To: Nadine Dorries

“I have lived with the worry that people would think there was no smoke without fire. It was vitally important for me to clear my name.” – Nadine Dorries

Hi folks. What follows is an open letter to Nadine Dorries in response to her latest public outburst, which made the pages of her local newspaper yesterday. What you glimpsed on Twitter and/or in Bedfordshire on Sunday yesterday is barely the half of it; wait until you see what she tried to pull in her full statement. I was literally speechless myself.

click to enlarge/read

Dear Nadine,

As you should be aware, this is my first email to you since 30 March, 2010.

I am reluctant to contact you by email at all given how you have portrayed/described my ten emails to you over the past two years (especially when each and every one of these emails was written in response to your repeated outbursts about me), but you give me little choice.

Today I write to you to demand that you immediately cease broadcasting any further suggestion or assertion that I have a violent, criminal character.

You have presented no evidence to justify it, the claim is extraordinarily damaging, and further (as has been repeatedly explained to you and your associates) it is a claim that puts me and my family at considerable risk because of special circumstances that you appear determined to exploit.

On Friday afternoon (21 April) I was contacted by Bedfordshire on Sunday. In a process you likened to “a form of torture” during the recent expenses scandal, they sought my response to a statement you had issued about the closure of your Twitter account and (I was surprised to hear) your ‘blog’. To their credit, they declined to include the reference to Stephen Timms in the resulting article, which I include in this open letter as clear evidence of your intentions in this matter:

“Tim Ireland lives in Guildford.

“He is not a Mid Bedfordshire resident and therefore I am not answerable or accountable to him in any way whatsoever.

“I have been in consultation regarding his behaviour with the Westminster division of the Metropolitan Police, and the House of Commons police, for more than a year.

“Their advice was to close down my blog and Twitter account and thereby remove the ‘oxygen’ upon which he fed.

“As an election was imminent, I ignored this advice.

“Following the Stephen Timms incident last week I have decided that I should pay attention to the police advice and have therefore closed down both Twitter and my blog for the time being.”

On the 1st sentence, I can only stress that until recently you were convinced that I was from Croydon (and that your fellow Conservative Anne Milton was the MP for Croydon). Some people might take this error as a warning that they should look closer at the evidence they are relying on, but not you apparently.

On the 2nd sentence, I must ask; if you really feel this way, why do you continue to praise and endorse the work of Iain Dale, Paul Staines, Harry Cole, Phil Hendren and other Tory bloggers who repeatedly blog about MPs from outside their constituency? (There’s a wider point about my rights and our democracy that you’re missing, but given your narrow outlook, this question is your best path to it. Good luck.)

The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sentences are highly defamatory, not least because the innuendo is one of my having a violent, criminal character. You cannot possibly hope to justify this; I have no criminal record for violent crime or any other kind of crime (though I may have strayed over the speed limit when going past a speed camera once). In fact, outside of the activism that occasionally puts us at odds, I’ve not had even a hint of trouble with police; certainly nothing that could support the idea that I am capable of criminal acts and/or violence toward others.

Yet in the above release (as in your outburst at Flitwick hustings) you present as a statement of fact (NOT an expression of opinion) that I have repeatedly engaged in criminal acts and represent such a danger to you that my actions have prompted a police investigation and hampered your capacity to communicate with your constituents to the extent that a range of extraordinary security measures are now required to ensure your safety! Your wish to include specific reference to the stabbing of Stephen Timms makes your intentions absolutely clear in this respect.

This is an allegation so serious, the sting of it would not be removed by a right of reply, and it is an allegation you continue to make in public and in private, despite a total lack of evidence and some very clear dangers to me (i.e. beyond the damage one might normally expect from defamation such as this).

What follows are two emails I sent to your local Conservative association that you were CCed on (i.e. two of only three emails I have sent you this year). I repeat them now to reinforce their plea, and to show the public the “barrage” of messages you have been passing off as “vile” and “abusive”:


From: Tim Ireland
*Date: Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Dear Andy,

I write to you today about the conduct of Nadine Dorries.

It is no secret that I am highly critical of Dorries’ and have repeatedly blogged about her, but:

1. She cannot classify this as harassment while supporting a campaign like #KerryOut (and/or continuing to endorse those behind it)

2. Dorries has published accusations about my mental state and my involvement in what she claims are attempts to prevent her free access to Twitter, but she cannot back any of this with evidence because none of it is true.

3. I’ve certainly gone out of my way to make Dorries more accountable (in much the same way that her friends pursue other MPs, often with far less justification), but nothing I have done warrants the repeated publication of my home address online, threats of violence, and other measures designed to intimidate me (if not put me at actual risk of harm).

While Dominic Wightman is the main ringleader, a man named Charlie Flowers is behind most of the attacks I have described in #3. He claimed in front of witnesses to have engaged in these online attacks on behalf of Nadine Dorries, and also claims to have emailed her and other pro-Tory bloggers (including Iain Dale and Paul Staines) to advise them of his actions/intentions.

– If Charlie Flowers is telling the truth about these emails:

Nadine Dorries chose not to alert me after receiving those emails. Why is that? Nadine Dorries has since published a vague claim about forwarding some unspecified emails to police, but she won’t provide me with any data that allows me to confirm her story and/or connect her report with my ongoing efforts to end this harassment. Why would she refuse to do this?

– If Charlie Flowers is lying about these emails;

Why would Nadine Dorries refuse the opportunity to immediately discredit him and perhaps even disown the campaign of harassment while she’s at it? Certainly it’s convenient for Nadine and many of her friends if I am so hampered by this harassment that I am unable to press her for answers about the £50 in her bra and the alleged drugs in her wash bag on Tower Block of Commons (just to give you two examples) but perhaps she – or you – can put forward some other likely reason.

– Regardless of the truth about the emails:

Nadine Dorries is well aware of what has been going on these past months and the harassment I have suffered after exposing the lies of two ‘amateur terror experts’ formerly associated with fellow Conservative MP Patrick Mercer. It cannot have escaped her attention that Mercer himself is using false accusations of stalking to avoid any questions about the matter.

Dorries may also be under the impression that I am mentally ill, or she may only be using the accusations/implications she has published about this for further cover/gain. Either way, the claims of mental instability put forward mostly by Dorries and her friends (Iain Dale, Phil Hendren and Harry Cole) rest on their dual assertion that (a) they have no case to answer, and (b) I hold to a grand, nonsensical conspiracy theory. Well, they do have a case to answer, not least because the conspiracy I described to them earlier was recently confirmed as genuine in front of witnesses; Dominic Wightman, Charlie Flowers and their associates have been repeating what these bloggers defend as ‘opinion’ and passing it off as fact. (Whether or not their continued/collective silence on the matter and their refusal to withdraw damaging/dangerous lies about me when they know how they are being used amounts to a wider conspiracy has yet to be established, but certainly can’t be ruled out.)

Dorries is also aware that accusations/’opinions’ published by her and close friend/ally Iain Dale form the bulk of the evidence behind the claims by Charlie Flowers and his associates (the ‘Cheerleaders’) that I am a stalker of women.

To put this into context, to avoid a repeat of earlier web account closures, Flowers and the ‘Cheerleaders’ are now recruiting other people to do their dirty work for them. When briefing new recruits, they tell them I am a stalker of women, and provide them with my home address. I fear for what may happen in those circumstances, especially in light of what happened after Glen Jenvey was convinced (by Dominic Wightman) that I was a convicted paedophile**.

Nadine Dorries could clear the matter up and significantly reduce the relevant dangers with a simple public statement, but she chooses not to.

I’m assuming she does not regard me to be an actual stalker, as she has yet to lodge any formal complaint about me, she hasn’t even threatened civil action, and mostly she is very careful about not identifying anyone when she publishes claims/implications about stalking.

Even if she does regard me to be a stalker, I would contend that relying on a vigilante response is an inappropriate way for an MP to behave.

I would further add that, in the course of investigating the many lies and deceptions of this MP, I have encountered and uncovered quite a lot of personal data. I have no interest in publishing or exploiting this data in any way, and I even take care to avoid reporting/publishing details that might lead people to this same data. (The most recent example of this being a report on [xx name snipped xx], whose personal details are entirely unprotected and all-too-accessible.) I have no interest in ‘harassing’ this MP, and if I did, there would be far easier ways to go about it other than publishing my criticism of her under my own name on a UK-hosted website. By contrast, the Tories who so often attack me on behalf of Nadine Dorries (Iain Dale, Phil Hendren, Harry Cole etc.) do so on US-based websites (making any potential civil action prohibitively expensive) or through a variety of false identities. At least one of Dorries known associates (Phil Hendren) has also sought to intimidate me through the publication of personal data in a related dispute. If you or anyone else seeks a ‘tit for tat’ justification for what Wightman, Flowers and the ‘Cheerleaders’ have been up to, you won’t find one in my corner.

In fact, twice now I have found myself in possession of data that would help Nadine Dorries track anonymous attacks against her, and twice I have offered that data to Dorries unconditionally, and in good faith. Both times I was ignored while Dorries allowed me to cop the blame for some aspect of these anonymous attacks. In the latter instance, she specifically accused me of being behind the attack, and maintained that accusation, even after I published the relevant evidence. This goes beyond poor manners. There’s no other word for it but ‘malice’, and I suspect that malice is what is keeping Nadine Dorries from acting responsibly in this instance.

Assuming the personal animosity Nadine Dorries and her supporters feel towards me hasn’t spilled over into the local Association, I’d like to ask that you take what action you can to resolve this matter. (I could pursue Dorries directly through a number of channels, but I fear any such attempt will be portrayed as ‘further’ harassment and used as an excuse to avoid the entire issue.)

The first matter I’d like to clear up is the claim by Nadine Dorries to have forwarded emails (we can only assume from Flowers and co.) to police somewhere in London. I’d like to know what she forwarded, when she did this, and which branch/officer she forwarded this data to as a matter of urgency.

I would appreciate a response by email today, please.

Tim Ireland

PS – It also bears mentioning that Nadine Dorries implied that the late Frank Branston was somehow stalking her. She refused to withdraw this politically-motivated smear, even after the poor chap passed away.


From: Tim Ireland
*Date: Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 AM


To repeat: The first matter I’d like to clear up is the claim by Nadine Dorries to have forwarded emails (we can only assume from Flowers and co.) to police somewhere in London. I’d like to know what she forwarded, when she did this, and which branch/officer she forwarded this data to as a matter of urgency.

It has been over a month now, and you’ve not even afforded me the courtesy of a reply. I fear your sense of urgency is lacking.

Meanwhile, the people orchestrating this campaign of harassment continue to benefit from Nadine Dorries’ silence and continue to put me and my family at risk with anonymous claims of stalking published alongside my home address. Regardless of what Dorries thinks of me personally, she cannot excuse giving tacit approval to vigilantes like Charlie Flowers. Further, if she is telling the truth about her report, she is withholding information that would help me draw together an effective case against the people attacking me in this way. [xx snip detail xx]

There is no legal obstacle I’m aware of that would prevent Nadine Dorries from informing me of the name of the officer (or at least the department/station) she reported this matter to. Unless he was lying about having reported it, obviously, in which case her best bet (and yours) would be to refuse to answer any questions about it and yell ‘stalker’ at me if I dare press the matter.

Please advise me today of your intentions regarding this matter.

Tim Ireland


I have not yet heard back from the Mid Bedfordshire Conservative Association, and similarly you have shared nothing useful with me, when you seem to be witholding evidence that might establish (and thereby halt/minimise) the harassment targeting me, and even appear at times to be taking active measures to exacerbate this ongoing problem (while claiming all the while that it is you who are the true victim of harassment)

If you’ll pardon the vernacular; just what in the bloody hell are you playing at?

You are quite aware of the danger you expose me to when you cry ‘stalker’, and rather than address/minimise the danger you appear to be going out of your way to maximise it (by the very act of accusing me of being a danger to you).

That you would defame me, especially in this way, is a disgrace. You have no credible case to put to the police (who would have contacted me long before now if matters were anywhere near as serious as you make out), and instead you seek to air wholly unsubtantiated statements about my being guilty of stalking you… and capable of worse!

Regardless of what you believe, there can be no excuse for your repeated airings of these statements when you know how certain vigilante elements are reacting to them.

In closing, I will repeat my demand that you cease any further suggestion or assertion that I have a violent, criminal character immediately.

If you cannot understand the relevant moral and legal imperatives – that apply regardless of which constituency I live in – then please have someone explain them to you (and by that, I mean someone other than Donal Blaney).

Also, if you seriously claim to have received hundreds of abusive emails sent by me or in my name, then please honour my FOI/DPA request and share this and other relevant data with me. I would happily help you to trace/identify the source of these hundreds of emails, regardless of potential outcome (all I know for sure is that they are not coming from me).

Please acknowledge receipt of this email immediately, and reply soonest.

Tim Ireland

PS – I just saw you turn your back on the Speaker. Class act. You’re a credit to democracy.


[*Note how more than a month passes between these urgent requests. I was very concerned about how Dorries might misrepresent multiple attempts to contact her. Surprise, surprise, she went ahead and misrepresented these few emails as a “barrage” anyway.]

[**The claim that Dominic Wightman convinced Glen Jenvey I was a convicted paedophile has been published previous to this, but I now have further evidence to support that assertion, which is why it is stronger in this (now public) letter. I repeat this and all other relevant/tangential assertions here, in public, with confidence. Dominic Wightman has published an account where he described giving drunken residents in my village a tour of my street to see the front door of “the biggest nutter, stalker on the web”, and he makes similar dubious claims to Dorries about ‘advice’ he has received from police. The ‘Cheerleaders’ also claim to have enjoyed positive exchanges with police, extending at one stage to the quite false assertion that I have “37 retraint orders” (sic) against me. For the record; I have no restraint orders against me. Acting mostly as a bankrupt and/or beyond the reach of affordable civil action, Wightman has published a series of false claims about me, some of which he is merely confused about, but most of which he knows to be outright lies. His willingness to knowingly lie should be balanced with his claim to have contacted Iain Dale and his claim to have received positive communication from a large number of unnamed Tory bloggers about this matter, but the overlap in tactics and the similarity of claims/inventions from the two camps cannot be denied; the two camps are clearly communicating to some degree, even if they are only responding to what the other says or does in public.]

UPDATE (28 May) – Chris Paul shows that Nadine Dorries deleted her Twitter account ONE WEEK BEFORE the Stephen Timms incident (and her ‘blog’ not long after that). She can’t even blame mild hysteria for referencing it, then. I struggle to see what options are left other than malice, delusion or time travel.

Posted in The Political Weblog Movement, Tories! Tories! Tories! | 2 Comments

Jeremy Hunt: a minister and his memory hole

My main issue with our new Minister for the Internets is the scant regard he has for the general web community. At times, it’s almost as if our ways are completely alien to him, and stuff that seems obvious or second nature to us completely escapes him. That, or he’s one of those two-faced bastards who really don’t give a tuppeny stuff.

[Psst! I suspect the latter given the way he’s repeatedly turned a blind eye to local Tory web activists smearing an opponent as a paedophile (and me as a computer criminal). You need to be a special brand of bastard to stand by and allow that kind of stuff to go on in your neighbourhood when it suits you.]

Recently, I revealed that Jeremy Hunt doesn’t maintain an archive on his ‘blog'; he just throws old entries away, comments and all, never to appear again. He doesn’t even understand (or care) how impolite this is to the people who trust him with those comments.

And now the election is over and he’s got what he wanted from his Twitter audience, Jeremy Hunt has just deleted almost every tweet he made during the election. Tellingly, he has had time to make dozens of manual deletions, but has not even bothered to update his profile, which still reads as follows:

Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for South West Surrey and Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Here’s a screen capture of the only tweets left on his Twitter account today:

Jeremy Hunt respects you THIS much

And here, for the record, are twenty of the tweets that Jeremy Hunt tried to erase from history.

Note how it begins with a pledge to his constituents; the link to this has been erased, and the pledge itself is also due for deletion soon (along with everything else that turns up on his ‘blog’). Does Jeremy Hunt not know or care what message this sends about his commitment to that pledge or any other?

– My pledge to South West Surrey:
12:41 PM May 3rd via web

– Good canvassing in Haslemere yesterday, visiting Frensham, Wrecclesham, Godalming & North Farnham today
9:06 AM May 1st via Twikini

– Nick Clegg contradicted LD policy on benefits, Steve Webb says JSA should be unconditional #leadersdebate
9:47 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– Oh so Nick does support anmesty now….#leadersdebate
9:27 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– U turn on anmesty by Clegg after u turn on euro – what next? #leadersdebate
9:25 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– Ahem Brown visited manufacturer today where worker told him company was flourishing DESPITE him #leadersdebate
9:15 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– Clegg shameless u turn distancing himself from euro which he championed last year #leadersdebate
9:06 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– So Nick Clegg has never accepted donations from fund managers then? Mmmmm#leadersdebate
9:02 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– Best explanation from DC ever on why Conservatives will rein in bankers #leadersdebate
8:59 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– Who are the vice chancellors of parties Nick?#leadersdebate
8:46 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– Keep grinning Gordon wins us millions of votes #leadersdebate
8:44 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– Just arriving in Chippenham to help our brilliant candidate Wilfred EJ & greeted by a downpour. Need a Wiltshire cuppa
12:30 PM Apr 29th via Twikini

– Just been canvassing in Portsmouth with our candidate Flick Drummond & didn’t meet a single LibDem voter
11:05 AM Apr 29th via Twikini

Wilkinson_David: Off to BBC London Election Special in Stratford with @jowellt @jeremy_hunt @thomasbrake @georgegalloway Hope I can get a question in
4:48 PM Apr 27th via web
Retweeted by Jeremy_Hunt

#leadersdebate Gordon Brown just made biggest gaffe of campaign but denying responsibility for Labour leaflets
9:02 PM Apr 22nd via Twikini

– Don’t think Miriam will be inviting DC for tea and cake #leadersdebate
8:54 PM Apr 22nd via Twikini

– @leadersdebate best exposition ever from DC of Big Society
8:50 PM Apr 22nd via Twikini

– @leadersdebate Clegg ‘u can’t keep a lid on sin’ does he want to be next pope?
8:39 PM Apr 22nd via Twikini

– @leadersdebate Nick Clegg script: there’s always an easy answer even when there isn’t e.g nuclear
8:33 PM Apr 22nd via Twikini

– @leadersdebate Brown hasn’t flown because he shut the flipping airspace
8:27 PM Apr 22nd via Twikini

[Twitter users may note that Hunt begins the Leaders’ Debate a little bit confused about the difference between a username and a hashtag. I’ve left these dead links in place, as they’re instructive. You may also note that there are no replies. Yes, this sample is typical. To Hunt, Twitter was very much a one-way channel.]

UPDATE (1pm) – Jeremy Hunt has responded by (finally) updating his profile… and deleting the three remaining tweets on his account!

I think by this stage it’s pretty safe to guess what the underlying message is from the new Minister for the Internets:

Correction: Jeremy Hunt respects you THIS much

UPDATE (8pm) – Almost forgot to update with a link to today’s Telegraph article, including a response from Mr Hunt’s office:

Telegraph – Jeremy Hunt deletes all tweets critical of Nick Clegg and Liberal Democrats: Many of Mr Hunt’s tweets criticising the Lib Dems are potentially embarrassing given the Lib-Con coalition, but a spokeswoman for the minister denied there was any attempt to airbrush the past. All of the South West Surrey MP’s campaign tweets have now been deleted because his ministerial role represents “a new chapter and we are starting afresh”, she said. The spokeswoman added: “They were pre-government and we are now tweeting post-government. He is going to carry on tweeting, and his updates will appear on the DCMS website.” She confirmed that Mr Hunt updated his Twitter account personally, and would continue to do so. He has more than 3,000 followers.

Jeremy Hunt later attempted to reassure us in person with this tweet, in which he appears to imply that some concerns may not be genuine:

Correction: Jeremy Hunt respects you so VERY much

Problem is, no-one’s really buying it, and that he thinks this to be the issue shows once again that Hunt hasn’t even begun to get it.

[Psst! Jeremy! It is not just about what you do/don’t have to hide. It is about the way you pretend that things were never said. It is about the way you refuse to stand by what you publish and simply erase it instead. If those tweets were of no consequence, then why not leave them be? If you regretted them and didn’t wish to stand by them, why not issue a retraction and/or an apology to Nick Clegg (and others)? Oh, and perhaps have the courtesy to explain to us voters why your position has changed on any/all of it. Don’t pretend the latter concept is insignificant or alien to you; during the election and long before that, throughout your political career, you’ve challenged others to stand by or account for their past statements, and you damn well know it.]

Posted in Teh Interwebs, The Political Weblog Movement, Tories! Tories! Tories! | 1 Comment

Nadine Dorries declares her main home to be in Mid Bedfordshire

As the Telegraph also make clear a week too late, Nadine Dorries was already under investigation over expenses before this post-election bombshell which the Sunday Times appear to have been sitting on for at least a fortnight; not for any £10,000 payments (and more!) paid to her close friend Lynn Elson for ‘consultation’ and pamphlets that look like this, but for expenses claims she made on the ‘second’ home that many people suspect to be her main home:

Mrs Dorries, who last week retained her Mid Bedfordshire seat, is already being investigated over claims for a “second home” where she is alleged to spend most of her time. (Telegraph)

Dorries claims her modest cottage in the Cotswolds, 55 miles from her constituency, is her main home. This means she can claim a second-home allowance for her constituency home. (Times)

A Conservative MP who claimed £60,000 in “second home” allowances tells the House of Commons that her “main home” is a tiny rented cottage in the Cotswolds, miles away from Parliament and her constituency. (Telegraph)

Last month I received numerous reports that Dorries was telling a series of lies and half-truths at her ‘unscripted’ events and local hustings. A typical half-truth, obviously designed to mislead people about the above, was that she had not taken out a mortgage at any stage (and therefore cannot have ‘flipped’ homes as most people understood/used the term). But Dorries did clearly at one stage tell her constituents that her main home was in Mid Bedfordshire while assuring the Commons Fees Office (and later the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) that her main home was “somewhere else” in the Cotswolds.

This alone could have cost Dorries her job, so you’d think she’d be careful not to make this same ‘error’ again, yes?

Erm, no. Here she is declaring an address in Mid Bedfordshire to be her main home on her nomination papers (which is also how her address would appear on the ballot paper on polling day):

(Extract from) Mid Beds Statement of Nominations (.PDF)

extract from Mid Beds nomination form for ge2010

So once again Nadine Dorries has been caught telling press and Parliamentary authorities one thing while telling her constituents another. No wonder she took such extraordinary measures to avoid a situation where she might be recorded on camera when faced with a question about expenses; she wanted to avoid telling the truth, but she couldn’t afford to be caught on camera telling a lie.

NOTE – All candidates used to have to provide their home address for display on the ballot paper. The rules were changed recently to allow candidates more privacy while still declaring where they lived. Nadine’s usual hysterical outburst about her right/need to keep her first/second/whatever home address a secret won’t do her any good here:

Home address form – Your home address form must state your home address in full. If you do not want your address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper, you must state the constituency in which your home address is situated. (Electoral Commission guidance for nominees; August 2009)

Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 3 Comments

Nadine Dorries has finally gone too far

Last night Nadine Dorries smeared me as a stalker in a room full of people, and went on to repeat that smear online via her Twitter feed (giving me no choice but to publish the following evidence and confront the smear lest it explode beyond hope of retraction today). She made specific allegations about my stalking her, Anne Milton and Patrick Mercer, none of which she can support with any evidence, because none of it happened as she described.

I’m quite angry that the Chair** allowed me to be branded a stalker (and a liar when she damn well knew better). I’m also peeved that it was her self-promoting elaborations about my role there that led to the later misunderstanding with the audience, but the main issue is the outright lies by Nadine Dorries.

(*Some of this I did not hear, as I was wearing headphones at the time.)

Nadine Dorries smears me as a stalker at Flitwick hustings

It is, I would hope you agree, a little more serious than being described as ‘bigoted’ in a microphone snafu.

Disturbingly, this smear matches the smear made by people who have published my home address online and claimed at one stage to be acting on behalf of Nadine Dorries. Dorries claimed to have forwarded the relevant email(s) to police, but I suspect that this too was a lie.

Yes, I am seeking legal advice, but Dorries can address this now with an immediate and comprehensive apology on her site (and Twitter profile) today if she wishes.

Updates throughout the day on Twitter, the hashtag is #flitwick.

UPDATE (8pm) – Adam Croft – Nadine Dorries, Tim Ireland and #flitwick: What really happened

Please take the time to read it in full. I hope it settles the broadcast issue at least so far as establishing there was no attempt to deceive on my part (not that this would excuse Dorries’ false accusations in any way). I am so grateful that I not only have video evidence, but witnesses who aren’t aligned with (or related to) Nadine Dorries; in my experience, some of these people can be rather… selective about what they reveal.

My thanks to Adam and everybody else who spoke up today.

UPDATE (11:20pm) – I don’t mean to gush, but I’m quite overwhelmed by this post from Keith Badham.

Keith Badham – An Open Letter to Nadine Dorries

Rates a genuine ‘wow’. Way to go, guy.

UPDATE (6 May) – Several aspects well noted by Richard Bartholomew, who tried and failed to have Nadine Dorries act responsibly. This might very explain one of the police complaints she’s talking about. If so, she’s got a bloody cheek:

Richard Bartholomew – Nadine Dorries’ “Stalker” Smear used by Cyberbully as Justification for Harassment of Tim Ireland

If she’s seriously been portraying the actions of Charlie Flowers as evidence of my stalking her, I am not looking forward to having to explain that to people; Charlie Flowers claims to be attacking me because I’m stalking her. Even thinking it into a sentence gives me a headache.

**UPDATE (26 Oct) – Correspondence recently published in Mid Bedfordshire newspapers makes the position of the Chair much clearer to me. Subsequently, I would like to publicly pull back on previous comments I have made about the Chair of this event. The situation was more complicated than I was able to appreciate at the time; it is now obvious to me that the Chair had to take into account the vindictive nature of Dorries and her allies, and the potential fallout from keeping Dorries on a tighter leash than this safe-seat MP thought she deserved. Even after having the meeting set at a date she wanted, arranging to leave early, and having the leeway to make her extraordinary outbursts (twice) before storming out even earlier than her arranged departure time, Dorries still accused the organisers of this event of treating her unfairly, and has subsequently become hostile to their organisation to an extent that risks significant detriment to the democratic process in Flitwick and the surrounding area. For the avoidance of doubt; I cleared my actions with the Chair before this public meeting, but was initially invited by constituents. There was nothing like the collusion that Dorries imagines, and she has no cause to be hostile with any of the organisers of this event. If anything, she owes them an apology.

Posted in Anne Milton, Tories! Tories! Tories! | 11 Comments

NEW VIDEO: David Cameron Met a Black Man

Thank you to everybody who responded to my request for ‘head on a stick’ footage.

Here’s what I did with it.

David Cameron Met a Black Man (soundtrack: ‘Common People’)

Of course, this is an Art, and subsequently I am forbidden by law to explain any of it outside of a wine and cheese party, but I will provide some production background for the ‘DVD extras’ crowd.

Cheers all.

I know there are already campaign videos with this song in it (even one with this cover by Ben Folds, Joe Jackson and William Shatner from the album Has Been), but I stuck with my original* choice of soundtrack as there wasn’t anything fresh on the field that conveyed the emotional intensity of the original. I’m hoping that now there is.

(*When I say ‘original’, I should mention that this project started off with me wanting to mask up and freak you out with ‘Just Dropped In’ by Kenny Rogers & The First Edition.)

Below is a picture of the device that made most of the footage uniquely freaky; the camerambulator (or, if you prefer, ‘wobblecam’).

The Camerambulator

The document box attached to the special extended shaft (steady!) contains the hands-free mask used for most action shots, which allowed me to drop in and out of disguise very quickly (making things like the supermarket shot possible). The teeny tiny camera no bigger than my thumb that captures up to 40 minutes of 640×480 .AVI and dances so delightfully on the end of the 8mm sq. pine upright is a Micro Digital Video Camera from Maplins; car’s convex ‘blindspot’ mirror served as a proxy viewfinder.

Most of the special effects in the video (aside from the speed, direction, a basic zoom and two minor incidental effects) are organic special effects that are a direct result of the camera’s software attempting to interpret anything from vibrations from ridged/rough surfaces to a range of wobble types (that were easily prompted and controlled, especially when the unit was strapped to my waist… it’s all in the hips, baby).

The ‘walkabout’ footage was shot in London with the help of Soho Politico using a Samsung VP-MX10 with monopod.

Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories!, Video | 2 Comments

Page 3 girls fears hung parliament, proportional respresentation

Page 3: Election 2010

It’s comforting to know that every white van man who enjoys a quiet moment with Page 3 today will be sufficiently alert to the dangers of a hung parliament and proportional representation.

The Sun exploiting young women and treating people like morons shock.

(In other news, they’re also worried about young women in porn. Positively outraged, in fact.)

If you haven’t done so yet, pop the tag #disobeymurdoch into Twitter. The alternative is submitting to this bullshit and eating out of the trough like everybody else:

Page 3 :: Girls + Words from Tim Ireland on Vimeo.

Related links:
“At the Sun, we deliberately ignored the Lib Dems,” admits David Yelland, their former editor
“It is my job to see that Cameron fucking well gets into Downing Street,” says Tom Newton Dunn, present political editor of the Sun

Posted in Page 3 - News in Briefs, Rupert 'The Evil One' Murdoch, Tories! Tories! Tories! | Comments Off

Holy cow! Have I been smeared as a criminal by local Conservatives?

Almost four years ago now, myself and some Guildford-based Liberal Democrats were smeared via a series of anonymous weblogs and anonymous comments on established weblogs (see latest post).

Many of these smears were a direct response to my weblog about Anne Milton (1, 2), who was then the MP for Guildford and is now campaigning to retain the seat. During this period, I found evidence that two Conservative activists attached to Anne Milton (Dennis Paul and Mike Chambers) were involved in these smears against me, as well as the worst of the smears against some local Lib Dems (specifically, the accusation that one of their opponents was paedophile).

No meaningful action was taken. Certainly nothing was done that led to the removal of the smears. But I am now advised that an ‘investigation’ of sorts did take place, and it is here that we cut to the account of my source, whose name will be revealed shortly…

MC: “Two years ago, there was an ‘investigation’ I suppose you can call it that. I remember it and all the candidates were asked if they were aware of any involvement…”

Perhaps there was more to this investigation than just asking people if they were involved, but no-one from the Guildford Association showed any active interest in my testimony or any of the evidence I had to hand.

I pointed out to my source that I wasn’t asked for any further details during this ‘investigation’ (or told of any result after). When I emailed details, those emails were ignored. When I followed up with a phone call, I was instructed to “put it in writing”, and the most likely reason for this was explained as follows:

MC: “I know it’s not nice to be, feel ignored, stonewalled, whatever you call it, and I’m just guessing that, in the case of Anne Milton, she’d formed a view, influenced no doubt by your approach to her and then later supported or influenced by [Dennis Paul’s] concerns about hacking and stuff and, I have to say your view, within the Conservative Association, you were, like you said an ‘angry man’, that was hacking computers, sending viruses…”

Tim: “Was that a widespread view?”

MC: “Well, ‘widespread view’, I mean….”

Tim: “Well, you said that was the view within the Conservative Association.”

MC: “Yeah, Association strictly speaking is all of the members…”

Tim: “Yes..”

MC: “… what I’m talking about really is the centre core; the Chairman [Jonathon Lord], and the senior officers, and of course our MP [Anne Milton].”

If this claim is true, then Dennis Paul was successfully denying involvement in a smear campaign against me and others… by engaging in a further smear campaign against me; one specifically accusing me of criminal acts and intentions.

My source went on to claim that Jonathon Lord (then Chairman of the Guildford Conservative Association, now Parliamentary Candidate for Woking), Anne Milton (then Guildford MP, currently Parliamentary Candidate for Guildford) and others had subsequently adopted the position I was a criminal hacker capable of targeting anyone who received/opened/answered emails from me, or even just visited my website.

(To put his ‘guessing’ into context, my source was guessing that this was the reason why I was having difficulty communicating with these people, but he was in no doubt about the specifics of the claims made by Dennis Paul and who they had influenced.)

This fresh account tallies with material published by Dennis Paul at the time:

“If you contribute by blogging genuinely on some sites, you may provide the host with your IP address when you blog which enables unscrupulous hackers to attack your computer. That is why they are so obsessed with the IP identity of those who blog. You may limit this risk by moving from a static IP address to a Dynamic IP address, but you are still vulnerable while you remain online without protection.” – Published under his own name by Dennis Paul (16 Aug, 2006)

“A number of liberal supporters in Guildford are graduates with computing expertese. They can hack through website visitors pc with ease – all they need is your IP address to target your computer. These ‘blogsites’ are a venus fly trap to them. At a national level, Police intellegence use the same expertese to monitor and catch muslim extremists. You only have to visit their site and they can target you. The best thing is to avoid their sites altogether, and avoid clicking on links that could take you to their sites.” – Published as an anonymous comment by Dennis Paul (22 Aug, 2006)

I agree. If you click on links to these sites, who knows where it could take you. Next thing you know, you could be on some paedo site with the Police knocking on your door accusing you of visiting innapropriate websites.” – Published as an anonymous comment by Dennis Paul (22 Aug, 2006)

We also have this, which is either (a) the work of Dennis Paul or a core member of the Guildford Conservative Association, or (b) a pretty good indication that the alleged smear spread further than Dennis Paul and the core of the Guildford Conservative Association. This ‘talk’ edit from Wikipedia attempts to justify repeated attempts to remove links to my site from Anne Milton’s Wikipedia entry:

“I removed a section that contained inaccurate information, and links to a libellous web site. This is not vandalism at all. The person’s web site whos link I removed is a vandal and a hacker and was arrested for hacking last year, so should not be promoted in any way on this site, which is the home of factual information not lies and self promotion.” – Published by an unknown contributor to Wikipedia (01 Dec, 2006)

For the record, I have NEVER hacked anybody or fed any viruses or Trojans to anybody, and I certainly haven’t been arrested for these or any other offences.

But I do appear to have been cut off from democracy at a local level by a smear (while another innocent man appears to have endured an even worse smear for far longer than was necessary), purely because the ‘expert’ testimony of Dennis Paul was accepted by local Conservatives. Oh, and David Cameron.

David Cameron’s office was presented with all published evidence, but the local Association’s view held and the Conservatives decided to back Dennis Paul as a candidate. I got an email with this in it on the same day Dennis was having his picture taken with the man himself:

“We have looked into the concerns you raise regarding Guildford Conservatives and are satisfied that these matters are being carefully investigated at the local level.” – David Beal, Correspondence Secretary, David Cameron’s Office (01 Feb, 2007)

Dennis Paul and David Cameron

I’m seeking an immediate response from Anne Milton, Jonathon Lord, the Guildford Conservative Association.

I am hoping they will admit the allegations and immediately disown the lies of Dennis Paul. Unless they wish to deny what’s been alleged here, of course, in which case they will need to immediately disown the lies of Mike Chambers… because he’s my source.

(Psst! That sound you hear is a dozen local coffees being spat out at once.)

Either way, Anne Milton can no longer ignore the hole she dug for herself when she trusted either or both of these clowns as campaigners and went on to endorse them as candidates.

More to follow.

[For the record, Mike Chambers denies involvement in the 2006 paedo-smears, and puts forward the view that they were a part of a ‘dirty tricks’ set-up by the Lib Dems, who smeared themselves and/or one of their own for political gain. He has no evidence to back this up, only his personal certainty that the Lib Dems are the real nasty party, and the only people capable of such deeds.]

Posted in Anne Milton, Tories! Tories! Tories! | 2 Comments

#freefilm : The Minister for the Internets / Launch

#freefilm is a project designed to prompt discussion of the Digital Economy Act 2010 [#deact] and politics in general

Members of the public are invited to join the project by editing their own campaign videos using the following as kit pieces (should you not have the time/resources to make your own material):

Music: This moneyed mix comes to us from (and is available via) Alastair Cameron:
Download the music here

The choice of music is quite deliberate, and could be defended any number of ways as fair use, if the system didn’t favour the moneyed studios to such an absurd degree. But that’s kind of the point.

Video: You can access all sorts of public domain footage at the Prelinger archives. My video features footage from Yesterday’s Over Your Shoulder (1940) and Master Hands: Part I (1936), and I’m really liking the look of Despotism (1946) for a possible follow-up.

All of this video footage is in the public domain, but you interpret fair use on the music at your own risk. I advise against trying it with YouTube, who fold faster than Superman on laundry day… but if you wish to assert your rights there, I can’t stop you. Rupert Murdoch could squash you like a bug with no grounds for doing so, but again we stray toward the point.

So that’s it, really. Use the materials and play with the formula as you please.

I’ve made the following film to kick things off. It tells the story of little grey men who just don’t get the web, but tinker on regardless with expert guidance from the good people in the showbusiness. I hope you like it.

The Minister for the Internets :: a #freefilm about #deact from Tim Ireland on Vimeo.

Posted in Teh Interwebs, Video | 1 Comment

A gift for Our Boys on the Malabar Front

After a well-documented series of hilarious own-goals, the Conservatives appear to have gone to a lot of trouble to make their latest poster ‘unshoppable’…. so I knocked this ‘blank’ up in a spare two minutes I had. Have fun.

Cameron negative poster blank

Related bloggage:

Lib Dem Voice – Tories’ new poster revealed, their failed strategy exposed

UPDATE (21 April) – Here’s a new one, in an effort to keep abreast of breaking…. I’ll stop there.

Cameron egg poster blank

Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 2 Comments

Conservative Change Channel: Election special

If you’re not a political geek or a regular reader of Bloggerheads, then you may want to go straight to the money shot (Nadine Dorries: Wonder Woman!). Otherwise…

Conservative Change Channel: EXCLUSIVE! ELECTION! EDITION!

Posted in Tories! Tories! Tories! | 2 Comments