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.
Jan 7, 2011
In which Nadine Dorries calls for "accuracy" and posts personal information on her blog
Nadine Dorries has today posted a 'blog' entry in which she expresses concern "that any story is reported accurately". I personally think accuracy is important and this is just one reason why I write about Nadine Dorries. Nadine's claim to be concerned about accuracy was a little surprising to me, given her previous admissions regarding the veracity of the information posted on her blog.
In her latest post, Dorries has published press statements from herself, from the man she is currently having a romantic relationship with, and from this man's daughter. These press statements include information that I would consider to be private and will not repeat here. Dorries, though, apparently thinks that it is acceptable to publish this information on her blog. This is not the first time I have disagreed with Dorries and I doubt it will be the last.
Edit, 8th January 12:44pm
The CRITique blog has two posts up about Dorries publishing this information on her blog. Here, the author states that "the publication of a third party’s medical condition, if it is without explicit consent, is unlawful" and in this post, they look at the possible consequences.
In her latest post, Dorries has published press statements from herself, from the man she is currently having a romantic relationship with, and from this man's daughter. These press statements include information that I would consider to be private and will not repeat here. Dorries, though, apparently thinks that it is acceptable to publish this information on her blog. This is not the first time I have disagreed with Dorries and I doubt it will be the last.
Edit, 8th January 12:44pm
The CRITique blog has two posts up about Dorries publishing this information on her blog. Here, the author states that "the publication of a third party’s medical condition, if it is without explicit consent, is unlawful" and in this post, they look at the possible consequences.
Oct 22, 2010
Nadine Dorries tells lies about why she told lies
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"?
-
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]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)