Nadine Dorries: vile and abusive messages

Nadine Dorries once told a room full of people that I was under police investigation after sending her "vile, abusive messages". The investigation she spoke of never took place, Dorries cannot produce any evidence of her making a complaint, and even though she is now compelled by law to produce the email messages she spoke of, she has refused. (She instead instigated an investigation by misleading police, then lied about the outcome of that investigation, but there'll be more on that soon enough.)

So what are we to make of the following text message that the Daily Mail have published, citing recipient Shailesh Vara as the source?

Nadine's bawdy border war

Europe isn’t the main source of tensions among Tory MPs at the moment. The thing that is really driving a wedge between them is the boundary review.

These constituency changes are designed to shrink the House of Commons from 650 MPs to 600. They have left some Tories with much reduced majorities and others with no seat at all.

Nadine Dorries, right, a charismatic and controversial MP, is one of those whose seat has been cut from under her by the boundary review. Judging by a text message she sent to her colleague Shailesh Vara this month, she thinks little of those who are trying to use this as an opportunity to move to the safest seat possible.

She messaged him:

‘I’m getting reports from conference that you are unhappy with being left with only an 8 and ½ thousand majority and you fancy St Neotts [sic]. You may have noticed, some of us have been left with no seat whatsoever. I don’t believe these rumours are true because a) I don’t think you would make yourself look like such a shallow, selfish greedy d*** and b) you know you would have a fight on your hands of vicious proportions. So may I suggest that you simply f*** off back to your own seat and look after your fat majority and leave those of us who have no seat to fight over the pickings. And by the way, I’m also sending this text to the chief. Nadine.’

Friends of Vara, who is a party whip, say that he was shocked by this intemperate texted tongue-lashing.

They complain, with some justification, that telling a fellow MP to ‘f*** off back to your own seat’ is hardly collegiate.

It is, though, a sign that Dorries, who has made it to the House of Commons from a council estate in Liverpool, has no intention of quitting without a fight.

But if she is going to get the seat, she is going to have to remember that there is only one ‘t’ in Neots.

Is this vile? It's certainly abusive. It also reveals something about Dorries' priorities that's unlikely to go down well with her present constituents in Mid Bedfordshire.

Dorries: 'I am doing this to empower women'

Below is the full text of the interview in the Times that has Nadine Dorries lashing out at Alice Thomson. We're releasing it into the public domain so Nadine's (textbook) response might be seen in its proper context:

'I am doing this to empower women'

Alice Thomson
Friday 2nd September 2011

Nadine Dorries spent her summer trying to change the rules on abortion counselling. Was it worth it, Alice Thomson asks her


The foetus was still alive in the bed pan, it was gasping for breath, I could see its little face and its sex," says Nadine Dorries. "As an 18-year-old trainee nurse, I was absolutely horrified. I had been told to get rid of it in the sluice machine but I ran to the matron to say it was breathing."

The matron was furious. "She wheeled around in her chair and stormed into the sluice room, looked at the bedpan and told me it was now dead. She almost pushed me against the wall, and said: 'You'd better toughen up, young lady.' But this felt more like a murder than a medical procedure."

Oh Nadine, do you have to be so graphic? The Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire has spent the past seven years in Parliament fighting about abortion. She has her views on MPs' expenses, all-women shortlists, schools, John Bercow and even high heels, but it's her stance on abortion that has caused her to become vilified. She's been called Britain's Sarah Palin, a fantasist, mendacious, grubby and dangerous by the pro-abortionists.

She has twice tried to reduce the time limit for abortion and next week MPs will vote on her amendment to provide independent counselling for women seeking an abortion that won't include the big service providers.

When I meet Dorries, now 54, she looks exhausted. She has just moved into her new home on the edge of a cul-de-sac in Harlington and everything is in turmoil. Her leg is swollen and bruised from a recent accident, her face is as crumpled as her shirt, she can't find her iron, the dog is chewing the furniture and she has been working all summer while her colleagues have been texting her from Barbados. But she is convinced that she is on the verge of a breakthrough.

I have always thought that Britain was rather civilised when it came to the issue of abortion, unlike America. It is one of those increasingly rare issues that is still considered private. We don't picket clinics, or try to maim those who carry out terminations. Few of us base our vote on the issue; we are more concerned about the economy, health and crime.

So why can't Dorries relax and shut up? Having spent an afternoon with her, I still think that this doll-like blonde's amendment is flawed, but I admire her tenacity. Her views veer from rational and practical to passionate and emotive; she is not always logical and her facts are sometimes wrong, her reasoning intuitive rather than intellectual. But nor is she out to destroy a woman's chance of terminating an unwanted pregnancy before 20 weeks. I believe her when she says that she just wants to ensure that women have a real choice in pregnancy.

The reason she keeps going, she says, is the letters she receives from women who have been traumatised by their abortions. "It's this whole wham, bam, in, out, you're aborted with no chance to draw breath. They can't talk about it in the playground but their devastating sense of loss makes me weep."

The former nurse used to prep women having terminations.

"I can remember terrified young girls, older women with children, bullying husbands, women on their third abortion, all of them seemed dazed and upset."

She has even watched a late abortion for her research a few years ago, and launches into another graphic account — too graphic, frankly, to reproduce here. Yet here is one of her inconsistencies. If women are offered independent counselling, it could mean more late abortions as they will have to delay the procedure to seek a therapist. At the moment the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) manages to perform 75 per cent of its abortions before ten weeks, up from 40 per cent in 2000 — that seems like progress. "Some people need a bit more time, space, a person to listen to, it could help them later," Dorries says.

So let's say I am an 18-year-old girl who has unexpectedly become pregnant just as I am about to go to college, what advice would the independent counsellor be expected to give? "They won't be able to advise or direct. They will just facilitate the woman to go through all the options and talk things through. If she decides to go ahead and abort, she will do so empowered, knowing that she explored every opportunity; that she wasn't influenced or in a panic, that she has reached a calm and informed decision.

The problem is that abortion in this country is now so fast, so effective, so rapid, that it is too efficient for its own good and has lost all empathy. In pilots where women are offered independent counselling, 50 per cent of those who ask for it don't then opt for an abortion."

But deciding to bring a baby into the world is a huge commitment — should we really be encouraging women to have a baby if they are unsure that they can yet face the responsibility? "Adoption is the big issue we never mention," she replies. "Only two babies were adopted last year. [The figure is actually 70.] It's the final taboo. You can take no comfort from abortion because it is terminal but you can take comfort from an adoption because you can turn a horrible mistake into something life-enhancing for other people."

Has Dorries any idea what it might be like to hand over a baby after birth? Surely that is more traumatising than an abortion? "I don't know how agonising it would be to give away your baby," she replies politely, "but I know many adopted children who have lived wonderful lives; they are often high achievers."

She doesn't believe that there is any such thing as a guilt-free abortion. "Many women are fine until they are in their fifties, when it hits them. I don't want to be over-emotional, but I think that most people who have had an abortion will think about it at some time — I don't think they necessarily remember due dates, but they usually think of who they could have had in their lives. A lot of the pro-abortionists who have had abortions can't stop talking about it, maybe it's cathartic. It's like a healing process."

But what about cost? Tasteless as it sounds, this counselling is going to cost the Treasury cash. "If the number of abortions falls, that should save money so it shouldn't cost more."

The biggest sticking point, however, has been who should provide the counselling. "There are 80,000 counsellors in this country. This is not about religious zealots. I was brought up in the Church of England but I rarely go to church. God has no place in a counselling room with a woman in a crisis pregnancy, but neither does anyone paid to carry out an abortion. The counselling room should be a zone free from anyone who has an agenda."

Yet Marie Stopes and the BPAS, the two biggest agencies, are charities: they don't make any money out of convincing women to have an abortion.

Just opening up the issue risks taking us down the US route. But in Dorries's world, it is the Left stirring things up. "If the Left carry on campaigning in the way they are, they will turn us into another America," she warns. "If they carry on trying to defend the indefensible, they will cause huge unhappiness. This amendment only offers women counselling; it isn't compulsory, it is just for those with doubts, so why are they opposing it? Because they worry it will mean fewer abortions and that would horrify them."

Dorries, on the other hand, thinks that almost 200,000 abortions a year in Britain is too many. "The political climate has encouraged it. We have a law saying you can't have an abortion for social reasons, yet 98 per cent of abortions happen because of that. So the law has been an ass in this area. There has also been a lack of moral framework. Years ago, teachers, parents, the Church had a role. When I grew up in Liverpool there was an invisible moral framework that as teenagers you bounced off.

"Teenagers are now in freefall, it's quite scary for them, there are few boundaries, no reason not to have sex. The welfare state encourages them to make mistakes — if they get pregnant, they often don't realise that they could lose their place in education, the workplace, their partners will leave them, they could enter old age in poverty and alone."

Then shouldn't they have an abortion? "It's better to teach them not to have unprotected sex. That's why I wanted them to learn about abstinence in schools, to help these girls to have a future."

If one of her three daughters had become pregnant in her teens, Dorries says that she would have looked after the baby for her. "Mums used to do that — they offered to help to bring up a child. Now family breakdown, social breakdown, societal breakdown, the broken society, lack of moral framework, our selfishness, stops us all helping each other out."

She says that she would never judge a woman for getting pregnant by mistake. "It could happen so easily to most of us. I just want to know that a woman isn't having an abortion because her friends want her to, or her partner, or mum, dad or teacher suggests it. I can understand why anyone goes for an abortion but I want them to have a choice and not to think that it is the only solution and it is easy. I am like this one-woman band."

What about men: where do they fit into her campaign? She split up with her husband five years ago, and says that she always thought pregnancy was a woman's issue. "Men shouldn't be allowed in the counselling room, the final choice must always be the woman's."

She describes herself as a feminist, "although not like some. I am the mother of three girls and I am very aware of the inequality for women in life, I admire Harriet Harman for what she has achieved for women. I am also doing this for women, to empower them."

A lot of people disagree in the most violent terms. "The abuse has been dreadful, really horrific, too disgusting to print. People want to strangle me until my eyes pop out and burn me. They throw eggs through our windows. My daughter works in our office and she reads the letters first. She is leaving now, the toll has been so huge on her. My other daughter had to put up with snide comments from teachers."

The Labour MP Frank Field has seconded her amendment. "He doesn't get death threats. He gets nothing because he is from the Left and a man."

At the beginning of this week, she thought she might have pulled off the greatest abortion shake-up since 1967 when David Cameron appeared to be behind her. "The Prime Minister had coffee with me. He wanted the word 'strongly' independent included; he had the same worries as me that the amendment would be taken over by religious groups or pro-abortion groups, that it had to be neutral," she says. "David is supportive. He is the one driving it at No 10, it will happen."

Yesterday, though, the Prime Minister made it clear that he will not support her amendment. His spokesman explained: "We have real sympathy for Nadine's proposals but you can't exclude the big providers from the counselling process or you will throw the whole system into disarray, which will be much more damaging for women in the end."

It's hard to believe the effort has been worth it. "I can't let myself think like that," Dorries says. "I can't stop now. I will keep fighting for this and lowering the abortion limit to 20 weeks. I have to keep going because no one else does. People feel embarrassed, horrified, that it's too emotive or distasteful, but we have to have a grown-up conversation about the issue. Many ordinary people agree with me, my constituents have been incredibly supportive. People have listened and heard: it's like a race and I am determined to power through to the end."

Sadly for her, most ordinary women simply don't agree.

Nadine Dorries lashes out at Camilla Long

Yesterday:

"Camilla Long, who was absolutely lovely asked the (many) questions.. Actually, she was so lovely, I found myself thinking that I would be very proud if she were one of my girls" - Nadine Dorries

Today (well, very late last night, if we're to be accurate):

"It appears that Camilla Long, Sunday Times journalist, must have a few bats in her own tiny little belfry. Probably there to keep her cats company." - Nadine Dorries

If you read the relevant piece by Camilla Long (it appears in full as a scan below, from today's Sunday Times), you will note that Dorries' accusation that this journalist lied about one single aspect does very little to excuse what it reveals, even if there is any truth to her accusation (which I doubt, given her history):

Click for large, legible version

Also, if you take a look at the closing paragraph, you will see that Dorries warned Long that this is exactly what she would do if she did not write a positive piece:



Classic Dorries. I pointed out that she was exactly like this almost exactly one year ago.

For more background on what she proposes we teach young girls about sex, see this round-up of reactions.

As usual, Dorries pretends that any negative reaction comes from "Trots and the socialist elite", but she has been described as a "sexist dinosaur" in today's Mail.

Nadine Dorries and how she uses lies to attack her enemies

I've written before on this blog about how Nadine Dorries has displayed a pattern of "spreading malicious lies and falsehoods about those who dare to confront or oppose her" (source) and to be honest, I did expect the same treatment for daring to expose this. What I did not expect was Dorries stooping so low as to knowingly put my family in danger... and the Conservative Party allowing her to get away with it.

It's a long post, so grab a cup of tea or coffee and strap yourself in:

Proof: Nadine Dorries lies about police investigations

I have since contacted the office of Conservative Party Chairman (Baroness Warsi) about this matter, and their position is they would like to do everything possible to avoid taking a position. I guess with their shaky coalition only just hanging there, they need every Tory MP they've got... even lawmakers who lie about criminal investigations for personal/political gain. Priorities, you understand.

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:

"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.

every possible permutation

Nadine Dorries...

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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.]

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*

Nadine Dorries claims satire to be an obstacle to democracy

What a load of unmitigated bullshit from Nadine Dorries this morning:

Nadine Dorries is spreading outright falsehoods in a pathetic attempt to mobilise pro-democracy forces in her favour.

1. No, she's not allowed to pass herself off as an MP during the election, so she probably will have to change her current URL of twitter.com/NadineDorriesMP if she seriously wants to engage via Twitter during an election (which I consider to be unlikely, as she is already notorious for failing to engage on Twitter on a day-to-day basis). At any time she can keep the same account and simply switch her URL to 'http://twitter.com/NadineDorries4MP' or something similar, just as Kerry McCarthy and other less-hysterical MPs have decided to do.

2. Even if this were as big an issue as she makes it out to be, the unavailability of ideal account names is not an impediment to the actual act of tweeting, especially when she can take all of her existing remaining followers with her to any available location she chooses. Nobody has robbed her of the capacity to exercise her democratic anything.

3. There is at present no account live for twitter.com/NadineDorries - there was an account live there at one stage (no, I don't know who was behind it) - but Dorries appears to have taken action that led to its closure, by claiming impersonation (something that Twitter does not allow). She's failed to manage that with twitter.com/Nadine_Dorries, the account under my control, because it is clearly satire.

4. She thinks she can use the old 'no names' trick to avoid a charge of libel, but there's only one 'nadine dorries' account on Twitter at present that uses her name in the URL... mine. I am not a 'Labour supporter' and Nadine is using the 'obsessed' tag after a series of earlier tweets accusing me of being mentally unstable. As for my being 'sad', well that depends on which definition of the word you use, but I can tell you that I'm not happy that an MP would think libel to be an appropriate response to satire.

5. Still, I can understand why she'd want to lash out (again) while avoiding any mention (again) of what's really put the wind up her skirt:

Conservative Change Channel - Rupert Murdoch and other great Australians

Nadine Dorries attacks John Bercow for not controlling his woman

Let's start with Nadine's original quote about this interview with Sally Bercow (wife of Speaker John Bercow), as published by the Times:

Nadine Dorries, a Tory MP who opposed Mr Bercow’s selection as Speaker, said: “We desperately need to restore authority and respect to Parliament. What this interview has done is remove any painstaking progress Parliament has made and reduced the Speaker and his office to that of a laughing stock. How can we ask the people to trust us, when the man who holds us to account has such poor judgment that he allowed his wife to give such an appalling, self-obsessed interview?” (source)

What Nadine is talking about at the beginning of her attack on Bercow is the fallout from the expenses row, which she shamelessly tars Berkow with by blurring the lines between him and the failures of his predecessor. During the expenses row, Nadine found herself on the wrong side of the rules and squirmed a bit before declaring all MPs to be blameless because they were instructed to help themselves to an open trough. Then, finding this view to be unpopular, she tried to convince us that MPs might commit suicide if we were any meaner to them. Soon after this, she switched to a claim of a large-scale agenda-setting conspiracy, involving the owners of a certain newspaper being in league with UKIP and the BNP.

Basically, she's one to talk.

Also, she seeks to lecture others on the restoration of trust and dignity in politics while using someone's marriage partner to get at them.

But let's hurry along to the part that's causing Nadine the most difficulty, just in case you haven't spotted it:

In this ill-thought-out attack, Nadine was in such a hurry to take her cheap shot at John Bercow that she rather rashly declared that he was unable to control his woman.

Then, to avoid admitting that she had just declared a woman's place to be servile and silent, Nadine skidded out onto some very thin ice, claiming on her not-a-blog that she only meant that John Bercow could instruct his wife on what to say (and what not to say) during interviews conducted at their residence:

The Speaker, the man who holds Parliament and its Members to account, has displayed a serious lack of judgment in allowing his grace-and-favour apartment to be used for such an interview. His future tenure of the historic Chair must now, more than ever, be in question. To have used the Speaker's apartment in the Palace of Westminster to personally attack David Cameron, the man who may be the next Prime Minister...(source)

The ice immediately gave way beneath her when it was revealed that the interview was not conducted at that residence (nice gamble, Nads), and suddenly Nadine was claiming her comments were really about.... a large-scale agenda-setting conspiracy. One of such importance there was absolutely no time to mention where she might have been wrong about anything she had said earlier:

"I think it was a staged interview, managed by those in the shadows of the Labour party, and was a strategic measure in kicking off Labours new ‘class warfare’ campaign. Who cares about Sally Bercow’s past? Do we really believe she was concerned that one of her one-night stands, from a booze fuelled liaison, sometime in her long ago past was going to surface and spill the beans? Really, do we?... The Bercow’s [sic] cannot distance themselves from the harm this interview has done. Whilst in my constituency today, everyone I met, of whatever political persuasion, registered their distaste. People were disgusted. The office of Speaker is now as low as it can go. "(source)

So it's all about dignity. That, and a massive conspiracy, but mostly dignity. Nadine contends that Sally Bercow admitting to binge drinking and casual sex when she was younger (and/or attacking Cameron, it's hard to be sure when she's all over the place) undermines the dignity of all MPs

Here, it is worth pausing for the view of Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes), one of the men this MP chose to (very) publicly hand-deliver some legalish documents in a wholly undignified manner. Today, Paul had this to say in response to the same Sally Bercow interview (and a recently-discovered 1986 article by a young John Bercow):

"Like global warming, the John Bercow Guide’s pick-up strategies are an interesting theory. Guido isn’t entirely sure lines like 'If you’re free later maybe we could go back to your place and name your breasts' ever really work. In fact funnily enough Guido can’t recall Bercow even having a girlfriend back in those days. Anyway he has done well to land an experienced girl like Sally, particularly now she has sobered up. Guido thinks Sally looks vaguely familiar, but it was over a decade ago, Guido was very, very drunk that night and was never good at remembering names..."(source)

I don't know quite what this is, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't dignity.

(I'd ask my wife about it, but I already know what her opinion is... mine. Did you see what I did there?)

Sadly, Nadine was so busy raising doubts and casting shadows that she inadvertently repeated her earlier mistake of asserting that it is Mr Bercow's duty to reign his woman in. In Nadine's head, the only other option is the interview being something he approves of:

"How can we trust the man expected to set the standards in Parliament, the person who holds us to account, to have any sort of judgment when he obviously must have thought this interview was a good idea?"(source)

Nadine has (by now, repeatedly) talked herself into a very difficult position here, and should count herself lucky that she is about to disappear for a week into a mysterious reality TV experiment.

Even if you've just recently joined us from the 50s, you should know that woman < man is a very dangerous thing for any politician to say, but for Nadine it also completely contradicts her entire brand of feisty go-getting empowered-by-the-people female MP.

The way she tells it, Nadine was given an ultimatum by her husband - him or the political career - and she chose the career. And yet she thinks Sally Bercow should surrender to her husband's will (in a scenario that I should stress exists mainly inside Nadine's head).

This morning, Nads is STILL trying to escape the problem she's created by skidding out onto that same thin patch of ice:



Her latest escape plan rests on a false claim that Sally Bercow is somehow formally employed by the taxpayer as wife-of-the-Speaker, and is paid with a roof over her head and some other perks. Knowing what I know, I can completely understand Nadine being confused about the difference between wages and accommodation expenses, but it doesn't get her anywhere when in reality there's no signed contract for Sally Bercow to obey, just a husband (and that's IF she chooses to obey, and IF John Bercow ever seeks to put her in this position).

Nadine's argument rests - again - on her contention that Sally Bercow should do as her husband tells her.

Either Nadine Dorries tellingly speaks against her instincts while mounting/maintaining this latest attack on John Bercow, or The Nadster's whole political position on women's rights - including a big chunk of her back story - is a sham.

-

Footnote - Paul Staines seems to have blanked most of 1986 from his mind. For some reason. Also, his hilariously uplifting "we've all had your wife" jibe is only rendered classier by this unashamed drunkard sneering once again at those who dare to turn teetotal. Paul is stronger than that, you see. He's not addicted to alcohol, he just really really likes it. In fact, he enjoys his drinking so much, he'll risk 3 months in prison rather than take any verifiable steps to curb it. I think the logic goes like this... They are weak because they gave up. Drinking. He is strong, because he didn't give up. Drinking. He is strong. And smart and big and clever. And probably drunk right now.