This entry was posted on
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 at
10:39 am and is filed
under Tories! Tories! Tories!.
A jaw-dropping interview with Nadine Dorries appears in today’s Metro. My letter to that ‘news’paper follows. Will get a copy of the interview online ASAP.
To: Metro Letters
Your interview with Nadine Dorries only furthers her reputation as a self-publicising fantasist. In it, Nadine claims to get 500,000 hits a month on her website (which is not even a blog as she claims). Elsewhere, she has claimed that she has 800,000 readers a month. Never mind that her traffic claims are so fantastic as to be laughable; because ‘hits’ describes the number of files downloaded (pages, images, etc.), this figure cannot possibly be smaller than the number of readers. Nadine’s either making things up, or becoming very confused again.
Tim Ireland
And that’s just a reaction to the bloody introductory paragraph. You simply have to read the interview itself. With you shortly.
UPDATE – It should appear on this page shortly. If you simply cannot wait and you’re willing to play along with their request for an email address, proceed to ‘e-Metro’ here.
UPDATE – While we’re waiting for Metro to get their main e-dition together, were you aware of this report showing that evangelical Christians are probably getting more red hot (and unprotected) sex than you? Yes, even many of those ‘celibate’ teens. Turns out that celibacy loses its shine when it’s not ‘cool’ any more (“if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses” is a key finding).
–
UPDATE (12pm) – Dorries is now complaining on her ‘blog’ about the part of the interview that raised one of my eyebrows to new heights.
Apologies for cruddy link to cruddy site that only works in some browsers:
I was a little bit upset this morning to see how a short interview I had given, had been written up. It was smutty. For example, my answer to the question “What would you most like to be doing right now” I believe was something like “Having a meal with my girls and everyone I love round one table.” That’s not what was printed.
Although the interview had been light hearted, my answers had been taken out of context.
Oh dear.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Here’s the part that Nadine is complaining about:
What would you most like to be doing right now?
Nadine Dorries: (laughs) You can’t put that in the paper.
Apart from that?
Nadine Dorries: I’d be in Barbados watching the turtles hatch on the beach.
[Pardon me while I vomit…. *bleuuuurgh*…. Damn. All over my handmade Italian leather shoes that were a gift from the Dalai Lama. And now back to the dirt…]
And who would you be with?
Nadine Dorries: I can’t say that either.
You’ve got a secret lover, then?
Nadine Dorries: (laughs) He’s involved in politics. I’m not saying more than that.
All together now; ooooooooooooooooh!
I suppose now we can expect Iain Dale to leap to her defence with The Official Version Of Events.
(Please do watch what you say under comments on my site. No guesses or hints about the identity of secret lovers, for example.)
–
UPDATE – The article is now live on the Metro website:
Metro – Nadine Dorries reveals her Bridget Jones moment
And, unlike Nadine’s website-that-is-not-a-blog, that page allows comments.
:o)
(contains excitement)
(considers options carefully)
By Jonathan October 29, 2008 - 11:37 am
"Nadine Dorries is either confused or a big, fat liar".Given that in the interview she once again repeats her usual inaccurate, distorting appeals to emotion about abortion, I'm going to have to go with the second of the two options.
By Paul.Ferrari October 29, 2008 - 1:34 pm
Is having your interview answers taken out of context similar to, say for example, using a photograph of a Surgeon and a Baby's Hand out of context ?
By irritant October 29, 2008 - 1:38 pm
Judging by the few occasions of witnessing her on the MSM I would say she's delusional but politics has a nasty habit of magical thinking and other wonky sub-types.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinkinghttp://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html
By Professor Paul October 29, 2008 - 2:07 pm
Perhaps Russell Brand & Jonathan Ross would like to reveal the identity of the "secret lover".It's not me, that's all I know
By Manic October 29, 2008 - 3:03 pm
What a curious denial to offer, PP.(eyes suspiciously)
By Professor Paul October 29, 2008 - 3:34 pm
What can I say;we were young, we were foolish, then I mentioned I was a scientist; I never saw her again.
By Manic October 29, 2008 - 3:41 pm
Hahahahahahahaha!
By balders October 29, 2008 - 7:48 pm
One of the saddest aspects of her pathetic attempt at separating her "pontification platform" from the rest of her site is that the bodgers who hacked the javascript couldn't even be bother to check the referring url before redirecting.Go to http://www.dorries.org and you'll see you're on her Parliamentary Communications Allowances funded site. Then click on the blog link (assuming you've got javascript enabled, or her site trusted in NoScript). Up pops the message "You are now leaving the Domain of http://www.Dorries.org.uk and being transferred to http://blog.dorries.org. (This Blog is not a Parliamentary Funded Website)". To which my response is "No you dumb f**kers, I'm leaving the website hosted under the domain dorries.org and being redirected to the site hosted at the sub-domain blog.dorries.org" Still, I guess the stupid bovine female is simply assuming everyone else is as ignorant as she is.
By Sim-O October 29, 2008 - 9:29 pm
How long has that piece been up?Seriously, has no one left any comments or is the place run from the same instruction manual as the Mail?
By balders October 29, 2008 - 10:25 pm
I left 2 comments, but somehow I doubt they'll be published. We'll see in the morning.
By Manic October 30, 2008 - 7:07 am
I submitted a comment, too.Maybe they have a comments form that's mostly for show, but we'll see.I do know that, like the Daily Mail, they need to change the copy that claims that "no comments have so far been submitted" when in fact there are several comments awaiting moderation.
By Jonathan October 30, 2008 - 10:34 am
Let's be fair to Nadine.She has now announced that she has gained some fresh support for her brave stance on the tremendously important Ross/Brand issue: from her children.Round of applause for Nadine!
By Manic October 30, 2008 - 10:46 am
[From Nadines's site: "You were right Nadine" she said to my back as I left the room (defeat is so much easier minus eye contact). "They have been really disgusting and awful and we shouldn't be paying for that." The rest chimed in with support.]Hahahahahaha! I love her anecdotal evidence more than anything else in the world.Meanwhile, big brownie points for Metro, who not only publish critical/querying comments, but actually send you an email alert to let you know when it was published.
By irritant October 30, 2008 - 10:50 am
Talking about fat, delusional liars. Ian Dale hsa a letter in thie wee's New Statesman30 October 2008Oh, blog offYour correspondent Jeff Cumberland (Letters, 27 October) claims right-wing blogs are more successful than left-of-centre ones because "to run a highly influential, mass circulation blog you need a lot of money". Tosh. Of the Top 20 right-wing blogs in the Total Politics directory, 14 are one-man bands without any financial support whatsoever. There may be many reasons why left-of-centre blogs do not get the leverage of their right-wing competitors, but money is not one of them.Iain DaleTunbridge Wellshttp://www.newstatesman.com/letters
By Manic October 30, 2008 - 11:18 am
Someone should tell them that Iain is presenting as evidence data from a poll that he said was "not a scientific poll, and never pretended to be".
By Professor Paul October 30, 2008 - 11:50 am
Does that make Iain "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" then?
By balders October 30, 2008 - 2:20 pm
Prof, more "Disgusting" than "Disgusted"
By scotch October 30, 2008 - 3:25 pm
Now be fair, irritant. Iain's not actually fat."Well digested", perhaps?
By Manic October 30, 2008 - 3:28 pm
We do not judge people by their bodies here, but by what goes on in their heads.So I'm sorry Scotch, but Iain is fat.
By Professor Paul October 30, 2008 - 5:21 pm
Well, we often refer to him in my household as "that Fathead, Iain Dale".
By Dom October 30, 2008 - 6:33 pm
I'm worried by anyone in a position of power, or just claiming to be in posession of a brain, who says something like: "I explained that I was all for freedom of speech, as long as I wasn't paying £140 per year for it to offend me."I really don't think she's got the point there. Freedom of speech should be paid for regardless of, in perhaps because of, it's offence to mild mannered Daily Mail readers.