There are a lot of things about Nadine Dorries that are very interesting and not widely known outside of the local political media/blogging/Twitter crowd, but right now the two most important things you need to know about the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire are as follows:
Nadine Dorries explained inconsistencies in her account to the relevant expenses authorities by saying that 70%* of what she blogged was fiction, while also telling them that they should not take the word of a liar.
Coming under unexpected (!) criticism for lying to her constituents about the amount of time she spent in the constituency, she then claimed that she only lied to her constituents in order to throw four unnamed stalkers off the scent, but it is easily established that this, too, is a lie.
(Dorries' claim that she actually meant that 'only' 30% of what she wrote was fiction is so pathetic it's hardly worth more than a guffaw, but if you'd care to read even just the tail end of the report (PDF), it's clear she had ample opportunity to correct it before now, and saw no need until after there was a fuss... a fuss she clearly wasn't expecting. She thought she'd be able to sail away on 'lalala I lied, so what?' and never return to the point. If you don't know her, I should warn you this is typical.)
-
*UPDATE (9am) - My apologies. Earlier, I incorrectly stated that Dorries said 75% of what she wrote was fiction. The correct figure is actually 70%. Or perhaps 30%.
-
RELATED POST - When exactly did Nadine Dorries stop misleading her constituents about where she lived?
-
UPDATE - The hole Dorries has dug for herself gets deeper by the day; Richard Bartholomew – The 70 Per Cent Solution: Who Are Nadine Dorries' "Four Stalkers"?
-
Sep 30, 2010
Nadine Dorries: a warning
Nadine Dorries, Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, set Twitter alight today with some poorly-received comments about 'obsessive' use of blogs on her, erm... blog*.
There is detail about Dorries' post that needs documenting (it is a thinly veiled attack on one of her critics, and Dorries is ably supported in this task by Paul 'Guido Fawkes' Staines, and not for the first time) but this important warning must come first.
Nadine is most frequently under fire on Twitter today for this passage:
You need to be aware that Nadine Dorries is most likely only adopting this position in order to attack one of her critics with a smear (something she does often). She may not genuinely think, for example, that those who are on benefits due to mental health problems should be reported to authorities for daring to engage in conversation on Twitter.
However, because she is trying to smear this particular critic as mentally damaged (i.e. as well as fraudulent), she certainly gives this impression, and as a result, there are bloggers who are brave enough to write about their own mental health issues who wish to complain about this.
I am here to warn people that if you write to Andy Rayment, the Chairman of the Mid Bedfordshire Conservative Association [admin@midbedsconservatives.com], to complain about the conduct of Nadine Dorries, you can expect an answer like this...
... and when this happens, you can most probably count on Dorries chuckling along like it's the wittiest thing said since Churchill popped his clogs:
Finally, I should add that if you dare to press the matter, you will most likely end up getting smeared yourself. You have been warned.
-
[NOTE - What Dorries describes as a 'bombardment' is less than half a dozen emails and calls over a 6 month period, none of which earned a civil reply. You can read the background on this here and here. It should also be noted for the purpose of transparency that the two main targets of Dorries' smears referred to in this post are editors of this site.]
[*She calls it a blog, but don't be thinking you can leave comments on it. That would be a foolish expectation.]
-
UPDATE - And here's that detail that needed to be documented:
Nadine Dorries Takes Revenge on Twitter Critic: Uses Paul Staines to Push Smear
Thank you, Richard Bartholomew.
Readers may also be interested in this round-up of related posts by the lovely Ms Cushion.
For the record, there have been minor outbreaks of support for Nadine Dorries on Twitter (a few people versus a few hundred, no exaggeration), but so far all they amount to are assurances that she is a lovely person, really and/or repeats of Nadine's smears (i.e. outright lies) that somehow prove in their mind that she's a lovely person, really.
Truth is, Nadine Dorries is the type of person who knowingly publishes and publicises malicious, damaging lies about people she perceives to be her political enemies.
There is detail about Dorries' post that needs documenting (it is a thinly veiled attack on one of her critics, and Dorries is ably supported in this task by Paul 'Guido Fawkes' Staines, and not for the first time) but this important warning must come first.
Nadine is most frequently under fire on Twitter today for this passage:
"In the meantime, do you know of anyone else who has Tweeted more than 35,000 times in less than six months? If so, email my office and let me know. Or, better still, if it's someone you know is on benefits, contact the DWP." - Nadine Dorries (source)
You need to be aware that Nadine Dorries is most likely only adopting this position in order to attack one of her critics with a smear (something she does often). She may not genuinely think, for example, that those who are on benefits due to mental health problems should be reported to authorities for daring to engage in conversation on Twitter.
However, because she is trying to smear this particular critic as mentally damaged (i.e. as well as fraudulent), she certainly gives this impression, and as a result, there are bloggers who are brave enough to write about their own mental health issues who wish to complain about this.
I am here to warn people that if you write to Andy Rayment, the Chairman of the Mid Bedfordshire Conservative Association [admin@midbedsconservatives.com], to complain about the conduct of Nadine Dorries, you can expect an answer like this...
"I do not waste my time communicating with nutters so do not expect me to respond to any of your communications, electronic or otherwise" - Andy Rayment (source)
... and when this happens, you can most probably count on Dorries chuckling along like it's the wittiest thing said since Churchill popped his clogs:
"... when a 'nutter' began bombarding my association with telephone calls and emails, this made me laugh out loud." - Nadine Dorries (source)
Finally, I should add that if you dare to press the matter, you will most likely end up getting smeared yourself. You have been warned.
-
[NOTE - What Dorries describes as a 'bombardment' is less than half a dozen emails and calls over a 6 month period, none of which earned a civil reply. You can read the background on this here and here. It should also be noted for the purpose of transparency that the two main targets of Dorries' smears referred to in this post are editors of this site.]
[*She calls it a blog, but don't be thinking you can leave comments on it. That would be a foolish expectation.]
-
UPDATE - And here's that detail that needed to be documented:
Nadine Dorries Takes Revenge on Twitter Critic: Uses Paul Staines to Push Smear
Thank you, Richard Bartholomew.
Readers may also be interested in this round-up of related posts by the lovely Ms Cushion.
For the record, there have been minor outbreaks of support for Nadine Dorries on Twitter (a few people versus a few hundred, no exaggeration), but so far all they amount to are assurances that she is a lovely person, really and/or repeats of Nadine's smears (i.e. outright lies) that somehow prove in their mind that she's a lovely person, really.
Truth is, Nadine Dorries is the type of person who knowingly publishes and publicises malicious, damaging lies about people she perceives to be her political enemies.
Aug 27, 2010
every possible permutation
Nadine Dorries...
As of the time of writing, there is free, which is suitable and not obscure...
That's just the ones that I thought up in less than fifteen seconds.
How anyone can make an assertion about one person taking *every* conceivable way of presenting the name 'nadine dorries' is beyond me. There are three people that I have knowledge of or suspect of having a spoof Dorries account, so how she can make the claim, with a handy get out, that one person has all of them is beyond me.
It also seems the danger from 'a certain blogger' has now passed and the excuse for not Twittering is lack of username.
I would consider Tweeting again, just for this cause [first past the post], however, a certain blogger has apparently taken every possible permutation of my name you can imagine.
As of the time of writing, there is free, which is suitable and not obscure...
- ndorriesmp
- n_dorries_mp
- nadinedmp
- nadine _d_mp
- torynadinemp
- _nadinedorries_
That's just the ones that I thought up in less than fifteen seconds.
How anyone can make an assertion about one person taking *every* conceivable way of presenting the name 'nadine dorries' is beyond me. There are three people that I have knowledge of or suspect of having a spoof Dorries account, so how she can make the claim, with a handy get out, that one person has all of them is beyond me.
It also seems the danger from 'a certain blogger' has now passed and the excuse for not Twittering is lack of username.
Jun 27, 2010
Nadine Dorries Joins the Health Select Committee
Several people have expressed concern at the recent appointment of Nadine Dorries to the Health Select Committee. Below are some extracts from blogposts and articles written by some of those who were disappointed by the news.
To put this comment in some context: Dorries has questioned the findings of a Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into Scientific Evidence Relating to the Abortion Act 1967, but repeated uncritically the hand of hope hoax and dubious pre-term survival figures. The Skeptical Voter website also reports that Dorries has: claimed that the Trident nuclear weapon system cannot be classed as weapons of mass destruction; signed the March 2007 Early Day Motion 1240 calling for the positive recognition of NHS homeopathic hospitals; and warned that an embryo research bill could lead to a hybrid "humanzee".
Others have commented on the appointment and expressed their disappointment:
Dorries is driven by ideology to the extent that she ignores evidence that does not suit her and uncritically promotes any evidence that does suit – whether this information is at all reliable or not. [From a post I wrote on the appointment on my blog Stuff And Nonsense.]
To put this comment in some context: Dorries has questioned the findings of a Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into Scientific Evidence Relating to the Abortion Act 1967, but repeated uncritically the hand of hope hoax and dubious pre-term survival figures. The Skeptical Voter website also reports that Dorries has: claimed that the Trident nuclear weapon system cannot be classed as weapons of mass destruction; signed the March 2007 Early Day Motion 1240 calling for the positive recognition of NHS homeopathic hospitals; and warned that an embryo research bill could lead to a hybrid "humanzee".
Others have commented on the appointment and expressed their disappointment:
It may shock you to learn that Nadine Dorries is also on the committee. Dorries is no friend of rational thought, and has tirelessly campaigned to radically reduce the lower limit for abortion. Her honesty is perpetually in question, her expenses still under investigation in the new parliament. [An article by Adam Rutherford on the appointment of Tredinnick and Dorries.]
Nadine Dorries, putting her questionable grasp on human biology briefly to one side, was a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee in the 2009-2010 session. During that time the Committee held thirty-two meetings, Nadine Dorries attended none. [...]
Dorries is clearly more than happy to dismiss evidence which does not agree with her personal convictions. A dangerous trait to find in someone serving on a parliamentary health committee. [The 21st Floor]
Over the years, Dorries has issued a number of ill-founded claims about abortion. They include the fairytale "hand of hope" story that she helped to propagate across the web; the incorrect assertion that the NHS didn't carry out abortions after 16 weeks; the claim that charity Marie Stopes International supported her policy views; an attempt to dismiss scientific studies that disagreed with her view as "an "insult to the intelligence of the public"; and some rather dubious interpretations of opinion polls that led a frustrated Dawn Primarolo to exclaim that "The Honorable Lady has asserted many things to be facts that are not." [Martin Robbins writing in The Guardian.]
...the Health Select Committee probably isn't the most appropriate place for an MP who simply does not understand what constitutes evidence, particularly when it comes to the contentious issue of abortion. [Teek]
Jun 25, 2010
Doctors Know Best
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have spoken. And this is what they have said:
Mind you, they still haven't commented on the abilities of foetuses to tear their way out of the womb. We'll need to wait longer for that report.
There is no new evidence to show foetuses feel pain in the womb before 24 weeks, and so no reason to challenge the abortion limit, UK doctors say.That's got to sting a bit if you're campaigning for a reduction of the abortion limit.
Mind you, they still haven't commented on the abilities of foetuses to tear their way out of the womb. We'll need to wait longer for that report.
Paying Your Friends
It becomes more and more obvious why Nadine Dorries was so spooked by the Telegraph's investigation into MPs' expenses. She seems to be pathologically incapable of spending expense money honestly.
Today the Telegraph has another story about dodgy expense claims and, once again, it's about everyone's favourite comedy MP. Dorries has been spending a lot (you might say a ridiculous amount) of money on marketing and research done by a company owned by her close friend Lynn Elson.
Investigation of Dorries' expenses by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards continues. However it can't be completed until the new Parliament's Standards and Privileges Committee has been appointed.
The report is going to make fascinating reading.
Today the Telegraph has another story about dodgy expense claims and, once again, it's about everyone's favourite comedy MP. Dorries has been spending a lot (you might say a ridiculous amount) of money on marketing and research done by a company owned by her close friend Lynn Elson.
New figures released by the Parliamentary authorities yesterday showed Mrs Dorries claimed £17,825 to pay Mrs Elson’s marketing company between July and December last year.Mrs Elson has previously featured in photos on Dorries' blog that were obviously taken on social occasions. The pictures were removed following an earlier report in the Telegraph about Dorries and Elson's business relationship. This story was about almost £10,000 that Dorries spend on Elson's services in 2007. This emerged after this year's general election but before the coalition government had been formed.
The MP for Mid-Bedfordshire also paid £34,000 to her friend between September 2008 and June last year – making a total of more than £51,000 in 15 months.
Investigation of Dorries' expenses by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards continues. However it can't be completed until the new Parliament's Standards and Privileges Committee has been appointed.
The report is going to make fascinating reading.
Jun 9, 2010
Nadine Dorries is unfit to Chair the Health Select Committee
Nadine Dorries wants to be Chair of the Health Select Committee. She is entirely unfit for the position. End of.
Hopefully sanity will prevail in today's vote, but some serious questions need to be put to the MPs who nominated Dorries for this position. An incomplete list appears below.
Graham Stringer is worthy of special attention. He more than anyone visible on this list should be aware of Dorries' attendance record on the Science and Technology Committee. They were both members during the most recent session and he attended many of the meetings when she attended none. Surely he must have noticed her repeated absence, even if he didn't get around to reading the final minutes.
Hopefully sanity will prevail in today's vote, but some serious questions need to be put to the MPs who nominated Dorries for this position. An incomplete list appears below.
Members nominated for election as Select Committee Chairs (PDF)
Candidate: Nadine Dorries
Nominated by (own party): Andrew Rosindell, Heather Wheeler, Andrea Leadsom, Mr Robert Buckland, Sarah Newton, Mr James Clappison, Richard Harrington, Mr David Davis, Esther McVey, Mr Brian Binley, Mrs Anne Main, Robert Halfon, Mr Peter Lilley, Penny Mordaunt, Pauline Latham
Nominated by (other parties): Vernon Coaker, Rosie Cooper, Ian Swales, Graham Stringer
Relevant interests declared: None
Note: Only the first fifteen names of a candidate’s own party validly submitted in support of a candidature are printed, except in the case of committees with chairs allocated to the Liberal Democrats, when only the first six such names are printed.
Graham Stringer is worthy of special attention. He more than anyone visible on this list should be aware of Dorries' attendance record on the Science and Technology Committee. They were both members during the most recent session and he attended many of the meetings when she attended none. Surely he must have noticed her repeated absence, even if he didn't get around to reading the final minutes.
May 27, 2010
Liar
I can't add anything new to what's happened recently, so this post is more of a round up, an update. If you like, a 'for the record' post. Which, I suppose, is what this blog is mainly about.
So what's new then, huh?
On 23 May this year the paper Bedfordshire on Sunday ran an article about Nadine Dorries and her reasons for why she closed her blog and Twitter account.
Here it is...
There is nothing really new in the story that hasn't been covered elsewhere, including the Flitwick er, episode. What is more interesting is what was left out of the article.
Keeley Knowles, the writer of the piece, gave Tim the right of reply by telling him what Nadine had said about him.
The one piece of Nadines' statement that didn't make the page was this bit...
For over a year Nadine has been, apparently, been receiving advice on how to deal with a stalker. (You would've thought that if someone was stalking, harassing or threatening in anyway towards an MP, the police would take it seriously and at the very least warn the accused. Tim has had no such encounter with the police and has been talking to them himself...
The advice the police supposedly gave to Nadine was to not give the 'stalker' the oxygen of for his 'obsession' and close her blog and Twitter account. Nadine being a feisty woman who refuses to let people dictate what she can and can't do kept going with her online endeavours. Until, that is, Labour MP Stephen Timms got stabbed.
Apparently.
This is where that line omitted from the paper comes in. Never mind all that it implies, that Tim is a violent person, and all that comes with it, but it is a factual lie.
For Nadine to have closed her blog and Twitter account because of fearing what happened to Stephen Timms could happen to her, those online presences' would have to have been up and running until the 14th May, the day Stephen Timms got stabbed.
Thanks to Chris Paul, we have this little bit of information...
Nadine closed her Twitter account May 7th. The day after the general election. A full week before the attack on Stephen Timms. Her blog went on the same day.
Not only does Nadine smear and defame someone that is critical of her behaviour, she is quite happy to use an attempted murder on someone to do it.
Links:
Bloggerheads - To: Nadine Dorries
Labour of Love (Chris Paul) - Nadine Dorries Mum-P: Liar! Liar! Your Pants Are On Fire
Bartholomews' Notes on Religion - Nadine Dorries Explains Why She Deleted Blog: Cites “Police Advice” over On-Line Critic
So what's new then, huh?
On 23 May this year the paper Bedfordshire on Sunday ran an article about Nadine Dorries and her reasons for why she closed her blog and Twitter account.
Here it is...
There is nothing really new in the story that hasn't been covered elsewhere, including the Flitwick er, episode. What is more interesting is what was left out of the article.
Keeley Knowles, the writer of the piece, gave Tim the right of reply by telling him what Nadine had said about him.
The one piece of Nadines' statement that didn't make the page was this bit...
Following the Stephen Timms incident last week I have decided that I should pay attention to the police advice and have therefore closed down both Twitter and my blog for the time being.
For over a year Nadine has been, apparently, been receiving advice on how to deal with a stalker. (You would've thought that if someone was stalking, harassing or threatening in anyway towards an MP, the police would take it seriously and at the very least warn the accused. Tim has had no such encounter with the police and has been talking to them himself...
The advice the police supposedly gave to Nadine was to not give the 'stalker' the oxygen of for his 'obsession' and close her blog and Twitter account. Nadine being a feisty woman who refuses to let people dictate what she can and can't do kept going with her online endeavours. Until, that is, Labour MP Stephen Timms got stabbed.
Apparently.
This is where that line omitted from the paper comes in. Never mind all that it implies, that Tim is a violent person, and all that comes with it, but it is a factual lie.
For Nadine to have closed her blog and Twitter account because of fearing what happened to Stephen Timms could happen to her, those online presences' would have to have been up and running until the 14th May, the day Stephen Timms got stabbed.
Thanks to Chris Paul, we have this little bit of information...
Nadine closed her Twitter account May 7th. The day after the general election. A full week before the attack on Stephen Timms. Her blog went on the same day.
Not only does Nadine smear and defame someone that is critical of her behaviour, she is quite happy to use an attempted murder on someone to do it.
Links:
Bloggerheads - To: Nadine Dorries
Labour of Love (Chris Paul) - Nadine Dorries Mum-P: Liar! Liar! Your Pants Are On Fire
Bartholomews' Notes on Religion - Nadine Dorries Explains Why She Deleted Blog: Cites “Police Advice” over On-Line Critic
May 5, 2010
Smears, lies and videotape
Tim Ireland went to a constituency hustings in Flitwick on Tuesday, to record and broadcast live Nadine Dorries in action with her constiuents. To observe, not participate.
It didn’t quite go to plan, due to a couple of misunderstandings. The Chair didn't know the meaning between 'record' and 'broadcast' and due to wearing headphones mis-heard a couple of questions which took the proceedings down a different route than anticipated.
Leaving those misunderstandings to one side, the amount of vitriol spewed by Dorries in the form of lies and smears is incredible. All of which she is unable to substantiate
Dorries smears Tim as a stalker, claiming he is stalking herself, Patrick Mercer and Anne Milton. If noticing something isn't right with what an elected representative is doing and looking into it until satisfactory answers are given is 'stalking', then maybe he is, but not in the minds of most reasonable people.
Dorries also claims that Tim runs a rude and offensive website. There may be an odd rude word, but offensive it ain't. Tim doesn't needlessly insult people or question their mental state, jokingly or otherwise. People may not like or agree with what Tim posts but if there is one thing Bloggerheads isn't, it's offensive.
Another one of Dorries' claims is that Tim sends offensive daily emails which have been reported to the police, but Tim denies this, has not had a call from the police regarding any emails and Dorries, after being challenged to many times, has failed to even provide a crime number.
So. To the video...
In case anyone might think that the video has been cut and edited by Tim to give a certain slant to the evenings events, here are two independent eyewitness accounts:
Adam Croft
Mr Plug...
I shall now finish this post, with Nadines' Twitterings that a) insinuate mental health problems and b) are just plain wrong - ChrisPLOL* was, so I am told, not even there.
*Nadine spelt Chris' moniker incorrectly, too.
It didn’t quite go to plan, due to a couple of misunderstandings. The Chair didn't know the meaning between 'record' and 'broadcast' and due to wearing headphones mis-heard a couple of questions which took the proceedings down a different route than anticipated.
Leaving those misunderstandings to one side, the amount of vitriol spewed by Dorries in the form of lies and smears is incredible. All of which she is unable to substantiate
Dorries smears Tim as a stalker, claiming he is stalking herself, Patrick Mercer and Anne Milton. If noticing something isn't right with what an elected representative is doing and looking into it until satisfactory answers are given is 'stalking', then maybe he is, but not in the minds of most reasonable people.
Dorries also claims that Tim runs a rude and offensive website. There may be an odd rude word, but offensive it ain't. Tim doesn't needlessly insult people or question their mental state, jokingly or otherwise. People may not like or agree with what Tim posts but if there is one thing Bloggerheads isn't, it's offensive.
Another one of Dorries' claims is that Tim sends offensive daily emails which have been reported to the police, but Tim denies this, has not had a call from the police regarding any emails and Dorries, after being challenged to many times, has failed to even provide a crime number.
So. To the video...
In case anyone might think that the video has been cut and edited by Tim to give a certain slant to the evenings events, here are two independent eyewitness accounts:
Adam Croft
Tim Ireland was in front of me in the queue to sign in. As he took a good few minutes to ask the organisers' permission to film and broadcast the event, therefore holding me up in the queue, I can certainly vouch for the fact that he made it clear to the organisers that the event was being broadcast live on his website and the organisers gave him permission to do this.
...
Despite Tim ceasing recording, Nadine Dorries stormed out of the hustings and declared that she had to go to another meeting. It baffled me that she could possibly have a meeting more important than a public hustings in her constituency's largest town less than 36 hours before a general election.
Nadine was then seen stood outside smoking for fifteen minutes, complaining to her daughter and staff. She later denied this on Twitter and claimed that she had been followed out by a number of 'social democratic' constituents who supported and defended her. This was discovered to be a lie by @humphreycushion who was stood next to Nadine at the time.
Mr Plug...
...we were subjected to you…our democratically elected representative for the last five years, shouting and screaming at your constituents. I came along last night in an effort to see all sides of the argument. I heard representatives of the UKIP and English democrats argue their peculiar brand of right wing dogma, with at least a hint of belief and conviction, and whilst every cell in my body is programmed to detest their extreme views, they conducted themselves with at least a bit of dignity. You however, behaved like a spoiled brat.
...
I have corresponded with you on a number of matters in the last couple of years, and whilst I do not support you as a candidate I have always communicated with you in a civil and polite manner. You have blocked me on Twitter for asking civil and polite questions. You have blocked all comments from your blog. You have chosen to wait for weeks on end to answer genuine concerns of your constituents, and then responded with standard letters, but somehow managed to find the time to appear on reality TV programmes. You accuse the other candidates of making the campaign personal, yet you were the one to question the service record of the labour candidate first.
I shall now finish this post, with Nadines' Twitterings that a) insinuate mental health problems and b) are just plain wrong - ChrisPLOL* was, so I am told, not even there.
*Nadine spelt Chris' moniker incorrectly, too.
Apr 22, 2010
Letter to a constituent in Mid Bedfordshire
The graphic below shows the conversation I had yesterday with Rachel Lewis [fireflylive], a voter in Mid Bedfordshire (the constituency Nadine Dorries is campaigning to retain for the Conservatives). Below that is my wider reply, which I've posted as an open letter here for two reasons:
a) Rachel is not the only person I wish to reach with this message
b) If she or anyone else wants to continue the conversation, comments are open, and they offer a little more elbow room than Twitter allows.
Over to you, Rachel. No rush. We have a couple of weeks.
UPDATE (23 April) - Rachel would like us to know that engaging with her on this point (and I suspect any other) is a waste of time. She says so quite explicitly...
... and to be honest I suspected as much when I saw this tweet that immediately followed our earlier conversation:
Speaking in defence of Dorries, she's reduced to making it personal and (it must be noted) creepily sexual in places. For the record, I've got nothing against her* personally but it's always disappointing when people go to this much effort to waste your time (and theirs) while simultaneously lecturing you for wasting your time.
Obviously, Rachel is not going to appreciate that Dorries is different because of the personal attacks she engages in (she spends the whole time ignoring Dorries' attacks, while portraying criticism of her as a personal attack, and engaging in one herself while she's about it ) so I think we're done here.
[*Or the people of Mid Bedfordshire, for that matter, but I can't say that I speak for all of us here in Slurrey.]
a) Rachel is not the only person I wish to reach with this message
b) If she or anyone else wants to continue the conversation, comments are open, and they offer a little more elbow room than Twitter allows.
Dear Rachel,
It is not my intention to tell you who to vote for. I don't intervene on behalf of any party or candidate. Rather, like many people, I'm so alarmed at the depth of Nadine's dishonesty that, given the chance, I would seek to inform any voter in her constituency of her stunning deceits and shameless duplicity.
Also, I doubt very much that I can recommend any candidate who matches your description. All politicians lie. It comes with the job, and starts with the half-truths one is compelled to rely on when representing tens of thousands of people with competing/conflicting interests on matters that are often confidential. It's a fine line to walk that eventually leads to lies, often because there is little choice and/or because as human beings we are fallible (and I would hope the latter point also addresses any expectations you may have about a candidate who won't ever put a foot wrong).
But there's a world of difference between this natural hazard of politics and deliberately using falsehoods to win a debate, or (worse) telling malicious lies about your opponents in order to silence critics and gain political advantage. Nadine Dorries does the latter especially... repeatedly.
If you do your research, you'll encounter many people who speak in defence of Dorries with assurances that she is a wonderful person and claims/implications that the people criticising her (they will say 'attacking' her) are doing so for personal or party-political reasons. What none of these people will do is address the substance of those criticisms ('attacks') but, sadly, showmanship wins over substance all too often.
You will also encounter some who have so lost patience with Dorries that their tone becomes angry, and sometimes even abusive. I'll admit to losing my temper in this way myself, but I try to avoid the error when I can, as it draws attention away from the substance. In fact, defenders of Dorries (and Dorries herself) will often seek to blur lines to such an extraordinary extent that with they portray all criticism of Dorries as abuse without substance.
As you may have guessed, I'm kind of keen on the substance myself, so let's get to it now that the preliminaries are taken care of. I have many examples I can offer you of Dorries' duplicity, but I've chosen the following three examples from the campaign she headed to lower the abortion time limit for reasons of simplicity and (hopefully) clarity;
-
1. During the main debate before the House voted, Nadine Dorries claimed that three quarters of women specified a preference to lower the time limit to her preferred target; 20 weeks. But "three quarters of women" did not specify 20 weeks. Nadine Dorries either completely misunderstood the data or (more likely in my experience) deliberately misrepresented it in order to give the false impression that she enjoyed a popular mandate. As the raw poll data showed, it wasn't 75% of women specifying 20 weeks, but 15%, and then only because it was fed to them as an option.
I've included this example because it is the kind of lie that most people expect from politicians, in a setting where we expect them to do most of their lying (when not on the campaign trail). But differences begin with what happens after... or, rather, what does not.
After literally inviting scrutiny of her assertions in the House, Dorries has never returned to this point, despite her being challenged publicly and repeatedly on it. If this 'attack' is baseless, then why can't/won't Dorries defend the claim she was happy to make on the record in the House?
This is where uncertainty about a possible misunderstanding dissipates and it becomes clearer that what we are looking at is a calculated lie, even if it only became one after the fact.
2. Before the debate, there was a committee, but Dorries split off from that committee when it wasn't going the way she wanted and she produced her own 'minority report'. When doing so, she accused Dr Ben Goldacre, a journalist, of behaving improperly with regards to evidence passed to the committee.
Not only was this accusation false, but it showed a complete ignorance of Parliamentary procedure (the evidence was not shared improperly as she alleged; it was in the public domain).
I'd like to think that, put in a similar position, you or I would admit to the error and apologise for the false accusation. As a fellow blogger, you've probably experienced some error in the past that's been pointed out to you in comments that you have had to address in comments and/or by updating your post.
Nadine Dorries a has a 'blog', too... but she actually chose to close comments rather than face any discussion about her false accusation, and they stayed closed for months afterwards*.
(*They eventually re-opened, but closed again after her 'suicide' outburst regarding expenses.)
What is notable about this lie is that it completely avoided the substance of Dr Ben Goldacre's criticisms about evidence Dorries was relying on, and instead called into question the honesty and integrity of a man whose only allegiance is to honesty in science and medicine.
Over two years later, she had not apologised for any of it, and probably never will.
3. During the debate, Dorries presented as a key part of her evidence an image titled 'Hand of Hope'
The photographer who took this image claims the foetus reached out and grabbed the surgeon's finger.
The surgeon maintains that it was him manipulating the arm (IIRC, in order to gain access to a part of a foetus that was behind it)
What is most notable about the photographer's story is that he describes it as a miracle and speaks of it being the work of God. Regardless of where you stand on Christianity specifically or religion generally, an honest person should not present his testimony (based, as it is, on faith) as part a scientific argument, but that's exactly what Nadine Dorries did.
Further, when confronted with the conflicting account by the surgeon, she implied that he had changed his story out of fear of violence**.
(**In doing so, she further implied that the pro-choice lobby is inherently violent, when it is their opponents in this debate who have a track record of targeting doctors and other staff members attached to abortion clinics. While trying to further defend the claim, Dorries also showed a startling level of ignorance about foetal development and human biology that calls into question her claims to have worked as a fully qualified nurse.)
To claim that the surgeon would falsify his account of a life-or-death surgical procedure for any reason is a smear that calls into question their honesty and integrity, and I would hope that by now you can detect an emerging pattern.
-
If you wish, I can show you many different examples of Nadine Dorries doing this to many different people. She has a long track record not only of attempting to deceive the electorate, but of spreading malicious lies and falsehoods about those who dare to confront or oppose her.
To bring this letter to a close, I'd like to touch on the matter of the incinerator (and invite you to furnish me with any relevant specifics);
I don't wish to belittle your concerns, but the thing about projects like incinerators is that they always end up becoming political footballs, as they're easy to object to while seeming a bit green, and we generate so much garbage that there's nearly always a landfill/recycling/incinerator proposal on the table come election time (much like there are always potholes to be filled, and mobile phone masts to object to). Even Nick Herbert, the shadow cabinet Environment Secretary, is objecting to a recycling centre in his own constituency.
Also, even if Nadine Dorries presents herself as the only candidate who opposes this incinerator, or the only candidate capable of stopping it, I doubt very much if she is as sincere about it as she appears, especially in light of this tweet from a fellow constituent of yours that appeared during our conversation:"re: a claim dorries made about opposing an incinerator; when public meeting was held on this she arrived 15 mins after the end" - Sandra Robinson
If you're interested, I would very much like to continue this chat, and I look forward to any reply, especially if you would do me the honour of trusting me to host our conversation (i.e. if you choose to respond here, under 'comments').
Cheers
Tim Ireland
Over to you, Rachel. No rush. We have a couple of weeks.
-
UPDATE (23 April) - Rachel would like us to know that engaging with her on this point (and I suspect any other) is a waste of time. She says so quite explicitly...
Lie back and think of Ireland...
Sadly for you I am not one for a fight. I do not specialise in being very political and I am not going to take your blog apart piece by piece and argue the toss about what you have said. When it comes to politics I'm sure you know what you're talking about. Well, I hope you know what you're talking about or else you really need to get out more, dear. That's quite an obsession you have with Mrs Dorries. Other blonde ladies are available; not me sadly, although you're welcome to get in the queue... I want to say thank you for all the work you have put in to your blog post. As a seasoned blogger myself, although not doing even a gnats chuff of the research you do (I haven't the time, I work, I'm a Mum, I have a life); I think it's a truly special and wonderful thing you do, to sit in your mansion / house / flat / bedsit / parent's back room, in Guildford, Slurrey and work so hard and care so much about us poor people here in Middle Narnia; cruelly afflicted by having Satan's Handmaiden... [etc. etc. etc.]
... and to be honest I suspected as much when I saw this tweet that immediately followed our earlier conversation:
Speaking in defence of Dorries, she's reduced to making it personal and (it must be noted) creepily sexual in places. For the record, I've got nothing against her* personally but it's always disappointing when people go to this much effort to waste your time (and theirs) while simultaneously lecturing you for wasting your time.
Obviously, Rachel is not going to appreciate that Dorries is different because of the personal attacks she engages in (she spends the whole time ignoring Dorries' attacks, while portraying criticism of her as a personal attack, and engaging in one herself while she's about it ) so I think we're done here.
[*Or the people of Mid Bedfordshire, for that matter, but I can't say that I speak for all of us here in Slurrey.]
Apr 21, 2010
Dorries dittoheads on the doorstep
The following is an account of a doorstep visit enjoyed by Sandra Robinson, a voter in Mid Bedfordshire. Below her account are scans of the front and back of the leaflet she mentions.
Aside from pointing out that it appears that Nadine Dorries has been lying to her own campaign workers (and that they appear to be the type that will believe anything a fellow Tory tells them), I'll let it speak for itself:
Well, I think so. I love the idea that some guy has been motivated to support Dorries at a local level in order to stop a global conspiracy by socialist warmongers and assorted immigrants.
(Psst! When we do take over, I think we should go after this guy first, and make an example of him.)
Aside from pointing out that it appears that Nadine Dorries has been lying to her own campaign workers (and that they appear to be the type that will believe anything a fellow Tory tells them), I'll let it speak for itself:
Had a leaflet (attached) through the door for Nadine Dorries so I went outside to speak to the gentleman. I said that I was a "floating voter" but that no matter what the conservatives pledged I could not vote for Nadine Dorries. He seemed surprised and said that all he knew was that she was a "lovely woman"
He then went on the offensive to say that the "Lib Dem woman" (Linda Jacks) had made up stuff about Nadine. (The local paper Beds on Sunday goes into more detail on this.)
I said that I saw the "Tower Block of Commons" [1, 2, 3]and that Linda Jack was correct, The man refused to believe me, he said she was a kind woman who wanted to give the money to the children and how did I know that she didn't want to do that? I asked him what good appearing on the programme did for her constituents? He said " Every party was on the programme"
I mentioned her houses and the fact that she employs her daughters; "they all do that" was his answer. Convincing stuff so far. He then went on to say that Tories would cut waste in public services; and stop golden pensions BINGO!!!
Our local council, Central Beds is 95% Tory. They PROMISED to cut council tax when the proposal for a unitary authority was being debated (There were 3 councils in Bedfordshire, excluding Luton which makes 4) Bedford County Council lost the bid and Central Beds and Bedford Borough won, each of whom promised savings that would amount to a cut of 30% in council tax.
I challenged the canvasser on why a council that was almost entirely Conservative kept continuously increasing council tax when they said they would cut it. Why their chief exec is on £185k with a huge pension.
His answer, all councils put up council tax. I told him not in London nor in Essex; he claimed he didn't know about them. He said councils cut the grass and take our bins. I was getting very sarcastic at this stage, wow that's what they are supposed to do was my response.
He claimed that the council give pensioners free bus passes, he has one and he can afford to pay for the bus. I said free bus passes was a good thing, every council does it, that doesn't excuse high council tax. He then said he gets winter fuel allowance every year which he doesn't need, who brought that in? Labour. I asked him if the conservatives would scrap this? No.
Central Beds Council have recently been on BBC news boasting about how quickly they fill potholes. The truth is that on a stretch of road, if there are 20 potholes, they fill one up and go away. Our canvasser said that was bad workmen. I said that council staff were asked to monitor the work following complaints by residents, but none of them had done so.
He said that the Tories believe that businesses provide the money for the economy not politicians. I brought up the case of MR Simon Wolfson, head of Next who advises George Osbourne (canvasser had never heard of him) I said he opposed the NI increase because it hurt his pocket and that he had given himself a pay rise to over £1.2 million. Did he really think that Mr Wolfson was going to help public services by writing to the Daily Telegraph with his mates? I then mentioned Mr Ashcroft and asked him what has he done for this country. Lots apparently. I said he was a nondom tax dodger who was funding key marginal seats and that he contributed nothing to the country. Canvassers response was that Labour were jealous, and how much did the unions fund them? Not once did I mention voting Labour, I'm voting tactically to get rid of Dorries.
He asked me what I had ever done or achieved ; I said I work in the NHS to save lives, I have a lovely house that I've worked hard for and I've never been greedy unlike his friends in the banking industry. He then claimed that Brown should have controlled the banks. I said that in a global economy you cant act unilaterally, otherwise the bankers just move out; you have to act globally. He didn't like that
He went on to attack Gordon Brown for claiming an end to boom and bust which I couldn't argue with. He then said that Labour had gone to war more often than the conservatives because "Socialists want to take over the world; Pakistan, Ireland ....." At this point I laughed at him; Blair went to war alongside George Bush who was hardly a socialist. I cannot believe that he tried to quote Ireland in his argument, as it is fairly obvious from my accent that I'm from Northern Ireland. He then decided to move on to immigrants I said to him, don't try blaming them next and I shut the door in his face.
Hope this is interesting reading!!
Well, I think so. I love the idea that some guy has been motivated to support Dorries at a local level in order to stop a global conspiracy by socialist warmongers and assorted immigrants.
(Psst! When we do take over, I think we should go after this guy first, and make an example of him.)
Apr 20, 2010
Mar 31, 2010
Operation Dump Dorries: check out the NadMobile
What is the point in having a political campaign if you haven't got wheels? The Nadine Dorries Project has the campaign...
...and we also have the wheels. John Prescot has his Battle Bus, Jon McCain had his Straight Talk Express and now we have our Campaign Camper... the NadMobile!
It's a 1991 Fiat Ducato with a Frankia body and it's not bad at all, considering it's buckshee. The chap lending it to us assures me it's been looked after and having looked at it yesterday, I am confident it isn't going to let us down and bring our efforts to an embarassing, shuddering halt.
Do you fancy a tour of the beast?
Ok, so it's not the most handsome of vehicles (sorry Mr Donor), but what do you expect? It's a bloody camper and it's free. The important stuff that is needed for a mobile campaign is all there. It's got whopping big sides for hanging posters off and er, tables and stuff for important paperwork to be on.
It's a five berth so there is plenty of room for 3 grown men who aren't too, *ahem* intimate, to stop together for a few weeks to work together and get some decent sleep in between campaign stops. And it is just for a few weeks, so we can forgive it the 70s looking upholstery.
This is gonna be our media centre. It has a satelite dish, so we can keep track of all the news stations not just terrestrial ones. It has also got wi-fi so we can not only keep everyone updated on our progress via Twitter and blogs, but the connection will be fast enough for us to get a webcam set up on the roof for when we are stopped at our 'special' place.
I love this bit. Look! It's got an awning! How cool is that going to be, sat in the shade on a warm spring day, talking to local people about their soon-not-to-be MP? Or conversely, shelter from the rain while we talk to them. As you can see, it's so simple it only took me a minute to set up, and in all seriousness, that is going to be a big help when we try and talk to people. Judging by the weather at the moment it's still going to be pretty horrible when the election gets started proper and being out of the worst of the weather, I reckon, is gonna give a big boost to the amount of people who stop and speak to us.
The only thing missing is some loudspeakersfor shouting at people broadcasting our message to the masses. Tim's sourced a couple of 30w horn type speakers and gubbins (yes, that is a technical term), so once they're wired up, we're ready to go.
While we're sorting that out, why don't you have a think of something for the Peoples Pamphlet. We have enough ideas and material for leaflets but this isn't just about us. It's about you, too.
What do you want to say to the people of Mid Bedfordshire?
UPDATE: April Fools!
No, we don't plan to take 4 weeks away from work/families to hound Nadine Dorries, park a van outside her house and basically stalk her on the campaign trail. That would be just a little bit OTT.
The joke is this is all too close to the fantasy Nadine Dorries and others hold to.
The punchline is that while all the van/stalking crap is fake... The People's Pamphlet is real.
Nadine Dorries: The People's Pamphlet
See you on the flipside of a plain sheet of A4 paper. Cheers all.
The good people of Mid Bedfordshire need to be warned about the party-political (and often all-too-personal) games that Nadine Dorries plays using the power they afford her.
So, along with Dave Cross and Sim-O, I have successfully negotiated 4 weeks off work & family duties, and together we intend to campaign against Nadine Dorries.
...and we also have the wheels. John Prescot has his Battle Bus, Jon McCain had his Straight Talk Express and now we have our Campaign Camper... the NadMobile!
It's a 1991 Fiat Ducato with a Frankia body and it's not bad at all, considering it's buckshee. The chap lending it to us assures me it's been looked after and having looked at it yesterday, I am confident it isn't going to let us down and bring our efforts to an embarassing, shuddering halt.
Do you fancy a tour of the beast?
Ok, so it's not the most handsome of vehicles (sorry Mr Donor), but what do you expect? It's a bloody camper and it's free. The important stuff that is needed for a mobile campaign is all there. It's got whopping big sides for hanging posters off and er, tables and stuff for important paperwork to be on.
It's a five berth so there is plenty of room for 3 grown men who aren't too, *ahem* intimate, to stop together for a few weeks to work together and get some decent sleep in between campaign stops. And it is just for a few weeks, so we can forgive it the 70s looking upholstery.
This is gonna be our media centre. It has a satelite dish, so we can keep track of all the news stations not just terrestrial ones. It has also got wi-fi so we can not only keep everyone updated on our progress via Twitter and blogs, but the connection will be fast enough for us to get a webcam set up on the roof for when we are stopped at our 'special' place.
I love this bit. Look! It's got an awning! How cool is that going to be, sat in the shade on a warm spring day, talking to local people about their soon-not-to-be MP? Or conversely, shelter from the rain while we talk to them. As you can see, it's so simple it only took me a minute to set up, and in all seriousness, that is going to be a big help when we try and talk to people. Judging by the weather at the moment it's still going to be pretty horrible when the election gets started proper and being out of the worst of the weather, I reckon, is gonna give a big boost to the amount of people who stop and speak to us.
The only thing missing is some loudspeakers
While we're sorting that out, why don't you have a think of something for the Peoples Pamphlet. We have enough ideas and material for leaflets but this isn't just about us. It's about you, too.
What do you want to say to the people of Mid Bedfordshire?
UPDATE: April Fools!
No, we don't plan to take 4 weeks away from work/families to hound Nadine Dorries, park a van outside her house and basically stalk her on the campaign trail. That would be just a little bit OTT.
The joke is this is all too close to the fantasy Nadine Dorries and others hold to.
The punchline is that while all the van/stalking crap is fake... The People's Pamphlet is real.
Nadine Dorries: The People's Pamphlet
See you on the flipside of a plain sheet of A4 paper. Cheers all.
Feb 25, 2010
Apparently...
After expecting to find a promised post about her appearance on the Channel 4 show Tower Block of Commons we are treated to a more serious piece about assisted suicide.
I'm not going to knock Nadine for her actual views on assisted suicide, everyone has their own and they're welcome to it. How good of me, eh?
But, and there is always a but, there are some things that are not quite right with her post.
'Apparently'? The consultation was forced on the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Law Lords ruling on the case involving Debbie Purdy who wanted to know if her husband would face prosecution if he helped her to kill herself.
The inclusion of the word 'apparently' implies that the Debbie Purdy case was used as an excuse. It wasn't. The DPP had no choice. The Law Lords made him. Without the Debbie Purdy case, Kier Starmer would not have had to issue guidelines about the the prosecution of people that help others to take their own life. There is no 'apparently' about it.
OMG! People not being prosecuted for committing crimes!
People are not prosecuted all the time. The police have something that is called 'using their judgement'. The Crown Prosecution Service can decide not to prosecute because of something called 'not in the public interest'. There is nothing new happening here at all.
After that Nadine goes on to have a pop at the one of the Tories favourite punchbags, the BBC...
Has it? Is there an example given? I'm not asking for pages and pages. Just the one will do. But no.
It sounds to me like reality didn't quite go the right way for Nadine so she is reduced to throwing in uncertainties and unfounded accusations in the hope that they will stick and gain some traction in the hope of removing autonomy of people over their own bodies... again.
BTW, the DPP press release is here and contains the public interest factors for and against prosecution.
I'm not going to knock Nadine for her actual views on assisted suicide, everyone has their own and they're welcome to it. How good of me, eh?
But, and there is always a but, there are some things that are not quite right with her post.
Tomorrow the DPP, Kier Starmer will publish a new guidance regarding policy on prosecuting assisted suicide cases.
The report follows a period of consultation, which was apparently nudged into action by the Debbie Purdy case.
'Apparently'? The consultation was forced on the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Law Lords ruling on the case involving Debbie Purdy who wanted to know if her husband would face prosecution if he helped her to kill herself.
The inclusion of the word 'apparently' implies that the Debbie Purdy case was used as an excuse. It wasn't. The DPP had no choice. The Law Lords made him. Without the Debbie Purdy case, Kier Starmer would not have had to issue guidelines about the the prosecution of people that help others to take their own life. There is no 'apparently' about it.
Prior to the consultation process, Kier Starmer said,‘Assessing the public interest is not simply a matter of adding up the number of factors on each side and seeing which side of the scales has the greater number. Each case must be considered on its own facts and its own merits. Prosecutors must decide the importance of each public interest factor in the circumstances of each case and go on to make an overall assessment.
In that one paragraph, Kier Starmer has implied that the law is no longer relevant and if Parliament refuses to change the law, he will make it up himself.
OMG! People not being prosecuted for committing crimes!
People are not prosecuted all the time. The police have something that is called 'using their judgement'. The Crown Prosecution Service can decide not to prosecute because of something called 'not in the public interest'. There is nothing new happening here at all.
After that Nadine goes on to have a pop at the one of the Tories favourite punchbags, the BBC...
The BBC has possibly been one of the worst offenders in terms of pushing an agenda of ‘normalising' attitudes towards assisted suicide.
Has it? Is there an example given? I'm not asking for pages and pages. Just the one will do. But no.
It sounds to me like reality didn't quite go the right way for Nadine so she is reduced to throwing in uncertainties and unfounded accusations in the hope that they will stick and gain some traction in the hope of removing autonomy of people over their own bodies... again.
BTW, the DPP press release is here and contains the public interest factors for and against prosecution.
Feb 16, 2010
Do tell, Nadine
"In my experience as an MP, tensions begin when one particular group of people or another feel that they can behave differently or not adhere to the laws that oether people have to adhere to."
Nadine Dorries MP, lecturing the owner of a mosque about illegal parking (on behalf of a sweet old dear who is more concerned that "on Friday, it's like 'spot the white person'..."), in Tower Block of Commons, Episode 3
Feb 15, 2010
Did Nadine Dorries dish out free dope?
A potentially career-ending allegation was published by a Sunday newspaper yesterday:
1. Until she's clinically diagnosed, can we lay off the 'Mad Nad' crap please?
2. Unusually, Nadine Dorries has decided against getting her retaliation in first this time. Normally, when she has advance notice of a damaging story, Nadine will play the victim while smearing her accuser(s)/critic(s), as she did most recently by lashing out at the director of the second episode of Tower Block of Commons (1, 2). This time, we haven't heard anything from her. In fact, the last time she published anything on her not-a-blog was last Monday, when she none-too-convincingly pretended that she forgot she was on telly that night.
3. The first reference to 'temazepam' in reference to Dorries was made by one of the sisters who opened a Twitter account during filming and published this among a short series of tweets on the evening of Nadine's second day on the estate:
4. Temazepam is a prescription drug that appears to have a... recreational following:
Recognising that we only have an allegation so far; Dorries being hepped up on goofballs most of the time would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
5. Looking past the possibility that Dorries spends her life on a rollercoaster of prescription pills, here's what else makes this such a serious allegation
Episode 3 of Tower Block of Commons airs tonight, 9pm Monday 15 February.
Sunday Mirror - TV SHOW SISTERS: TORY NAD OFFERED US PILLS
A pair of single mums have told how Tory MP Nadine Dorries offered them the prescription drug temazepam when she lived with them for a reality TV show.
Sisters Rena Spain and Nisha Young - who took "Mad Nad" into their council flat to experience life on benefits - says she waited until the cameras were off, and then offered the tranquillisers around. Mum-of-five Rena, 40, said: "She went into her suitcase and pulled out this big plastic bag with all different types of pills in it. She asked, 'Does anyone want one of these?' She said they were temazepam and were really good to help you sleep. I said, 'You can't just hand them out like Smarties'."
The sisters say mum-of-three Dorries, 52, offered them the pills on the first night of her stay on the South Acton estate in West London. The controversial Mid-Beds MP was there as part of the C4 show Tower Block of Commons, and last week we revealed how she stuffed £50 into her bra when she was supposed to be living on benefits. Yesterday the MP denied the allegations.
1. Until she's clinically diagnosed, can we lay off the 'Mad Nad' crap please?
2. Unusually, Nadine Dorries has decided against getting her retaliation in first this time. Normally, when she has advance notice of a damaging story, Nadine will play the victim while smearing her accuser(s)/critic(s), as she did most recently by lashing out at the director of the second episode of Tower Block of Commons (1, 2). This time, we haven't heard anything from her. In fact, the last time she published anything on her not-a-blog was last Monday, when she none-too-convincingly pretended that she forgot she was on telly that night.
3. The first reference to 'temazepam' in reference to Dorries was made by one of the sisters who opened a Twitter account during filming and published this among a short series of tweets on the evening of Nadine's second day on the estate:
4. Temazepam is a prescription drug that appears to have a... recreational following:
Temazepam
Tems, Temazzies, Eggs, Green Eggs, Jellies, Norries, Rugby balls (more)
Temazepam is a short-acting Benzodiazepine. It is normally prescribed to people who have difficulty sleeping, or occasionally to reduce anxiety.
Temazepam is produced as a gel-filled capsule, designed to be taken orally. A normal therapeutic dose of temazepam would be 10mg-30mg. If you have a normal dose of Temazepam you may feel less anxious and start to feel relaxed and sleepy. At higher doses the effects are similar to alcohol - you may feel less inhibited towards other people. Your behaviour may be exaggerated (people who are using Temazepam are often very talkative or over-excited, sometimes even hostile or aggressive) and judgement is impaired. You may have a false sense of confidence, or even believe you are invincible or invisible.
Recognising that we only have an allegation so far; Dorries being hepped up on goofballs most of the time would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
5. Looking past the possibility that Dorries spends her life on a rollercoaster of prescription pills, here's what else makes this such a serious allegation
Supply of the drug by an unauthorised person is an offence for which the maximum sentence is five years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. A charge of possession of a drug with intent to supply can be brought by the police. This includes giving a substance away for free, and can be for any amount of Temazepam that the court feels is too unreasonably large to be for personal use only. (source)
Episode 3 of Tower Block of Commons airs tonight, 9pm Monday 15 February.
Feb 12, 2010
Nadine's latest attack on the Speaker
I heartily recommend this post written by Kerry McCarthy Sally Bercow's evil minions space aliens Bryony Victoria King, who looks at the pathetic front of Nadine Dorries' latest attack on the Speaker and the vast field of nothingness behind it.
Read more.
Bryony Victoria King - Nadine Dorries stars in V for Vacuous Vendetta
The short answer, ‘Well John won’t wear the flowing robe so I won’t put my back against a wall, why should I follow the rules if he doesn’t wah wah’. An excuse worthy of a school child trying to get their way out of trouble, ‘Well John pinched me first so I didn’t think it was wrong to pinch him back’. Her argument quickly falls down with her lines on tourism. If she so badly wants to keep the authority of Parliament and keep the traditions that she feels fuel tourism then why is she, herself, dropping traditions on a whim? That hardly bolsters her argument. Besides I don’t think the nations tourism takings are going to be alarmingly down because the Speaker has a slightly modern robe (it’s still a robe after all, it’s not like he’s addressing the house in a track suit and trainers).
Of course her sudden concern for the traditions of Parliament would seem more sincere if it wasn’t for the fact that Nadine has regularly spouted forth her dislike for the Speaker through various media organs (and the fact she happily sacrificed a tradition just to annoy the Speaker). Nadine has ardently campaigned against John Bercow since Michael Martin was unceremoniously ousted after his failures in dealing with the expenses scandal. Nadine declared last year,
"I shall make my commitment to guarantee, by any means at my disposal, that should John Bercow become Speaker, I will do my best to make sure that it is the one of the shortest served appointments in the grand, and glorious history of that coveted chair." [source]
Nadine’s ‘commitment’ to her hate campaign, designed to assure ‘one of the shortest served appointments’ seems to be mainly spouting forth blogs (such as the one discussed) and Tweets against the Speaker, his wife and his decision-making. The best/worst outburst so far was when she criticised John Bercow for “ALLOWING” his wife to do an interview she objected to. That’s “allowing” if you missed it. In Nadine’s feminism the wife has to ask the husband before she is allowed to do something like give an interview.
Read more.
Feb 9, 2010
Tower Block of Commons (episode 2): Twitter digest
Now, I know this episode of Tower Block of Commons contained more than one MP, but this is a blog about Nadine Dorries, so those with a broader interest will have to make do with the following summary:
I was neck deep in the Twitter chat at the time and busily re-tweeted what I regarded to be a representative sample of reactions (i.e. I didn't just RT Nadine-related tweets or the stuff I agreed with). This post is primarily a digest of some typical reactions to Nadine's 'highlights'.
Knowing what Dorries is like, I feel I should point out there was very little in the way of outright abuse. In fact, there was about as much abuse as there was support for Nadine Dorries (each group would be lucky to get a 4% share) and I saw very little that would rival this reaction, published at the time of filming by one of Nadine's hosts:
Note the account name ('ihatemps') and the way that all MPs have been judged by the actions of Nadine Dorries. Food for thought, especially after Nadine's notorious "witch hunt" and "'suicide watch" remarks over expenses and how well that went down with the public.
After the programme aired last night, Nadine herself found solace in the fact that a lot of people were talking about her, but - as when she brags on her website that she's been "featured in Private Eye" - she neatly glosses over the fact that she got a monstering:
Earlier the evening, real casual like, Nadine published on her weblog a claim that she'd almost forgotten she was on TV that night. Odd that she would claim this after all that effort to peddle her excuses and slag off the director ahead of time, but there you go.
On with the main tweets, presented in rough order of appearance (and/or grouped by relevance)...
Nadine Dorries arrives on the estate and it is noticed (not for the first time) that she feigns/adopts an odd regional accent when talking about poverty:
Nadine also relied on some rather bold fibs here, but we'll leave those to one side for now and instead look at the reaction to her overall attempt to convince her hosts that she actually had it quite hard, too, and were all working class, like:
Later, we're in the bathroom, Nadine is graciously allowing her (now weeping) host to speak, and putting on her best show of compassion;
And before you know it, the revelation is upon us, as Nadine's host angrily reveals that this MP has met the challenge of living on just over £60* a week by stuffing an extra £50 down her bra. The rest is a spectacular car crash that's a match for any disaster manufactured by Ricky Gervais or Larry David:
(*£64.30 = a week's job seekers' allowance)
There's a further blogged summary of this moment here:
As the challenge moved on to supermarket shopping on a tight budget (and Austin Mitchell continued to cover himself in glory), the bra/money jokes started to emerge:
(**Recently, it was revealed that Nadine Dorries paid $35,0000 of taxpayers' money to a close friend in PR.)
And before we knew it, the flaming wreckage was taking one final tumble before rolling off the nearest cliff:
We were also treated to an eye-catching glimpse of Nadine visiting a mosque with her hair covered in black cloth. I guess time will tell if this description of events from one of her council estate hosts is in any way accurate:
I've no doubt that supporters of Nadine Dorries will be desperate to play the sexism/misogyny card in response to much of this, but the brutal fact is that Nadine did not hide the money in a Yorkie bar. And on that note, I leave you with this:
Roll on, Episode 3 (C4 at 9pm, Mon 15 Feb).
-
UPDATE - My estimation of support for Nadine at somewhere near 4% is supported by the current results of this poll on the Channel 4 website. Austin Micthell shares a place with Nadine in the reputation basement:
bloggerheads: Mitchell's lost in time. Oaten's out of his depth. Dorries is off with the pixies. Tim Laughton? Find it hard to fault him in that lot #tboc
I was neck deep in the Twitter chat at the time and busily re-tweeted what I regarded to be a representative sample of reactions (i.e. I didn't just RT Nadine-related tweets or the stuff I agreed with). This post is primarily a digest of some typical reactions to Nadine's 'highlights'.
Knowing what Dorries is like, I feel I should point out there was very little in the way of outright abuse. In fact, there was about as much abuse as there was support for Nadine Dorries (each group would be lucky to get a 4% share) and I saw very little that would rival this reaction, published at the time of filming by one of Nadine's hosts:
ihatemps: nadine dorries is a lying two faced bitch........i no first hand
Note the account name ('ihatemps') and the way that all MPs have been judged by the actions of Nadine Dorries. Food for thought, especially after Nadine's notorious "witch hunt" and "'suicide watch" remarks over expenses and how well that went down with the public.
After the programme aired last night, Nadine herself found solace in the fact that a lot of people were talking about her, but - as when she brags on her website that she's been "featured in Private Eye" - she neatly glosses over the fact that she got a monstering:
nadine4mp: OMG, I'm trending in the UK , I'm Twitter famous> wish I knew what that meant :)
Earlier the evening, real casual like, Nadine published on her weblog a claim that she'd almost forgotten she was on TV that night. Odd that she would claim this after all that effort to peddle her excuses and slag off the director ahead of time, but there you go.
On with the main tweets, presented in rough order of appearance (and/or grouped by relevance)...
Nadine Dorries arrives on the estate and it is noticed (not for the first time) that she feigns/adopts an odd regional accent when talking about poverty:
_jock: #tboc 11 mins in and Dorries is on her 3rd accent.
seanbeynon: I love Nadine Dorries 'scouse' accent but tower block of commons is awful. if this is the impression people get of MPs, we're in trouble.
Nadine also relied on some rather bold fibs here, but we'll leave those to one side for now and instead look at the reaction to her overall attempt to convince her hosts that she actually had it quite hard, too, and were all working class, like:
brokenbottleboy: Nadine Dorries trying to explain how having a £65,000 salary and expenses is worse than living in a council flat on benefits. Smooth. #tboc
rad6380: Is Nadine Dorries REALLY trying to make a badly-paid working mother feel sorry for the financial woes of MPs? #tboc
chrisspann87: #TBOC Check out Dorries slummin' it wid da po'. Is she really arguing with these people?
Later, we're in the bathroom, Nadine is graciously allowing her (now weeping) host to speak, and putting on her best show of compassion;
chrisspann87: #TBOC Dorries seems to be having trouble doing a caring face.
c_m_carter: Nadine and a shit impression of listening with compassion #tboc Time to whip out the fiddies?
brokenbottleboy: Nadine Dorries looks like a robot saying "What is love?" when she tries her empathetic face. #tboc
And before you know it, the revelation is upon us, as Nadine's host angrily reveals that this MP has met the challenge of living on just over £60* a week by stuffing an extra £50 down her bra. The rest is a spectacular car crash that's a match for any disaster manufactured by Ricky Gervais or Larry David:
(*£64.30 = a week's job seekers' allowance)
geospiza_fortis: "she put her hand in her bra and pulled out 50 quid. That pissed me right off". #tboc
therealsim_o: is this what's called in the trade, 'the money shot'? #tboc
clawedfrogs: Haha I did, I did, I took money out my bra! I brought it for the kids though. Errrrr #tboc
annaturley: Dorries caught in 50 quid stuffed down bra cheat. Oh no - don't say it's for the kids nooooooo! #tboc
tomcallow: @Nadine4MP "money's not for me, it's for the kids" do you not see how patronising that is?! "You can't provide for your kids. I can" #tboc
bevaniteellie: The "money was for the kids". Dorries not just lying, but patronising her hosts too. Nice. #tboc
brokenbottleboy: "I bought it to get things for the kids…" Nadine Dorries is starring in her own version of Secret Millionaire. The Patronising Cheater. #tboc
bookdrunk: "I brought the money to buy your love.. uh.. something for the kids." #dorriesfail #tboc
jdc325: Hm. Which was the bigger mistake? Smuggling the £50 or claiming it was "for the kids"? #tboc Ppl seem unimpressed by both.
There's a further blogged summary of this moment here:
politicalhackuk: Nadine Dorries this week assumed the role abandoned last week by Iain Duncan Smith - he left the series for understandable reasons - and quickly displayed her publicity skills. Required to present herself on a council estate with nothing but her clothes - no credit cards or cash - she secreted a small stash of cash in her bra. When this was discovered - the cash, not her bra - she claimed that it had been brought to allow her to buy presents for the children. Her claim would have been helped if it wasn't for the shifty glance into the camera as she 'explained' the discovery.
As the challenge moved on to supermarket shopping on a tight budget (and Austin Mitchell continued to cover himself in glory), the bra/money jokes started to emerge:
ahmnohere: It's ok Nadine, you probably have some caviar in your pants #tboc
bloggerheads: I once bet Nadine Dorries £5 I could make her boobs move without touching them. Walked away with £45. #tboc
nibus: Only £50 in her bra? The kids should take up PR, they might get an extra £34,950**. #tboc
(**Recently, it was revealed that Nadine Dorries paid $35,0000 of taxpayers' money to a close friend in PR.)
And before we knew it, the flaming wreckage was taking one final tumble before rolling off the nearest cliff:
frankiedav: "All I've learnt is life is remarkedly better on a council estate' #tboc what a dick
salihughes: Tory Nadine has declared life in a council block to be dramatically improved because people in them now have mobile phones. #wankers #tboc
arwenfolkes: Of course there weren't laptops and mobiles Nadine Dorries; they didn't exist. (And that's not me being bitchy, just factual) #tboc
nicholasmilton: Dorries said life much better than when she lived on council estate with computers, mobiles etc. How dare poor communicate with each other.
bookdrunk: I see Dorries' memory of her supposed past trumps actual lives of people in present. How charmingly selfish. #tboc
chrisspann87: #tboc Dorries is just doing a one woman re-enactment of the Three Yorkshiremen - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
_jock: #tboc Dorries had it worse, what a fuckin' surprise.
chrisspann87: #tboc To be fair, Nad's life in a council house probably was easier - She never had to put with patronising twats like her coming round.
We were also treated to an eye-catching glimpse of Nadine visiting a mosque with her hair covered in black cloth. I guess time will tell if this description of events from one of her council estate hosts is in any way accurate:
ihatemps: nadine dorries has upset the muslim community by ranting and raving in a mosque on behalf of a racist oap on the estate
I've no doubt that supporters of Nadine Dorries will be desperate to play the sexism/misogyny card in response to much of this, but the brutal fact is that Nadine did not hide the money in a Yorkie bar. And on that note, I leave you with this:
steveshark: I bet when she pulled that £50 out of her bra, Nadine felt a right tit #tboc
Roll on, Episode 3 (C4 at 9pm, Mon 15 Feb).
-
UPDATE - My estimation of support for Nadine at somewhere near 4% is supported by the current results of this poll on the Channel 4 website. Austin Micthell shares a place with Nadine in the reputation basement:
Feb 8, 2010
Tower Block of Commons (Ep 2)
You are cordially invited to join the editors, our readers, fellow Dorries-watchers and (potentially) millions of innocent bystanders as we watch Nadine Dorries bravely facing the reality of poverty with nothing more than an armed guard, a television crew, and £50 stuffed in her bra:
If you want to track any chat about the show before, during and after broadcast, just watch out for the #TBOC hashtag in Twitter (and do use it yourself if you plan to chip in).
Will the nation take Nadine to their hearts as they did when Nicholas "Nasty Nick" Bateman passed around little bits of paper with names on them? Or will they buy her story that she planned to use the £50 to play Santa for the kiddies (with Christmas over a fortnight away, when she knew then and knows now that she could've revisited at any time to make the same gesture outside of the 'experiment' and the rules that were clearly explained to her)?
What exactly did Nadine do or say that might warrant this outburst from one of the tower block residents?
What could possibly have driven Nadine to describe the director of this episode as a 'Miss Trunchbull' type and further imply that she was an dishonest and/or incompetent filmmaker who was not respected by her crew?
All this and more may or may not be revealed as 'the media' work their craft and 'the MP' works hers... but together we might just makes some sense of it all.
Comments are welcome under this post, but most of the action will happen via the hashtag #TBOC in Twitter. There's already a bit of light chat going on, but you can expect things to really hot up this evening, especially when Nadine starts reaching for the cash hidden in her underwear.
We'll be presenting a digest of the best relevant tweets here later/tomorrow.
Channel 4
9pm, Monday
08 February 2010
Tower Block of Commons
(Episode 2)
If you want to track any chat about the show before, during and after broadcast, just watch out for the #TBOC hashtag in Twitter (and do use it yourself if you plan to chip in).
Will the nation take Nadine to their hearts as they did when Nicholas "Nasty Nick" Bateman passed around little bits of paper with names on them? Or will they buy her story that she planned to use the £50 to play Santa for the kiddies (with Christmas over a fortnight away, when she knew then and knows now that she could've revisited at any time to make the same gesture outside of the 'experiment' and the rules that were clearly explained to her)?
What exactly did Nadine do or say that might warrant this outburst from one of the tower block residents?
What could possibly have driven Nadine to describe the director of this episode as a 'Miss Trunchbull' type and further imply that she was an dishonest and/or incompetent filmmaker who was not respected by her crew?
All this and more may or may not be revealed as 'the media' work their craft and 'the MP' works hers... but together we might just makes some sense of it all.
Comments are welcome under this post, but most of the action will happen via the hashtag #TBOC in Twitter. There's already a bit of light chat going on, but you can expect things to really hot up this evening, especially when Nadine starts reaching for the cash hidden in her underwear.
We'll be presenting a digest of the best relevant tweets here later/tomorrow.
Feb 4, 2010
Monkey see, monkey oops
Nadine Dorries was so impressed by Tom Harris switching his Twitter username to 'tomharris4mp' that she rushed right out and copied him, changing hers to 'nadine4mp'...
... without thinking for a moment about what might happen to the old name - NadineDorriesMP - if she didn't bother securing it:
Oops.
There are literally thousands of links to @NadineDorriesMP on the internets; this is just one of them.
If the person who grabbed it wants to keep that account name, all they have to do is find a suitable satirical application and avoid outright/undue impersonation.
(For the Record: Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'Mad Nad' tag, and I'd much prefer it if this person revealed their name/ID. It's poor form to take on an elected representative anonymously, and you wouldn't want to be sock-puppeting sad sack like Phil Hendren or Harry Cole, now would you?)
[UPDATE - To avoid a hysterical fit or two, I should specify that Harry Cole praised himself and attacked his opponents with fake online identities in a college election, while Phil Hendren merely threw about false accusations of spamming and other forms of professional misconduct while safely anonymous... and though he clearly did this for political reasons, it's not *quite* the same as diddling democracy with it, and Phil swears that he only ever did it that one time he got caught. And we all believe him.]
-
UPDATE (05 Feb) - Dorries has blundered into Twitter this morning, oblivious to any error on her part, making dark implications about a website outage, and publishing an entirely false allegation that I hijacked her username. If I had done so, I would have declared it immediately. I even tweeted about the event, making it clear I was speaking from outside of the hijack. Hell, I even blogged about it (and you know that, because you're reading an update on that post now). I tweet satire aimed primarily at Dorries using this account, and I do so openly, justifiably, and entirely legally. There is no harassment or identity hijacking or use of false/mutliple names going on, regardless of what Nadine Dorries might (repeatedly) claim or imply.
Dorries can't possibly prove something that isn't true. She will struggle to do anything but cast doubt. However, judging by past form, she will most likely refuse to enagage, stick to her guns and/or quietly brush over the matter, making it appear as if her allegations stand unchallenged. She does this knowing that her accusations/implications are likely to be picked up and used by other people. I'd say I'm totally amazed that she's being so careless/malicious in the current climate, but that would be a lie. It's more a feeling of mild shock, really.
[Psst! Nadine! There's no grand conspiracy or obsession here. I just think that you're a shameless liar. In many cases, I can prove that you've behaved like one. In fact, the only reason I'm in your face is because you repeatedly drop outright (and often malicious) falsehoods and walk away from them. You either know this and don't care, or you're so delusional as to be unfit for office. If you think I have focused on you without justification, then by all means start here and work your way through. I look forward especially to discussing the Hand of Hope.]
-
UPDATE (05 Feb 4:30pm) - Whoever took control of the username 'nadinedorriesmp' has now abandoned it:
Updates to follow.
... without thinking for a moment about what might happen to the old name - NadineDorriesMP - if she didn't bother securing it:
Oops.
There are literally thousands of links to @NadineDorriesMP on the internets; this is just one of them.
If the person who grabbed it wants to keep that account name, all they have to do is find a suitable satirical application and avoid outright/undue impersonation.
(For the Record: Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'Mad Nad' tag, and I'd much prefer it if this person revealed their name/ID. It's poor form to take on an elected representative anonymously, and you wouldn't want to be sock-puppeting sad sack like Phil Hendren or Harry Cole, now would you?)
[UPDATE - To avoid a hysterical fit or two, I should specify that Harry Cole praised himself and attacked his opponents with fake online identities in a college election, while Phil Hendren merely threw about false accusations of spamming and other forms of professional misconduct while safely anonymous... and though he clearly did this for political reasons, it's not *quite* the same as diddling democracy with it, and Phil swears that he only ever did it that one time he got caught. And we all believe him.]
-
UPDATE (05 Feb) - Dorries has blundered into Twitter this morning, oblivious to any error on her part, making dark implications about a website outage, and publishing an entirely false allegation that I hijacked her username. If I had done so, I would have declared it immediately. I even tweeted about the event, making it clear I was speaking from outside of the hijack. Hell, I even blogged about it (and you know that, because you're reading an update on that post now). I tweet satire aimed primarily at Dorries using this account, and I do so openly, justifiably, and entirely legally. There is no harassment or identity hijacking or use of false/mutliple names going on, regardless of what Nadine Dorries might (repeatedly) claim or imply.
Dorries can't possibly prove something that isn't true. She will struggle to do anything but cast doubt. However, judging by past form, she will most likely refuse to enagage, stick to her guns and/or quietly brush over the matter, making it appear as if her allegations stand unchallenged. She does this knowing that her accusations/implications are likely to be picked up and used by other people. I'd say I'm totally amazed that she's being so careless/malicious in the current climate, but that would be a lie. It's more a feeling of mild shock, really.
[Psst! Nadine! There's no grand conspiracy or obsession here. I just think that you're a shameless liar. In many cases, I can prove that you've behaved like one. In fact, the only reason I'm in your face is because you repeatedly drop outright (and often malicious) falsehoods and walk away from them. You either know this and don't care, or you're so delusional as to be unfit for office. If you think I have focused on you without justification, then by all means start here and work your way through. I look forward especially to discussing the Hand of Hope.]
-
UPDATE (05 Feb 4:30pm) - Whoever took control of the username 'nadinedorriesmp' has now abandoned it:
Updates to follow.
Jan 31, 2010
Open Season on burglars
I overheard a little conversation between Nadine Dorries and Soho Politico...
and the Soho Politicos' reply...
Says it all really.
and the Soho Politicos' reply...
Says it all really.
Not All Humans Have Human Rights
According to Nadine Dorries, when someone breaks into a house they leave their human rights at the door. This sounds very worryingly like Dorries is arguing that burglars are "fair game", but in case you think I am misrepresenting her you can read her thoughts in full:
Those human rights that burglars apparently "leave at the door" include the right not to be tortured or to be subjected to to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is made clear in The United Nations International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights. See Article 7 here for the relevant statement.
Of course, people have the right to defend themselves (and others) and may use reasonable force to do so. But the person they are defending themselves against does, whatever Nadine Dorries says, still have rights.
It is unclear whether Dorries is proposing that human rights be suspended while a crime is being committed or whether she actually believes that burglars should have their rights 'removed' - I do hope that she would agree with me that the rights listed in Articles 9, 14, and 15 of the covenant should be maintained.
While I agree that the best way to avoid a situation is not to break into a property that doesn't belong to you, I disagree with Dorries' stance that burglars "leave every right [they] have at the door."
NadineDorriesMP @SohoPolitico When you break into someones house to do harm, you leave every right you have at the door. Different burglars do different
http://www.quoteurl.com/rx3m4
Those human rights that burglars apparently "leave at the door" include the right not to be tortured or to be subjected to to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is made clear in The United Nations International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights. See Article 7 here for the relevant statement.
Of course, people have the right to defend themselves (and others) and may use reasonable force to do so. But the person they are defending themselves against does, whatever Nadine Dorries says, still have rights.
It is unclear whether Dorries is proposing that human rights be suspended while a crime is being committed or whether she actually believes that burglars should have their rights 'removed' - I do hope that she would agree with me that the rights listed in Articles 9, 14, and 15 of the covenant should be maintained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)