• First published in 2004 as Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion (BNOR).

    Previously at:
    blogs.salon.com/0003494
    barthsnotes.wordpress.com

    Email me
    (Non-commercial only)

  • Archives

  • Twitter

  • Supporting

  • Recent comments

Friends of the “Cheerleaders” Wade in with Evasions

More comments have been received regarding my posts on Charlie Flowers and the “Cheerleaders”. As any regular readers will know, this is the gang of semi-anonymous cyber-vigilantes who last year decided to post Tim Ireland’s home address all over the internet, without regard for his family’s safety, in the stated hope that he would be forced to flee the country. Threats of violence were also received, including “machete to your throat”. Tim has asked various associated people to account for this behaviour: these include a member of Flowers’ “Fighting Cocks” band named Dan Wilde; Gina Khan, who is listed on a “Cheerleadered” Facebook page as an officer; and several friends whom Flowers cc-ed into an email threat he sent to Tim.

Remarkably, not one of these persons contacted has responded wishing to disassociate themselves from Flowers’ behaviour; instead, aggrieved messages are coming in from Flowers’ associates complaining about my coverage of the subject. Here are the main points, with brief responses:

(1) It was just a joke.
Response: Would you find it funny to be on the receiving end of a campaign of harassment of this sort? To receive the message “machete to your throat”? To have to consider moving home to protect your family after your address has been maliciously publicised?

(2) I spend too much time on the computer.
Response: So what?

(3) I haven’t met Flowers and his friends.
Response: If Flowers and the “Cheerleaders” have some sort of justification for their shameful behaviour, it’s up to them to make it known. The idea that I have to travel to some location of their choosing in order to hear some sort of rationalisation in person before I can make a judgement is just an evasion.

(4) I ought to be willing to “justify” myself by being filmed.
Response: This makes no sense – although I’ve had a similar demand before. The idea is that what I have say cannot be valid unless I do it through a particular medium of their choosing. It’s simply weird.

(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.

(6) I haven’t mentioned anything about Flowers’ support for groups like British Muslims for secular Democracy.
Response: What’s that got to do with a campaign of illegal harassment against Tim? There are doubtless various political issues on which I have no argument at all with Flowers and the “Cheerleaders”. My main problem is with their utterly unwarranted threats against Tim Ireland.

However, one message in particular stands out for its whining hypocrisy, although it does contain some corrective points – step forward Darren Marsh, responding to my post about this picture:

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…

As for point 1, I do concede that I got Marsh’s fringe party membership wrong. I also concede that I meant to write “English Democrats Party” rather than the “English Democratic Party”, which is apparently another organisation (although Marsh’s pretence at not knowing what I mean is just silly). My identification was based on Marsh’s public association with English Democrat paraphernalia and websites. Unsurprisingly, I’m not a particular fan of this party, but it’s a lot better than some of the other “nationalist” alternatives.

As for point 2, I did misidentify, albeit in good faith, the man on the right of the photograph as the EDL’s Matthew Kaplan, who is ally of Joel Titus. A “Cheerleader” sock-puppet named “Barry G.” put me right on that point, but then made a misleading comment about how this person’s name could not be revealed to me lest I pass it on to “jihadis”. I took that to mean that this person was someone else who is politically involved with Titus’ “moderate” EDL strand. Flowers chose to bring this person into the picture – literally.

And as for point 3, this really is a joke. (1) The picture was posted by the “Cheerleaders” themselves, not by me. If anyone in the picture wanted privacy, they should make their complaint to “Shooter Kirpachi”, the “Cheerleader” who put it on-line; (2) One of those two women is in fact a “Cheerleader” friend of Flowers – that means she identifies with the harassment against Tim Ireland; (3) Flowers decided to run a campaign of harassment – he can’t now complain that a torchlight is being shone in his direction, and that this might also mean publicity for the various friends and associates he has co-opted into his gang of bullies; (4) given that Marsh’s comment contains the lie – derived from Dominic Wightman and publicised by the “Cheerleaders” – that I share information with extremists (see here), talk about “reprisals” caused by my “misinformation” and “disgusting assertions” is utterly hollow.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Flowers and his friends have conducted a campaign of harassment against an innocent man – indeed, it’s still on-going. That’s the simple fact that has set all this in train. All the bluster and indignation about my supposed faults (either real or imagined) is no more than a smokescreen for those who don’t wish to talk about that – and would rather no-one else did either.

UPDATE: “Shooter Kirpachi” sounds off – not here, but on Facebook. For some reason the goading banter she used to indulge in has slipped away; all that’s left is some slightly desperate-looking coarse abuse:

Such bravery behind a fake name.

47 Responses

  1. *a – hem* …a campaign of harrasment is it ? !

    *shurely* Mr. B that is exactly what you are doing here – allbeit in a self-delusory and paranoid way…

    It’s really easy to accuse certain people of doing ALL sorts of stuff from behind your keyboard, making all manner of insulting and spurious claims…

    You, Sir – I would contend, are mearly a dealer in mis and disinformation designed entierly to add weight and credance to your own intricate pattern of paranoid conspiracy theories, thereby strengthening your own conviction that you have uncovered some ‘great truth’ about which The World needs to be informed.

    The more I read of your blatant waffle – the more I am convinced that, joking aside – you really SHOULD seek help… as if you aren’t already at the bacofoil hat stage, you certainly soon shall be.

    I wholeheartedly realise you are convinced – in that peculiar evangelical way that Creationists are – of your assertions… and it seems a shame, as you most obviously have a talent for copying and pasting, that you COULD be doing some good in the world and actually uncovering ‘real’ stories… but even if you did manage to sort out your mental health issues – I doubt you’d ever be much of a Paul Foot…

    Your writing style is to introspective and self-reverential – and, of course, you apply no journolistic rigour whatsoever.

    So, I know that nothing I might say shall convince you that your crusade against those that slieghted your (probably one and only) chum Tim, is not only unutterably unfounded – so far off the mark is it, as to become ever more preposterous with each and every subsequent posting, but also will, eventually, see you inviting all the scorn and ridicule that it deserves.

    Really – you should stop now… you are making yourself look like a very, very silly little man.

    Go on. Do yourself a favour.

    • “So, I know that nothing I might say shall convince you that your crusade against those that slieghted your (probably one and only) chum Tim, is not only unutterably unfounded “

      But what have you said? You provide some rambling abuse, go on about how Flowers is “charming”, and studiously avoid saying anything about the attacks on Tim Ireland.

      Just answer this: Would you find it funny to be on the receiving end of a campaign of harassment ? To receive the message “machete to your throat”? To have to consider moving home to protect your family after your address has been maliciously publicised? Well, would you?

  2. “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”

    springs to mind here. These Cheerleader characters are objecting so elaborately and insistently as to lose any doubtful credibility they might have ever possessed.

  3. We’ve had “Tim deserved it”. Then it was “it was just a joke, move on”. Then “leave it or they’ll mess you up”. Now it’s “oh, you’re nuts”.

  4. So I ran into “Charlie Flowers” today and asked him why he was stalking Tim Ireland.

    Here is some hilarious stuff that came out.

    CF claims Tim Ireland was harassing me at one point! When I pointed out this wasn’t the case at all, he just flustered and tried to pretend he had a story straight on the issue

    He also claims he’s not a “vigilante” because “they uphold the law”. In other words he fully admits he’s not doing it lawfully.

    Thirdly, he claimed he was doing it on behalf on Nadine Dorries and had informed her and Paul Staines and Iain Dale about it.

    • Looks like Flowers is keen to raise his profile in various “activist” groups, but annoyingly that business of harassing Tim Ireland just won’t go away.

      As if Flowers could care less about Dorries, Staines, and Dale. He did it because he didn’t like us getting to the bottom of the business with Dominic Wightman. This man insists that it’s all unfair unless we meet him in person to hear his rationalisation for stalking Tim, but at the same time he comes out with stuff like that.

      • Wightman did this when he was caught uploading that fake interview with Jenvey that smeared half a dozen people (that he tried to blame on one of his targets at the time); he repeatedly pushed for a personal meeting and refused to explain his position via email. It seemed as if he expected to get by on charm alone, but it’s more likely that he wished to misrepresent the detail/outcome of any resulting meeting as he has done so often (to you, me and others) in the past.

    • Well, that shone some light in a couple of the darker corners, didn’t it? Thanks, Sunny.

      I wonder who else Matyi has been sharing his absurd claims with privately/IRL. (He’s generally shied away from publishing specifics online, for reasons that should be obvious.)

    • Now there you go again Mr Hundal, that’s not what I heard from the other Huriayns who were there that day. Apparently you scurried from the building with Charlie shouting “let’s make it formal!” at your retreating back.
      Which brings me to my point:
      It says on your Wikipedia entry that you are a journalist.
      May I asked where you trained, what qualifications you attained, and which print publications you have worked on?

      Yours
      Baz

  5. Abuse?

    …please, pray tell Mr. B – just where is the ‘abuse’?

    • Thank you, I see you’ve declined to answer my questions. That tells me all I need to know about you.

      • Simply, I have put my own address – and my ‘phone number on the internet as part of my business activities – and yes…. it is true to say that I have had my fair share of ‘haters’ over the years…. but on the subject of people harrasing me over the internet on forums and blogs and the like, well…. yes – I do find that somewhat amusing!

        Though on the more serious subject of someone threatening to put a machete to my throat – which has never actually happened…. but theoretically, if it did…. i’d simply say: “Bring it on…”

        I may not be particularly big – and though no oil painting, I’m also niether what might be described as ugly – but I can – and have, looked after myself and my family… and if anyone threatened me in such a way – i would INSIST that they came and made thier assertions to my face.

        I, you see, am NOT a coward when it comes down to it.

        Answered ?

      • Not a coward but not brave enough to put your name to your comments?

  6. Where to begin? Flustering? Don’t make me laugh bedroom bloggers. Here I am. You bloody well know that it all stems from a mass of people tiring of Ireland’s stalking shit. Sooner or later, this was going to happen.
    Here’s a test: deny to me that Ireland is a bullying stalker. Go on, I’m here all week.

    PS Sunny, Richard etc: we’re here now and we’re not going away. May as well get used to it darlings.

    • Tim has spats with public figures who can look after themselves. He doesn’t send threats of violence. He doesn’t publicise people’s home addresses in a bid to make them leave the country. You did all those – and makes you the stalker.

    • I think you’ll find, Mr Flowers, that the onus is on you to prove what you claim, not for me or anyone else to disprove it. Why don’t you start by telling us more about the list of people you claim to have contacted (Iain Dale, Nadine Dorries and Paul Staines) and how/why they support your attacking me on their behalf?

      If you could also inform me how many people you have made these allegations to directly or in person (yes, including your allegation that I have stalked Sunny Hundal), it would be appreciated. Obviously, you’re not ashamed of any of your actions, so you’ll hve no problems telling us all about it, perhaps under your real name for once.

  7. Oooh this is good! (pulls up chair and gets popcorn in)
    xXx

    go on the Hur al-Ayn

    • And the same to you as I wrote above. Why don’t you give your real name if you’re so sure you’re in the right?

  8. So, “Infamous T”, you think the threats against Tim are “amusing”, and you wouldn’t mind if the same thing happened to you. Fair enough.

    Flowers and Shooter get off on making threats, you get off on being friends with them. Whether you’re an “oil painting” or not, that makes you pretty ugly and sick on the inside.

    • I think anyone that takes any threat from anyone online seriously is amusing…. the kind of threats that I don’t find amusing are those that I have encountered on the streets…

      You remember – the REAL world?

      And as for ‘hiding’ behind a pseudonym, well…. I’ve been using infamousT as an online Monicer for 10 years or more now…

      …even the most inept internet user with only the most cursory of searches would be able to find out my name, address, telephone number, business listing… etc… etc…

      ….and the fact that you think I’m ‘ugly and sick on the inside’ is utterly laughable, I’m afraid.

      If you want to know me, Give me a bell, ok?

      07727 107502

      …perhaps we can do some work together! ;)

      • Why would I want to “know” you? You think cyber-bullying is “amusing”, I don’t – and I think those who do it ought to be called out. End of story.

  9. Mr Bartholomew you sound like a complete tosser…….. go and get a life……

  10. To the neutral eye looking in on this sorry tale, the ‘tossers’ are those who issue threats under pseudonyms and refuse to post their answers to simple questions, preferring to evade the issue by demanding face-to-face meetings, which anyone in their right mind, would politely decline!

  11. Noone has to answer your questions, just because you start posting nonsense about them on your blog. You have to earn the right to be listened and responded to. That’s just how people work. I would say they are being very kind by attempting to answer you. Particularly considering Ireland’s reputation for beginning paranoid onslaughts at people just trying to get on with their life, who are later shown to be able to handle all the rubbish he throws at them. Yes I know he starts spats with public figures, and normally, I am sad to say, it ends up making him look like a paranoid idiot. (I don’t think he is actually an idiot… and usually only really paranoid till he takes a step back and allows himself to be more critical… but he comes across that way) Ergo, when future things are published by him, it becomes a bit like the boy who cried wolf. Perhaps a rethink of strategy is in order.

    I do know that Tim Ireland tends to approach people who disagree publicly with one of his targets. I suspect if they don’t join him, he then concludes they must be part of the conspiracy. But this could be what someone might have percieved as stalking- even though well intended on his behalf.

    I find it a shame, and to some extent a pointless waste of time. I know at least two of the people he has attacked to be decent and fair people, trying to get on with their lives, who generally just don’t need the hassle. They choose to respond sometimes just to try to quiet the onslaught, as clearly Tim gets really wound up sometimes and doesn’t realise when he has gone too far.

    Evidently now he has someone similarly paranoid on his side, so you can both wind each other up to think everyone is out to get you. Not everyone in the world is a hero or a villain, it just doesn’t work that way.

    It’s worth realising too, that where there have already been proven to be a number of errors in some of your assertations… this adds to the general perception that you guys are not to be taken seriously. Whilst I fully applaud good investigative journalism, and holding people up to account, and such honourable things, I think you would come across as more authoritative and capable if you spent more time confirming facts before you blog. Perhaps leave an article overnight, sleep on it, look at it with fresh eyes in the morning, and see whether you think what is written makes you come across as a sensible person with a good point to make, or a paranoid loon. Edit, improve, check the details before you press the big tempting “publish” button that glitters before you whenever you feel pissed off. Just a thought.

    The reason I’m using a psuedonim is because I have not named the people I know who have had to deal with this nonsense before, and its not my place to. If I use my name, they might get dragged into this, and it wouldn’t be fair for me to do that, without consulting with them first.

    Anyway… the other thing I will say is… come and see the Fighting Cocks live sometime. They play a great gig, and it’s well worth it. I first met Charlie after a gig where they were supporting a band I knew, and was immediately taken with them. Not only are they tight musically, with loud guitars and great samples, but they have manga girls with pom poms! It’s awesome!

    • You claim your case is supported by evidence that you can’t show us because of what you say the unseen evidence proves.

      You refuse to put your name to this unsupported assertion for the same reason.

      Hilarious. But even going by your vague references I can deny treating anyone in the way you describe.

    • A few months ago it was all mocking jibes from “Cheerleaders” about how the police don’t know who they are and how they’ll force Tim to leave the country. Now it’s earnest appeals as to why I “shouldn’t be taken seriously” for calling Flowers and his friends out on their behaviour. Once again: evasions from people who are old enough to know better.

      Fact: Flowers and his friends set about maliciously revealing Tim’s home address in the hope he would be forced to flee the country. They also sent threats of violence. It’s not up to me to show why that not justified, and Tim has not engaged in anything like this.

      Also: Around the same time this all began, a blog was created in Wightman’s name and made to look as though it had been hacked by a “Cheerleader” cowering behind the fake name “Shooter Hadchiti”. This same “Shooter” also sent me a message with a silly story about how she had hacked Wightman’s computer in order to send a list of abusive questions to Tim. Why did she send me such a message?

      Sure, laugh it off as a “joke” if you want. Assert that responding to harassment is “paranoid”. Milk the fact that I misidentified someone in a photograph as a justification for why you can safely ignore any challenge to Flowers’ behaviour that I make. Go on about how it’s not fair that I haven’t met Flowers to hear an explanation which he refuses to make public himself. Anything to trivialise what’s been going on, and to avoid talking about the ugliness of it.

      I’m sure people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.

    • Well, hopefully they’re better live than the shite promo CD I was handed a few years ago.

      And please, no more of the bollocks about Tim being the stalker. Standing shoulder to shoulder with people like Staines, Dale and Dorries does not necessarily put you in the heroic A-team does it.?

      Penny dropping yet?

      You know that Mitchell And Webb sketch, when they’re dressed in SS uniforms and Mitchell questions whether they’re on the side of the goodies or – noting the skull and crossbones on their insignia – the baddies?

      That’s you that is… that’s you, your spunk-fwapping-muppet mates and, at a wild guess, your mum.

      Now piss off back to whatever grammar school you got chucked out of and go argue with a volcano.

      • Strong words, Carl, and I can arrange a meet with them if you are available. I think Moonchild would object strongly to being sworn at online and will let you know in no uncertain terms.

        Baz

      • “Carl Eve” this made me LOL :) Reminded me of Family Guy style ranting (which is a good thing :p)

        OK, Barry G, whoever you actually are… Yes, I do object to being sworn at online and I did in actuality bring that up with “Carl Eve” myself, as I happen to be a strong minded young lady who knows just how to stand up for myself (especially in writing).

        I also object to people I have never met including my name in reply to someone on a blog that I’ve only now just read… I’ve never even met you…But somehow you find it OK to make assumptions about my reaction to others? I’m not impressed in the slightest…

  12. I dont think a lot of the Cheerleaders and their friends get it. If you have a problem with Ireland, deal with him. It is the fact that his family, who have nothing to do with this, were dragged into this and their safety put in jeopardy that Richard is trying to find out who is doing what and why. Surely the Cheerleaders do not agree with an innocent family being targeted by violent people just because they dont agree with what Ireland said or did?

  13. any accusations of insanity and paranoid delusions about the cheerleaders should be ignored, facebook agitater Bill Baker ,cheerleeders, titus, and co are totaly true .Ive witnessed these mugs using multi facebook profiles to both act as moderate secular multi faith campaigners and rightwing and EDL organisers who organise merchandaise and transport for edl, while claiming to be anti racist ,and constantly making accusations against those on facebook groups who recognise the deception including peadophile accusations ,their courting of the media is also well known and publishing of adresses common place. Charlie ,and Baker also have a habit of offering bareknuckle fights in canvey, political agitators definatley as the musslim choas in harrow last summer was as a direct result of baker and edl, but strangeley they claim to have met the cheerleaders there, who have a member in the local community and also birmingham where they courted publicity for councillor salma yaqoob and the uaf. Top dollar to you manic ,respect these scumbags need outing as social cohesion is way off the agenda and just a convenient smoke screen

  14. […] Posts Friends of the "Cheerleaders" Wade in with EvasionsAustralian Psychologist who Promoted Satanic Panic BannedEnglish Defence League Faction Meets with […]

  15. Back I get pulled, to this spiral of claim and counter-claim. Can I just point out that
    a) The Cheerleaders, of both TFC and Hur al-Ayn varieties, and no Richard you were never rigorous enough to make that distinction, have moved on to hunting even nastier people than Ireland, namely Choudhary and the big kahuna behind him that keeps him out of prison;
    b) just for the record please so it may be recorded:

    Richard Bartholomew and co.:

    – Do you deny Tim Ireland is a bully?

    – Do you deny Tim Ireland has mental problems?

    – Do you deny Tim Ireland harrassed, stalked and sent death threats to a woman MP?

    I await your replies here,
    in faith
    Baz

    • Funny how people who keep telling me I’m so unimportant feel the need to keep coming back to repeat the same thing over and over.

      The Cheerleaders, of both TFC and Hur al-Ayn varieties, and no Richard you were never rigorous enough to make that distinction

      You deliberately obscure that distinction – both on-line and in emails that have been sent to me. Don’t hide in the shadows behind a bunch of fake names and then whine when someone makes the best of the information trail you leave.

      …have moved on to hunting even nastier people than Ireland, namely Choudhary and the big kahuna behind him that keeps him out of prison

      So pranks against Choudhary (and that’s about all you’re good for) mean that we should overlook Flowers’ previous behaviour. Why?

      Do you deny Tim Ireland is a bully?

      Yes. He pushes his point vigorously when he’s arguing with someone, but he’s never made a threat of violence, and he’s never put someone’s personal details on-line in attempt to make them shut up through fear for their families. That’s bullying.

      Do you deny Tim Ireland has mental problems?

      Yes, although I see Flowers describes himself on Facebook as “complete bastard; borderline psychotic; mildly bipolar”. That seems to fit the bill. And his friends seem to have the mental attributes of a spiteful fourteen year old.

      Do you deny Tim Ireland harrassed, stalked and sent death threats to a woman MP?

      Yes. And you’ve just committed libel. And even if he had, it would be a matter for the police, not for some sicko gang of vigilantes on a power-trip.

      Stop looking for excuses. Flowers and his friends honed in on Tim because they get a thrill out of bullying someone (and perhaps because they wanted to support Wightman for some reason). It makes them feel big, just as playing pranks on Choudhary makes them feel important.

      Whatever Tim’s supposed failings, real or imagined, nothing changes the fact that Flowers and his friends have behaved in a way that has been ugly, illegal, and ought to be called out. Sure, you want to move on to new things now you’re hanging out with the BMSD and such, but until there’s been a proper accounting Flowers is going to keep on having awkward encounters with people like Sunny Hundal.

      (Oh, and PS: I see you’ve changed IP, but it’s still one that I’ve only ever had before from “Cheerleaders”. Stop hiding, stand by your words with your real name. Or is that more difficult than striking tough guy poses?)

      • Richard- so I’ve committed libel? Go ahead and sue me. Please.
        The following next 48 hours should be interesting, as I now have your refutations in writing of my above questions.
        You have denied Tim Ireland stalks or harrasses. How would you describe 40 voicemails to one person in the space of one day?
        Furthermore; can you explain Ireland’s reasoning behind serial posting of death scenes from a horror film to a woman’s website? If that were your wife’s website and she had received material such as that, what would you infer?
        I await your replies with interest.

        TTFN
        Baz

      • Barry G I await your replies with interest.

        Can’t think why. I mean, nobody reads my blog, everyone thinks I’m sad, etc. etc. Yet you just have to keep coming back. But how come I get these attempts at gentle persuasion while Tim gets the same old abuse from your friends?

        How would you describe 40 voicemails to one person in the space of one day?

        40 voicemails to Iain Dale to try and get a response on a matter of urgency. We all know there’s bad blood between Dale and Tim – but Dale’s big enough to look after himself, why should you give a toss? And he didn’t post Dale’s personal details online or threaten violence. That’s what Flowers and his friends did, and that crosses the line.

        can you explain Ireland’s reasoning behind serial posting of death scenes from a horror film to a woman’s website?

        Tell the full story. Nadine Dorries posted a tweet about sitting in a churchyard, so Tim posted a counter-tweet from the churchyard scene from The Omen. You know damn well that that was hardly a “death threat”. If it had been any kind of threat against an MP, don’t you think the police might have taken an interest?

        On both points, you’re clutching at straws.

        But here are the questions you’ve been refusing to answer:

        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 “Shooter” 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, “Shooter” suddenly sent me a message claiming that she 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?)

        3. Why did the campaign against Tim begin at the same time as his exposure of Wightman?

        4. Why are your justifications about Dale and Dorries the same as the talking-points provided by Wightman?

        Let’s face it. Flowers and his friends have broken the law with an ugly and reckless campaign that was unwarranted. You want us to believe that they honed in on Tim because they felt he was being harsh on some high-profile Conservative figures, even though there’s no reason why Flowers should have been particularly interested – and certainly not to the extent of crossing the line he and his friends way they did. These are excuses, not the real reason.

        You want us to suppose that Flowers just happened to unleash his campaign at the same moment when, by coincidence, Wightman decided to respond to the exposure of his lies by spinning it all as a politically-motivated spat – again, by invoking Dale et al. We’re also to believe that the “Cheerleaders” suddenly turned against Wightman at the same moment – for absolutely no reason and despite the fact that Flowers had been his errand boy in the past (sending him off to interview Jenvey undercover etc).

        Come off it.

  16. great reply to another of the cyber bully chearleader associates, and to be able to form alliances with people sad enough to believe that by harrassing people on the net is socialy acceptable and forgivable as long as they attend a few demos with liberal muslim placards and shout at choudray. If they were so keen to stop this man why did they remain in londons piccadilly area with march for england and English democrats when they knew choudray had changed his intended public rant to another area of London, seems hey only seek Choudray for publicity and for attracting support of well meaning people, why else act as an unofficial PR team for the man, and publicising his movements in order for press and demonstrators to attend, social cohesion, they are having a laugh ,and far more likely to cause a riot that stop one.

  17. “Belcka” I suspect that you are an Islamist, and embarrassed that a girl gang and some football hooligans scared your friends away from central London that day.
    Richard Bartholomew: knowing Charlie and co. like I do, I suspect that anyone trying mock-reportage on them at future events, will themselves be in for an “uncomfortable” time. They are intelligent people and they have done their homework in the last fortnight.

    TTFN
    Baz

  18. more islamaphobia pmsl

  19. […] Dorries seems happy to be seen to have someone making threats of violence against people for her, or so it seems by her silence on the subject. This is position that Nadine is putting herself in […]

  20. Hi Baz,
    Come on down. I’m in Plymouth and would welcome the visit, assuming the grammar-school-mobile can carry them and their PR agents.
    But I’m frequently back up to the homeland of south Essex. Let me know when the meet is and I’ll bring some of my friends too. And I must say, in my job, I’ve made some very interesting mates over the years…

    By the way Moonchild, you didn’t become the object of my ire, not really sure what Baz was getting at there – it was quite clearly aimed at “The Voice of Reason” who remarked about the Fighting Cocks.
    Apologies if you seemed to think it was aimed at you – as I’d not seen your name on the comment list up to then, I’m not really sure where he got that idea from. Clearly Baz was more upset than you were. Funny that… I wasn’t aiming it at him either!
    Anyway, not sure what you meant Moonchild as you did not contact me at any stage over the past month to take it up with me. Unless you’re someone else who I know, but don’t know your comment name…
    The quote marks are unnecessary – that is my real name.

  21. pots n kettles on the hypocrite Barth front i see LOL

    just read this update and had to laugh. i followed your antics a while back Barth. despite your pleas that you ain’t colluding with Islamist groups this virtually identical article ended up on a fundamentalist group’s website within days of this one.

    http://www.mpacuk.org/story/250210/cheerleaders-exposed-part-2-connecting-dots.html

    so Barth collaborates with radicals at MPAC UK then.

    found it funny how you reckon the united kingdom independence party are a right fringe group. last time i heard they were the fourth biggest party in the country and came second in European elections. who really gives a shit if you don’t like them.

    saw the picture you posted a few months ago and to me if looked like a buncha people on a drinkin session. no criminal activity taking place there for fatfighter Barth to be exposing. regardless of who posted what where it’s a private photograph and the data protection act says you can’t use it without permission. did you ask for permission by the way? then we learn that half the people in the photo you weren’t even sure about identity-wise and you didn’t even redact ’em before posting. ain’t nobody else to blame but yourself for that. your wording makes it look as though something untoward was going down but there clearly weren’t. who knows why people choose the friends they do but it ain’t up to you to judge em or put them at risk.

    you are the bully here Barth. your probs with Flowers are public knowledge but vilifying people who you don’t know just because they have met Flowers is out of order. not seen you posting any evidence of these people attacking you. all they’ve done is object to you dragging them into your grievance and writing about them for no reason on your website. seems fair enough as they could end up becoming targets by association cos of a photo you stole and you inferring in yer article that they are involved in something they ain’t. there are laws against that too yunno.

    sort it with Flowers. if you really are running from him then it ain’t good. it’s a kinda pathetic thing for a grown man to be doing. if you had any morals at all you’d also delete the names and accusations you’ve made about people you’ve admitted you don’t even know.

    • who really gives a shit if you don’t like them

      Heh, looks like you do. And you forgot to write “em” rather than “them” there.

  22. […] you would’ve thought she would be just as worried about who is claiming to be doing things in her name as who she is claimed to be working with, […]

  23. […] Andreassen came to wider press attention in July following the Utoya massacre: she stated that Anders Breivik had formerly been associated with the NDL (which means no more than that he was a forum member), but that she had expelled him on becoming leader because he was “too extreme”. It’s not clear when she herself stepped down from leading the NDL, although a rally she organised in April attracted only a handful of participants (including Darren Lee from the UK – as Darren Marsh, he has commented on my blog here). […]

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.