#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Conclusions of Carter-Ruck)

Posted by Tim Ireland at 28 November 2011

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

This entry was posted on
Monday, November 28th, 2011
at
11:03 am and is filed
under Tories! Tories! Tories!.

Hi folks. I will from today be publishing short extracts from the report filed by the officer investigating the letter of complaint and ‘4 page report’ by Nadine Dorries to Bedfordshire Police. As I made clear from the outset, I am only inclined to publish parts of this report, for a number of reasons mainly concerning the privacy of others besides myself. There are also further details I am keen to reveal later, but only once I have collected all of the (available) relevant data.

If Nadine Dorries would like to object to any of the extracts released this week on the basis that she thinks/contends any passage has been quoted out of context (or even minus vital context), then I will happily take on any specific challenges she might care to make (yeah, like that’ll happen)… but even if she only makes her usual vague objections, she will have to admit having seen the report, and she can’t credibly stick to the lie she has been telling about what the report includes and concludes once she admits to having seen it.

So, without further ado, here comes today’s extract:

Carter-Ruck - it rhymes with something

Conclusion: The description of Dorries’ letter of complaint makes it clear that this passage is about Carter-Ruck. Nadine Dorries’ own law firm acknowledges that I have committed no crime and one of her/their lawyers said so to police, which is how it came to be in this report.

Perhaps Carter-Ruck would care to explain the disconnect between their perception of this reality and how Nadine Dorries portrays the outcome of this same investigation, especially when she is not constrained by the need for careful wording on her not-a-blog*:

Today I had a meeting with Bedfordshire Police. They informed me that under caution and recorded on tape at Guldford [sic] Police station, Tim Ireland, of bloggerheads, has been issued with a warning under section two of the harassment act.

Nadine Dorries (source)

“One particularly obsessive man recently followed me round with a camera, whipped up online hysteria against me and eventually had to accept a police caution for harassment.” – Nadine Dorries (source)

I have asked Carter-Ruck to support their contention that I was skating on thin ice at any time, and they had no comment to make, citing client confidentiality. Mind you, at the time they were really very busy dodging questions about these extraordinary claims made to police on their behalf by their client:

“I have spoken to lawyers at Carter Ruck and they tell me that Tim Ireland is well known and that Guildford Police have dealt with a number of complaints regarding similar behaviour to others. He is apparently a well known computer hacker.” – Nadine Dorries (source/more)

Over to you, Carter-Ruck. Do I really need to invest in a lawyer to rate a response?

[*Carter-Ruck have also yet to answer my question about their having seen this report from Bedfordshire Police, so while I’m waiting I’ll put this additional question to them: Did Carter-Ruck advise Nadine Dorries in any way about the wording she used on her site in entries like the one above where she ‘merely’ gave people the wrong impression that I was issued with a caution (i.e. rather than lying outright, as she did in the Mail)?]

UPDATE (29 Nov) – Carter-Ruck responded with the following last night, thinking it would appropriately address any/all of my questions about this matter:

“We have no instructions to communicate with you…” – a lawyer for Carter-Ruck

Just between you, me and the rest of the world, I think they’re having themselves on just a bit.

UPDATE (07 Dec) – I have new evidence coming in, so I’m pausing the publication of evidence to hand. That said, Dorries can end this before Christmas if she wants. She knows what a retraction is and why one is called for in this instance. Otherwise, she (and you) can look forward to rolling humiliations well into the New Year.

[Psst! Over the weekend, Dorries announced that she would be closing her site that is not a blog in favour of “wider channels”. I expect to archive the site if she has any plans to disappear the evidence down a memory hole.]








6 Comments

  1. @petermbenglish says

    Is saying that you were "skating on thin ice…" not in itself libellous towards you, Tim?

    • Tim_Ireland says

      Only if they can't substantiate this opinion. I have already challenged them to do so. Still waiting.

    • madaxeman says

      Actually, I wouldn't have thought that this would be libellous – it's merely to expression of an opinion. We should also keep in mind that the very same opinion will have been formed on the back of what #Dorries has told them – which of course may or may not be in any way connected to what we might refer to as reality…

      I'm sure this doesn't need saying Tim, but only a madman would wade in against Carter Ruck with an allegation of libel.

      Under the circumstances though I do feel you have every right to demand to know where this information that you have been causing trouble in Guildford / computer hacking comes from, and to make representations to both the Information Commissioner (I know… I know…) and the Law Society if they are not forthcoming…

      To my mind, the only circumstances in which they could withhold that information by citing legal priviledge would be if the information had been supplied by Dorries herself. You can't expect Carter Ruck to immediately fact check everything that their client tells them – although frankly if they're not fact checking the hell out of now then there's something somewhat amiss with the world…

      Oh, and as you know, IANAL…

      • Tim_Ireland says

        Thanks, Martin. Yes I do recognise that Carter-Ruck may have been operating on intelligence provided by Nadine Dorries (I know, I know) which is why I am only asking them questions about their position as described by police at this stage.

  2. David Landon Cole says

    Even by Carter-Ruck's standards, it's pretty piss-poor, isn't it? I've reached the point, after last week's posts, where nothing Dorries does can lower my opinion of her.

  3. douglas clark says

    Seems to me that that is a piss poor letter from a law firm whose reputation is on a slippery slope. I think about a couple of years ago they were actually a threat, but now, not so much.

    They may have over extended themselves the day the tried to take on Parliament…..

    Yet their fees are still, presumeably, mighty high!

  • External Channels

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons

    religion