Bloggerheads

Though I didn’t know it at the time, Dominic Wightman appeared in my life in early 2009 with the express intention of using me to damage the reputation of two former associates who held evidence of his previous attempts to deceive others during his doomed career as an amateur anti-terrorism operative.

He also intended to smear me as a paedophile for reasons I can only make educated guesses about at this stage.

Last month I published evidence suggesting that Wightman or a member of his immediate family had donated money to the campaign(s) to elect the Conservative MP for Guildford, Anne Milton. (I have been deeply critical of Milton in the past, and the most damaging evidence I hold against her involves her disgracefully standoffish position following a smear campaign where two of her close allies smeared an opponent as a paedophile.)

Wightman’s reaction was immediate; a single sentence amounting to “So what?” accompanied by a 1,900 word essay explaining how he had ‘won’ the fight, the battle and the argument and therefore did not need to write anything further about me.

(Please note that I regularly link to my sources as a matter of course, but I will not link to any of Wightman’s material while he continues to broadcast my home address alongside entirely untrue and downright dangerous claims about myself and others)

Anne Milton has so far refused to take a public stance on Dominic Wightman beyond some vague denials, but I fail to see how she can do so when I can now produce an email where Wightman claims quite specifically to be acting on her behalf (see below).

This correspondence comes to us from Adrian Morgan, a former contributor to the website venture Dominic Wightman moved on to after his amateur anti-terrorism initiative collapsed.

Just as he lied to me in order to convince me to attack his former associates, Wightman lied to Adrian Morgan in order to convince that man to help him in his attacks on me*.

But even when convinced by Wightman’s lies, Morgan protected himself and others by an adherence to ethics that should be obvious in this exchange, and when Morgan discovered the truth, he immediately parted ways with Wightman and made his reasons for doing so quite clear:

“In future I will not be associated with Westminster Journal while it is used as a vehicle for character attack, sock-puppetry and bile.” – Adrian Morgan (source/background)

(Psst! Wightman was desperate to have Morgan remove the word “sock puppet” from his statement, but it was the discovery of a sock puppet that was clearly Wightman’s work that alerted Morgan to Wightman’s lies. I will write about this and Wightman’s repeated use of false identities in a future post.)

Wightman’s original motives remain a mystery, and he is obviously trying to put one over on his former website partner in this exchange, but his intention to harm my reputation because of what I could reveal about him is crystal clear, as is the thinking behind his eventual decision to claim that he had ‘downed’ me by accident rather than design (highlights in bold are mine):

From: Dominic Wightman
To: Adrian Morgan
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: After a lot of thinking…..

I am going to do the following:

WRITTEN: 7

1. Islambase take-down (done yesterday) Author: me
2. Tamil Tigers Take-down (Friday) Author: me
3. Muslim Schools take-down (Friday) Author: me
4. Black Red alliance take-down (Friday) Author: me (help would be appreciated)
5. Spinwatch take-down (In a few weeks post thorough research) Author: us? / you
6. Tim Ireland take-down (Sunday – a day before he releases a vicious take-down on me) Author: Dan Chambers, a pal.
7. Tim Ireland psychological evaluation (Friday): author: a psychiatrist pal.

AUDIO: 5

1. Vigil repudiation piece
2. Insolvency ad Ilham Frandsen
3. On Jenvey
4. On Starkey – attack
5. On Extremism

VIDEO: 1

1. On Spinwatch and the Black-Red alliance

I am happy to do the repudiation piece on Vigil and say yes I got that partly wrong. I am also happy to be humble about the Insolvency. I am also willing to be soft on Jenvey because of his illness. My position on extremism will also be very middle of the road.

HOWEVER:

Tim Ireland lives 3 villages from me and my local supporters (including the MP) want Ireland downed. He has already admitted to me I am the sole reason he’s not written on hs blog for 2 months. He is a vicious bully and I will not sit back and get slaughtered by him without telling the world how to silence a big bully, how I did it, that I am not particularly proud of how I did it but that yes I did it. There MUST BE a mix here of eating humble pie and sabre-rattling or I will be walked over. I must also bring the right wing blog alliance on my side and to do this I need to show that I have been capable of bringing down the most famous left wing blogger, albeit temporarily, that ever existed in the UK. If I do nothing, people will make me out to be Jenvey II which I am not. A mix of showing teeth in the Starkey take-down and in the Ireland take-down will present an image of someone who is not prepared to be meddled with, who keeps his cool and who has a rare thing these days – a spine. My Wellington publish and be damned approach will work better than agreeing with this flotsam. I agree where agreement needs to be met there should be agreement made. But I am not going to lie down on this one.

My responses must be brutal and concise. Where humble the tone must be just right. I would like your help on this, Adrian, as a friend, even if you only partly agree with my strategy.

Think about it and let’s talk later. Hope your day is not as bad as you thought it might be. Sunny here in Surrey and there is a cool calm around my desk.

To war.

Best,

Dom

–

From: Adrian Morgan
To: Dominic Wightman
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: After a lot of thinking…..

I must advise a note of caution about point 7 – a “diagnosis from afar” by “a psychiatrist”.

I know such things happen – nowadays it is individuals like Raj Persaud (a plagiiaristic sore on the arse of humanity) who descend to such unprofessional behaviour.

Diagnosis from afar may be adequate for historical figures, but it is the most insidious methodology going for character assassination.

I don’t care if you have a professional psychiatrist writing it – I would not be responsible for my conduct if you did this. I would campaign for the psychiatrist to be disbarred for unethical conduct. I got my mother’s psychiatrist to abandon his role as Chairman of the Local Alzheimers Society after a vigorous letter-writing campaign.

And you cannot seriously expect to publish something like that unless such a “psychiatrist” gives his name to such a low venture – to not name your source would look like blatant media manipulation. I would openly condemn it, once it was published.

“Diagnosis from afar” was instituted by Lyndon Johnson’s backers in 1964 – a magazine in the US called FACT sent a questionnaire to 12,000 US psychiatrists to ask if they thought Republican candidate Barry Goldwater was mentally unstable.

Goldwater lost the election. The un-named psychiatrists never called in a shirink to diagnose the behaviour of Lyndon Johnson who used to curl up in a ball under his bedcovers, crying like a baby and gettig his secretary to cuddle him until he slept.

You must – now more than ever – engage in some form of ethical conduct – and journalistic integrity.

If you think Tim Ireland is unhinged – do it is an opinion piece, with supporting evidence – your emails.

To atempt to use his apparent illness as a tool to attack him, using a pseudo-professional “diagnosis” (an “argmentum ad verucundiam” or “logical falllacy of appealing to authority”) is not only unethical – it is morally repugnant.

A

Instead of challenging the evidence I retain/publish that shows he is a liar and a serial abuser of false identities, Dominic Wightman has sought to smear me as a bully and worse.

He has failed to make any of the smears he has invented stick, and has subsequently sought to build on smears begun by his fellow Tories (‘bully’, ‘mentalcase’ and ‘stalker’ have all been tried before under the guise of ‘fair comment’ by Iain Dale and a series of Total Politics employees and assorted hangers-on) and carried them on their behalf to entirely unacceptable extremes that these people continue to gain from while feigning victim status (!) and pretending they play no role in the affair.

Many of these people, including three Conservative MPs and a wannabe, continue to defend as statements of opinion that which they know Dominic Wightman asserts to be fact. They continue to do this despite knowing how harshly this lie is pressed on their behalf by Wightman and the associates he shared my home address with (highlights in bold are mine; this is from an exchange where Richard Bartholomew was threatened with violence):

Charlie Flowers
I’ll tell you something for nothing Jacques, the first Cheerleader who runs into Richard Bartholomew in real life is going to slap him upside the cheek- 1) for his 2-year harassment campaign on my friends, 2) for his aiding and abetting the 10-year campaign of the woman-stalker Tim Ireland. Tim Ireland put women in genuine fear of their lives, and Bartholomew helped him and backed him up. The man is filth.
47 minutes ago · 2 people

Deanbcfc James
they need fear instilled as they have done. that one filming the tory bird was a proper nasty stalker. ob should do something.
45 minutes ago · 1 person

(Psst! Hilariously, one supporter of Dorries seeks to justify the repeated use of the word ‘stalker’ to describe me on the basis that I use the word ‘thug’ to describe Flowers and anyone like him who seeks to intimidate others by publishing sensitive/private data such as home addresses and/or home phone numbers on their website in an attempt to intimidate critics. It’s an absurd challenge that would amount only to ‘tit for tat’ if there were anything in it.)

The latter comment is a clear reference to the lie pushed by Dorries and her supporters that my being invited to a public event constituted stalking, and I shall be returning to this topic as soon as is possible.

Today, Conservative MP Anne Milton is in a position where she will at least have to make it clear if Dominic Wightman acts on her behalf or not.

Tomorrow, more correspondence will be revealed that will put another Tory MP (Patrick Mercer) in a similarly difficult position.

–

[*I am unlikely to get anywhere with Wightman under civil law, as he has already avoided a debt he “did not agree with” by going bankrupt, and it is reasonable to expect that he will repeat this stunt. I won’t spell out the other stunts he could pull for fear of giving others ideas, but the fact that civil action would carry a considerable expense I could never retrieve should be enough. Addressing his antics through criminal law has proved equally difficult because he often convinces others to take risks on his behalf when he is not using false identities through foreign web providers. Again, I won’t be spelling out the details, because it does not serve the public interest to have the relevant techniques and loopholes described in any detail. Wightman has been spoken to by police about his conduct toward me and others, but pretends that the opposite is true; i.e. as if my communication with police has resulted from his complaints about me. He is even reckless enough to tell lies on behalf of specific police officers, and still his Conservative associates refuse to contradict him when he claims to be acting on their behalf.]

[Please be aware that this post contains a graphic image of in utero surgery. If you are so inclined you can learn more about the original here. ‘NSFW’ may not be the proper tag, but please do approach the ‘Hand of Hope’ with similar caution if linking to it and/or to this post; not everyone has a stomach for surgery.]

If you’re new here, this is probably your best introduction to Nadine Dorries, as this single matter not only shows Nadine at her very best medically, but also serves as an excellent introduction to the type of conduct that makes her unfit to serve as a Member of Parliament.

I’ll let Nadine introduce herself, and then we’ll crack on.

“I am aware that in laying down this amendment there will be those who will attempt to misrepresent my position. The fact is that I am pro-woman. ” – Nadine Dorries (source | mirror)

The great sage Dorries (who has foretold stabbings, you know) predicts she is about to be ‘misrepresented’. Tragically, she may actually believe this.

She then declares herself ‘pro-woman’ in order to distinguish herself from deeply religious people (i.e. people like her secretive backers), much like she declared the ‘charity’ Forsaken to be “pro women” (i.e. and not “pro life”) in the House of Commons. This group turned out to have a deeply religious agenda. Dorries’ only answer to this at the time (and since); a series of outright lies about the way I dared to scrutinise this claim and what she had clearly implied about the organisation’s size, credibility, and charity status.

Back to Nadine, the day after:

“As I predicted, those who wish to mis represent my position on abortion came out yesterday in an attempt to both discredit me and therefore undermine both the issue itself and the case of vulnerable women” – Nadine Dorries (source | mirror)

Classy the way she shields herself with vulnerable women, isn’t it?

That aside, if anybody had ‘mis represented’ her position on abortion, she’d be sure to challenge their fictions head-on, right?

Well, if you’re new here, watch and learn:

“I have never claimed a baby ‘punched’ it’s way out of the womb” – Nadine Dorries (source | mirror)

Dorries first published this as a comment under the original article at ConservativeHome. Soon after I responded, the site owner Tim Montgomerie (staunch Christian and close friend of Dorries) deleted my comment that consisted of (a) this recent claim from Dorries and (b) this earlier claim by Dorries on her website which clearly contradicts her;

“My second point is look at the tear in the uterus. See how jiggered it is just above the hand; and yet the rest of the surgically incised openings are controlled and neat. This is, in all likelihood, because the hand unexpectedly thrust out.” – Nadine Dorries (source | mirror | dumbfounded blogger 1 | dumbfounded blogger 2)

[MINI-UPDATE – Psst! After deleting my comment, Tim Montgomerie had the cheek to publish a comment that implied my content (that only he could see) was somehow “nasty” or even abusive. He then deleted that, but threatened me with more of the same treatment should I dare to submit a comment to his site again. What a nice man.]

Later, Tim Montgomerie removed Nadine’s comment, subsequently erasing the responses by two other people challenging her assertion in exactly the same way (i.e. by linking to this same text):

Jake L said in reply to Nadine Dorries MP…

[“I have never claimed a baby ‘punched’ it’s way out of the womb”]

Yes you have.

http://awurl.com/KsCAUoaAR#first_awesome_highlight

(March 07, 2011 at 16:38)

–

Dave Cross said in reply to Nadine Dorries MP…

“I have never claimed a baby ‘punched’ it’s way out of the womb”

It is, however, easy to see how people might think that you have claimed exactly that. See http://awurl.com/KsCAUoaAR#first_awesome_highlight

(March 07, 2011 at 16:49)

Then, Dorries posted the text of this same comment on her ‘blog’, where no comments from readers are allowed, thus allowing her to maintain that she never claimed a foetus had punched its way out of the womb without fear of contradiction.

(Incidentally, the original ban on comments on Dorries’ site dates back to… the incident where Dorries claimed a foetus punched its way out of the womb.)

If anybody has misrepresented her position about anything, then let’s have Dorries challenge those misrepresentations, not delete or ignore them.

What is her position, exactly? That she didn’t say ‘punched’ specifically? Was it more of a jab, then? Or a karate chop?

Or does she instead maintain that she said a foetus did this, and not a baby? Somehow, I doubt she would make this distinction. Dorries is on record as being fiercely defensive of certain literal interpretations of Bible passages supporting the concept that life begins at conception (a deeply religious view approaching if not stepping over the line into fundamentalism that makes every abortion a murder in the eyes of most if not all of her closest supporters… not that these people can afford to admit it in public while campaigning on abortion).

In short, if her position has been misrepresented on this, then Nadine Dorries has entirely failed to explain how this is being done.

That said, the last incident where I saw her rise publicly to any challenge like this was on Twitter in April of 2010, and she did offer this at the time:

“It was an in utero op and pictured during surgery. Interesting that not one reputable pro-choice group denies the authenticity.” – Nadine Dorries (source deleted, see screen capture below)

Let’s put the matter of who did or did not deny its authenticity to one side, and let Dorries have this one. (In other words; let’s pretend that she is not merely pretending that this never happened.)

Instead, let’s look at what she asks us to take into consideration when we judge her account of that event.

Yes, it was an “in utero (operation)”, and I’ve acknowledged this myself…

“I’ve heard some MPs talk bullshit in my time, but the idea that a 21-week-old foetus could punch its way out of the womb (with or without a starting incision) reached new heights for me.” – Me, also in April 2010

… but the best that can be said for Dorries, if we are to accept that the 21-week-old foetus acted independently in this way at all, is that she was saying that the doctor gave the ickle foetus a bit of a head-start with his scalpel.

What Dorries clearly proposes here is that the “jiggered” edges resulted from the foetus thrusting its arm out with such force that it tore human flesh (please excuse the unsavoury mental image, and the image that follows):

In layman’s terms, she maintained that a 21-week-old foetus had punched its way out of the uterus, or ‘womb’ as it is more commonly known. It does not matter is she didn’t use the exact word ‘punched’ or if she argues that the foetus had a head-start or not; her claim that it happened at all is as absurd and as insulting to the intelligence as her implication that the surgeon changed his story because he feared the wrath of violent pro-abortionists.

This is why you should not listen to Nadine Dorries about anything of a medical nature, because if she isn’t a liar, or an idiot, or delusional, then she’s a lying, delusional idiot.

These are not just “bad words” or some mere abuse/insults I throw around lightly. I use these words quite deliberately and entirely accurately:

liar
(n.)
a person who tells lies,

lie
(n.)
1. an untrue statement deliberately used to mislead,
2. something that is deliberately intended to deceive,

delusional
(adj.)
suffering from or prone to belief in something that is not true,

idiot
(n.)
1. a foolish or senseless person,
[synonyms: fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numbskull]

I also say the following knowing that my words could not be more damaging to someone campaigning on the subject of abortion; Nadine Dorries is completely ignorant of relevant medical procedures, and uses unsubstantiated anecdotes, distorted/falsified statistics, and outright lies to support the campaigns she supports that are unquestionably engineered by religious groups and conceived quite deliberately to restrict a woman’s right to govern her own body.

On the latter point, what Nadine Dorries offers in her current round of proposed changes to abortion law is profoundly dishonest to begin with; it amounts to the ‘choice’ to be legally compelled to be ‘informed’ by people with a hidden religious agenda. Meanwhile, Dorries issues dark whispers about the profit motive of care providers who conduct abortions and portrays them as the primary if not sole opponents to what she proposes.

Well, I oppose what she proposes, but primarily I object to the absurd lies she has used to push her anti-abortion campaigns, and the malicious lies she has aimed at critics who have dared to challenge her. It is what brought me to her attention, and the only thing that has really surprised me about her response to my challenges is how inexcusably childish, malicious and dangerous her resulting accusations have become, and how much the Conservative Party have let her get away with… especially after they defended this same MP against a proposed smear campaign while declaring that there is no place for this kind of behaviour in politics.

Did Nadine Dorries claim that a 21-week-old foetus punched its way out of a womb? Yes, she did. She did exactly that. And, incredibly, that’s not the worst of it.

Nadine Dorries has no credible role to play in the abortion debate. She’s lucky she’s still an MP.

Previously (for those who came in late):
Jonathan Lord (MP for Woking): Smears
Jonathan Lord turned a blind eye

The following is some correspondence shared with me by someone who was a student at the University of Surrey in 2006/2007 when some local Tories who ran for council started smearing an opponent as a paedophile.

I have removed their name, mainly because of the likelihood of still-active Tory smear merchants having a go at this person. Any edits are a direct result of this measure, and clearly marked.

I have no doubt Simon Hill, Anne Milton and Jonathan Lord will know who this person is, but I doubt any of them will be so stupid as to ‘out’ them or leak their name, as this would take them well beyond the point of mere complicity, and rob them of their remaining shreds of deniability.

Do note the following:

1. This portion of the correspondence begins with Simon Hill from Anne Milton’s office, clearly referring the matter to Jonathan Lord (who was then Chairman of the Guildford Conservative Association)… and yet Anne Milton still refuses to comment on the matter now she cannot deny knowing that Jonathan Lord failed to act (and why).

2. This correspondence also shows Milton keeping a safe distance between herself and this scandal, despite the correspondent specifically requesting that she take an interest and (at least) refer the matter to Lord personally. If this ever happened, there is no known record of it.

3. I suspect that by this stage Simon Hill had been briefed by Jonathan Lord about demands for written correspondence. I further suspect this was an initial stalling* tactic, designed to keep the matter at bay just long enough for the relevant election to run its course, but Lord persisted with the tactic long after the election, and continued to make nonsensical demands for “evidence in writing”.

(*It put me right off because of the reported behaviour of local Tories; i.e. turning up unannounced on people’s doorsteps to ‘discuss’ letters of complaint to the local paper. I don’t think I was alone in my concerns, especially after what the Tory activists Mike Chambers and Dennis Paul published/broadcast, including personal phone numbers of targets.)

4. There is some further email correspondence that preceded these exchanges with Simon Hill and Jonathan Lord. I plan to publish it tomorrow; it reveals the name of another senior Tory who was made aware of this scandal and its implications, but did nothing.

5. None of the local Conservatives acknowledged this person’s complaint until 5 days after the relevant election (this section of correspondence begins with Simon Hill “finally” replying on May 10, 2007, when the council elections took place on May 3, 2007). This is entirely in keeping with Jonathan Lord’s ‘off the record’ confession that he did not act more stringently/appropriately at the time because he was concerned about the potential impact on the election campaign he was directing at the time. Only a fool would think Simon HIll and Anne Milton responded to these emails without prior discussion with Jonathan Lord, but every scrap of supporting evidence is welcome.

6. Jonathan Lord seems to imply in his emails that the person complaining about the conduct of his activists is using a false identity, which would be a bit rich considering what he must have known his activists were up to by this stage… but perhaps he is merely making the classic mistake of judging others by his own standards.

————-
From: HILL, Simon
Sent: Thu 5/10/2007 6:19 PM
To: Xxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXXX Xxxxx, XXXXXXX Xxxx
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email to Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, copied to Rt Hon David Cameron MP and Anne Milton MP. I suggest that you contact the chairman of Guildford Conservative Association, Jonathan Lord, in writing as he is the individual responsible for the conduct of Guildford Conservative Association members. Mr Lord’s contact details are as follows:

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, Guildford Conservative Association
Unit 17a, Loseley Park
Guildford
Surrey
GU3 1HS

Yours sincerely,

Simon Hill

Simon Hill
Office of Anne Milton
Member of Parliament for Guildford and
Shadow Minister for Gambling, Licensing and Tourism
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: +44 (0)20 7219 0017
Fax: +44 (0)20 7219 5239
E-mail: hillsa@parliament.uk

————-

From: Xxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
Sent: 10 May 2007 19:18
To: HILL, Simon
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Thank you for finally acknowledging my emails.

Unfortunately contacting Jonathan Lord would be a futile pursuit and one that I’m not prepared to embark upon; he’s already aware and has been for a considerable amount of time. Equally, you seem to be suggesting that the local MP has absolutely no sway over her own local party where she is the Member of Parliament. I find that hard to believe.

If Jonathan Lord is technically responsible for this member’s behaviour, how about Anne Milton shows her principled side and contacts him instead of me? I’m sure she would rightly disassociate herself from such behaviour so why not be pro-active and take responsibility herself? What’s more, the voice of an upstanding Member of Parliament from the same party will undoubtedly carry more weight with Mr Lord than that of some uppity student.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

————-

From: HILL, Simon [HILLSA@parliament.uk]
Sent: Tue 5/15/2007 2:19 PM
To: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail. I can only reiterate what I have already.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Hill

Simon Hill
Office of Anne Milton
Member of Parliament for Guildford and
Shadow Minister for Gambling, Licensing and Tourism
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: +44 (0)20 7219 0017
Fax: +44 (0)20 7219 5239
E-mail: hillsa@parliament.uk

————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 15 May 2007 14:29
To: HILL, Simon
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Thanks for your reply again.

If that’s the case, would you have an email address for Mr Lord? The reason is that I’m leaving Guildford soon and I’m unsure as to where I’ll be living next. I wouldn’t want to send written correspondence giving a return address that I might not be at in a week’s time.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

————-

From: HILL, Simon [HILLSA@parliament.uk]
Sent: Thu 5/17/2007 6:38 PM
To: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail. I suggest that you use the Guildford Conservatives’ e-mail address which is on their website ( info@guildfordconservatives.com) marking the e-mail for the attention of Mr Lord.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Hill

Simon Hill
Office of Anne Milton
Member of Parliament for Guildford and
Shadow Minister for Gambling, Licensing and Tourism
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: +44 (0)20 7219 0017
Fax: +44 (0)20 7219 5239
E-mail: hillsa@parliament.uk

————-

From: Xxxxxx XXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, May 21, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Subject: FAO Jonathan Lord
To: info@guildfordconservatives.com

Dear Mr Lord,

Please see below an email exchange that I have had with some Conservative MPs over a relatively extended period. You should read from the bottom upwards.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

————-

[NOTE – ‘from the bottom upwards.’ refers to all correspondence above this email; I have rearranged these emails so they are in sequential order]

————-

On 5/24/07, Guildford CA wrote:

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email and email thread.

I had some (amicable) dealings with the Chairman of the local Liberal Democrats during the course of the election campaign. An inappropriate link was brought to my attention which was then removed from the blog section of a candidate’s personal website.

If you have allegations to make against any member of this Association, I would ask you to put them in writing (with all supporting evidence) and send them to the following address:

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, Guildford Conservative Association
Unit 17a, Loseley Park
Guildford
Surrey
GU3 1HS

Thank you again for your email.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, GCA

————-

On 5/24/07, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Mr Lord,

As far as I can tell the evidence is included in my first email; it’s quite clear.

Finally, as I mentioned in my email to Simon Hill which you can see below, I don’t want to send written correspondence because I’m moving out of Guildford soon and I don’t know where I’m going to be living. I therefore can’t indicate a return address and so prefer to communicate via email.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx

————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
To: Guildford CA
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: FAO Jonathan Lord

Mr Lord,

Do you have any further information with regards to our recent correspondence?

Regards,

Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx

————-

From: Guildford CA
Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: FAO Jonathan Lord
To: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

I have double-checked your first email.

You call Anne Milton MP “profoundly dishonest”, and you refer us to a blog that is antagonistic to Anne Milton MP and Guildford Conservatives.

If you have a complaint that you wish to be taken seriously then I require it in writing, and with any supporting evidence in writing. I therefore refer you to my previous email.

I am sure that there is a return address (of your parents, of a friend, of your place of study or your workplace) to which any reply of our Association could be directed.

Our email correspondence on this matter is now at an end.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, G.C.A.

————-

That “first email” will be published tomorrow. The blog he refers to is mine; Jonathan Lord implies that issues of partisanship cause him to distrust the evidence presented by me (and others). He has also repeatedly pretended that he was never seen any of the relevant evidence, and he does so again to a considerable degree here.

The evidence in question was live on websites other than mine, and far more convincing in its live state than any written version might be.

Further, in this exchange, Jonathan Lord also gives what I suspect is at least a one-sided take on his correspondence with local Lib Dems (looking into it, folks) in which he reveals he was fully aware of a key point of evidence; one of his activists clearly published an “inappropriate link” on a political blog published in his own name.

It is clear from my discussion with Mr Lord that this is a reference to a link published on Dennis Paul’s weblog, and he would only have known it was inappropriate if he had followed the hyperlink.

By this stage, the site this “inappropriate link” led to had not only maintained the accusation of paedophilia for almost a year, it also featured a photo of the target and details of where they might be found, and had also published a personal phone number as part of its ‘investigation’.

The discovery that Dennis Paul had knowingly linked to a site of this nature should have led to the immediate termination of his candidacy and his expulsion from the Conservatives. It didn’t.

The removal of this link should not have been the end of the matter, but rather the beginning of a full investigation into his conduct and that of fellow Tory candidate Mike Chambers. It wasn’t.

Jonathan Lord turned a blind eye to the matter, before and after the relevant election, for entirely selfish/political reasons.

Tomorrow, I plan to name and shame another senior Tory (other than David Cameron) who was made fully aware of this dangerous smear campaign and yet took no discernable action.

(In fact, they later had the audacity to describe the dispute that arose from it as a “personal disagreement”.)

Recently, some Tories have been producing doctored evidence to support an ongoing smear campaign against me while others have been demanding I produce evidence to support my contention that there is an ongoing smear campaign against me involving some Tories.

Putting the asburdity of this situation aside for moment, there’s a lot of evidence involving many people in a long and complicated saga, so I asked the latter Tory what* they wanted me to prove. The nearest I could get to a straight answer was an objection to this letter to Steve Hilton. No specific point was raised; they chose instead to challenge the whole letter.

This same person claims to be a member of a government communications team, and this claim seem plausible. What doesn’t seem plausible is that they would refuse to report it to their superiors because they haven’t seen enough evidence to date to warrant this effort.

I aim to make this point today by reiterating a key claim from that letter to Steve Hilton and presenting the relevant supporting evidence:

Anne Milton recently denied saying anything that may have even given people the impression that I had harassed or stalked her in any way, but I can prove this to be a lie. – (source)

This is from an email exchange with James Clayton from Anne Milton’s office from January 2010. Previous to this, I had made it clear to Milton that the specific accusation that I had stalked her had been published alongside my home address:

“Anne asked me to let you know that she doesn’t have a ‘stance’ on you. She also said she isn’t responsible for things other people say about you.” – James Clayton, Office of Anne Milton MP

I took this to mean that Anne Milton does not regard herself to have been stalked in any way, and has not said or done anything that she would regard to be a reason for anyone come to that conclusion and/or make that accusation on her behalf, and the wider correspondence supports that this was indeed her contention at the time.

However, I can prove that Anne Milton did make this specific accusation herself and she is responsible for some things other people say about me when they go on to repeat an accusation like this… like Sandra Howard did on the Conservatives’ own website in 2005:

“In Guildford our candidate, Anne Milton and Michael stand on the flower market steps and tell the large gathered crowd they are ready to shoulder it. Michael wants to better people’s lives and he knows how to do it. The jeers of a few vocal protesters are drowned by the cheering. It’s a rousing reception. One deeply unpleasant man near me, called Anne a “Dipstick”; she says he’s been stalking her on his website as well. .” – Sandra Howard (source)

Note the ‘as well’, which implies that my presence at the event amounts to stalking. I was there at a public event to photograph people who were there to have their photograph taken. According to the logic of the people who did not want me to reveal what a charade their campaign was, this was an arrestable offence.

In fact, some Tories claim that police subsequently took an interest:

“He has harangued the MP for Croydon**, Anne Milton, to the point where she had to involve the police.” – Nadine Dorries (source)

But this claim by Dorries is a lie if not a gross distortion; the police got involved when they looked into the conduct of Milton’s activists (latest/background). At no stage was my conduct under question… unless you count the anonymous comments consistently traced back to Mike Chambers and/or Dennis Paul that later started appearing on Iain Dale’s website (shortly before he started repeating the accusation of stalking as if it were fact).

Dorries also claimed the following:

“I have had to report him to The Met police on two occassions… You can speak to a number of MPs including Anne Milton, including Patrick Mercer, and others MPs who have the same issues with him… all of (these) other MPs have also reported him to police.” – Nadine Dorries (source)

Did Anne Milton report me to police as Nadine Dorries claims? The accusation is being made in her name and Dorries is using her as a named source to back up her accusations… do I really need evidence that Milton made this specific allegation herself if I’m to expect her to take an interest?

I would argue not, but I’ve produced that evidence anyway; Anne Milton herself is the earliest known source of any claim that I stalked that woman and, through Sandra Howard***, her claim was subsequently broadcast on the Conservatives.com website

Anne Milton needs to either (a) deny making the allegation, (b) support the allegation with evidence, or (c) withdraw the allegation and take immediate steps to address the smear campaign she has (perhaps unwittingly) involved herself in.

Until then, her silence is evidence of her complicity.

Actually, make that ‘further evidence’ of her complicity.

Anne Milton has known about all of this for months now and yet has repeatedly engaged herself in the deceit that it is none of her concern… even after she has been informed of Sandra Howard’s testimony.

The following is a series of questions that Anne Milton has so far only sought to address by (finally) making good on my DPA request to her office:

from: Tim Ireland
to: Anne Milton
date: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:12 AM
subject: ‘Stalking’

Anne,

1. Your recent denials about accusing me of stalking are contradicted by the published testimony of Sandra Howard who said in 2005 of my attendance at a public event in the local High St; “(Anne Milton) says he’s been stalking her on his website as well”. Who else did you share this quite specific and wholly unjustified accusation with? Do you deny sharing it with Iain Dale, for example?

2. I talked to your son on the day of that same public event. He approached me and accused me of using ringers in reviews of my books on Amazon (ie as a counter-accusation to your use of ringers in your campaign literature). His conclusions were all wrong, but he could not have arrived at them without subjecting me to the same level of scrutiny that you described as ‘stalking’ when it was aimed at you. Do you think your son stalked me? Do you think it would be fair if I described this as your son stalking me?

3. Did you ever file a police report complaining about my stalking you? If not, on what basis do you justify your use of the word ‘stalking’ (or do you regret your use of what amounts to extraordinary hyperbole)? If the latter is the case, given you are wholly aware of the conduct of Wightman and others, do you think it’s appropriate for a cabinet minister to tolerate if not rely on vigilante action by party/campaign supporters (if not donors), including the dissemination and publication of my home address alongside the accusation that I stalked you specifically?

4. Do you recognise the role played by Dennis Paul and/or Mike Chambers in the publication of intimate details and false claims about my work and family life? If so, why didn’t you describe/condemn this as ‘stalking’? If you do not recognise the role they played in the publication/promotion of the relevant site, why not?

5. What explanation can you give for not complying with my DPA request for over 150 days, and what reason can you give for not complying with the aspects of my FOI request that do not involve constituents beyond myself and my immediate family? (I assume you will not be complying with the FOI request. If you’d care to comply as a sign of good faith, I’d be delighted to be proved wrong.)

6. What explanation can you give for my DPA/FOI request being viewed by someone in the office of the Guildford Conservative Association? What business is it of theirs?

7. Mike Chambers claims than an internal investigation took place into the anonymous sites smearing myself and [named snipped]. Is what Chamber claims true? Was an internal investigation conducted?

8. If it is true, who conducted the investigation and why do you think the current Chairman (Andrew Colborne-Baber) might be having difficulty locating the relevant paperwork?

9. If an internal investigation took place, why was I not advised of its outcome?

10. Do you have any comment on the police being under the false impression at the time that a key witness in this matter, [name snipped], did not exist?

11. Do you have any comment on the claim by Mike Chambers that, following accusations by Dennis Paul, you and Jonathon Lord believed me to be a computer criminal (ie what he described as a ‘hacker’, and creator/propagator of computer viruses)? If true, what evidence were you basing this on, and how did this influence your thinking at the time?

12. Finally, do you have any comment on the practice of representatives making unannounced visits to the homes of people who wrote letters to the Surrey Ad that were critical of you and your 2005 campaign and included details of their address?

Tim Ireland

You may note that some of the later questions have also been answered in part by Jonathan Lord’s ‘off the record’ response to similar questions; there wasn’t anything approaching the kind of investigation that Mike Chambers described when speaking in his defence… which is something else that Anne Milton and David Cameron need to address. Both of them referred the matter of anonymous smear sites to Jonathan Lord for action… and he took none.

The next round of evidence will deal (again) with this point and reveal the name of another senior Tory who turned a blind eye to the antics of Milton’s supporters/activists.

Then perhaps we can turn to the subject of how correspondence between those supporters/activists and Sue Doughty wound up in the possession of Dominic Wightman (see: doctored evidence) and what further statement Anne Milton might wish to make about her relationship with this man.

(Anne Milton’s staff requested 24 hours to respond to the first draft of this article. 24 hours passed, and no response came. )
–

[*Psst! At one stage this anonymous Tory chap portrayed my accusation(s) as the allegation of a government conspiracy against me (i.e. as if they challenged me to prove that), but the way I see it (and will have repeatedly tried to put it) it goes as high as some people IN government, but this is far more likely to be an broadly connected series of selfish bastards looking out for their own interests, and basically behaving according to type. I have not alleged or implied – as Iain Dale has, for example – that there is a Downing Street authored document detailing a plan to ‘get’ me. It’s a straw man.]

[**Anne Milton is the MP for Guildford, not Croydon.]

[*** Rachel Whetstone (see: the letter to her husband, Steve Hilton) was the former chief of staff for Michael Howard at the time. She would’ve cleared this text for publication if she were doing her job properly.]