Dominic Wightman: The Story of an Encounter

Just as the Donal MacIntyre programme on Glen Jenvey concluded, the following Twitter message was posted:


The link (not included here) leads to a remarkable document in which “Olivia James”, supposedly “the pen name of a Caracas-based lawyer”, records a lengthy interview with Dominic Wightman – also known as Dominic Whiteman – in which Wightman explains his recent dealings both with Tim Ireland and myself. The interview contains a lot of incidental detail which allows me to vouch that it really is by Wightman. By way of introduction, it should be recalled that Wightman and Glen Jenvey both appeared on Newsnight in the autumn of 2006 to discuss Islamic extremism as part of the anti-extremist “VIGIL Network”. The nature of VIGIL seemed somewhat opaque, so I did a couple of blog entries about it. It had a website for a while, but the organisation is now defunct. Instead, Wightman now has a website called the Westminster Journal, which has not been updated for a while. Wightman appears again more recently in the Spinwatch article on amateur terror-trackers, although he has assured me that he intends to sue them or have them shut down.

Tim Ireland and I met Wightman in a pub in February, a few weeks after Tim uncovered Glen Jenvey’s bogus postings to a Muslim forum. He explained to us that Jenvey had been passing dubious material to Patrick Mercer (then Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) via a university lecturer whose brother was on Mercer’s electoral executive committee. He also told us that this lecturer had created a fake email as evidence that Whiteman had once suggested creating a false rumour that Muslim extremists intended to use old women as suicide bombers. I admit I was somewhat disarmed – he was personable, expressed moderate conservative views, and since Jenvey had proven to be a fabulator it seemed unlikely that someone who wanted to expose his activities would also be dishonest. I did, though, think it odd that he did not wish to sue anyone over the “granny bomber” story, and I recalled his rather unsatisfactory reaction in 2007 to the first critical scrutiny into VIGIL. It also occured to me that, by giving us information, it would mean that we would be less likely to write anything negative about him, but that seemed a worthwhile and fair trade-off.

Soon after our meeting, he wrote an email explaining that he intended to become bankrupt in the autumn in order to be able to publish material without fear of being sued, on (a) (the now late) Sheik Khalid Bin Mahfouz; (b) a company allegedly involved in terrorism and drug dealing; and (c) extremism in Muslim faith schools, using material which Civitas had been too fearful to include in its own report. Further:

I am making a series of short films with the guy behind Undercover Mosque. In these clips, to be distributed online, I am going to urge all UK bloggers, activists, etc etc to publish all the crap against the above 3 targets repeatedly (not on their own blogs unless they want to be attacked to the point of bankruptcy like I will be) so that the world knows the truth about their misdeeds, whatever our shitty legal system says. I will attack Eady. I will attack the various acts which have distorted the balance of power in the libel courts etc etc I will attack Carter Ruck partner by partner. I will also attack certain members of the freedom campaigns who are using them for their own ends…The plan is well-supported. I have built an interesting team around me. Across the political spectrum / journalistic spectrum….. from the Telegraph to Searchlight, the Guardian to FOX. Two barristers and even one judge! I have no fear of creating a lot of enemies…

We exchanged congenial emails over the summer, but his attitude changed recently following two events: first, there was the Spinwatch article, which revealed that Wightman had in fact gone bankrupt for more mundane reasons, and which gave the lecturer’s side of the “granny bomber” story; and, second, there was the discovery that Wightman had placed on-line a bogus document in an attempt to manipulate the things Tim and I wrote about –  Tim will has more to say about that himself. Meanwhile, no shocking new exposé of faith schools has appeared, nor anything about Saudi billionaires or a drug-dealing company, let alone a big free speech campaign; instead, the only new research I have seen has been a document he recently put on-line about an extremist forum called “Islambase”, which he has trawled to shockingly reveal that some known extremists have some unpleasant views, and that some other unimportant people do too.

Parallel to this, I have received continuing strange and annoying messages from a supposed group of pseudonymous young women called “the Cheerleaders”, or the “Hur al-Ayn”, who seem somewhat unreal but who I am assured are actual persons by a popular musician who goes by various names, including “Charlie Cock” and “Ludas Matyi” – I blogged this here. It has become clear recently that Wightman has been working closely with these characters or person; and it now appears that – extraordinarily for a man who wishes to be taken seriously – Wightman has decided to announce his article on Tim through the Twitter feed of someone who, as can be seen above, just yesterday sent Tim a message of a personally harrassing nature.

The “interview” is a grandiose attack on Tim which must have taken some time to write; I have a bit part:

Richard Bartholomew was less involved – more focused on spin-off stories – and by no means exhibited any signs of being at all comfortable sitting anywhere near far left extremism or Islamist extremists… Though in the presence of Ireland, Bartholomew came across merely as Ireland’s cohort, I soon saw that he had a left-wing agenda of his own: his twin pleasures were guilt by association and playing off anyone – either plain nutty or right of centre – against themselves. Bartholomew was a stirrer but a quiet, affable fellow, I found…

I’m not sure how a person can be played off against themself, but there you are. And it’s remarkable to be called a “stirrer” by someone whose behaviour has been as strange and shabby as his.

This is a man who claims to be a serious figure in freelance anti-terrorist consulting. In fact, though, he is a man who promises to produce significant research and campaigning in the public interest, but instead (a) trawls a known Islamist website to come up with a few English-language scraps of stuff that’s obvious and (b) produces a lengthy and blustering attack on a blogger who dealt with him throughout with courtesy and with integrity. A man who forwarded private correspondance (nothing too significant, but it’s still annoying) to a hostile person or persons who use weird aliases and whose friends send out threatening messages. A man who just a few days ago sent Tim a list of bizarre and aggressive questions under a pseudonym. A man who, at a time when it became clear that Jenvey was unstable and vulnerable, tried to get us to write more things about him by putting on-line a bogus document (he may be the author, although he maintains he “was offered” it from persons he refuses to divulge). A man who won’t sue the person he claims made up the “granny bomber” story. A man who, by the way, has also declined to deny [UPDATE: finally he has, in the comments] that he created a blog under the name “James Osposol” in order to fire some silly insults in my direction, despite my straightforward question about it.

Dominic Whiteman

UPDATE 1: Wightman has been in contact to (a) clarify that  he is not in Venezuela, as I had originally inferred from his article and (b)  insist that that he has no connection to the “Cheerleaders”.

UPDATE 2: Wightman has now posted his attack onto his Westminster Journal website. He has also removed the name of an elderly Tory grandee who was previously listed as the Journal’s “life patron”. Incidentally, while Wightman is the Journal’s “editor and co-founder”, there is also a ”current affairs editor”: Adrian Morgan, who featured in the story I blogged here

UPDATE 3: Tim’s article has now been posted here. Extract:

On May 19, Dominic Wightman emailed me with a claim that he had chanced upon a document hosted at that purported to be a genuine interview with Glen Jenvey, conducted and published by Jeremy Reynalds. He even asked me if I had written it, before listing a series of likely suspects (culminating, inevitably, with [Michael] Starkey).

Reynalds immediately denied any involvement, but even after it was clearly established as a fake, this ‘interview’ presented me and/or up to half a dozen people with a potential problem that could not be addressed with simple exposure…I was as determined then as I am today to keep the full contents of that document out of the public domain, because even though the document contains very little in the way of truth, it still had and has the potential to cause great damage or embarrasment to a long list of people (including the man we can now safely describe as his primary target; Michael Starkey).

…at every stage since ‘finding’ the document, Dominic Wightman was in regular contact with me, well aware of the anxiety I was feeling, and well aware of his contribution to it (though he still quite inexplicably claims to have been oblivious to being the primary cause of it, while simultaneously having no regrets because he could not have planned it better).

And yet he said and did nothing to alleviate that anxiety… and continued to say and do nothing until the information I provided led police right to his door.

He then insisted that we meet immediately (not likely), then tried to deny and minimise what he had done to varying degrees, then tried to convince me that I was guilty of the same or worse, and then tried to smear me again, this time in such a way that might make people think I was deserving of such treatment.

I’m not. No-one is.

If I thought otherwise, then I would have ‘outed’ the forged interview and brought it into the public domain (as he no doubt expected me to) long before I established the source of the piece and their likely agenda.

I can confirm this version of events; I have an email in which Wightman urges us to believe that the lecturer Michael Starkey is the author. But he knew that this was untrue, the document looks like his handiwork (the interview format was to avoid the problem of Jenvey’s distinctive dyslexic writing), and he refuses to provide any other source. The document was in all likelihood fabricated by him, and he placed it on-line in the hope that untrue informtion about other people would be disseminated.  For a researcher, that is the ultimate kiss of death, and if I were the head of one of the research organisations he has apparently worked for, I would be very alarmed.

One way that Wightman has sought to justify his behaviour is by going on about a “Black Red Alliance”, suggesting that his deception was valid as he was somehow uncovering links between the far left and Islamic extremists. What this amounts to is a supposed revelation that Tim and I have been in contact with the moderator of in order to get the IP addresses of certain messages that may have come from Jenvey (on Ummah and other sites) at earlier dates. But that wasn’t a secret; I directly referred to receiving such information here. Asking for information in the general public interest hardly amounts to any kind of “alliance”; indeed, the only real alliance that was made during this affair was between me, Tim, and Dominic, and came about because Dominic led us to believe that he wanted the truth to be known. Alas, it turns out that he was the one who had “a different agenda”, and he is now the one trying to make a “left-right” issue part of the story.

UPDATE 4: Adrian Morgan has given me permission to publish the following message:

Yesterday you placed an “update” to an article, in which you mention that I was listed as “Current Affairs Editor” of Westminster Journal. I had done nothing in that capacity since August 2008.

You will find now that my name has been removed from the “about” page.

I had nothing to do with the Tim Ireland article/attack, which I repudiate unreservedly. I do not know Tim Ireland and I have no cause to feel animosity towards him.  In future I  will not be asssociated with Westminster Journal while it is used as a vehicle for character attack and bile.

I suspect the main reaction to Wightman’s article among those who research Islamic extremism will be uneasy bafflement: why so much energy expended on Tim Ireland? Why the need to go over Tim’s disputes with Paul Staines and Iain Dale? Why the need to go into personal details, and to feign distaste over a crude (but funny) bit of satire about David Cameron? Why the silly boasting about having supposedly “brought down” Tim? Why the weird device of having the article presented as if by a pseudonymous Venezuelan lawyer? What does any of this have to do with the purpose of the Westminster Journal? Why did he publish it to a blog first? Why did he send Tim a weird list of 40 questions under a pseudonym the day before? Are these not the acts of man trying to dredge up everything he can in a desperate attempt to divert attention from a very simple but devestating truth: that he tried to have bogus information placed in the public domain in order to settle a score, and thus has shown that as an investigator he cannot be trusted?

64 Responses

  1. I’m not sure how a person can be played off against themself

    a copy of Swank magazine and a gun to the head… problem solved.

  2. It looks like you have been played, Richard. I wonder what Whiteman found out about you when he was collaborating with you?

  3. Never mind all that Richard, u coming to meet us on Sunday or what?

  4. So much hate and so little time. Is it just me, or does it seem a worldwide effort to demonize and castigate Muslims, thereby making them seem less than human, so the West will feel good about bombing Muslim nations?

    And why does the cynic in me wonder why the USA had NO enemies in the ME until Israel came into existence?

    Now excuse me, Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and Bin Laden are coming over for supper and I’ve got to tidy up a bit.

  5. Hi Richard, Look likes you are still rattled and making your own film from your attic. 1.Olivia James is the pen name of Olga Rodrigo, Abogados Recadero, Punta de Mata, Monagas Venezuela. She interviewed me by Skype from Caracas – you misinterpret this to “Wightman has relocated to Venezuela”. Nice. 2. On Mr Jenvey 3. Re: grannybombers slur, how exactly does one sue a false ID used on an Islamist forum not co-operating with release of IP data? If you know please tell my UK lawyers. 4. Islambase piece reveals actual IDs of posters using monikers for the first time. You don’t seem to appreciate this. They did. Their site is dead now. 5. On the Cheerleaders 6. Sent no letter using a pseudonym. Ireland fabrication for artistic effect. 7. So much energy expended on Ireland? (i) You and Ireland share IPs with glorifiers of terrorism. Terror glorification is a crime, Richard. ii) Ireland treated me with zero integrity from the start and, judging by my mailbag of “well dones” your friend is someone who many people loved having off air for 2 months. 8. Finally, how dare you attack my investigative integrity with your speculation and guilt by association when you smash up facts like China and then make a random mosaic of the pieces? Admit it, you are a leftie with an agenda. All the very best, Dom Wightman

    • (expanded)

      (1) Who is this person? I inferred you had gone to Venezuela because your method for making your statement was so convoluted and unnecessary. When you told me you were in the UK I made an amendment.

      (3) You could have complained about the “granny bomb” message to the police as a malicious hoax and pointed out that it also fabricates an email reply from a police officer.

      (6) What letter?

      (7) (i) is a rationalisation for your silly antics. If you found the fact we corresponded with the Ummah forum moderator to be so objectionable, you should have said so and declined any further involvement with us. Instead, you told us that you considered these people to be extremists, which we noted, but you gave no indication that you believed this meant we should not be getting information from them. You’re now pretending that your deceptive behaviour was somehow justified as an “investigation” of some sort. (ii) no, Tim was very careful to respect your privacy and to agree to your wishes. But I’m glad you’ve got some new friends; judging from Adrian Morgan’s comment, past allies are repudiating you. Maybe you could hook up with Joseph Obi.

      (8) You admitted uploading the fake document and you earlier tried to persuade Tim and me that Starkey was behind it when you knew he wasn’t. I, however, never misled you about anything, neither would I do so.

      Oh, and do you deny setting up the “James Osposol” blog?

      • 1) Amend the full post. Don’t add updates.
        3) Police were given the heads-up by me of the incident at the time as I’ve mentioned several times to you.
        6) Rabid interview questions. Certainly not written by me or sent by me and you know it. Low trick on Ireland’s part.
        7) i) Review your mails. You will see that many times I warned you and Ireland about [Sajid] and Bukhari. Your responses were at best ostrich-like. ii) Tim has admitted speaking to the Strathclyde anoraks – Spinwatch – before their attempted take-down on me was published in late August. Where was the warning?
        8) You and Tim misled me about your involvement with the Spinwatch piece and your collusion with Strathclyde. You gave me no warning and the release timing was highly suspicious just as I was leaving for a holiday. You chaps are insidious vipers and you know it.
        Regards the friends jab, Adrian is a good man and still a friend. He is also vehemently independent and rightly proud of the independence of his writing. He disagreed with the Ireland piece when he read it and made this very clear to me so, at his request, I removed him as current affairs editor of WJ as any friend would do. I don’t know what kind of orbit you inhabit, Richard, but have you never come across friends who agree and disagree and remain friends? (I am talking about real friends not virtual ones).
        Regards Obi – no thanks! Nor Mr ‘Glen’ Chetty who’s being very nice about me right now over on Pravda Regards this “Osposol blog” ….snore snore….. no, no, no…..though I am sure one of the Ireland bloggernerds can fashion an IP address or something to prove otherwise….. blame it on some other poor fellow who votes Tory!

  6. (1) Will do

    (3) I must confess I may have erred there; I thought it was a dubious tale, and I just took your word at the time that “granny bomber” story came from somewhere else. It only became of interest to me again when I discovered you have a capacity for deception, so I may have overlooked something. Remind me, what was the outcome of the police investigation?

    (6) Really?

    (7) (i) Yes, you said these are nasty people. But you did not offer the opinion that you considered any communication as part of the investigation to be ethically reprehensible. And how does this link to the rationale for your bogus upload anyway?

    (8) Tim can speak for himself about “Spinwatch”. I had a couple of emails asking about Jenvey. Had they asked me about you I would probably have told them you were on the level. I had no advance knowledge of the article that appeared on “Spinwatch”, and the alleged details about you in it were all new to me.

    Osposol – thank you, finally, for a straight answer on that.

  7. Do you lot fancy each other or something?

  8. Re: your mitigation theory – no mitigation needed.
    Prepared to work with you on the last point. Send me some details. ATB

  9. […] Comments Dominic Wightman on Dominic Wightman: The Story of an EncounterAkanimo Uwan on Catherine Acholonu: Igbo Traditions Reveal Ancient […]

  10. Do you lot fancy each other or summink?

  11. […] few days ago I blogged on my experiences with Dominic Wightman (above left), the supposed “anti-terror” […]

  12. […] above quote will doubtless be used by Dominic Wightman, a former associate of Jenvey who tried to manipulate Tim and me (and to some extent succeeded) into writing about a third person that Wightman had a grudge […]

  13. […] Tim uncovered the Jenvey’s fabrication back in January, and I’ve been helping with some follow-up and background work (which is why I get a mention in Muir’s article, too). However, while our efforts have been vindicated, Tim has also had to endure a great deal of hassle as a result, which is still ongoing. Jenvey’s original reaction was to plant bogus postings on websites about Thailand accusing Tim of being a paedophile; he has since apologised for this as part of his confession. More recently, Tim was the subject of an attack piece by an former associate of Jenvey named Dominic Wightman (also known as “Dominic Whiteman”; photographed posing with Mercer outside New Scotland Yard here), who had tried to manipulate Tim and me into writing about another person, against whom he has a grudge (I’ve blogged this previously). […]

  14. […] admitting that their entire article was based on lies. The investigations also revealed that the people behind the scam were supplying similarly unreliable information to an MP’s office, and so the bloggers let […]

  15. […] scare story, and went on to show that Dominic Wightman (a former associate of Patrick Mercer MP) had lied to Tim and me to try and manipulate us into writing about someone against whom he has a grudge, that apparently […]

  16. […] Whiteman”; VIGIL has now disbanded amidst recriminations over money). As I’ve blogged previously, Tim and I met Wightman in February in relation to the Jenvey investigation; Wightman told us that […]

  17. […] also notes interest in Islambase from our old friend Dominic Wightman. There is no suggestion here that Wightman was involved in planting bogus messages on this site, […]

  18. […] Flowers, of a music group known as the Fighting Cocks (I’ve blogged on both these characters here and […]

  19. […] inflate their expenses, which seems a reasonable explanation (despite my problems with Wightman on other matters). Private Eye got the heart of the matter in February (1203 p. 8) by pointing out that there was […]

  20. […] Yard with Mercer. Flowers has also claimed to have worked with VIGIL, and his campaign began after Tim and I discovered that Wightman had lied to us in an attempt to manipulate our investigation of Jenvey into an attack […]

  21. […] have described my dealings with Wightman throughout this year here and here; he provided Tim Ireland and me with audio evidence proving that Glen Jenvey had concocted […]

  22. […] anonymous paedo-smears, we both came into conact with a former associate of Jenvey named Dominic Wightman, who attempted to use the situation to manipulate us into writing about another person, against […]

  23. […] Tim Ireland after Tim discovered that a supposed expert on extremism named Dominic Wightman had lied to us (although Wightman has expressed disapproval of these attacks). Messages from the Cheerleaders […]

  24. […] associate, a man named Glen Jenvey, had been concocting evidence of extremism; and in September we discovered that Dominic Wightman, who had created VIGIL and ran up substantial debts before declaring […]

  25. […] to remove the addresses in return for a full account of ”Cheerleader” dealings with Dominic Wightman (1). And (b) a threat to curse someone’s family is hardly a “proper way of […]

  26. […] 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 […]

  27. […] he wrote a blog entry showing how the self-styled “terror-tracker” Dominic Wightman had lied to us in an attempt to get us to attack a man against whom he has a grudge (Wightman denies any link, […]

  28. […] (5)  There’s no evidence that Flowes and the “Cheerleaders” have in fact harassed Tim Ireland. Response: By that, what is meant is that the evidence is being ignored. Here’s a screenshot for starters. […]

  29. […] “anti-terror expert” with past links to Jenvey – had been feeding Tim and me false information in the hope that we would write blog entries attacking another man, against whom Wightman has […]

  30. In these quarrels, let’s not lose sight of the crankiness that is SpinWatch. The site has a conspiratorial preoccupation with the influence of Jews in public life

    and it is funded by a wealth Lebanese businessman who also has something of a fixation on Jews

  31. […] been bogus. Mercer also promoted the  now-defunct “VIGIL Network”, which was run by Dominic Wightman, and with which the cyber-bully Charlie Flowers was also […]

  32. […] my own with the people who run Spinwatch, and they were helpful in relation to events I blogged here and […]

  33. […] who signs himself “Kelvin”. He claims to have a number of documents concerning Dominic Wightman, and he explains that they were passed to him via email from a certain “mebsy786″ in […]

  34. […] “IC-HUMINT” previously: this was in 2006, when it announced a brief association with Dominic Wightman‘s ”VIGIL Network”. At that time, IC-HUMINT carried a very weird notice about […]

  35. […] Recent Comments Anonymous Smear Attack on Tim Ireland’s Children « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion on Obsession Pundit Glen Jenvey in MeltdownAnonymous Smear Attack on Tim Ireland’s Children « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion on Glen Jenvey Confesses that He Wrote Fake Islamist Postings which Formed the Basis for Sun Front Page StoryThe general vs. the bigot: Petraeus warns Quran burning could endanger U.S. troops : The Reid Report on Creation House Scrubs Terry Jones “Islam is of the Devil” BookMeet a Veteran Defender « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion on VIGIL Network Launches WebsiteMeet a Veteran Defender « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion on Dominic Wightman: The Story of an Encounter […]

  36. […] know where you live” type comments. A few months later, when Tim exposed the lies of Dominic Wightman (with whom Flowers had formerly worked), the “Cheerleaders” published Tim’s home […]

  37. […] Dorries’ false accusation was also taken up by Patrick Mercer MP, who was desperate deflect Tim’s enquiries into Mercer’s associations with Dominic Wightman and Glen Jenvey. […]

  38. […] However, Jenvey and Mercer both had another associate, named Dominic Wightman (also known as “Dominic Whiteman”). Wightman was another self-styled “terror tracker”, monitoring Islamic extremism on-line as director of the “VIGIL Network”. In 2006, Mercer introduced Wightman to officers at New Scotland Yard, posing with him for a photo-op outside the building, and he probably facilitated Wightman’s appearance on Newsnight around the same time. Alas, though, the association proved to be another embarrassment for Mercer: some months later, Wightman was sued by a former employee at VIGIL over lack of payment and he became a bankrupt (he also had other business debts). It also eventually transpired that Wightman was dishonest: he concocted a pseudonymous document attacking Tim and including private information about him, which he then drew to our attention. He claimed that it had been written by a university lecturer working with Jenvey; police, however, traced it back to Wightman. The university lecturer concerned had initially supported VIGIL, but had come to have serious concerns about Wightman; Wightman’s purpose, which was at first successful but ultimately a failure, was to manipulate Tim and me into attacking him. I wrote about all this here. […]

  39. […] was in fact motivated by completely different reasons (Tim had exposed as a sham some on-line “terror-tracking” in which Flowers had invested his sense of […]

  40. […] some of his US counterparts, but he is a mountebank: a formerly bankrupted businessman whom I know from personal experience to lack personal integrity, and whose idea of research and activism is manipulation and the […]

  41. […] the VIGIL Network, a (now defunct) “terror-tracker” organisation whose director has turned out to be a liar and manipulator. Mercer introduced this man to senior police at New Scotland Yard and […]

  42. […] example, here). I did some follow-up work on Tim’s discovery, and we both found ourselves being contacted by former associates of the “terror-tracker”. It turned out that these persons wanted […]

  43. […] including the bizarre claim (which Flowers made back in February) that I am in correspondence with Dominic Wightman. There are also side-swipes at some of Flowers’ other pet hates: these are a Facebook page […]

  44. […] attempts to manipulate Tim Ireland and me into attacking a person against whom he has a grudge. Here was “Daniela”‘s response: It looks like you have been played, Richard. I wonder […]

  45. […] coincidence, Wightman lives close to the blogger Tim Ireland; Tim and I both met him early in 2009, after Tim uncovered that a Sun front-page splash about a terror plot against Alan […]

  46. […] Dominic Wightman, who was a former associate of Jenvey; I give some background to the saga here. It should be recalled that in 2006 Wightman had been endorsed by Patrick Mercer MP, and Mercer had […]

  47. […] I had some interaction with Wightman (who also uses the spelling “Dominic Whiteman”) during 2009; by this time VIGIL had collapsed and he was bankrupt, and he was keen for the blogger Tim Ireland […]

  48. […] lecturer who had discovered that Wightman was dishonest. When the blogger Tim Ireland and I discovered the same thing about Wightman, the “Cheerleaders” released Tim’s home address in an attempt to […]

  49. […] on Newsnight in 2006 and who has enjoyed friendly links with Patrick Mercer MP. To recap in brief: in 2009 Wightman attempted to manipulate myself and the blogger Tim Ireland into “exposing” a […]

  50. […] “terror-tracker” organisation with which Flowers was formerly associated; background here). His motivation is primarily psychological rather than political: by latching onto anti-extremist […]

  51. […] Yesterday, I wrote about how in 2011 self-styled “terror tracker” Dominic Wightman had used his Westminster Journal website to express his wish to run Tim Ireland and myself down with his car. Wightman – who formerly advised Patrick Mercer MP – has had a grudge against both of us since 2009, when we discovered that he was viciously deceitful. […]

  52. […] the group has since been disbanded, and it has subsequently become apparent that Wightman is extremely dishonest on a whole range of […]

  53. […] there was a falling out in 2007; in 2009, Wightman concocted a fake document in Jenvey’s name in an attempt to manipulate Tim Ireland and me into attacking a (completely innocent) third party. Wightman also […]

  54. […] lie against Tim Ireland, borrowed from Nadine Dorries MP – in 2009, Flowers was manipulated by Dominic Wightman into harassing Tim, and to save face when he realised the truth he then bandwagoned on […]

  55. […] of Patrick Mercer MP. In late 2009, he began a campaign of abuse and threats against Tim at Wightman’s behest, although won’t admit this was the reason (he instead claims he was motivated by Nadine […]

  56. […] turned on Tim and me after Wightman’s attempts to mislead us about one of these associates backfired. Since that time, there has been a sporadic stream of abusive messages and hit-and-run one-page […]

  57. […] “Darcy Jones” and “Rosie Geefe” are both involved with on-line anti-EDL monitoring on Facebook and Twitter. However, “everyone who’s pissed me off” also includes the blogger Tim Ireland and me. Tim was subjected to an anonymous paedo-smear attack on Wikipedia back in April; we don’t yet know for sure who did it, but Flowers sent an abusive message to this blog twenty minutes later. Last week, Flowers posted an on-line gun massacre fantasy in which Tim and I appear with our names changed; Flowers describes Tim being shot to death, and supposedly finding child pornography on my phone. The origin of all this was in 2009, when Flowers was involved in harassment against former associates of Dominic Wightman who had come to realise that Wightman was dishonest; Flowers turned on Tim and me after Wightman’s attempts to mislead us about one of these associates backfired. […]

  58. […] “on-line terror tracker” outfit called the VIGIL Network were dishonest (full story here; I’ve also been […]

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.