PACK GASLIGHTING: 21st CENTURY STALKING By S C A PRIVATE REPORT ON THE BRITISH STALKERS TIMOTHY IRELAND, RICHARD BARTHOLOMEW, SUSAN CULLEN & ASSOCIATES Stockholm, March 2017 (To be read on a 130% screen setting) 1 Contents Introduction pp 3-7 The Stalker Perpetrators & Their Motivations pp 8-10 Background pp 11-17 An Ongoing & Persistent Fixation: The Statistics pp 18-19 The Many Faces of Susan Cullen pp 20-32 Gang pp 33-34 The Blogs pp 35-37 Obfuscation pp 38-41 The Multiple Victims: A Timeline p 42 The Victims’ Claims: General Outline & Timeline pp 43-47 Nadine Dorries MP- Detailed Victim Case Study 1 pp 48-63 Caroline Farrow – Detailed Victim Case Study 2 pp 64-67 Forced Changes in Victims’ Behaviour pp 68-71 The Stalkers’ Strategy & Motives pp 72-95 Richard Bartholomew pp 96-102 Sock Puppets pp 103-119 Use of other Twitter Impersonation Accounts pp 120-126 Use of Other Media pp 127-129 Stalker Overview Diagram p 130 Recommended Police Actions pp 131-133 What Others Think pp 134-137 My Conclusions pp 138-140 Addendum pp 140-142 2 Introduction For those not familiar with “Gaslighting” the term originates from a 1938 stage play by Patrick Hamilton, Gas Light,1 in which a husband slowly manipulates his wife into thinking that she is going insane, including dimming the lights (powered at that time by gas) in their home, and then denies that the lights changed when his wife points this out. It is an extremely effective form of emotional abuse which causes a victim to question their own feelings, instincts, and sanity, which gives the abuser a lot of power (and we know that abuse is about power and control). For those interested in researching the subject further, I would particularly recommend Dr Robin Stern’s book “The Gaslight Effect.”2 In my 30 years as a policeman, working for the Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza in Rome, and as a forensic psychologist, I must honestly testify that I have never come across such a pitiless or complex case of Gaslighting as that manifested by Timothy Ireland, Richard Bartholomew, Susan Cullen and their close associates. That their psychological torture of victims generally takes place on social media, and in some cases has continued unabated for more than a decade, makes it a form of psychological torture which many others bear witness to, and potentially feed off as well. The perpetrators have no boundaries and operate illegally. These stalkers go all out to try and bring about the downfall of their targets, are unremitting with their attacks, and are prepared to attack them relentlessly and repeatedly over long periods of time. Another feature of their campaign of hate is that they are unable and or unwilling to listen to any attempts to persuade them to moderate or limit their criminal behaviour. An example of this resistance can be found on Twitter during an exchange between Zac Goldsmith, a member of Parliament and prospective Mayor of London, and the former Daily Star journalist Richard Peppiatt. Mr Goldsmith very accurately reflects how UK anti-stalking legislation is obviously not helping victims in the UK, and also Mr Ireland’s inability to moderate himself as regards his decade-long Gaslighting of Nadine Dorries MP. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslight_(1944_film) 2 http://www.robinstern.com/books/the-gaslight-effect/ 3 Mr Ireland’s contemptuous response to Mr Goldsmith’s very reasoned comments sums up the resistance many stalkers feel to any sort of change in their addictive, anti-social behaviour: Note, Ireland’s main co-stalker Richard Bartholomew immediately backs Ireland up: Denial. And the victims are accused of even bigger crimes, or are role-reversed into being the perpetrator, in order to justify the continued Gaslighting. So, for example, Dorries here is “a discredited liar” and it is she who is ruining Mr Ireland’s life, not the other way around. Mr Ireland significantly deleted his own tweets in this exchange, but even without them there is the same sense of refusing to alter his position, even for his own mental benefit: 4 This kind of persistent stalking delinquency takes intelligence and web aptitude, which most perpetrators simply do not possess and which most victims cannot match. It is a power- grabbing, attention-seeking exercise and a life-robbing one – taking the apparently more fruitful lives of victims in place of the stalkers’ failing ones. The stalkers enjoy the chase – avoiding, escaping from and bating the police in a merry dance of quasi-criminality and crime. In the UK this kind of behaviour is not governed by any blogger legislation or charter and instead comes under the lumbering Protection Against Harassment Act (1997)3 and later amended to include Cyber Bullying; the Malicious Communications Act (1988)4; the Communications Act (2003)5; Obscene Publications Act (1959); and the Computer Misuse Act (1990). Unfortunately, in the UK few resources are devoted to the more recent phenomenon of online harassment, with one article revealing that only a third of police officers had been properly trained to deal with it. UK legislation is obviously way behind this kind of pack, calculated, co-ordinated and tech-erudite crime, (as is the case in many countries today). I do find it most extraordinary that English laws have not yet caught up with this kind of observable crime, which admittedly could only have happened in the Internet age, but which, surely, was anticipatable by police and prosecution authorities after its first manifestations. At least three victims have several incident and criminal numbers logged with the UK Police. Yes, Bartholomew has received a police PIN for harassment (2014) and yes, Ireland has been detained under caution by police more than once (at one point for 5 hours) but still these criminal perpetrators have continued their harassment of multiple victims even sometimes on the same days of their police interviews. 3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997 4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27 5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21 5 I am simultaneously left scratching my head as to how grown adults find the time for this persistent stalking and invidious harassment. The evidence I have found has taken thousands of man hours for the stalkers to amass. One perpetrator sent over 1500 tweets on one day. Why at least do the victims not have Civil Restraining Orders against the main perpetrators under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997? I have no doubt that from this group of perpetrators some will eventually turn to violence as they have already crossed the precipice into physical harassment by physically confronting (more than once) some victims. That this crime – rather, a series of crimes – has been enacted predominantly against persons not in positions of key power is fortunate for the British state as the potential for these manipulative, dare I say evil, perpetrators to cause damage at a national or international level is not insignificant. There are MP victims here; some of whom are Government ministers; yet the brunt of these attacks are suffered by non-MPs or non-Minister MP’s. Could not a Government whip like victim Anne Milton, for example, be worn down and blackmailed for a particular purpose by these perpetrators? (I am most certain the stalkers hack their victims). How Ireland and Bartholomew have hidden behind “politicking” and then used “anti- corruption” and “exposing the truth” as false shields against totally innocent victims (most of whom are not politicians) I find both brazen and breath-taking. They hide in plain sight. These fear-generating crimes are nothing whatsoever to do with politics; they are more associated with terrorism. They have deep underlying and unhealthy causes. The psychological harm and disruption these stalkers have caused along with their associates, as well as costs (in terms of police time, court time, lost reputation and lost business to victims as well as financial costs to victims in having to change their behaviours) are outrageous. I shall attempt in this paper to summarize as best I can the background, nature, evidence and solutions relating to this ongoing gas-lighting. I write this paper in the hope that English laws will be altered to prevent similar wrongs happening in future (for example, including SEO as a stalker tool in statutes); also to highlight evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service may consider, either stand alone or en masse, as sufficient for a series of immediate and essential prosecutions. I sincerely hope that this paper helps the authorities in Britain to close down this organised stalking gang before the result of their actions is violence; for I have no doubt whatsoever that this is precisely where this ongoing avalanche is heading. I genuinely expect escalation and, as the tide turns against the perpetrators, as Ireland and Bartholomew increasingly recognise they are not what they believe they are, I suspect they will be forced eventually to turn to violence rather than face the uncomfortable truth of their crimes. In many ways the victims of this crime are facing head on a terrorist gang with an impressive array of skills lined against them (Ireland is a search engine optimiser, Bartholomew a librarian and source-digger, McAndrew a computer memory expert and coder, Fenton a retired computer technician with time to tweet and write 24/7 alongside gullible, manipulated foot soldiers Cullen, Haslam and others). It is a gang circumspect enough to cover tracks, even set up attack blogs against themselves to pretend they are the victims and to justify “retaliation”. It is a gang that desires to be feared – a group of sociopathic and malicious misfits. 6 A dumb gang would threaten directly. This gang knows the law. Indirect threats, menacing undertones and anonymous sock-puppets across several counties over many years – this is how this gang prefers to operate. Sinister, ominous, creepy and threatening, it cannot be allowed to continue thus. It is just fortunate that the gang has left a trail of mistakes – evidence found particularly on Twitter - with which it shall now be hoisted by its own petard. Stalker Richard Bartholomew receives a PIN harassment warning from Thames Valley Police in 2014. Note how he brushes it off and is in denial. Also note his words, “nothing to do with Dorries”. He lets slip here that while he has been in a war of words with Rice (which clearly the police consider worthy of a PIN) he has been harassing Nadine Dorries but he’s not been caught yet. 7 The Stalker Perpetrators & Their Motivations Here below, after over one hundred hours of investigating the weblog, Twitter and other hard evidence related to them, I have listed the perpetrators’ online arenas, careers, closeness to the stalking and anti-social behaviour (strata 1 is closest, strata 3 is furthest away) and I have also given a brief list of the key historical factors and psychological motivators behind each perpetrator as delivered to me by sources. What became clear to me is how Ireland, and to a lesser degree Bartholomew, have manipulated others to join their criminal gang. Whilst Ireland and Bartholomew have a daily fixation on stalking targets (as does Sue Cullen) there are others like Mark McAndrew and Tim Fenton who are keen to join in during peaks in stalking activity while more distant perpetrators are sometimes used for particular attacks, such as Michael Haslam, Sandra LFC and Unity MOT. Timothy Ireland Career: Unemployed. Former Search Engine Optimiser Related Websites: Bloggerheads Blog, Wibbler Blog Related Twitter IDs: @bloggerheads @nadine_dorries Strata Level: 1 Psychological Motivators: Folie à deux, hostile sociopathy, narcissistic personality disorder, anti- social behaviour, self-destructive behaviour, depression Key factors in background: Not accepted by father-in-law; consequent aggression towards Tories; bitterness towards more successful bloggers; failed marriage; loss of £150k to Nadine Dorries MP & the Conservative Party. Asked to seek professional help for mental illness. Richard Bartholomew Career: Self-employed book indexer Related Websites: Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion Blog Related Twitter IDs: @barthsnotes Strata Level: 1 Psychological Motivators: Folie à deux, Bitterness, Success-checking, Machiavellianism Key factors in background: Only child; mother a writer; molly-coddled; physical defections leading to success-checking in others; extreme left political ideology (socialist worker party) 8 Sue Cullen Career: Café manager Related Websites: mshumphreycushion.wordpress.com, Cuntychopalops Related Twitter IDs: @humphreycushion @nadine_dorries Strata Level: 1 Psychological Motivators: Victim of Manipulation, Depression, Sex, Vindictiveness Key factors in background: series of failed relationships; failed move abroad to Spain; divorce; victim of arthritis; Liverpool-born so very bitter towards Dorries, the Liverpool success story; hates Tories. Tim (Paul) Fenton Career: Retired (Full time blogger) Related Websites: Zelo Street Blog Related Twitter IDs: @zelo_street Strata Level: 2 Psychological Motivators: Loneliness, Depression, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Mark McAndrew Career: Self Employed at the Charity Engine Related Websites: Charity Engine Related Twitter IDs: @markmcan Strata Level: 2 Psychological Motivators: Narcissistic personality disorder, Low self-esteem. 9 Michael Haslam Career: Part time musician, Church organist Related Websites: None Related Twitter IDs: @mrhazzers Strata Level: 3 Psychological Motivators: Loneliness; depression. Sandra LFC Career: unemployed Related Websites: None Related Twitter IDs: @LFCSandra Strata Level: 3 Psychological Motivators: Unknown, from Dorries’ constituency Unity MOT (Dave Lambert) Career: Employed (Unknown) Related Websites: Ministry of Truth Related Twitter IDs: @Unity_MoT Strata Level: 3 Psychological Motivators: Loneliness; extreme Left wing ideology. 10 Background Timothy Ireland & Richard Bartholomew became bloggers not long after the Internet was born. Ireland’s website Bloggerheads dates from the end of the last century while Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion dates from 2004. Ireland first colluded with Bartholomew during the Tony Blair years. Ireland was engrossed by Conservative MP Tim Yeo, who he admitted openly he stalked. Ireland then focused on bloggers Paul Staines (Guido Fawkes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82b-y87joso (so intensely that Staines had a breakdown) and Iain Dale, who were taking more success and plaudits than he was in spite of all three of them being some of the first UK political bloggers. Ireland’s home was in Bramley, Surrey, which is a Tory heartland. His wife – the daughter of a rich successful Tory (listed in Debrett’s Peerage) – was from Bramley and had met Ireland in his native Australia during a gap year. While they lived in a small home in a former council estate, his parents in law lived down the street in an expensive lane. (They assisted Ireland and his young family by acquiring the next door house in the same estate so Ireland and his wife could use it as a buy-to-let and have their financial situation ameliorated by the rental income). Ireland had fast developed a hate for Tories and this included his local Conservative MPs Jeremy Hunt and Anne Milton. Ireland began to publish scathing posts on his Bloggerheads website and on a website called Wibbler about them, referring to them as “corrupt” but failing to provide any evidence. This would be his modus operandi for following years to the present day. 11 These posts were mirrored by Bartholomew. The two bloggers were acting in cahoots. Milton, Yeo, then other Tory MPs, including Nadine Dorries, Patrick Mercer, Grant Shapps, Jonathan Lord and Jeremy Hunt would soon be describing Ireland in private as “stalker”, “electronic stalker” and in other such terms. Regrettably, in the summer of 2005, two Tory individuals on Guildford Borough Council (close to Bramley), who were attacked online by Ireland, posted about Ireland being a “paedophile“ & “stalker” in retaliation. These posts fuelled Ireland’s hate of Tories and Bartholomew sent the message far and wide that his friend “Ireland had been smeared as a paedophile by Tories”. Ireland, using the moniker “Manic”, set about bombarding his first victims with phone calls and emails. His “investigations” into “Tory corruption” included visiting Anne Milton’s Surrey flat as well as at least twice confronting Mr Hunt in person at local events. Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HERtiGLHJCs & here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKyfTMhEmmU Here is an example of his bombarding interview style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF2s2MHH0HE (this time of some innocent volunteer pollster outside an election site in Bramley, Surrey). By 2009, Ireland’s hatred was reserved for two main groups of people: Conservatives & fellow bloggers (who were doing better than he was as the Internet became mainstream). Soon a third group would materialise: those who dared stand up to him. In 2009 Bartholomew posted a blog post about Glen Jenvey, the subject of journalist Neil Doyle’s book Terror Tracker. Jenvey spent his days collecting Al Qaeda videos and selling them to the press. (He was a fantasist claiming he worked for the Sri Lankan security services. His house in Wiltshire was bedecked with James Bond gear.) His video collection was part of a BBC Newsnight piece in November 2006, alongside an expose of the Islamist group Hizb ut Tahrir by the group VIGIL, for whom he had donated his video and audio collection. Ireland soon picked up on Jenvey as he was easy, low hanging fruit and the Newsnight piece had linked him to Colonel Patrick Mercer MP. Part of VIGIL and then (Shadow Homeland Security Minister) Mercer’s intelligence adviser, was Dominic Wightman, who was in the Newsnight piece also. Ireland realised that Wightman was from the wealthy Catholic family who lived in the large manor house in the next village, which was used sometimes by local Tories for events. A series of posts then followed targeting Dominic Wightman; some from Ireland and some from Bartholomew. When he saw these posts, Wightman called Ireland and he met with him and Bartholomew at a local pub to attempt to reason with them and have them remove their “inaccurate and 12 slanderous” posts about him. “They refused and continued posting smears”. Wightman soon realised they were after what he represented rather than after him and would never stop. So Wightman retaliated by setting up a website called The Westminster Journal. In a series of articles, he exposed Ireland for who he was and punctured the myth of him being a serious political blogger. Ireland went silent for a while but then reappeared online with more abuse. By 2011 Ireland had another victim who decided to retaliate also. The veteran investigative journalist Dennis Rice (Daily Mail etc.) was attacked by Ireland for allegedly running a Twitter account using a pseudonym. And Rice turned to Wightman’s exposé on Ireland; investigating further to find out that Ireland was mentioned in Debrett’s, that his employer was a firm called Jellyfish SEO whose clients Ireland had been publicly insulting on Twitter and Rice also discovered that Richard Bartholomew was living at his mother’s and rarely worked; that when he did work, it was as a librarian. Rice explained who both his stalkers were and posted a summary online in retaliation for the unwanted harassment from Ireland and Bartholomew. Round about this time – as their once untouchable status was crumbling around them – Ireland started making mistakes. This is particularly exemplified by the Caroline Farrow case (see Caroline Farrow witness statement below pp64-7). Soon after, as other victims started standing up for themselves and calling out Ireland as a stalker, Ireland had some kind of a breakdown. When Rice exposed publicly that Ireland was sending off the uncomplimentary tweets online about Jellyfish clients, Ireland left Jellyfish where he worked as an SEO. Soon afterwards – jobless and ill - his marriage fell apart and he published this video of himself with a fake gun, shaking and clearly unwell - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cWF1_gFIEQ He then went silent online for some 5 months. A photo-shopped profile image Ireland used on Twitter pre-breakdown To the shock and horror of Nadine Dorries, Ireland then moved from Surrey to her area in Bedfordshire. He had left his wife and young family in Bramley after his marriage collapsed. He had moved in with a woman called Sue Cullen (aka Humphrey Cushion), who also had a history of stalking Dorries, particularly with abusive sock-puppet Twitter accounts. 13 In 2015 Ireland then proceeded to stand in the General Election as a candidate against Nadine Dorries. He won just 384 votes but used the elections as a ruse to get near Dorries as well as to allow himself to launch an election petition against Dorries when she easily won the election. The election petition was launched and lost. Ireland was left “crying and shaking” at the High Court with a bill running close to £150,000.00 http://order- order.com/2015/07/30/dorries-stalker-faces-ruin-after-high-court-flop/ Since then, Ireland and Bartholomew have been stewing. Their abuse has continued directly and indirectly. Ireland and Bartholomew know full well the UK police are watching them yet expression of their bitter hatred for their victims (for particularly Nadine Dorries) continues in Tweets, sock-puppet accounts and blog posts. Ireland in particular thinks he is far too clever for the UK police and will never be caught to the point where he openly taunts them. Bartholomew is in denial having received a PIN notice from the UK police in 2015, which he describes as “some kind of terrible error”. Meanwhile the victims continue to suffer as the campaign of abuse continues against them. On the 22nd April 2015 Nadine Dorries MP wrote the following blog post on her blog, which sums up exactly the current situation: National Stalking Awareness Week Posted Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 12:13 Given that it is NSAW, I thought I should try and answer in this blog-post a frequently asked question and to highlight, during this important week, a few aspects of stalking that many fail to comprehend. As this is an election period I am restrained by law. My own stalker has left his family behind in Surrey and moved across three counties to live in my constituency and actively campaign against me. I can only quote the facts, not my opinion, or detail any emotional content or impact. My experience of being stalked by him has already been detailed in the Mail On Sunday, the Beds Times & Citizen and the Telegraph. 14 The question I am asked most often is “Why isn't your stalker in prison?” There are two reasons for this: This article in the Independent on Sunday last weekend helps a little when it comes to explaining the first. Only one percent of all stalking cases are prosecuted. The CPS has called upon all prosecutors to undergo training in implementing the new anti-stalking legislation that was introduced in Dec 2012. For the second reason it is necessary to explain, using facts only, examples of the stalking methods used on me and others. If you read how my stalker behaves and orchestrates others you will immediately see that he is an expert when it comes to avoiding prosecution, often by using others to harass his targets. That is one reason why it is so difficult to obtain a prosecution. Here are ten examples that demonstrate his Modus operandi. 1. A constituent in Mid-Beds once innocently mentioned on Twitter how she had seen me out delivering leaflets in her street. She was immediately targeted by my stalker. He didn't know her but subjected her to cyber-abuse and bullying. If she hadn't been as strong a person as she was he could have seriously frightened and upset her. 2. My stalker bombarded a member of my team with emails of a very personal nature. One alarmed her so much that she forwarded it to her husband, who is a doctor working for the NHS. It was an email in which the stalker revealed he had been “researching her” and he boasted about contacting people she had worked with more than twenty years previously in order to obtain personal information about her. He provided examples of everyday information he had gathered from her distant past. He terrified her. She handed in her notice that day and left. My stalker then wrote a blog stating that she moonlighted in the NHS while working for me, which was not true. The reality is that he had put a tracer on her email that showed him where it had been forwarded to. He saw that it had been opened by an NHS computer and drawn the wrong conclusion. 3. Three years ago, a young Labour Party activist who was at school with my daughter was asked by the girlfriend of my stalker to find out personal information about my daughter from her teachers and friends and to pass it back to her. The woman wanted grades, behaviour, movements and any other information he could extract from conversations with my daughter’s teachers. The young man later left the Labour Party and nine months ago he interned with me briefly in Westminster. I only discovered this information last year and, had I known earlier, the outcome may have been very different. My stalker’s girlfriend had crossed a serious line but the police said the legal time frame of six months in which they could have acted had passed. 4. My stalker also obtained the telephone number of a young BBC researcher working on a television programme I had appeared on. He began to harass her on the phone and on Twitter. I was informed about this by a well-known presenter of the show who was deeply concerned. He asked me for information to help the BBC deal with my stalker and his behaviour towards the young researcher. 15 5. In a parliamentary debate, I mentioned a professor at Bedfordshire University. My stalker then began frequently contacting the professor’s research assistant, who had just had a baby. He repeatedly demanded to see her research work even though he had no reason or right to. The professor rang me from China, where he was presenting a lecture, to voice his concern. 6. The former group editor of the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper had to telephone my stalker and warn him to stop harassing his journalists. My stalker had demanded that the newspaper print stories about me, which he fabricated and dictated to them. When the newspaper editor refused my stalker began harassing the editor. In the words of one of the journalists: ‘These are stories which fall to dust in our hands the moment we investigate. He is fixated with you.’ 7. The LBC broadcaster Iain Dale, who is also a friend of mine, occasionally mentioned me on his very successful blog. My stalker began to cyber-abuse and harass him, followed up with aggressive personal phone calls. This included telephoning him forty times in twenty minutes. The police admit they dropped the ball on that one and, if the legal time limit hadn’t passed, they could have had him in court. 8. Last year I received an email from a constituent informing me that my stalker had moved across the country and was living in a house not far from my own. The email said that my stalker had lost his wife, his family and his home. He had called a meeting in a pub with what were described as “like-minded people” he had met on the internet. One was Richard Bartholomew, a well-known accomplice of my stalker. He presented the meeting with what appeared to be copies of my bank statements, contracts and personal financial transactions. Again, my stalker uses others for the more risky elements of his stalking. The person who sent the email about this wrote: “please confirm receipt of this email so I know you are aware of any potential dangers posed by [the stalker] and can put my own mind at rest for now.” 9. A pregnant journalist re-tweeted a message I had posted on Twitter. She then opened an email my stalker sent her. It contained software that gave him access to her computer. He then he bombarded her with aggressive telephone calls on her mobile phone and read to her emails she had had sent, letting her know that he could see what she was writing on her computer. This terrified her. She begged him to stop because she was pregnant. He told her she was using her baby as a human shield. She went to into premature labour. 10. My stalker turned up at a constituency hustings in 2010 and disrupted the entire meeting, forcing me to leave. I could continue for thousands of words, highlighting one example after another. My stalker does not directly deny all of the above but instead uses his girlfriend to accuse me of “defaming” them both, or uses other tactics to obfuscate reality. My stalker has been investigated for more than a decade by at least four police forces, who have gathered witness statements from scores of people, including victims whose stories I have not included here. Following on from the Mail on Sunday article, I was contacted by a number of his victims. One had been targeted for no other reason that he was a Roman Catholic living in the same village as my stalker. 16 He wrote: ‘When my wife and I read your article in the paper, there were tears running down my wife’s face. This man blighted our life for seven years, for no other reason than our faith.’ Sadly the more high profile you are as a woman, the more likely you are to be stalked by others like him. Here is another case where the CPS let a woman down badly. Indeed, as Paladin’s CEO Laura Richards tells me, everyone has a way to go when it comes to stopping stalkers. But the promising thing is that thanks to her work we are getting people to recognise that this is a huge problem causing not only misery to the stalker’s target, but also everyone around them. My family and I have endured this man’s stalking for seven years. Before that he did the same to another female MP for three years. Last year he tweeted about shooting me in the head and raping another Conservative MP. I have been informed my stalker is now a scout- master in Mid Beds at the group nearest to my home. To everyone reading this who knows what it is like to be stalked I want you to know that you are not alone any more. We can and must work together to combat this horrible and cowardly crime. I know that in the case of my stalker, for example, that I can pick up the phone and talk to his other victims when I am feeling down. Together we are stronger. paladinservice.co.uk 0207 840 8960 info@paladinservice.co.uk Screenshot of Anti Dorries Film: Ireland’s Video Channel “Conservative Change” 2009. Note word STALK crossed out 17 An Ongoing & Persistent Fixation: The Statistics April 2009-January 2016: Phrase Repetition Demonstrating Fixation: Stalkers’ Own Public Twitter Accounts Phrase / Word Ireland Cullen Bartholomew Haslam Dorries 2303 839 241 305 Rape 68 - - - Rapist 40 - - - Fire 72 - - - *where total is less than 40, box marked “- “ April 2009 – January 2016: Mentions of same phrases in own public blogs Phrase / Word Ireland Cullen Bartholomew Haslam Dorries 913 542 433 - Rape - - - - Rapist - - - - Fire 48 - - - April 2009 – January 2016: Mentions of same phrases in anonymous / sock puppet Twitter accounts and attack blogs Phrase / Word Total Dorries 1897 Rape - Rapist - Fire - Table below showing that Timothy Ireland’s Obsession with Nadine Dorries has remained constant since at least 2009, reaching a peak 822 Twitter “Dorries” mentions in just one year (2011). Excluding anonymous mentions, Ireland refers, over 2000 days, to “Dorries” twice a day on average – on one day referring 27 times. The stats show that the Dorries fixation continues ONGOING for Timothy Ireland through to this day and this ONGOING fixation / stalking evidence negates any 6-month rule: Phrase / Word Apr-Dec 2009 2010 2011 2012-16 Dorries 353 591 822 652 *Stats collated using Twitter Advanced Search for Tweets & Manually for blogs. **Not including deleted tweets or deleted blog posts. 18 April 2009-January 2016: Blog Posts about Dorries Blogger Total Posts Bartholomew 110 Fenton 73 Ireland 123 Cullen 24 *not including other attack blog posts What the above statistics show is an ongoing & relentless campaign. What they don’t show is how often the stalkers use Dorries’ Twitter handle within tweets (even though they know full well they are blocked on Twitter by her). They are – for the purpose of Section 2A of the 1997 UK Harassment Act - showing fixated and/or obsessed stalking behaviour on a persistent and repeated basis including contact. The blog posts (Bartholomew’s Notes, Zelo Street & Bloggerheads) are directed at Dorries and often ask for her response; sometimes written to her as open letters. For clarity: Section 2A of the 1997 UK Harassment Act prohibits a person from pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to stalking. Although stalking is not specifically defined in the 2A offence, stalking is where an individual is fixated and/or obsessed with another. This can be exhibited by pattern of persistent and repeated contact with, or attempts to contact, a particular victim. Section 2A (3) lists examples of behaviours associated with stalking. (See paragraph 13). As a summary only offence, the section 2 offence requires information or a complaint to be laid within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose. The 6 months' limitation should run from the last date of the course of conduct alleged. Here also: The Communications Act 2003 section 127 is relevant referring to “persistent misuse intended to cause Annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Most important about these statistics is the Annual breakdown which shows Ireland, Cullen, Bartholomew and Haslam repeat-tweeting negatively at Dorries over many years without any substantial period of cessation. In other words, any suggestion that a time lapse of 6 months exists in using the evidence against these stalkers is incorrect – this is ongoing & relentless stalking over several years and these repetition stats above show this clearly. Clearly the hate campaign has not stopped. 19 The Many Faces of Susan Cullen Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sodTM8vArjU Let’s look again at the statistics regarding Twitter posts on Nadine Dorries by the main perpetrators between April 2009-January 2016: Phrase / Word Ireland Cullen Bartholomew Haslam Dorries 2303 839 241 305 Rape 68 - - - Rapist 40 - - - Fire 72 - - - Most people would agree that 839 Dorries-phrase-related Twitter posts by Cullen on her public Twitter account is indicative of a persistent Dorries fixation. However, these stats do not tell the whole story of Cullen’s obsession. Now look at the following table: Susan Cullen “Dorries” Phrase Search: April 2009-January 2016 Phrase / Word Cullen Public Cullen Sock puppet Cullen Blog Posts Cullen Anon Blog Posts Dorries 839 1107 24 73 What fast becomes clear is that Cullen’s fixation on Nadine Dorries is as bad, if not worse, than Timothy Ireland’s. Furthermore, Cullen’s preference for using anonymous Twitter accounts – set up in the fashionable impersonation style – to attack Dorries in ways which are so clearly illicit, gives me as investigator the most blatant evidence so far of the team’s motives and crimes. Note that the most recent tweet by Cullen about Dorries on a sock puppet account was in November 2015 – the latest tweet about Dorries on her personal account @humphreycushion was on January 15th 2016 – so what we are dealing with here is an ongoing campaign in the present time. Cullen has created the following Twitter accounts, which she uses to attack Dorries, on top of her public @humphreycushion account (and the list below is a list of just the accounts I found): @dorriesbollocks @superfoetus @dorriesdog @dorries_hound @madbadnads @ericpickled @angelicapickled @nadine_dorries @amassivetwat @dorrieswatchuk 20 What I have discovered is that Cullen is not technically proficient unlike the other stalkers. Although the other stalkers know about her use of these anonymous attack Twitter ID’s (for example @madbadnads engages with Ireland’s @bloggerheads as early as 2010) they are careful not to enlist as followers even though they are often followed by these Twitter attack personalities (by Cullen). Cullen seems more in cahoots with Ireland on the following Twitter accounts, which are all phone-hacking related impersonation accounts and less related with the pursuit of Dorries or the other stalker victims listed above. (One of Ireland’s bugbears is Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch and anyone related): @andrewhayman @rebekah8rooks @rupertmurdoch31 @rebekahmustgo @paulmc_notw @fakeandycoulson @rebekah_thehack @newtsoftheworld Again, I am left wondering, where on earth does Cullen find the time? The fact that Ireland & Cullen live together now makes me feel this hatred of Dorries is what binds them together. By my calculations Cullen has been mentioning Nadine Dorries daily for at least 7 years. The reality is that the attacks Cullen manifests against Dorries using these anonymous Twitter accounts are made in short bursts. Take the @madbadnads account which between the 2nd and 8th November 2010 included 88 Dorries Tweets with 30 on November 2nd 2010 and 25 on the 7th. If that seems productive, bear in mind that another 8 tweets are posted against Dorries using the @nadine-dorries anonymous Twitter account between the same dates; while Cullen is using her @humphreycushion Twitter account during the same 6-day period to send an extraordinary 1230 tweets of which 11 are about Dorries. While Ireland & Bartholomew – like Cullen – seem to have only one thing on their mind each day, it is just Cullen who is thoughtless enough to leave all evidence online proving that she is a full-time, persistent and fixated stalker. I have not examined deleted tweets and I suspect police will find many deleted tweets from all perpetrators which add to the evidence bank. If Cullen’s defence is that she is using Twitter accounts anonymously as jolly impersonation accounts, then it is clear from their content that she is not and no warning of impersonation exists. Take the Nadsy Dee account which uses Dorries’ real photo and tweets as if it is Nadine Dorries actually tweeting. Some of the posts are as sick and abusive as any I have seen ever in my career: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Cullen – as well as tweeting to and about herself in tweets – even stupidly adds her other anonymous attack Twitter accounts as friends and has conversations between them: The Angelica Pickled account is Cullen’s attempt to ridicule Dorries’ position on abortion (hence the evocative term “pickled”) and simultaneously abuse Dorries daughters by claiming that Dorries does not spend enough time with them, is a bad mother and is a woman of loose sexual morals. Cullen jokes that Angelica is the love child of Nadine Dorries and Tory MP Eric Pickles. The tweets are less in your face than @madbadnads but nonetheless some are chilling (in tone and in giving away Dorries’ living/location detail) and leave the reader worrying about Cullen and her intentions. Here is a selection: 28 29 Again, Cullen’s ability to remain anonymous is less than professional: Cullen says things on these Twitter accounts which she’d of course never say on her @humphreycushion account, which everyone knows is linked to her. She genuinely must think she is anonymously tweeting and her abuse (including less than subtle death threats) will never be found: 30 Here giving away Dorries’ address: And, as ever, complimenting herself through an anonymous Tweet account set up by herself and controlled by herself thus linking herself as the account author: The attacks on Dorries’ sanity are telling. There is some obvious projection going on here: At times, it seems reality is just too much for Cullen and she uses the account to simply lash out: 31 When I first classified Cullen I gave her a level 2 strata score. For I felt that she was radically manipulated by Ireland (and to a lesser degree Bartholomew) as she attempted to gain acceptance from them. Having reviewed her contribution to the pack stalking I revised her up to a strata 1 stalker. For I believe that these anonymous attack blogs are often sinister and frequently abusive. In many ways she has crossed boundaries here which characterise her as an ongoing and significant threat. Although the above tweets are about Dorries, do not think for one minute she has no interest in prolonging the ongoing suffering of the other victims. Note here @madbadnads referring to Dominic Wightman (Honky is a reference to “White”): And here Cullen publicises to her followers a Bartholomew smear attack on Dennis Rice: While I have no doubt that Cullen has been seduced by Ireland and is manipulated by him – whilst looking up to Bartholomew and getting manipulated by him also – she is an abuser in her own right and should be seen and treated as such. 32 Gang That the perpetrators gang up on victims is a well-known fact and can be verified by a deep well of online evidence demonstrating extensive collaboration. Here a friend of the “gang” jokes about Dorries’ “Scooby Gang”: But this is no team of fun, cartoon-character sleuths fighting injustice and corruption (as Ireland in his delusions tends to describe his anti-social activities). For this is a twisted gang of fanatics living and thriving off the power caused by the fear they can generate in their victims. There are plenty of Tweets and blog posts showing collusion and self-promotion amongst gang members. Here is a brief selection to show from the outset that the stalking is a co- ordinated gang effort rather than an individual onslaught: 33 Of course in the virtual web world there is no obligation to physically encounter to enter the gang. As long as chief Ireland allows you rite of passage then you are free to attack and be part of the campaigns. Here, interestingly, Susan Cullen brings Sandra LFC into the attack squad: 34 The Blogs I closely examined the weblogs of Timothy Ireland (www.bloggerheads.com) Richard Bartholomew (www.barthsnotes.com) Tim Fenton (http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/) and Sue Cullen (https://mshumphreycushion.wordpress.com/?s=dorries) Compared to Twitter, the stalkers weblog posts are far less offensive (perhaps in light of the Malicious Communications Act noting the word “articles”) but far more intrusive in that the posts – coordinated in their publication alongside tweets and stalker colleagues’ posts – are lengthy and smears sound convincing. Worse, the posts are tagged and inter-linked by the gang so that they get optimised strongly and quickly against the victim’s name and work area on search engines. I call this out as Stalking by SEO. Bloggerheads is the most dangerous of the blogs in that it ranks highest in terms of PR (position rank) strength on Google and other search engines. Zelo Street is second, Bartholomew’s Notes third and Cullen’s Humphrey Cushion blog comes in last. 35 Any examination of the harassment and stalking evidence should note the use of blogs by the stalkers 1) for SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) blackening of victims’ reputations 2) for “legitimising” stalking by offering intelligently laid-out smears 3) for obfuscation techniques 4) for threats (for example Ireland and his camper threat to come to Dorries’ constituency in Mid Bedfordshire and stalk and cause nuisance) 5) as part of a wider campaign of coordinated hate 6) for their displaying an ONGOING and lasting threat (blog posts are written about Dorries and other victims on a repetitive basis over a decade) and 7) for their use of minor 36 detail designed to convince victims themselves of their own guilt and to scare them (typical Gaslighting). When I have asked victims about what they fear most from the stalkers they always refer to blog posts. Because Tweets take a lot of finding and can be ignored, whereas blog posts are made to rank alongside their names in search engines - available to family, friends, potential clients, existing clients and colleagues. It does not take much investigation to see how these negative posts about victims can ruin their reputations and their livelihoods in one foul swoop: A screenshot of a search for victim Dominic Wightman using search term Dominic Wightman. 5 out of 6 listings on the first page on Google for Wightman are placed by Tim Ireland or Richard Bartholomew. 37 Obfuscation My first reaction on reading the earliest random selection of evidence was that here were a bunch of public figures claiming victim status against critics, who likely had a right in Britain’s democratic and free society to critique and attack them. It was only when I took the sheer volume of - and the timing of - the evidence coming from all directions in a drip-drip, repetitive and persistent style of gas-lighting (stalking) that I understood what was really going on here. That this was harassment on a co-ordinated and massive scale - going on over a decade in some instances. My first reaction was partly caused by the obfuscation tactics that these stalkers use. They embed language in tweets and posts which plays down their stalking. It was then that it dawned on me that the stalkers knew very well privately that they were engaging in criminality and were fully aware that at some point a time-pressed policeman or policewoman would read their posts and tweets. I believe their obfuscation has – successfully – acted as their failsafe against prosecution until now. Here is a selection of these obfuscator tweets I uncovered: 38 Note below how Bartholomew attempts to turn the tables, by enlisting the support of a well- known writer/journalist (Jukes) claiming that the victims are the stalkers. (This is typical perpetrator obfuscating behaviour): Note here how Ireland uses the police in tweets, gambling that no-one will bother checking the veracity of his tweets. By quoting the police in tweets Ireland defends his “I am no stalker” claims to his audience and (more worryingly) to himself. 39 Note the contradictory premises in many of these tweets and the stalkers’ use of logical fallacy. I was drawn particularly to two tweets by Timothy Ireland. They are these two tweets below: Ireland repeats this denial behaviour often and has his crowd act to cover his tracks. When he is called out as a stalker he blames the person calling him out with criticisms of a much more illogical nature – illogical fallacy. Stalker is one thing but “stalker of women” is as if +1 in the shock scale, extremist +2, rapist of children and paedophile are +10. What Ireland is trying to do is put words into the mouth of the victim, which the victim never uttered. For example, Wightman never called Ireland a paedophile or an extremist. By associating the absurd with the actual, Ireland attempts to make the actual absurd. It’s a clever ruse designed to sway newcomers and plant seeds of doubt in their mind. A policeman with more significant crimes to focus on would skim through these tweets, see the obfuscator tweets and give up. This lizard’s tail distraction seems to have worked to date. So, understandably but wholly unfortunately, Dennis Rice was told to “grow a pair” by Thames Valley Police and Dominic Wightman was told to “man up” by Surrey Police – to ignore these stalkers even though they were eating away into their daily lives. By obfuscating as a pack and including well-known personages on the tweets (for example Bartholomew using the writer Peter Jukes above) the obfuscation seems to gain more legitimacy. I note that obfuscation happens most during times of police investigation (e.g 2011). Nothing happening here! Please move on! 40
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-