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

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

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

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

The full November 2010 'report' from Nadine Dorries to Bedfordshire Police

Oooh, you lucky blighters... because of an unexpected workload here in SEO-world, you get this entire document all at once.

This is a partly-redacted copy of a '4 page report' that Nadine Dorries sent to Bedfordshire Police in November 2010. As I explain in this post about the July 2010 letter to Bedfordshire Police, Dorries submitted this report at a time when she was desperate to support her lies about an investigation that she claimed was already in progress. It is also clear in sections of this letter that she is not deeply, deeply confused but is instead lying through her teeth.

If I'd lied to police, I would've been up before a judge. Not so Dorries, who even lied about the outcome of the investigation that resulted from her lying to police. I must admit that I'm left feeling a little bit disappointed by that.

Click below to download Pages 1-2 and Page 3-4, and read the full analysis and response here.

The full July 2010 letter from Nadine Dorries to Bedfordshire Police

Below is a copy of the letter Nadine Dorries wrote to the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police on 12 July 2010, accusing four people (including me) of stalking her.

There is a comprehensive analysis and response in the following four posts on my main website:
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part One)
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Two: Flitwick & humphreycushion)
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Three: Chris Paul and a special surprise… or two)
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Four: A Burglary, Carter-Ruck & Me)

If you'd like a shorter journey, you can start with Part 4, which refers back to detail in 1, 2 & 3 that you can check up on or not as you please:
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Four: A Burglary, Carter-Ruck & Me)

This letter prompted no action from Bedfordshire Police.

From May 2010 onwards - two months before she wrote this letter - Nadine Dorries claimed there was already an investigation in progress into at least one of her stalkers.

In October 2010 she expanded on this story and used it as an excuse for crucial factual discrepancies on her blog; she claimed that police not only recognised the stalking threat she described, but had given this MP specific advice to lie on her blog about where she was and what she was doing (more).

By the end of October, Dorries was under a lot of pressure to provide the reference numbers that would exist if anything she has said was anywhere near the truth. In a few short months her lies had snowballed to the extent that she was describing police being aware of a widespread, long-standing and ongoing problem of physical stalking when two of her alleged stalkers had only ever been in her presence once at a public event, and a third had only been in her presence more often because she was a legitimate party-sponsored candidate opposing her in an election! The fourth had never been anywhere near her, but that didn't stop Dorries from repeatedly claiming that he had been hanging around her house, despite an earlier acknowledgement that she had no evidence to support this.

On Friday 29 October 2010, Nadine Dorries finally promised to provide dates of complaints and relevant reference numbers, claiming an investigation followed one of many complaints involving four different stalkers (more). This letter (below) suggests that there was only the one complaint against those same 'four stalkers'. Dorries extraordinary sense of entitlement appeared to extend to the assumption that police would immediately leap into action when informed than an MP was being criticised.

On Thursday, 4 November 2010 Dorries blogged the following rather telling passage (more):

"You harass me on an almost daily basis... I am expected, even though you aren’t one of my constituents, to take it. I am expected to tolerate your inappropriate level of intense attention..."

It is fair to assume that she had been in touch with police by this time and been given the bad news that no action had followed her letter. It was probably (patiently) explained to her that what she described was not stalking, and not even harassment.

It is almost certain that at this juncture police offered to respond to any further evidence she could offer. And on 5 November 2010, Dorries police sent a 4-page report containing 'new' 'evidence'. I start publishing that document in segments on my main site from Monday. See you then.

-

Related bloggage:
The Strong hArm Of The Law… #Dorries
A further dalliance in the wonderful world of Nadine Dorries

-

Dorries on Question Time, and those 2.2 million illegal immigrants

On BBC Question Time last night (available here for a limited time, 24 mins in), Nadine Dorries was trying to defend the work done by the coalition government to protect our borders (see: Theresa May refuses to resign over border checks scandal).

She started off very well by objecting to the question:

"Let me actually focus on what DID happen. What happened was... (pause)... that there were... (pause)... two things happened."

The host tried to get her back on track, when Dorries arrived at her 'point' with this assertion:

"Shorter queues delivered an increase in the number of illegal immigrants that were protected, I mean detected..."

This border checks pilot "protected" illegal immigrants? Oops, bit of a Freudian slip there... but I must ask that you focus on those shorter queues she speaks of, as they will come up again.

Dorries went on to rattle out a series of statistics that, in her eyes, showed Theresa May's pilot scheme of selective scanning to be a success

"10% increase in number of illegal immigrants [detected]... 100% increase in illegal firearms [detected]... 48% increase in forged documents [detected]..."

These statistics are unsubstantiated at present, but even if they were accurate and (almost) accurately put, they do not cover the periods when nothing was being detected at all. But we're told things ran more efficiently on those occasions when the gate wasn't swinging wide open, and Dorries declared the pilot a success on this basis. Oh, and on the basis that the queues were shorter. Or were they...?

"If the queues were shorter... I have no idea actually if the queues were shorter... but the objective of the exercise was..."

Yes, so long as we keep our eyes on the objective of the exercise, there's no risk of a perceived success being marred by any actual outcome.

But Dorries wasn't finished yet.

Labour MP Rachel Reeves was invited by the host to voice her opinion on this pilot scheme of cutting back on some checks and if it was a success. Dorries quickly jumped in and answered the question for her:

"It INCREASED security."

Then Dorries kindly let Reeves speak... for about 20 seconds. Reeves made the point that we had no idea how many people were let in without due authorisation during the 'downtime' periods, but she was quickly confronted by the following statistic from Dorries:

"You let 2.2 million in, Rachel."

In the context of what was being said, many people understood this to be a claim by Nadine Dorries that the Labour government (i.e. not Rachel Reeves personally) had allowed 2.2 million illegal immigrants into the country.

This is an outburst comparable to her claim that cannabis was fifty times more potent that is was a mere 12 months ago:

1. We do not know and cannot know the number of people that have entered this country illegally, because they are here illegally.

2. This pilot scheme of Theresa May's actually increased our uncertainty about the number of people who entered the country without appropriate documentation/authorisation in recent months, because there were periods where relevant checks were not being conducted at all.

3. The "2.2 million" figure Dorries gave refers to the net immigration figure from 1997 to 2009; the number of people who entered the country (legally) minus the number who had migrated to other countries in the same period.

4. And it comes from a speech by David Cameron, but at this stage we cannot know if Dorries is responding to the dog whistle in his speech, or blowing her own:

"... for too long, immigration has been too high. Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had..." - David Cameron (source)

By the way, I'm one of the 2.2 million people Dorries has branded an illegal immigrant, but I'm sure it's nothing personal.

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.

Nadine Dorries: surrounded by men, deleting the evidence

Nadine Dorries posted the following just after midnight last night, then apparently woke up thinking better of it. But instead of issuing any apology about how inappropriate it might be to go out on the pull the same night she promised to commit herself to opposing a new incinerator, Dorries simply deleted the post as if it never happened.

(She learned how to 'blog' from Iain Dale, you know.)

Here is the full text of the missing post. A copy is also visible in this Freezepage capture of Google's cache.

Tory totty..
Posted Friday, 14 October 2011 at 00:03

This is what happens when you go out for dinner with this lady..

Tory Totty Online
www.torytottyonline.com/

a) You are surrounded by men who insist on believing that what they have to say to you is more exciting and interesting than what you have to say to each other.
b) You are surrounded by men who have obviously fallen in love with torrytottyonline at first sight.
c)You are surrounded by men who want to give you golf lessons.
d) You are surrounded by men who want you to talk to their dog.
e) You are surrounded by men who keep clearing your table and taking away your empty glasses/dishes
f) You are surrounded by men who slip you a piece of paper with their mobile number on it as they leave the pub.
g) You are surrounded by men who keep walking over and saying 'do you mind if we join you?'.
H) You are surrounded by men who keep sending drinks over to the table.
I) I'm going out with her again tomorrow night.

(Next time, Nads, try tearing it up and throwing in a nearby park bin like your mate, Oliver Letwin.)