Hi folks. If you've turned up here wondering what Nadine Dorries and her latest "pro women" (i.e. anti-abortion) campaign is all about, here are two recent articles by yours truly that reveal the lie - and the liar - behind it:
Bloggerheads - Nadine Dorries: the missing punchline
Bloggerheads - Nadine Dorries and the mission from God
To summarise as I did here;
Nadine Dorries is completely ignorant of relevant medical procedures, and uses unsubstantiated anecdotes, distorted/falsified statistics, and outright lies to support the campaigns she supports that are unquestionably engineered by religious groups and conceived quite deliberately to restrict a woman's right to govern her own body.
Mar 10, 2011
Mar 8, 2011
I never said it
Nadine posted on Conservative Home yesterday. The usual stuff, pro-woman blah blah blah. You know it by now.
Today a post appeared on her blog reference the ConHome post...
Dorries would get challenged less if she bullshitted less and her position needs no mis-representing.
I have no idea what comments she is on about as there are only a couple on the ConHome post and non that directly call bullshit on her.
After a little more waffle Dorries then reproduces the comment she supposedly left at ConHome which for some reason resurects her Hand of Hope myth...
Well I, again, call bullshit... nearly.
source
OK. "Thrust" isn't quite 'punched', but in the context that Nadine is using and suggesting, it amounts to the same thing. Dorries, by bringing attention to the jiggered edges of the womb where the baby supposedly put it's arm through against the neat cut that the surgeon made, is meaning the baby forcefully broke through the wall of the uterus tearing it, finish off holding the finger of the surgeon.
Thrust/punch. in this context the action is the same.
Today a post appeared on her blog reference the ConHome post...
As I predicted, those who wish to mis represent my position on abortion came out yesterday in an attempt to both discredit me and therefore undermine both the issue itself and the case of vulnerable women.
Having been challenged on my position regarding late abortion, I posted the following comment on Conservative Home (link on blog below). This morning it has been suggested that I post that comment on today’s blog in order to clarify my position on late termination.
Dorries would get challenged less if she bullshitted less and her position needs no mis-representing.
I have no idea what comments she is on about as there are only a couple on the ConHome post and non that directly call bullshit on her.
After a little more waffle Dorries then reproduces the comment she supposedly left at ConHome which for some reason resurects her Hand of Hope myth...
I have never claimed a baby 'punched' it's way out of the womb
Well I, again, call bullshit... nearly.
My second point is look at the tear in the uterus. See how jiggered it is just above the hand; and yet the rest of the surgically incised openings are controlled and neat.
This is, in all likelihood, because the hand unexpectedly thrust out. It would be a poor surgeon who allowed the uterine tear to be so messy, and this is no ‘poor’ surgeon.
source
OK. "Thrust" isn't quite 'punched', but in the context that Nadine is using and suggesting, it amounts to the same thing. Dorries, by bringing attention to the jiggered edges of the womb where the baby supposedly put it's arm through against the neat cut that the surgeon made, is meaning the baby forcefully broke through the wall of the uterus tearing it, finish off holding the finger of the surgeon.
Thrust/punch. in this context the action is the same.
Jan 18, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)