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.
Showing posts with label Dorries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dorries. Show all posts
Nov 21, 2012
Jun 13, 2012
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.
: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.
Feb 21, 2012
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:
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.
Oct 6, 2011
Nadine Dorries interview in Glamour magazine
Glamour magazine! It's not my thing, really. But no matter. Actually, that's why this little number is here. Glamour magazine isn't for everybody, but everybody who cares about anybody with a uterus will want to read this. Think of it as a neato time capsule of the best Dorries has to support a range of recent arguments.
It is quite plain for most party/political/punditry people that Dorries is having us on. Her main campaign revolves a recycled ploy from a similarly cynical campaign by a deeply religious anti-abortionist movement in the United States. When Dorries went to the House with her version of this package, it had already been widely discredited. She was thrown a lifeline by Anne Milton, a minister from her own party trying very hard to help her, but still Dorries persisted, wasting the House's time with highly distorted accounts, entirely unsupported hearsay, plus - most alarming of all - deliberate and darkly cynical emotional devices both in support of her 'argument', and in defence of her many refusals to openly debate it, or even produce evidence to support it.
Nadine Dorries even pretended to be independent of her own damn campaign and activists, because it was the only way for her to avoid discussion of the deeply religious roots of her efforts and those of her supporters. This is something Dorries has repeatedly tried to hide, but she keeps revealing herself in her language and her aims, and her belief in Bible passages that are so strong, it makes her call the Church of England "cowards" when they do not interpret them as literally as she does. There really is no hiding this kind of thing, and yet Dorries persists. I do hope you'll excuse my amazement.
Click to make bigger and read.
It is quite plain for most party/political/punditry people that Dorries is having us on. Her main campaign revolves a recycled ploy from a similarly cynical campaign by a deeply religious anti-abortionist movement in the United States. When Dorries went to the House with her version of this package, it had already been widely discredited. She was thrown a lifeline by Anne Milton, a minister from her own party trying very hard to help her, but still Dorries persisted, wasting the House's time with highly distorted accounts, entirely unsupported hearsay, plus - most alarming of all - deliberate and darkly cynical emotional devices both in support of her 'argument', and in defence of her many refusals to openly debate it, or even produce evidence to support it.
Nadine Dorries even pretended to be independent of her own damn campaign and activists, because it was the only way for her to avoid discussion of the deeply religious roots of her efforts and those of her supporters. This is something Dorries has repeatedly tried to hide, but she keeps revealing herself in her language and her aims, and her belief in Bible passages that are so strong, it makes her call the Church of England "cowards" when they do not interpret them as literally as she does. There really is no hiding this kind of thing, and yet Dorries persists. I do hope you'll excuse my amazement.
Jan 31, 2010
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.
Dec 18, 2009
Why I Write About Nadine Dorries
Well, for one thing there was the uncritical promotion of misinformation (that happened to fit her agenda), for example this hoax: 'hand of hope'. Then there was the ridiculous demand for an enquiry into how written evidence published openly and in full during a select committee hearing "got into the public domain" (badscience.net). The silliness of the demand for an enquiry into how openly-published information got into the public domain, and the uncritical promotion of a hoax, got my attention.
What really piqued my interest, though, was the perceived censorship in respect of Nadine's blog. Detailed here, Dorries decided to close blog comments (claiming she didn't have time for them, despite still finding time to blog). I made reference to Dorries in this general post about a failure to engage and a commenter pointed out that: "Lack of openness to public critical appraisal is a bad sign, whether in scientific or any other media format."
Nadine's Twitter account has provided further examples of silliness and censorship. I wrote about Nadine Dorries on drugs* recently and used comments made by Dorries on Twitter as the basis of my post. Her responses to comments made by others (using evidence to back up their points) were illogical in the extreme, as I detail in the blog post linked to above.
Having blogged about Dorries and mentioned my post on Twitter, I soon found that I had been blocked by Dorries.** Nadine later posted a tweet claiming: "I block people who are rude and offensive. kerry blocks people who are right." I've looked through my tweets mentioning Dorries and cannot find any that I would consider to be rude and offensive.
A later tweet from Dorries was this one: "Anyone who Tweets has the right to block or not who they wish without criticism. Its called freedom of Tweet and I'll fight for it!" Nadine seems to have approached Twitter the way that many people approach debate in general - they conflate the important and valuable right to free speech with the right to say (and do) what I like without being criticised for it - which, far from being a fundamental human right, is a made-up 'right' presumably invented by someone who did not wish to face up to criticism.
I'm not sure whether Nadine's wrongness or her inability to countenance being wrong is more worrying, but a combination of the two has certainly encouraged me to write about her.
*Blogs such as sim-o and markreckons also tackled the statements Dorries made about drugs.
**There is a list of 25 people who have been blocked by Nadine Dorries on Twitter, several of whom have asked Dorries to point out where they have been "rude and offensive" - apparently with no answer forthcoming from Dorries. I was one of them, and I certainly did not receive an answer.
What really piqued my interest, though, was the perceived censorship in respect of Nadine's blog. Detailed here, Dorries decided to close blog comments (claiming she didn't have time for them, despite still finding time to blog). I made reference to Dorries in this general post about a failure to engage and a commenter pointed out that: "Lack of openness to public critical appraisal is a bad sign, whether in scientific or any other media format."
Nadine's Twitter account has provided further examples of silliness and censorship. I wrote about Nadine Dorries on drugs* recently and used comments made by Dorries on Twitter as the basis of my post. Her responses to comments made by others (using evidence to back up their points) were illogical in the extreme, as I detail in the blog post linked to above.
Having blogged about Dorries and mentioned my post on Twitter, I soon found that I had been blocked by Dorries.** Nadine later posted a tweet claiming: "I block people who are rude and offensive. kerry blocks people who are right." I've looked through my tweets mentioning Dorries and cannot find any that I would consider to be rude and offensive.
A later tweet from Dorries was this one: "Anyone who Tweets has the right to block or not who they wish without criticism. Its called freedom of Tweet and I'll fight for it!" Nadine seems to have approached Twitter the way that many people approach debate in general - they conflate the important and valuable right to free speech with the right to say (and do) what I like without being criticised for it - which, far from being a fundamental human right, is a made-up 'right' presumably invented by someone who did not wish to face up to criticism.
I'm not sure whether Nadine's wrongness or her inability to countenance being wrong is more worrying, but a combination of the two has certainly encouraged me to write about her.
*Blogs such as sim-o and markreckons also tackled the statements Dorries made about drugs.
**There is a list of 25 people who have been blocked by Nadine Dorries on Twitter, several of whom have asked Dorries to point out where they have been "rude and offensive" - apparently with no answer forthcoming from Dorries. I was one of them, and I certainly did not receive an answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)