Open Season on burglars

I overheard a little conversation between Nadine Dorries and Soho Politico...



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:

1. 
   NadineDorriesMP @SohoPolitico When you break into someones house to do harm, you leave every right you have at the door. Different burglars do different 36 minutes ago from web in reply to SohoPolitico
2. 
   NadineDorriesMP things, some steal, some use violence. Different householders deal with a threat in different ways. The easy way not to get into a situatio 35 minutes ago from web
3. 
   NadineDorriesMP n is, dont break into someone elses house! 35 minutes ago from web

http://www.quoteurl.com/rx3m4

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."

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.

Natural cut off point

Dorries in the Daily Mail...

Last night, Tory MP Nadine Dorries described the plans as ‘preposterous’ and called for Parliament to intervene with new laws setting an upper age limit for IVF.

She said: ‘Once you pass the point of natural conception, that’s when you should stop.

Mommyinwaiting...

Wow now there’s a statement to get most IFs riled up. I mean I guess for Hopelessly [Mommyinwaitings' husband] that means seeing as he was never actually able to have kids his point of natural conception was never reached and he should never be allowed to have kids. And those women who have unexpectedly early menopause they should not be allowed assistance. In fact what is the point of any ART if you should stop when you pass the point of natural conception. Stupid Cow!

Well put.

Yeah but no but yeah but no but...

Teh Telegraph...

Miss Dorries, who once complained that MPs had become victims of a “witch-hunt”, is the subject of an inquiry by John Lyon, the parliamentary commissioner for standards.

Mr Lyon is investigating a complaint about controversial claims for tens of thousands of pounds in “second home” allowances made by the MP for Mid Bedfordshire.

And the problem? Well, Commons rules dictate that normally an MPs' main home is the one they spend most nights at and seeing as Nadines' constituency home houses her dogs and one of her daughters lives there and goes to a local school and Nadine only lives anywhere else some weekends and holidays, it looks like her constituency home is her main home.

Nadine at first said there wasn't an investigation, but then backtracked...

When contacted on Friday Miss Dorries first said that she was not the subject of an inquiry and that the complaint made about her did not relate to her use of allowances.

She later said: “A complaint has been made to the standards commissioner regarding myself by an officer of the BNP.

“As with all complaints, John Lyon is looking at whether it has any substance. I am providing him with information to prove that it has not.

"The complaint relates to the number of nights I slept at my homes."

Nadine may provide John Lyons with evidence, but as to whether it proves what Nadine wants it to prove, I wouldn't be too sure as Nadine doesn't seem too sure of the rules herself.



hat-tip Liberal Conspiracy

update:
(Although it's only been ten minutes or so since this post was published, was was published so it is technically an update)

I've just come across this quote by Nadine, via Split Horizons, from her appearance on Radio 4s' Any Questions...

You know can I just say before I begin cos I feel I need to say this always now. My name's Nadine Dorries. I'm an MP. I've never claimed for mortgage on my expenses. Therefore I have never flipped. I have never benefited in any way. I've never claimed for a cleaner or a gardener, a duck house, a moat or anything. I don't own a company that I pay funds into. I've never claimed for petty cash or for food ... And I feel I need to say that now to every person that I meet. And my expenses were poured over by the scrutiny and I do not have to pay a penny back in misclaimed expenses. [APPLAUSE]

Not quite telling the truth, seeing what you want to see & having 'fluid' standards

Look at this...


(source)

Damien McBride may be a liar, as his out of court settlement to Nadine implies, whether he is a fantasist, is open to for debate and his standards, well, yes. Quite.

But doesn't it rather stick in the throat to hear it from someone like Nadine Dorries?

*cough* Hand of Hope *cough*

*cough* Implying someone is a paedophile *cough*

*splutter* Not being entirely honest about being pulled up by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner *splutter*