Cheerleaders Send a Threat: Back Off or “They Will Mess You Up”

A comment arrives, supposedly from “Justin”, concerning the gang of cyber-bullies known as the “Cheerleaders”:

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?

This comment refers to the campaign of harassment which the “Cheerleaders” have been undertaking for the last few months against the blogger Tim Ireland. There’s some revisionist history here: Tim didn’t “go up against them” – the Cheerleaders attacked him, for reasons which still have not been properly explained, starting from when 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, although he knows one of these “Cheerleaders” – a man named Charlie Flowers – and the “Cheerleaders” have stated that they have done things for him). The harassment against Tim has included publicising his home address and send threats of violence.

The “Cheerleaders”, as I have blogged on numerous occasions, see themselves as vigilantes against Islamic extremism. Aside from Flowers, they use a variety of fake IDs, although evidence suggests that they are members of Flowers’ music band and perhaps some other hangers-on.

“Justin” is one such fake ID; the email came from an IP proxy which I have only ever had from comments left by the “Cheerleaders” and, more recently, by a commentator named “Barry G”. And – what a surprise – “Barry G.” also shows inside knowledge about these “Cheerleaders” and what they’ve been up to. “Barry G.” left several comments preceding the one from “Justin”. “Barry G.” began by dismissing my research on the subject, but when I responded to his various points, he turned to this:

your and Ireland’s sites have a reputation for passing on peoples’ details to jihadists. And please do not deny that.

As I responded in the comment following, I do not pass on “people’s details” to “jihadis”. In fact, I corresponded with the administrator of a Muslim forum in order to get information about IP addresses and other details in order to track down fake postings made to Muslim web forums by Glen Jenvey; in January last year, Tim showed how Jenvey had used a posting which he himself had made to create a bogus tabloid scare story about a terrorist threat against British Jews. My communication with a Muslim forum to get information wasn’t a secret, but Wightman used it as a later justification for his admitted lies. He also forwarded a private email I had sent to him to Flowers – whose “Cheerleaders” created this silly graphic.

I further added:

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?

“Barry” responded by repeating himself, and I concluded on this note:

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.

The warning from “Justin” came after that.

So, we can see a downward arc here: goading and cocky messages received from the “Cheerleaders”, followed by more soberly-written messages from someone advancing an argument to rationalise what the “Cheerleaders” have done. When that fails to make an impression, we move on to a veiled threat.