English Defence League Faction Meets with Charlie Flowers and “Cheerleader” Friends

CORRECTIONS: The original version of this blog post included a picture featuring a person whom I misidentified as being Matthew Kaplan. I have amended the post as a result of this error having been brought to my attention. Also, Darren Marsh is a member of UKIP , not the English Democrat Party. I had assumed an EDP connection due to his association with Bill Baker and from photographs of him alongside EDP paraphernalia. Apologies for both errors.

A few days ago a post on Talk Islam suggested a link between Charlie Flowers, the “Cheerleader” gang of cyber-bullies and the English Defence League. I was sceptical of the evidence provided, but for reasons of his own Flowers has now decided to resolve the issue – see picture here.

That’s Flowers to the left, with the EDL’s Joel Titus the middle and Darren Marsh to the right. It’s not much of a scoop; Flowers knows that I keep an eye on the “Cheerleadered” Facebook page, where this picture appeared, and that publicity from me would be inevitable. A few days ago I was sent an email from an anonymous source claiming that “the Cheerleaders are now organising regular meets in town between journalists, EDL, and the Muslim Debate Initiative”.

Titus was featured in a recent article about the EDL that appeared in Searchlight, posted here:

Joel Titus, the violent teenage leader of the EDL’s youth wing, has voiced loud concern, along with several other members of “the inner circle”, over the glib acceptance of known nazis… Following a recent demonstration in London, EDL supporters led by Titus clashed with Nazi-saluting Chelsea hooligans, leaving one of the Chelsea fans hospitalised. It is reported that Titus now wears a stab vest in fear of reprisals following threats made on the Stormfront nazi web forum…

Titus was cautioned by the police last month after hitting a photographer; he was also featured in a recent Daily Mail article:

He sticks to the ‘peaceful movement’ mantra but a text I later receive from him ahead of an EDL demo in London reveals his involvement with the hooligans. It reads: ‘Right lads, the “unofficial” meet for the 31st (London) is going to be 12 o’clock at The Hole In The Wall pub just outside Waterloo Station. I will be there just before that. Remember lads were (sic) going as Casuals Utd and if you could obtain a poppy to wear it would make us look good even if we are kicking off. lol. Cheers lads. Joel “Arsenal” Titus.’

Flowers and his friends, meanwhile, claim to be pro-Muslim but anti-Islamic extremist; this is at odds with much of the rhetoric of the EDL, which has played lip service to the same distinction between ordinary Muslims and extremists but which in practice has  been simply anti-Muslim, with banners such as “No More Mosques“, caps bearing the word “Infidel”, and the use of Crusader imagery (1). Perhaps Titus sees a link with Flowers and the “Cheerleaders” as a way to move forward his vision of a more moderate EDL; Flowers runs a music band called the Fighting Cocks, which purports to oppose Islamic extremism. The band’s website contains the following statement:

The West’s cultural weapons of mass destruction – rock music, videos, blue jeans, iPods, internet including pornography, etc.- are quite enough to bring down military jihad Islam over time. So is the picture of Western decadent luxury. Contain them so they cannot expand; defend the borders; and allow the market place to work on the rest. If they choose to keep out Western influences they will end up like Burma and North Korea; if they don’t, the Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction and the promise of earthly delights will have their way on their youth… Radical Islam and the culture death shouldn’t be more attractive to young people than what we can offer.

Above this statement is a link to the Center on Terrorism and Irregular Warfare in the USA and to the login page of a secure US governmental site; the other side of Flowers and his friends is that they like to play pranks on Islamic extremists, and they have contructed an elaborate network of references to intelligence terms and agencies in other to create the impression of being “cyber-warriors” of some sort. On Facebook, they have created a number of pseudonymous identities, which form the basis for groups such as “the Cheerleaders” and the “Hur al-Ayn”.

However, while much of this is trivial, they engage in other, less savoury activities. In September I received an email from one “Cheerleader” containing a direct death threat against a named Muslim extremist, and, as I have outlined in a number of posts, they have conducted a campaign of harassment against the blogger Tim Ireland. This is a long story, but it begins at the end of 2008 when Flowers contacted me (using an alias) to say that he used to work with the now-defunct  Vigil Network – this was a supposed “terror-tracker” intelligence group run by Dominic Wightman (see here for background). The Vigil Network had also used Glen Jenvey, whom Tim exposed a year ago as the author of bogus postings to Muslim websites that he then used to create tabloid scare stories. After Tim publicised this and I wrote some follow-up posts, the “Cheerleaders” left annoying goading comments on our sites, and engaged in various forms of creepy behaviour (contacting my Facebook friends, hand-delivering a letter for me at a former workplace – Flowers seems to get enjoyment from the sense of power this kind of thing gives him). Wightman also contacted us, and provided us with an audio interview with Jenvey which Flowers had made in the guise of a journalist. However, Wightman also lied to us in an attempt to get us to write about someone against whom he had a grudge, and when the truth was discovered things turned nasty. The “Cheerleaders” published Tim’s home address on-line widely, in the stated hope that he would be forced to leave the country, and there were threats such as “machete to your throat”. There were also attempts to sow confusion; a blog was created in Wightman’s name and made to look as though the “Cheerleaders” had hacked it, thus creating an impression of distance from Wightman (and Wightman insists he has no link to the “Cheerleaders”). Flowers also threatened to come to Tim’s house for a fight, and more recently he distastefully made a “gypsy curse” threat against Tim’s family.

It seems likely that the “Cheerleaders” have been involved with all kinds of pranks with fake IDs on Muslim websites for some time, as this early comment to Tim’s site suggests:

As for commenting on bait being used as a catch, you mean what Glen did? Yep he let his OPSEC drills get slack and forgot, in his haste to set up a story that would sell, to mask his IP. Glen is a clever and able guy but it seems in this case he’s let greed and ego get in the way, maybe. Also he probably didn’t have to write the leading questions that he did, with people like Saladin1970 around they could have bitten anyway. So, yes Glen got sloppy. BTW he’s not a former colleague and we don’t bait people on the same side. He used to do a good job until this goatfuck.

I was also sent a private message some time ago:

When stressed [Jenvey] doesn’t take time to vary his “chop” (our term for writing style).

Perhaps if the Glen Jenvey arrest leads to a trial we may find out some more.

UPDATE: Johnpi adds more at Talk Islam:

Flowers and his Internet vigilante friends the ‘Cheerleaders’ claim to be opposed to Islamic extremism, but they are actually against Islam and target Muslims indiscriminately, just as their fellow travelers in the EDL do, and there is no better evidence of that than the intimidation tactics they engaged in here at Talk Islam, publishing several front page contributors’ home addresses and sending mail to one blogger’s home. They have also repeatedly threatened me.

None of those targeted – Hussein Rashid, Aziz Poonawalla or myself – could be described as anything other than moderate or progressive Muslims who have wrtten against extremism and religious violence.

(1) One prominent EDL logo carries the slogan “In Hoc Signo Vinces”, which was used by the Knights Templar and refers to a vision given to the Roman Emperor Constantine that he would conquer through the sign of the Cross; and that’s the main EDL, not Paul Ray’s weird spin-off.

68 Responses

  1. “The West’s cultural weapons of mass destruction – rock music, videos, blue jeans, iPods, internet including pornography, etc”

    I did not about their website, but my basic criminology studies was enough:
    http://barthsnotes.com/2010/01/29/charlie-flowers-threatens-tim-irelands-family-with-gypsy-curse/#comment-11558

    Instead of Muslims taking up the habit of drugs and pornography, it is likely to stay with them alone until they self destruct.

    • Hehehe, nice post Bart and a nice call M. Just like I thought. A bunch of drug addicted rock star wannabees team up with a bunch of immature violent trerrorists that think they are doing a religious duty for their country against all Muslims, not just extremists. As I said before, it would be too much to expect these neanderthals to actually dig deep into the issue of extremism and write and protest appropriately. But then, to do that they would have to put down the drugs for a while….

  2. Hang on a minute- before Christmas, Richard, you were maintaining that this girl gang didn’t exist. And now here they are. So why should we take as read any of your remote research? I’m not having a go, but it just seems that you are using the distorting lens of the internet to make stuff up. For example, I heard from a senior Huriayn yesterday that is was she who originally contacted you re. Glen Jenvey, not Charlie.

    atb
    Barry

    • You don’t have to “take as read” anything I write. Follow the links I give, I work with whatever information becomes available (although don’t expect me to go roaming around pubs in London just to hear their rationalisations first-hand). Flowers left me a comment Christmas Day 2008, see the comment here. The email address that came with this identifies him. I said he contacted me about Vigil, not about Jenvey specifically. I later considered meeting him, but when I asked him about something that he had to know about he denied all knowledge of it, so I couldn’t see the point after that.

  3. Richard;
    nothing beats first hand information. For example, you’ve incorrectly identified one person in that photo.
    As for the email- if you mean “Lil Goat”, that’s probably not Charlie but one of his associates in his old gang. I am up for being corrected, what was the email address?
    “Yarah” was in the Hur al-Ayn, she’s now in Syria.
    May I ask what you asked Charlie that he didn’t know about?

    • Which one is incorrectly identified?

      “Lil Goat” had an email address using Flowers’ “Ludas Matyi” alias. One of the “Cheerleaders” was listed on a Facebook page concerning a university lecturer whom Dominic Wightman has a grudge against from his “Vigil” days – Flowers claimed to know nothing about it.

  4. And that’s correct, Charlotte and her gang descended on that Facebook group for a laugh after finding out about it. Charlie knew nothing about that group and I’m told he has no interest in Starkey.
    With regard to the incorrect identification, that’s not Matthew Kaplan. I’m not prepared to tell you who it is, because your and Ireland’s sites have a reputation for passing on peoples’ details to jihadists. And please do not deny that.

    Baz

    • But Wightman sent Flowers to interview Jenvey in order to get information on-tape linking him to Starkey. And “Charlotte” is another chimerical figure, either Flowers himself or one of his friends. Once again, what’s the point of meeting these people when they use all kinds of fake names and disinformation to throw people off-track?

      That guy on the right looks like Kaplan to me, but I suppose it could be someone else.

      I do not pass on “people’s details” to “jihadis”. As you know, that was a lie concocted by Flowers and Wightman. In fact, I corresponded with the administrator of a Muslim forum in order to get information about IP addresses etc. in order to track down other fake postings by Jenvey. It wasn’t a secret, but Wightman used it as a later justification for his admitted lies, and got Flowers to create this silly graphic – a portentous piece of trivia which typifies all of the “Cheerleaders” supposed exposés. I’m presuming there’s more fake stuff out there that the “Cheerleaders” don’t want people investigating, so crying “in bed with jihadis” is one way to try and warn people off.

      Incidentally, Wightman accepted the necessity of corresponding with Ummah.com in order to get information, he just asked us to keep his name out of it. Only later did he pose as someone who had been shocked by such an unacceptable thing.

      • Wait Bart, are you saying that these people are, or were, part of a network that “monitored” “Islamic extremism” online and then reported it to various journalists and media outlets but now that it is becoming clear that they have lied they are starting to turn on their own people?

  5. OK, enough. I’m Charlie’s cousin, and I’m no chimera. Richard, if you were man enough to come out and meet me you’d know, you had plenty of invites.
    YES YOU DID pass information to Jihadis, stop lying. Tell them about your correspondence with that fascist Asghar Bukhari, go on.

    • Well, if you want to have your own identity, why not tell us your real name? I know why not – you prefer to sneak around in the shadows, it makes you feel big to know more about people than they know about you.

      As for “passing information to Jihadis”, are you too stupid you can’t even read your own shocking exposé, or are you just desperately groping for any rationalisation for actions you’re too ashamed to put your real name to? What “information” did I have that could I pass to Bukhari? For what purpose? I got information from MPAC via Ummah about an IP address, but you can see that from my blog entry on the subject – no secret, no story, nothing to lie about. And the reason I needed the information was to find out about fake postings made by Jenvey and perhaps others – a subject you clearly don’t want people investigating. Now, why is that?

  6. Sorry, Richard, Charlotte may be a bit emotional but I know her too and she has a point. Why should any of us give out personal information when you and Ireland have form for jumping into bed with lunatics like Bukhari? Bear in mind, readers, this is the information that’s out in the open. How does any visitor to this site or Ireland’s site know whether their IPs aren’t going to end up with MPACUK or Ummah.com?
    And, Charlotte has a point- why did you repeatedly refuse to meet her and her gang? You know who she is, she’s in their video.

    atb
    Baz

    • I see, we’ve gone from “you pass information to jihadis” to “I can imagine you might pass informaton to jihadis”. Is that it?

      Here’s a tip: if someone sends me a message in bad faith, pretending to be someone else or sending stuff they know to be untrue, or being gratiously offensive, I’ll do whatever I like with their IP and any other details I may have to hand. I haven’t sent anything to Islamists, but I did once send an email to Paul Ray after someone sent me a fake message in his name.

      Otherwise, I treat information with the same discretion that I would expect from others.

      I didn’t “refuse” to meet Flowers’ cousin and “her gang” – but why should I put myself out to meet someone who won’t tell me her real name and is just going to BS me?

  7. Sorry Richard but the evidence is that you and your set do pass information to jihadis. You and Ireland both have form for playing fast and loose with peoples’ information. I also get the impression that you refuse to meet these people because you are physically afraid of them.
    In any case, it’s been an illuminating series of posts, and I’m now departing to Harry’s Place.

    atb
    Baz

    • Aha, truth by repeated assertion. Good stuff.

      Not a prospective MP, are you?

    • Sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself with your repetitions. This isn’t going to go away: Flowers and his friends conducted a campaign of harassment against someone for no justifiable reason, and that’s going to tarnish anyone they work with. It may also eventually lead to legal consquences. Looks like they’ve been manipulated by someone else with some 007 BS, and realised it too late.

    • Isn’t it fairly reasonable for a blogger to be physically afraid of a group who make death threats against bloggers? Or how else do you interpret “machete to your throat?”

  8. Richard;
    I’ve met this bunch. They genuinely don’t give a flying one about anything or anyone, no one manipulates them, and they laugh at legal and police business. Ireland was an absolute fool to go up against them and I’d advise you lot not to either because they will mess you up. In the same way you’d be a bit daft to conduct a campaign against the Reading branch of the Hell’s Angels, I’d advise you not to needle the Cheerleaders.
    Just a thought, and I enjoy your blog Richard. When are you going to post some more Subgenius stuff?

    • I see you’re using the same IP proxy as “Barry G” – a proxy which I have only ever had before from various “Cheerleaders”. Drop the pretences. Looks to me like you’re making a threat while hiding behind a “third-person” pose and yet another fake name. Also looks to me like a last resort on your part.

    • What point are you trying to make about the Berkshire Hells Angels? Anecdotally, I’ve heard that most Hells Angel chapters are not very keen on non-members trying to bring them into unrelated disputes. Are you sure you’re on good enough terms with the Reading chapter (“branch”?) of the Hells Angels to be chucking their name around?

      If you are, you probably want to get the spelling right before you chuck it. The apostrophe is often put into “Hell’s” in a lot of true crime books of the sort that are popular with internet keyboard heroes (not accusing you of being one, just saying) but it’s actually incorrect and you would be surprised how pernickety some people can be about punctuation.

  9. […] or “They Will Mess You Up” Posted on February 12, 2010 by Richard Bartholomew A comment arrives, supposedly from “Justin”, concerning the gang of cyber-bullies known as the […]

  10. whey-hey! …and so the storm rages on, so it seems…

    Now, I’m no sock puppet, but it certainly seems that the bacofoil hats are in abundance here… I have stated before that I have met Mr. Flowers on several occassions and that he is, allbeit in a ‘rough diamond’ kind of way a very charming – and funny chap! …has it not occured to you guys in your respective bunkers that perhaps…. just perhaps, you make much more of all this than there actually is?

    Do you know ANYTHING of the wider world, the music industry or indeed the cultural ‘mash-up’ that is currently happening ‘on the streets’?

    No. That’s the answer here…. an emphatic : NO!

    From what I know of The Cheerleaders, as a ‘group’, they are some of THE most clued up and switched on young people with a self held remit to undermine the rantings of extremists of ALL persuasions with that one, last, deadly weapon left to those that don’t indulge in the obsequious squirming of the Politically Correct set…. that of: Humour!

    …now I realise that being locked away all day in front of the internet means that one can very soon start jumping at shadows – and I also know that ALL bands and musicians need what used to be called a ‘gimic’… are you not, perhaps… and I ask you to consider this carefully, misinformed?

    If the aforementioned Mr. Flowers ever gets to have any level of notoriety from his musical endeavours, then your utterly brilliant negative PR will have helped so much – as every mention adds credance to what The Cheerleaders actually stand for – and makes your blog nothing more than an apposite organ for further promotion…. and no doubt, a belly full of laughs toboot!

    I would suggest Sir, that you take up the offer of meeting the man in the real world… in a safe place in public, of course… and I shall even make the offer to film that momentous moment… then we can sort the wheat, so to speak from your chaff?

    I have met him – and would simply not associate with him at all if even one scintilla of what you say was the truth.

    I am not hiding… I am real… and I’m not scared…. of him – or you!

    Sincerely, Sir

    yours, The infamous T

    ps: I’m SURE you’ll turn up some stuff on me after your obligatory googling

    • Yes, I know that you are an actual person, I see you’re listed on the “Cheerleadered” page as an “officer”. Must feel good, being a hanger-on for a gang of bullies, yes?

      So how’s this for humour:

      (1) Someone posts your home address widely on-line, with the specific wish that you will be forced to flee the country to protect your family from harm.

      (2) Someone sends you threats of violence.

      I’m sure you’d see the funny side of that.

      Whether or not Flowers is “charming” is neither here nor there, and neither is the “Cheerleaders” supposed animosity against Islamic extremism.

      Flowers has presided over a campaign of harassment that has been unwarranted and shameful (not to mention illegal), with friends who have hidden behind fake names. How’s he going to make amends for that? I sent him a message with one suggestion – all I got in return was the usual mocking and goading response.

      The onus is on him to start doing the right thing – not on me to go roaming around London in response to some invitation. The demand that I have to meet him before I can judge him by his ugly actions is just more evasiveness.

  11. Again, it seems that the only ‘evidence’ of anywrongdoing here is what you say about him here.

    I would suggest you ‘roam the streets of London’ either… but surely if he is prepared to meet you in person, face to face…. well – that would hardly be the dictionary definition of ‘evasive’, would it?

    Now, I’m an athiest with no particular political affiliations, but I respect the rights of others to hold thier own views on faith – as long as they try not to ram it down my throat or impose ridiculous ancient religious doctrine on me… regardless of whether it be of an Islamic or Christian dogma…

    I simply find your rantings and disinformation about this varied group somewhat tedious… I make films… that’s what I do – and I am happy to meet you and allow you to put your piece to camera… as it seems to me that your vitriol here is tantamount to harrasment as well…

    Or do yu prefer to sit in a darkened room and simply ‘make believe’?

    Come on – it’d be fun!

    • No one is forcing their religious doctrine on you, or anyone else for that matter in this country. If by what is happening on the streets you mean the hooligan gangs of EDL and others that join them, well, there is only 2 things they represent: football hooligans who wouldnt be able to do pull this crap if they were only doing it over football. But change “football” to “Islam” and suddenly their protests and violent actions are seen as valid. And secondly: they are merely another step in the European hatred for “those not of us”.

      Ever wonder why these people dont actually go to the houses of the members of al-Muhajiroun? The group that they were created in response to? Ever wonder why they attack Muslim and Asian homes and businesses? Muslims and Asians that have nothing to do with extremism? Ever wonder why these groups dont protest against the BNP? Or any other Christian extremists? These groups are nothing new. For ages groups like these have attacked minorities all the while claiming they want to protect “their way of life”. And not to forget there is almost always backlash if anything happens to the military forces. Remember the Sergeants Affair? How many Jewish people, homes and businesses were attacked after that?

      And then we have groups, Christian extremists, that state quite clearly they want Jews or blacks dead and or out of the country. Will groups like the EDL or the Cheerleaders protest against them? No. For now, these groups are intent on attacking Muslims and Asians, regardless of whether they are extremists or not. And if the police doesnt step in or the government doesnt ban groups like the EDL, sooner or later they will trigger a response from the Muslim and Asian communities. And I think that is exactly what the EDL wants. They are hooligans first and foremost. Violence is what they thrive on. Whether they can disguise it as football related violence or violence against innocents to protect their way of life, it doesnt matter.

      EDl and its hangers on dont care one jot about this country or the rule of law. They even had the temerity to demand that a mosque stop being built under threat of violent protests unless there were no Sharia courts in there. The LAW allows for Sharia civil courts working under English law. Will these dumbasses protest English law? Or campaign to get it changed? No.

      • you can mention the EDL and the cheerleaders in the same breath as long as you want – there are no links between them. Disinformation.

  12. F.A.O. Bullshitter Bartholomew

    Whilst you are busy accusing all and sundry of lies and deception perhaps your readers might also be interested in seeing yet more proof of where you too have been blowing it out of your rather ample arse.

    1) You have made the assertion that I am “Darren Marsh of the English Democratic Party” or whoever they are supposed to be when they’re at home. I have been a fully paid-up member of the United Kingdom Independence Party since June 2009 and as such I still have 4 months left to run. Therefore I have no idea who supplied you with such misinformation but my only guess is you have a team of monkeys working around the clock on discovering such revelations.

    2) The lad in the red panda shirt is just another poor unfortunate who has fallen into your cowardly sights (even more amusing is that you feel he actually looks like an active EDL member when he’s about as Irish as Beamish). He is in fact an English Literature student who popped down to the pub with one of his mates that evening.

    3) Do you not feel the slightest bit guilty in posting the images and identities of unknown females who are entirely unconnected to your ‘rage against Flowers’ but by your disgusting assertions could now be open to reprisals purely because of the sick propaganda you peddle and the information you are renowned for passing on to extremists? It would seem that your megalomania is worth far more to you than the safety and security of those members of the public whom you have never met in your life but whose lives you are privileged enough to play God with from afar. Just how far are you prepared to go with your blatant self-promotion?

    So there we have it. Let’s have no more self-aggrandising comments and pretentious bullshit. Just accept that you are indeed wrong where these 3 points are concerned…

    • (1) OK, I got your particular fringe-right party affiliation wrong. I was going by the picture of you with EDP materials here. Don’t milk it by pretending you don’t even know who the EDP are.

      (2) “Barry G” left the comment left a comment to the effect that the guy on the right was someone who’s name was too sensitive to be publicised, and he didn’t contradict my original EDL identification. I’m more than happy to correct both points.

      (3) One of those two women is a “Cheerleader”. And the picture was posted on-line by Flowers, not by me.

      If Flowers wants to pretend he’s being harassed, he should go to the police – I’d love to make a statement to them on the whole affair.

      Flowers and his friends (particularly “Shooter”) posted a man’s home address on-line widely in the hope that he would be forced to flee the country to protect his family from harm. They also sent physical threats. And there was no remote justification for any of it. That’s the story. Simply denying that the evidence exists, or that none of it counts because I haven’t listened to his BS in person is just dodging the issue.

      • IIRC any picture you put on Facebook becomes the “property” of facebook as it were. Moreover, the Cheerleadered page is a public, open page and anything posted on there can be accessed by anyone from wherever they wish. And as you said: you didnt post that picture up first.

  13. Hmmmmm….. Seems yu have been had Mr. B.

    …my offer still stands for you to come out into the cold hard light of the day and justify yourself on camera – though I suspect that you are just too darned happy sitting in the dark with your tin-foil hat on jumping at shadows and making your delusory, paranoid little connections, eh?

    There is an extreme sadness to what you do here… i suggest professional help.

  14. Oh! …and by the way Mr. B a few of us are popping along to this event tonight to show our support…. fancy coming along..?

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=272943654107&ref=nf

    ….oh – no, of course, that wouldn’t do would it?

    That would be far to balanced, ‘normal’ and a tad uncomfortably close to the truth wouldn’t it?

    • Oh right, some of you support the BMSD. Therefore it’s OK to harass Tim Ireland. Of course.

      • “…I’ll state my case – of which I’m certain”

        – Frank Sinatra (My Way)

        Firstly, let me make it clear that I have no vested interest in this sorry little on-line spat other than the fact that you smear me by association.

        This, therefore, is for the casual reader – if indeed there be any.

        It’s no secret that I have worked with Charlie Flowers on video projects for The Fighting Cocks on several occassions and have known him for some years now. It’s also true to say that I generally support The Cheerleaders in thier stance against religious extremism of all types.

        I’ve been following this utter debacle from the get go and have had what I’ve heard corroborated from more than one source. As a film-maker, I’d rather quite like to get to the bottom of it – it would make both an intriguing and amusing documentary, though certain peoples unwillingness to meet in person or appear on camera make it a highly unlikely project.

        So, a couple of points I’d like to make:

        I find your spurious description of Charlie’s rather hilarious offer to settle his differences with Mr. Ireland by having a boxing match, as a “fist fight” a somewhat tedious and quite pathetic attempt to desperately scramble onto some middle-class moral high ground.

        A boxing match is NOT a fist fight.

        I also find it difficult to believe that as apparently eloquent people that you fail to understand the concept of – or recognise, a metaphor when you see one, which the term “machette at your throat” most oviously is. A tad more colourful admittedly, though having no more litteral meaning than stating that you are ‘over a barrel’.

        This really does all smack of the playground.

        It seems that one doesn’t have to go far to find evidence of Mr. Irelands activities being described in harsh tones, as a cursory google search reveals. Simply add the word ‘bully’ to his name and see for yourself what’s returned.

        In lieu of what I have read – including his quite insane attack on Kooba Radio, (of which I was unaware), I now have some questions for you – as you appear HIS main ‘cheerleader’ ! …though I would welcome any input from the great man himself at this juncture – and make it plain that I am happy to meet, on camera at a location of his choosing to ask these questions face to face.

        Do you deny that he targeted a female Tory MP culminating in such creepy behaviour as repeatedly sending death scenes from a particular horror film to her and creating a bogus twitter acount in her name?

        Do you deny that he frequently indulges in behaviour that might quite easily be characterised as harrasment, such as leaving as many as fourty voice mail messeges on someones phone in a single afternoon?

        I would assert, as an observer, that if it can be proven that Mr. Ireland did, indeed, behave in such a way, that any allegations of ‘cyber-bullying’ or ‘harrasment’ should be directed at himself – and not others. It does also beg the question as to why you so voraciously protect Mr. Ireland’s reputation… does he ‘have’ something on you?

        I state again, I am happy to put personal statements on camera, and present them with all and any associated evidence for all to see.

        It’s ‘put up or shut up’ time. For everyone.

      • Once again, a long statement that must have taken some time to write from someone who insists I’m a nobody.

        First, how have I “smeared” you? You originally claimed that Flowers had not done the things he had been accused of – now you’re saying that they’re justified!

        It’s also true to say that I generally support The Cheerleaders in thier stance against religious extremism of all types

        So what? I’m against religious extremism, too – but I don’t expect a pat on the back for it and to be given a free pass for whatever else I get up to.

        I find your spurious description of Charlie’s rather hilarious offer to settle his differences with Mr. Ireland by having a boxing match…

        The boxing match challenge came first. Then he threatened to come around to Tim’s house. Is Flowers not telling you the whole story, or are you being deliberately selective?

        I also find it difficult to believe that as apparently eloquent people that you fail to understand the concept of – or recognise, a metaphor when you see one, which the term “machette at your throat” most oviously is.

        A metaphor clearly meant to infer that Tim was under the threat of violence. And if it was supposedly harmless, why did the “Cheerleaders” delete it from their Twitter feed? Looks to me that they realised themselves that this was crossing the line.

        In lieu of what I have read – including his quite insane attack on Kooba Radio…

        Again, Flowers brought Kooba Radio into it by cc-ing Johnny Yeah into his threats against Tim (and by making links to him on a YouTube account called “pikeymassiv” which had been created to publicise Tim’s home address) . Tim asked Johnny Yeah whether he approved of this or not, and Mr Yeah responded with some prevarications. All he wanted was a straignt answer.

        Do you deny that he targeted a female Tory MP culminating in such creepy behaviour as repeatedly sending death scenes from a particular horror film to her and creating a bogus twitter acount in her name?

        Do you deny that he frequently indulges in behaviour that might quite easily be characterised as harrasment, such as leaving as many as fourty voice mail messeges on someones phone in a single afternoon?

        I’ve just dealt with this from the Barry G. sockpuppet. The repetition is getting tedious.

        It does also beg the question as to why you so voraciously protect Mr. Ireland’s reputation… does he ‘have’ something on you?

        Tim’s “reputation” is not the main issue here. The points are (a) that he has been subjected to a campaign of harassment that crosses the line and needs to be called out as a matter of principle; and (b) the harassment was motivated not by Flowers suddenly feeling chivalrous towards Nadine Dorries (come off it), but to distract attention from the fact that an associate of his had been lying to us on matters of public interest. Now, why is that?

  15. […] one message in particular stands out for its whining hypocrisy, although it does contain some corrective […]

  16. You’ve got to love the way a casual meet up with friends on a random night of getting pissed and having a laugh gets turned into this huge conspiracy of EDL collaborating with the Cheerleaders. Seriously. Look at the picture once more… It’s hardly a snapshot of a bunch of serious activists is it?! We’re all quite obviously drunk! LOL.

    What’s next? Pictures you copy and paste from “Heat” magazine will lead to a long winded article about Amy Winehouse planning world domination with the Sugarbabes or whoever you just so happen to dislike that month???

    And as for making false accusations about my friends being EDL members… What say you actually do some research into the matter before going out of your way to write such a silly half arsed attempt to cause mischief. Darren’s point is correct. My friend Luke is one of the friendliest people you could possibly meet, and I know for shit sure he has no clue who the EDL even are, let alone him being such a devout member that his name “was too sensitive to be publicised”.

    Also, leave Flowers and Shooter alone. You call them cyber bullies, and yet what you’ve done here is complete slander against him and others. Not to mention the fact that you’ve made a complete fool of yourself by writing up such a ridiculous article based around an innocent night of fun.

    And FYI- Joel Titus is about as violent as a packet of marshmallows…. Maybe you really ought to make the effort to actually meet the people you choose to slander online. At least then your assessments would be based on your own factual accounts and not idle gossip by people who are hardly going to write praise about the EDL, Cheerleaders and the like.

    Now, as you’ve not actually been given permission to use this picture of myself and others who have no idea of it even being up, I would appreciate it if you could remove it please. Thank you.
    Moonchild

    • I’ve removed the picture, although it’s a bit rich for a gang that boasts about how it doesn’t care about police etc to suddenly get snippy about copyright.

      As for your points:

      (1) Your site decided to post a picture of Flowers and other people hanging out with Joel Titus. People can make of it what they will. But you all present yourself as activists, so don’t complain if what you choose to make public gets treated as such.

      (2) Flowers and “Shooter” are cyber-bullies – remember Tim Ireland?

      (3) Titus hit a photographer in December. See here.

      • Dearest Richard,
        Please take a look at the comment below in regards to the picture…

        Flowers and “Shooter” are in your opinion, cyber bullies. An opinion I do not share nor do I wish to indulge in.

        And Titus may have hit a photographer in December. Just as many other people have done when there has been infringement of personal space. Titus is not the first or the last person to lash out at an annoying pap every once in a blue Moon… Yet you choose to pin point him as a violent thug alone. Talk about being choosy…

  17. hahahaha! nice one Moonchild!

  18. Moonchild, No ‘permission’ is required to use a photograph that is already in the public domain.

    Since you are concerned about permissions being granted, you might like to ask whether your chums requested Tim Ireland’s consent to his personal details being published?

    • Charlie Flowers asked permission from the owner of this picture before putting it up on the Cheerleader site. The least Mr. Bartholomew could have done was ask also… Instead of sneakily copying it and then furthermore making accusations about those posing in it…

    • Oh, and also, what other members of our group choose to do is up to them. But personally, I never had anything to do with the publication of Tim Ireland’s details, so you have little right to post my face on the internet without my say so. Ta. x

  19. Moonchild, for someone who is in a public group you seem remarkably over sensitive about your face appearing on the internet?

    Might it be that your Irish friend ‘Luke’ is the publicity shy one here?

    • ROTFL!
      I will write this once more for the literary challenged folk out there who failed to notice what I wrote in the above comment….

      Luke is an English Literature student. He is a fellow classmate and like most students spends his spare time with friends getting merry in pubs (as the picture showed). He is in no way in affiliation with ANY political organisation whatsoever. He is however a fantastic creative writing student like myself, and will probably have a lot of fun reading and writing about the preposterous accusations made against him. LOL (sorry, I’m actually LOLing at how silly that statement was…)

      My reasons for not wanting that picture up is not just for myself, but mainly for my female friend who has nothing to do with any of these organisations, and needn’t be publicly paraded by you.

  20. I must have missed the ‘preposterous accusations made against him’

    Please clarify for the more literary challenged among us?

    • The original article (prior to Batholomew editing it after being corrected), stated that Luke was a member of EDL. Comments were also made about his name not being disclosed as it was too sensitive to be publicised…

      If you knew Luke, you’d be laughing as much as I am right about now. So in answer to your query, that is what I deemed preposterous.

      • Not quite. Luke looked like Matthew Kaplan. “Barry G.”, a Cheerleader sockpuppet, said that it wasn’t but that he wouldn’t tell me who it was lest I pass on the information to jihadis. From that I understood Barry G. to mean that this person was someone who would be of interest to jihadis, and he didn’t contradict the EDL identification. I’m more than happy to correct mistakes, but it would help if Flowers and his friends didin’t keep posting ambiguous comments etc under fake names.

        But since, Moonchild, you know all about the campaign against Tim Ireland, I’d be interested to hear your views about it, and why you wish to be associated with a group that conducts itself in such a manner.

  21. Any questions you have for me as a Cheerleader Mr. Bartholomew, I invite you to come and ask in person. I will not be coaxed into an interview via your blog, facebook, msn, or any other form of non-human contact.

    As a student I have a lot of free time on my hands. So, seeing as you regularly check our facebook page, feel free to drop me a line with details of where myself and a few other Cheerleaders can be asked as many questions as you have time for…

    • Ahh, once again this mysterious unwillingness to communicate by the written word when it suddenly suits.

  22. And once again your adept art in avoiding an invitation for a face to face meeting all together… The written word happens to be my forté and I am evermore willing to enforce that fact. However, if you want to ask myself or any of the other Cheerleaders questions in regards to our group then do it away from the protection of your computer screen. I can assure you, I’m quite interesting to converse with in person. So if you want to make an intelligent assumption on our conducts then what better way of doing it than in person?

    • OK, so you don’t need to explain why harassing Tim Ireland is justified when asked, but at the same time you can complain about being unfairly misrepresented unless I go to the effort of a face-to-face somewhere in London.

  23. Moonchild, the more you refuse to justify the harassing actions against Tim Ireland, the more your forte appears to be being a complete fuckwit.

    • If you take the time out to re-read the previous posts then you will notice that I wrote not having anything to do with the so called “harassments” of Tim Ireland. Therefore it is not a matter that I need justify, as it’s none of my business to be quite honest with you. If all you can do is make silly remarks about me being a “fuckwit” after obviously not understanding the writing in front of you, then I pity you. Please, do us all a favour and grow up one day. When you’ve done that, I’ll be quite happy to have an intelligent debate with you about absolutely anything, without the use of barbaric profanities. If you can manage it…

      • I’ll be quite happy to have an intelligent debate with you about absolutely anything, without the use of barbaric profanities

        Is that why you wrote “LMAO! :p” on Facebook below a comment from “Shooter” describing me as a “fat cunt”? It appears to be your friends’ favourite term of abuse.

  24. Who called Moonchild a fuckwit please? I will fight them. Plus: Richard, sorry, but I have checked Wikipedia, and you are, actually, a Fat Cunt. If you want to meet to debate this feel free. And any of you gay Islamist Spastics please put your names down :D

    • Fake name, fake IP. I think you must be ashamed of the way you carry on. Why not use your real name? And why not answer my questions? In particular:

      1. Why was it that just when Tim was exposing Wightman, a blog suddenly appeared in Wightman’s name but containing very little content, which you claimed to have hacked?

      2. Why was it that when I proved how Tim could not have concocted that list of questions which was sent to him, and which looked very much as though they had come from Wightman, why did you suddenly send me a message claiming that you had hacked Wightman’s computer in order to create and send them? (And why did Wightman decline my offer to report the message to the police?)

    • “Who called Moonchild a fuckwit please? I will fight them”

      The words of a reasonable man, obviously.

      Shut down your PC and go to bed. You have school in the morning, and you know how cranky you get if you don’t get your full 8 hours sleep.

      Muppet.

  25. OK Listen. I’m not for calling people names, I simply LOL’ed at a comment on facebook. I understand however that this might have been deemed juvenile, although it must be understood that it was not in fact mysef doing the name calling.

    I don’t appreciate being a member of a group which causes harrassment of any kind. Be it the use of politically incorrect terms such as “Spastics” or sending threats via the internet, I DO NOT CONDONE SUCH PRACTICES. So I will be speaking to the P.I.A of the Cheerleaders to address this matter in due course.

    Likewise, I don’t appreciate being called a fuckwit for simply voicing my opinions, in regards to myself as an individual.

    I am, for the most part a peaceful person, which is why I oppose extremism in all forms. But this should not be used as an excuse to fight terror with terror. We are all rational individuals that should be able to converse about political matters without smart arse remarks or threatening of ANY kind.

    Thank you for reading.
    Moonchild )O(

  26. […] the brush-off when he tried to contact  him on Facebook; this was probably due to Flowers’ association with the English Defence League’s Joel Titus. “Shooter”, as I have blogged […]

  27. “The West’s cultural weapons of mass destruction – rock music, videos, blue jeans, iPods, internet including pornography, etc.- are quite enough to bring down military jihad Islam over time. …”

    Funny thing to boast about, given that there are countless Christians who are opposed to such things as well.

  28. […] activist, and he has made links with both British Muslims for a Secular Democracy and the English Defence League (at the Westminster demo he held a loudspeaker for the Sikh EDL leader Amit Singh, whom I blogged […]

  29. […] the megaphone was none other than the cyber-bully Charlie Flowers, whom I’ve blogged on a number of times). Anderson also mentioned Singh’s abusive writings, although he was not directly asked […]

  30. […] – whom Ray particularly dislikes – and Joel Titus, the EDL youth leader whom I’ve blogged about previously. The photos of Yaxley-Lennon in the new video appear to have been taken directly from the October […]

  31. […] various aspects of Islam and South Asian pop culture. Although he associates with elements of the English Defence League, he is not anti-Muslim. I have been given to understand that several people have disassociated […]

  32. […] blogged on Flowers’ links to the EDL here; while this was interpreted as an attack on Flowers for associating with the EDL, my main point […]

  33. […] Duncan Williams Marries US BusinesswomanRick Joyner Predicts Earthquake in US, "Economic Collapse"English Defence League Faction Meets with Charlie Flowers and "Cheerleader" FriendsGreek Monastery in Arizona Desert Accused of Brainwashing, Anti-SemitismCyber-Thug Charlie Flowers […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *