she said “that may or may not be me”, then refused to comment further.

I should explain at this stage that Einy Shah is currently going through a similar process to that of fellow Tories Iain Dale and Nadine Dorries; after somehow arriving at the conclusion that attempts to publicly call her to account for her campaigning amount to harassment, she has made ‘reports’ to police (about others) that don’t even warrant an initial reference number, and then attempted to use this act to suggest that she has some kind of case.

She’s not likely to get anywhere with police, but the cry of ‘stalker’ from a young woman has a particular and persistent resonance, and is likely to be repeated by your more blinkered/vindictive Conservative supporter, regardless of the truth, risks, and other trivia.

It is for this reason that I am somewhat hesitant about contacting Hind Essoussi for comment. However, because I make no strong assertions about what takes place in these photos, I am perfectly comfortable putting the relevant question to her in public (that question being; “Can you explain to me what is going on in these photos?”).

After both ladies have had an opportunity to respond, I probably won’t be wasting my breath on a call to Tory HQ (they talk to you like you’re scum and sweep even the most serious of concerns under the carpet), but I will most likely report this to police.

If anyone recognises the location where these photos were taken, it would be of enormous help in determining what property was damaged (if any) and which station this should be reported to (if at all).

UPDATE (05 March) – Thanks for the input, folks. I’ve known about the location for some time, but Einy and Hind managed to embarrass a lot of people with their ‘revenge’ stunt, and the people involved are reluctant to go on record. Knowing the truth, I’m perfectly happy to sit on what I have published to date, but if these two claim or imply that they had permission to spray-paint the walls with Tory slogans (as they have recently), it is a lie.

Posted by Tim Ireland at 17 December 2010

Category: The Political Weblog Movement, Tories! Tories! Tories!

I’m too time-pressed to write a proper farewell to Iain Dale and his particular ‘style’ of blogging (allowing your site to be used as a platform for anonymous attacks on your critics and rivals then screaming ‘personal attack’ when confronted about it) but he’s now claiming in Twitter that he never blamed me in any way for his failure to secure a seat as an MP.

Technically, I’m violating the Chatham House Rule here, but as his mate Phil Hendren is busy publicly pushing his interpretation of what Iain Dale said privately, I don’t see I have much choice.

This is what Iain Dale said:

“I didn’t apply for several parliamentary nominations in the wider Guildford area because I was convinced Tim would turn up at them and ruin my chances (Woking being the main one, I remember). You may think that is preposterous, but when you are feeling stalked or harassed, that’s how you think.” – Iain Dale

Today, Iain Dale first claimed I was ‘making it up’ and/or imagining that he said anything like this, then later had his mate do the back-pedalling for him, which allows him to put it about as a misinterpretation of what he said while not admitting (oops) that he had actually blamed me, at least in part, for his wider failure to secure a seat.

Well, now you can read what he said and decide for yourself.

He’s talking absolute bollocks about “feeling stalked or harassed”, by the way. He retreated to this position after falsely claiming that I actually stalked/harassed him (months later he deleted this from his site without retracting it). You may also note that rather than host even this watered-down claim himself, he instead burdens the BBC with it as he describes it as “effectively stalking”.

Currently he defends this as opinion when he knows it is being passed off as fact by people who are actually harassing me.

The guy who has been watching my house and blogging details about where I live uses Iain Dale’s claims that I stalk him to justify his actions.

I’ll repeat that bit:

The guy who has been watching my house and blogging details about where I live uses Iain Dale’s claims that I stalk him to justify his actions.

I have been targeted. My family has been targeted. And yet Dale claims the moral high ground and describes my objecting to his role in it as putting him “through hell”. Pardon my French, but he’s a cloaca.

Unlike Iain, I have responded to what I claim to be harassment with an actual attempt to report the matter to police and have the individual(s) concerned prosecuted. A police investigation is in progress. Iain Dale refuses to cooperate with this investigation (just as he refused to cooperate with those that preceded it; a major reason for the calls he puts about as ‘proof’ of my stalking him), even so far as refusing to provide a simple incident number for the single complaint to police he claims to have made (that went nowhere, if it ever happened at all). Instead of offering this simple scrap of data, Iain tells me to “go to hell”. Also, he wants to be the only person active in the original matter who does not want to supply a statement; instead he wants police to call him so he can tell his side of the story on the fly, like he’s some kind of VIP.

[Sidebar: note the similarity between the position of Dale here and the position of Nadine Dorries; Dale has repeatedly put it about publicly and privately that I am guilty of stalking him, Dorries claims I was under investigation for stalking her at one stage, but neither can produce a crime reference number that would accompany any investigation and/or subsequent prosecution… or even an incident number to show that they ever made a complaint.]

Now, while I would certainly campaign against this proven liar, I have never stalked or harassed Iain Dale by the legal or even the popularly-accepted definitions of these words, and especially not in the manner he describes/implies in this email (i.e. as if I am likely to follow him around and linger outside his house, work etc.)

And to show you how I know that even his claim that he is/was “feeling stalked or harassed” is bollocks:

All of Iain’s decisions in this respect were made well in advance of the May 2010 election, which should be obvious. Yet in the relevant email, Iain Dale cites an event during that election as his primary justification for thinking this way long before the election.

(Dale often uses this ‘time machine’ technique; he once claimed he didn’t intervene when I was being smeared as a paedophile because of the way I reacted after he promised to intervene and didn’t, then lied about it.)

As you’ve probably guessed, in the relevant email he references the Flitwick meeting that I was invited to by participating constituents in Mid Bedfordshire where Dorries accused me of stalking her.

Dorries plays a similar ‘time machine’ game now. She claimed at that event that I was under police investigation for stalking her. This claim was entirely untrue. Now she has others doing her dirty work for her (Dorries uses Harry Cole in the same way Iain Dale uses Phil Hendren) and putting it about that my presence at that event somehow proves what she claimed happened before that event.

Also, in this same email, Dale holds the contradictory positions that (a) Dorries’ claims justify his position, but (b) he does not want to talk about them in detail because they are irrelevant to his position:

“I am not going to involve myself in the Nadine stuff beyond saying this, as it is irrelevant so far as I can see to the situation between me and Tim.” – Iain Dale

Iain Dale is either an outright liar or as delusional as he makes me out to be. All I have ever done is confront him with due criticism. Typically, he has responded to this criticism with lies and/or smears, or had others do this dirty work for him. This instance is no different.

Iain Dale also claims today, not for the first time, that I have repeatedly lied about him. He once even sent me an absurd legal threat that accused me of libel. Because it contained no specifics (as genuine concerns of libel do) his cut-price lawyer was challenged to identify just one single instance of libel on my site. He failed to do so. Meanwhile, I could then and can now easily establish that Iain Dale not only libelled Tom Watson, but libelled me in the process.

Iain Dale is a liar; a precious, malicious, vindictive and deliberate liar who knowingly uses damaging lies against political enemies (both real and perceived); his claims that I (almost… maybe… allegedly… ‘effectively’…) stalked him are nothing more than a smear campaign designed to discredit me while excusing his repeated failure to account for his disgraceful conduct.

UPDATE – Upon ‘retirement’, Iain Dale stated that the time to stop doing stuff is when you stop enjoying it. Despite his claims to the contrary, Dale knows exactly who is targeting me and how, and how his outbursts egg this person on. And yet, despite his inability to substantiate his (recently watered down) claims, he won’t stop doing it. Excuse me for suspecting that he is enjoying it.

RELATED: Richard Bartholomew – Why Iain Dale Should Stop Accusing Tim Ireland of Stalking

UPDATE (10:20pm) – Iain Dale, mostly through his hostile little mate Phil Hendren, is telling anyone who will listen that I am a liar and that he hasn’t refused to cooperate with a police investigation as I have said. As usual, the devil is in the detail that Dale hates so much:

1. In any harassment case, a tremendous burden is on the victim to gather evidence before passing it to police. Dale/Hendren would have you think that because it is me asking for the evidence that Dale’s refusal doesn’t amount to a refusal to cooperate with a police/criminal investigation, before going on to claim/imply that he never refused in the first place.

2. Iain Dale damn well did refuse to cooperate in the police investigation of April 2009, but while denying this ever happened, he uses the calls I made to him seeking his statement when it happened as his primary ammunition to publicly claim I am a stalker. That’s really taking the piss. Dale has never once sought to account for his actions on that weekend, but apparently I am to be branded a stalker (and stalked by a stalker calling me a stalker) based on nothing more than his partial account and his untested assertions.

3. Earlier this year, I had good reason to believe police were not taking my complaint seriously because of the counter accusations made by the person targeting myself and my family; the bulk of these resulted from (false) claims by Iain Dale, who refused to even discuss much of the detail privately, never mind provide a public statement. Instead, he made a counter-offer; he wanted me to provide police with a phone number so they could call him. This was at the stage when I wished to present an ordered summary of evidence to get a case going. Dale offering his phone number in these circumstances was beyond inadequate; it was an insult to the intelligence. What was I supposed to do; leave a big gap, say “call Iain Dale for the rest” and hope for the best? Dale has not offered cooperation by any stretch of the imagination.

4. Now I’m being badgered by his mate Hendren, who is claiming I “repeatedly lied about Iain Dale refusing to cooperate with a police investigation” and trying to put me on the spot with the question; why won’t I let the police call Iain Dale so he can help me? Well, the investigation is underway and my needs have changed; it is no longer a matter of getting past counter-accusations by the person targeting me. While a statement would still be appreciated and useful, currently it is mainly a matter of trying to connect somewhere between 3-6 police forces so there is a complete picture of what is going on (not least because recent advice released by the CPS makes clear that the wider picture needs to be taken into account in the particularly tricky realm of cyber harassment). What I need to help this along is the reference numbers that police live by; anything less risks wasting their time or putting them off, and if Dale cannot provide the incident/reference number that he would have been given if he had made a complaint (as he claims to) then I am not going to complicate matters by insisting that they chase him for it. Who the bloody hell does he think he is? Dale has not only refused to provide this number, he has refused to acknowledge receipt of emails requesting it. No doubt he is hoping I will repeat the mistake of trying to call him so he can wave this about as if it proves there’s substance to this smear campaign of his. If Dale is seriously claiming that he wants to cooperate at this time, then the cooperation I need at this time amounts to him providing a reference number that he should already have to hand.

5. Ditto Nadine Dorries, who once offered to ask police for incident/crime reference numbers she would already have to hand if she were telling anything near the truth about complaints she claimed to make and investigations she claimed took place. It is well over a month since she made this offer, but there is no sign of any number(s) and like Iain Dale she is refusing all communication and instead letting others attack me on her behalf. Currently, I am forced to read between the lines of this outburst, where Dorries appears to reveal that she has only recently attempted to make a complaint, only to be told by police that my conduct is completely within reasonable bounds (see here where she says: “I am expected, even though you aren’t one of my constituents, to take it”). I hope to know more about this soon; I am awaiting important data (and not from Dorries).

6. Iain Dale and Nadine Dorries have repeatedly sought to try me in the court of public opinion rather than address this properly through a criminal or even civil route. Worse, they do this knowing how it encourages the person targeting me. Dale is particularly mendacious about this; he privately defends bold assertions/accusations as opinion, while knowing this person targeting me passes it off as fact. He then has the temerity to call me a liar and claim I put him through hell over this. Dale and Dorries have sought to pursue this through the court of public opinion, and if they wish to continue on this path and allow their accusations to stand without retraction, then that is where they should be offering their evidence.

7. Finally, I have NEVER been contacted by police about ANY instance of alleged harssment which is standard protocol for every force following any credible complaint. If Dale or Dorries ever made a complaint, it amounted to nothing. I part suspect that Dale did make a complaint to police as he claimed, but that it is not what he makes it out to be and/or he was as honest with them as he was with me about his promise to call Patrick Mercer. If either is the case, there may not be a number because his complaint was so inconsequential as to be dismissed*, or he would have good reason to withhold the number despite the doubts many people now have about his account/claims. But if he never made that complaint at all, and only claimed that he made a complaint so, like Dorries, he could then claim/imply I was subsequently guilty in some way, then obviously he has no reference number to give.

*MINI-UPDATE – This passage changed slightly to include the possibility that Iain Dale made a complaint and was not issued with a reference number because it was so inconsequential he was advised by police that he was wasting his and their time. If this is the case, Dale has been misrepresenting the nature/significance of his complaint for well over a year and a half.

UPDATE (19 Dec) – Iain Dale is still having his mate Hendren call me a liar on his behalf (while refusing to engage or communicate himself), despite the update above. Offering to do something entirely different than what is asked of you is NOT cooperation, especially when it is so thoroughly inadeqaute as what Dale offered. In any instance, he restricts his bullshit defence to the current investigation, and it is my clearly stated position that he refused to cooperate with more than one. Further, he only made the recent offer in the face of bad publicity; it wasn’t out of any altruism as he pretends. You may also note this accusation does nothing to address the other concerns raised in this post; it only implies that I have lied about it all. Typical of Dale and his leading flunky.

UPDATE (19 Dec) – Oh dear. Dale has just had a comment published over at Hendren’s, and it’s becoming clearer why he cannot produce a reference number, and why he has avoided giving any details about his ‘complaint’ for well over a year:

I visited Tonbridge Police Station on the evening of 15 April 2008. That is all you need to know., I asked their advice, Their advice was to take out a harrassment [sic] order on you. I proceeded to take legal advice and you then received several warning letters.

Quite why you think you are entitled to any information from me after your behaviour towards me one can but wonder.

“15 April 2008”? Dare I bark at Iain to get his facts straight? Doesn’t he allege the events took place in 2009?

And why go to the police station? For dramatic effect? For exercise? A phone call would have done. It would have been logged, too, but surely that’s by the by.

Also, note in this closing paragraph he is again attempting to justify his refusal to cooperate when he claims he is cooperating (and basing a claim that I am a liar on this and this alone).

But most importantly, Iain Dale has repeatedly claimed elsewhere that he “reported me to police for harassment” as if he filed a report or statement (that he would later have to account for if untrue) and/or as if police somehow agreed my actions may have equated to harassment… now he says he merely asked police for their advice, and judging by this account he never got any further than the front desk! This, after claiming to have been the target of stalking for “years”.

He also implies here that he had cause to take a harassment order out against me and further implies that he began this process in earnest, when all he sent was two (not several) deeply flawed letters (that read like he wrote them before having a two-bit lawyer sign them off) containing accusations that he could not substantiate then and cannot substantiate now. The first relied heavily on a claim of repeated libel (not harassment) that, when challenged, was never mentioned again! Tellingly, he even feels the need to exaggerate the number of letters.

Dale’s recent account makes it pretty clear why he cannot produce a reference number; his ‘complaint’ to police was nothing like what he describes when repeatedly smearing me as a stalker and, like Dorries, he falls back on some vague talk about a conversation that is impossible to verify, where he is given ‘advice’ by police which most sensible people would interpret as ‘please stop wasting our time’.

And still he portrays my actions as if they amount to harassment/stalking, despite knowing how his accusations feed a genuine campaign of harassment targeting me.

(To add insult to injury, his mate Hendren is publishing comments suggesting I am imagining the process where the person targeting me recycles Iain’s lies and hyperbole, when he knows it to be a valid concern about actual events.)

UPDATE – Here’s Iain Dale lying about the ‘complaints’ made by himself and Dorries. I’ll include a screen capture in case he later deletes it as if he never said it (as he does often):

Yes, he did make it up. So did Dorries. Neither of them made a complaint that was anything like what they described when repeatedly smearing me as a stalker. If they have a case, let them pursue it through criminal or civil means, not through a whispering campaign, trial by (new) media or tacit approval/encouragement of vigilante action.


Ramble On: Billy don’t lose my number

Never Trust a Hippy: Blogging v political careers

Posted by Tim Ireland at 13 December 2010

Category: Old Media, Rupert 'The Evil One' Murdoch, Tories! Tories! Tories!

[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… – 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 by Tim Ireland at 8 December 2010

Category: Humanity, Old Media

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 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”:


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 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 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 by Tim Ireland at 26 November 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

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:


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):


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.


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.


– 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 by Tim Ireland at 17 November 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

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

To: Webmaster

Emma Bradfield


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

You can preview it here: [LINK SNIPPED]

Hope it’s of interest!

Best wishes

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 by Tim Ireland at 17 November 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

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 [AT] wrote:

]  Hi,
] You just received a message via the contact form of your website.
] The message was sent from
] 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: [AT]
] 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]”
date Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM
subject Re: Message via

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?


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:


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.


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 by Tim Ireland at 12 November 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

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:


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.


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 by Tim Ireland at 8 November 2010

Category: Video

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 by Tim Ireland at 5 November 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

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:


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, 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).

  • External Channels

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons