Tim Ireland Gets 38 Questions from Mystery Interviewer

Tim Ireland has received a lengthy list of question from a demanding mystery interviewer named “Dick Walker”. They include the following:

33.What would you say to the accusation that Richard Bartholomew is your (quote) stooge?

It’s bad enough being called a stooge, but is it worse for me that someone else faces “the accusation” of having me as their stooge?

Funnily enough, some time ago I received a comment to my blog from someone using the name “Richard Walker”, in response to I posting I had made about a supposed anti-terrorist research group called the “VIGIL Network”; one of the questions Tim received describes him as the “personification” of  “the far left in England…allied with the Islamist extreme”.

Richard Walker rebuked me thus:

It seems strange that you – clearly a man of intelligence – would use the Internet to guess at what these groups represent.

Actually, I’ve been very surprised of late at the unworthy and disreputable antics any number of “men of intelligence” get up to.

The name is perhaps an allusion to the “Richard L. Walker Institute of International Studies” in the USA.

More Dinner Fallout

Good grief  – this is getting out of hand. During the week I wrote a couple of blog posts (here and here) about Robert Spencer’s recent trip to the UK; certain details were then used by Charles Johnson to goad him, leading to a new spat between the two enemies.

My posts have also now generated a dispute in the UK; Harry’s Place reports:

A couple of days ago, Sunny [Hundal] wrote a piece on Pickled Politics which in turn repeated a story on Barth’s Notes relating to a rather farcical dinner at which Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, somebody from a group called the Christian Action Network, and Douglas Murray attended. The CAN bloke invited somebody from the football-hooliganish “English Defence League”, whereupon Douglas Murray quite rightly left the meeting.

 When I looked again yesterday, the piece had changed…It transpires that Sunny received some sort of legal threat from Douglas Murray.

It seems that Murray is of the opinion that Sunny’s version incorrectly suggested that Murray had not left the meeting, although Sunny denies this was his intent.

However, the Harry’s Place article in turn has angered Robert Spencer, who has left comment demanding to know:

…So why does Harry’s Place say that Murray alone left without meeting the EDL, while Bartholomew correctly notes that I did not meet with them either?

Are you even interested in telling the truth, or just interesting in perpetuating a smear?

David T responds:

I’m interested in talking about the wrongness of using libel threats against bloggers. I don’t really mind who meets with who, and the purpose of the article wasn’t to comment on whether or not you had met with the EDL.

I am very happy to accept that you didn’t meet with the EDL – however, the subject of this post is not whether you met with them, but whether Douglas Murray did, as I believe Sunny originally reported.

In other words: this is not all about you – it isn’t even about Sunny or Douglas. It is about the propriety of threatening legal threats against bloggers. As the recipient of lawyers letters from Hamas members and racists, I feel pretty strongly about this.

However, I don’t get off lightly from Spencer, either: he refers to “Bartholomew, who is playing a rather determined guilt-by-association game in association with libel master Charles Johnson”, and complains that

I am fighting for my reputation against the libels of Johnson and Bartholomew, and I know to what use your half-truth will be put.

This is rich coming from a creature like Spencer. It is also bizarre; Spencer concedes that I had the “honesty” to note he didn’t meet the EDL – so presumably he’s upset that I noted that he did “hang out” with CAN in London , and perhaps also because, as an aside, I made fun of his endorsement of a book which claims the Bible predicts the rise of a Muslim anti-Christ. I noted CAN’s extreme homophobia, but I never suggested Spencer shares such views and I was more than happy to note his explanation that

As for the CAN, I am working with them because of their excellent work on the documentary Homegrown Jihad. I do not feel myself bound to endorse every one of their other positions, or consider that I have done so, by working with them.

People can make their own judgements about that.

And as for Johnson – I never thought I’d see the day I’d be accused of doing something “in association” with him. We’ve never communicated, and I doubt very much we’d get along very well if we did.

UPDATE: But it’s not all rancour; an alluring email has arrived from “Wanita”:

Hello My Dear, My name is wanita i saw your profile here (www.pickledpolitics.com) today and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you more,and i want you to send a mail to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom l am. i believe we can move from here.I am waiting for your mail to my email address above.miss wanita(Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life) Please reply me , i will like to be your friend i know you will alos like to become my friend have a nice day and god bless you