Once again, I return to the subject of anonymous smear attacks against Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads. Tim is adept at identifying and exposing instances of dishonesty on-line, in the media, and in politics, as a result of which he has a number of enemies who use underhand methods in attempts to discredit or intimidate (I’ve had a bit of attention myself for daring to write about it). Just last week, a paedo smear about Tim was posted to Wikipedia; back in November Tim wrote about fabricated evidence of mental illness:
In January 2010, during a police investigation that resulted from Dorries’ complaint/’report‘, some fabricated evidence emerged. It was quite damaging stuff. The anonymous originator claimed to have fished it out of my bin; a box of prescription medication made out to me (specifically a powerful anti-psychotic drug). Bedfordshire Police investigated its origins until they hit a dead end.
A photo of the box was sent to Tim anonymously, in order to taunt. Further:
Police were advised of the following by a medical professional they interviewed as part of their investigation, and I was present when it was said; the medication involved is a carefully controlled substance to the extent that you cannot pick up even an empty box like it by digging through bins at the back of Boots; the original picture that was used for this forgery was most likely accessed by someone who had been prescribed this medication, or enjoyed a position of trust with someone who had been prescribed this medication.
The photo was also emailed to individuals hostile to Tim; one of these was “Harry Cole”, sidekick to Paul Staines. Although Cole has no moral objection to lying and smearing, he realised he had to be careful how he deployed his gift, and so he decided to claim that he believed that the photo had been sent to him by Tim himself as a “sting”. It was explained to Cole that this was not the case, but that the email’s metadata might contain evidence of use to the police in tracking down a potentially dangerous stalker. Cole’s response on Twitter: “Go fuck yourself”.
It now transpires that the photo was also sent to Bedfordshire Police. The background here is that Nadine Dorries MP has a habit of reporting critics to the police for harassment, including her Liberal Democrat opponent at the last election; she infamously made a complaint about Tim after Tim filmed (openly and with the permission of the organisers) a hustings event at which Dorries was speaking. Clearly, if the police were to believe that Tim was on anti-psychotic drugs, that would have an effect on how they viewed her complaint. Of course, it is not here claimed that Dorries had anything to do with the photo – but a number of other individuals would have been very happy to see Dorries succeed in using the police to silence or discredit Tim.
One would hope the police would take the matter seriously: the creation and dissemination of the photo was not only a malicious attempt to cause Tim distress, but an attempt to interfere with a police investigation with the intention that the course of justice would be perverted. Also of relevance is that Tim has made complaints of his own about harassment, one of which very nearly came to court in September.
However, Bedfordshire Police are apparently reluctant to share information with Tim, let alone investigate further. His latest blog post features a letter he has written to a Bedfordshire DCI:
Among the false allegations passed to Bedfordshire Police; fabricated evidence with the obvious intention of give people the false idea that I am clinically psychotic, and a danger to others.
…After failing to disclose an instance of this being passed directly to your investigating officer(s) during an investigation, Bedfordshire Police then failed to disclose it again in response to a legitimate subject access request after that investigation, and you now claim that you cannot disclose any detail about its source because of a further investigation.
If this fabricated evidence has any bearing on your current investigation, then why are you not investigating its origins?
If it it not relevant to your current investigation, then on what grounds do you refuse disclosure today?
I believe this evidence has a direct bearing on a current investigation by Surrey Police; it forms part of my complaint, and I would like to know on what grounds you refuse me the data I require to make them fully aware of its significance.
…Like you, Surrey Police also refused to disclose this fabricated evidence to me in response to a subject access request under the Data Protection Act, and had I not pressed the matter, I would never have discovered that Bedfordshire Police were aware of three items of evidence where previously I was only aware of one.
Filed under: Uncategorized