Hello! Is there anybody there?

Nadine Dorries and IPSA

Everybody’s favourite MP, Nadine Dorries, has written an interesting new blog post on an investigation into her expenses. This is of interest for a couple of reasons.

Specific Claims and Denials

The Prime Minister has said that he did not know that Nadine Dorries would be on I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here. Dorries has responded by making the counter-claim that she had informed the whip's office that she would be away for a month. Now, these two claims address different issues: one is about the Prime Minister having knowledge of Dorries making an appearance on a television show; the other is about the chief whip's office having knowledge of Dorries taking a month off (and giving permission for this). As it stands, one, both, or neither could be true. The counter-claim from Dorries (which has been responded to by the whip's office) does not address the specific claim made by David Cameron. The responses to the claim that Dorries informed the whip she was taking a month off do not address the time off, but refer back to the Prime Minister's claim that he was in the dark about Dorries appearing on I'm A Celebrity.

Here is a video of an appearance Nadine Dorries' daughters made on TV: Daybreak

At the start of the interview, it is claimed that Dorries asked for time off. "Obviously, she, she did ask for the month off. She did. She requested it from, um, the chief whip at the time, that she was going to go away for a month, it would be controversial. He said it's fine, you know, and that happened so that was OK."

HuffPo wrote that "She did not say if the whip's office was aware that her 55-year-old mother would be flying off to the Australian jungle to take part in the reality TV show." So journalists are at least pointing out that the claim is only that the time off was allowed, not that the appearance in I'm a Celebrity was. But they don't seem to have managed to clarify what has actually happened.

Then there's the whip's office quote that is being presented as a contradictory response to the comments from the Dorries camp: the chief whip "was neither asked nor did he agree to Nadine Dorries going off to Australia for a month to take part in I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here". This is a specific denial that does not address the actual claim made by Dorries' daughter.

In spite of the articles about this from broadcasters, blogs and newspapers, we still don't know what Dorries asked for (if anything) or what the chief whip agreed to (if anything).

If I were interviewing Nadine Dorries or her daughters I think I would ask what permission was actually requested from the chief whip. And I would be interested to see the response of the chief whip's office to the question "what did Andrew Mitchell agree to?"

If we are charitable and assume that Cameron, Dorries and Mitchell are all telling the truth then it seems that what actually happened was that (a) Dorries asked for and received permission to take a month off, without saying what it was for and (b) Dorries was not given permission to appear on I'm A Celebrity, because she didn't ask for it. Presumably, Dorries was suspended not for taking a month off but for going off to Australia to take part in a TV show.

I'm a bit bemused to be in a situation where I'm left to guess what happened despite wide coverage of the situation, because each of the two sides insists on making specific claims and denials that do not address the point the other side is making, and no-one appears willing or able to call them on it.

Nadine Dorries to appear on I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here

Once again, I must beg your patience on a long-overdue update regarding what Nadine Dorries has been up to behind the scenes, but in the short term I bring news that Dorries is to enter the Australian jungle as a contestant on 'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here'.

For reasons too obvious/numerous to mention, there needs to be a place for people to learn the truth about Nadine Dorries, and this is an ideal platform (that she has repeatedly attempted to remove from service) but we will need more writers/editors if we are to hope to keep up with what is to come.

So I am holding open auditions for more writers/editors for this micro-site from today. If you wish to write for this blog about Nadine Dorries' antics in the jungle (and maybe further on if you so desire), simply write a new article about anything she has done recently (or ever, if you have a favourite), then publish it on your site/blog, and submit a link to me via this page at my main website. If you have not been managing your own website, do feel free to submit your article as text, but don't be offended if you are considered for a writing role and not an editing role (experience is a requirement on the latter).

Please be yourself, but do be aware that Dorries makes false and damaging accusations against effective critics (sometimes to police), so you would be well advised to moderate your tone and stick to evidence a lot more than you would otherwise.

On that note, it should probably be made very clear to you that Nadine Dorries reserves special attention for people who publish things she does not approve of; should you attempt to take this woman on at all, I shit you not when I say you risk making an enemy for life. This is the main reason she has survived for so long despite being the most audacious liar in the House today; she can be so unhinged and vindictive at times that even the Speaker is afraid of her.

Blocked by Nadine Dorries on Twitter? No problem.

Hello, readers. Sorry I've been away, but there's been a thing. Given my track record (1, 2), I trust I retain your confidence that a full report of the event will be published as soon as the relevant necessary is done with, and the evidence is ready.

:o)

And now, onto my reason for this visit; Nadine Dorries and her latest presence on Twitter.

Nadine has recently taken to attaching herself to the side of angels in the online bullying/defamation debate, but the fact is, she is so dishonest and/or delusional that she treats legitimate criticism as if it is abuse, and even thinks (alleged) libel to be a matter for the police. Further, she engages in bullying and defamation herself using Twitter and other facilities, and I look forward to publishing the detail of that.

The widely-reported manner in which she blocks people makes it quite apparent that she seeks to prevent informed critics from reading her timeline. So, if this sounds like you, and you'd like to keep an eye on what the old fraud is up to, you can now follow a mirror of all of Dorries' tweeted output via @BlockedByNadine

(Psst! The fact that evil baby-murdering humanists could still keep up with her dishonest anti-abortion campaigning got so far up Nadine Dorries' nose that she misled the public its context and purpose with a day, and in the House no less.)

@Steand is to be congratulated for the initiative. Transparency not an offer to be thrown about lightly and then cast aside at for reasons of party/political/personal convenience.

Nadine Dorries lashes out with point she imagines she has (and assumes is supported by evidence that isn't quite what she imagines)

There are more Dorries-related updates to come from me personally very shortly. In the meantime, I ask you bear with me during the time-consuming process of (*gasp*) actual research, something Nadine does not bother with herself, even on the most superficial level (see: RTFA manual, chapter one, page 1).

In the meantime, I offer you this diary piece from Hugh Muir:

Finally, what was it the combative Nadine Dorries MP said? "I'm frequently gobsmacked by how journalists forget to check their facts." Lord Justice Leveson would concur. But then he would probably avoid making an idiot of himself in the aftermath. On Saturday, Dorries pointed her Twitter flock towards an article by our own Jonathan Freedland. It referred to the "left's dirty secret" – the extent to which leading figures embraced the idea of eugenics: the theme of the novel Pantheon, written under Freedland's pen name, Sam Bourne. "Thanks to @j_freedland for excellent Cif article," tweeted Dorries, prompting a measure of criticism. "Usual torrent of abuse 4 linking to an abortion article re the left," she said. It's not an "abortion article", countered Freedland. "There's a difference between individual women having right to choose and desire to reduce/eliminate ranks of the 'inferior'." "Yes, but as you know," said Dorries, "abortion was the method used to eliminate the inferior." She had seen Freedland being interviewed on the BBC. "I just found it odd that in the whole interview you avoided the word entirely and yet in any other discussion re eugenics etc it's a word used often. I also didn't hear you mention Marie Stopes in your list of names, a contemporary of those you listed. Your avoidance of both led me to think that had more to do with your day job on the Guardian, as to omit both the word abortion + MS were glaring omissions." Nonsense, said Freedland. If I were worried about a Guardian backlash, I wouldn't have written the piece in the Guardian. And there was a whole paragraph about Marie Stopes. Didn't you see it? "I still haven't read all the column," admitted Dorries. "But u tweeted that it was excellent piece, linked to it + called it 'an abortion article'. Thought you'd read it," said Freedland. Oh dear, checkmate. Off sloped the member for Fact-Check West.