Nadine Dorries and the right to know (Happy birthday, information request!)

Some of you may have noticed Nadine Dorries finally following the ’20 Weeks’ campaign with her difficult second album, Right to Know (more). Just to be clear, what we are looking at here is series of cheap American pop covers (compare righttoknow.org.uk to righttoknow.org), with the only original material being a cheap re-hash of crowd-pleasing highlights including dubious arrangement of statistics into unconvincing power chords and the delightfully unconvincing disguises worn by Nadine’s fundamentalist backing group.

Last time it was the registration of the20weekscampaign.org that gave them away. This time, Dorries is pushing righttoknow.org.uk, which has been registered using the generic description ‘Web Officer’ instead of a real name, and opts to disguise further detail by incorrectly classifying the domain/site as the work of a private individual.

You have a right to know... nothing about us

Nominet have confirmed that both measures put this user in breach of their agreed Terms, and it will be interesting to see how the mystery registrant responds to a subsequent request by Nominet that they comply with the agreed rules.

One assumes the same team that maintains this site also has some role to play in the official/associated Twitter feed and YouTube channel. Requests have been sent through both of these communication channels requesting that they be clearer about who is funding/coordinating their efforts, but so far the only response has been the deletion of any such questions from the YouTube channel, and the refusal to allow any further comments.

Here I will remind you that Nadine’s latest attempt to reduce the number of abortions hinges on a demand for transparency; she contends that women have a right to know about the shadowy forces that seek to influence them without declaring an interest… while not thinking for a moment that the same might apply to her.

This is typical of Nadine Dorries, as is her distaste for the pesky little rules that she thinks only apply to little people. She is, after all, on a mission from God (more).

On 30 March 2010, I submitted an information request to the office of Nadine Dorries. It is now exactly one year later and Dorries and her staff haven’t even got around to acknowledging receipt yet. I suspect they intend to defy the request, and a complaint is with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Since receiving the request for information her office holds on me, Dorries has made a claim that I have sent her and her staff ‘numerous offensive emails’ and other ‘vile’ and ‘abusive’ and ‘explicit’ messages. My information request should at least compel her to reveal all emails/messages sent to her office in my name, but instead she continues to pretend that no such request has been made.

I expect she will cry ‘stalker’ when the ICO case officer gets in touch; this means that she will be refusing to honour an information request on the basis of evidence she is refusing to release under that same information request.

Transparency is wonderful, isn’t it?

-

(Psst! Odds are good that the testimony of ‘Tanya’ comes to us via Forsaken, but Dorries will be keen to avoid any such admission, especially after her disastrous attempt to pass that group off as an established ‘pro woman’ charity. Meanwhile, apropos of nothing, I bring you shocking news of a lack of transparency in the abortion industry overseas.)

-

UPDATE – I’ve made a video that attempts to explain Dorries’ position a little better.

Nadine Dorries: Right to Know from Tim Ireland on Vimeo.

-

UPDATE (11 April) – Take a look at what turned up when Nominet revealed the address used to register this domain name.

-

Jeremy Hunt approves of all sorts of odd things

CCC11-02 – Jeremy Hunt rhymes with something

The latest edition of Conservative Change Channel is (finally) out and it includes two special moments from Jeremy Hunt (recorded just prior to the 2010 General Election):

1. The first is classic Hunt. He once again brushes right over the significance of two local Conservative activists who smeared an opponent as a paedophile, as if it’s of no significance. The look on his face at the time was ‘yeah, so what… get to the point’. He has repeatedly dismissed the importance of this smear campaign and repeatedly endorsed the MP (Anne Milton) who turned a blind eye to this campaign and involved herself personally in a further smear campaign against me. Hunt’s wife once gasped in shock when hearing about it, and Hunt shushed her loudly right there in the street, lest she make the fatal mistake of expressing any kind of alarm about it.

(I often wonder what he told her after making his excuses and hurrying off, as he so often does. I doubt it was the truth.)

2. Jeremy Hunt rather rashly weasels his way out of his practice of deleting past entries from his weblog and Twitter feed by claiming he is accountable after all… but only because of measures that corrupt liars like Iain Dale and Nadine Dorries describe as ‘stalking’ (when their mates are not doing the same or worse to people they don’t like).

So over the coming days and weeks – knowing that I have the blessing of the Minister of Teh Internets – I am going to encourage others to hold their MP to account via a weblog, starting with some simple tasks you will find surprisingly manageable and effective. I even have a plan for sharing the load on some of the more specialised/work-intensive tasks (e.g. journalism, research, data analysis, etc.). I will also be making recommendations* designed to minimise the risks I’ve exposed myself to, and you certainly won’t find yourself standing alone if some scumbag fights back with lies or smears.

I ran a similar (and successful) campaign for people to blog on behalf of MPs in 2005, but we have a much busier online village now, with better tech at our disposal, and this effort is going to be a lot less forgiving; we have a whole new gang of liars in charge, and they’ve been making all sorts of promises about transparency that they probably never expected they’d have to live up to.

(*On this note; you do NOT have to be a constituent of any given MP to take part. In fact, it’s probably better if you’re not; I found myself cut off from democracy at a local level because I dared to scrutinise my MP, and I’d hate to see that happen to someone else. Take your time. Choose your target. I’ll be on deck with Lesson One shortly.)

Nadine Dorries and the mission from God

The following is an interview/article featuring Nadine Dorries from a 2007 edition of the Salvation Army’s War Cry.

Putting aside these deeply religious contentions, which are striking in themselves…

“I try to live my faith. Some days I fail quite miserably but I constantly try to do what Jesus would do.” – Nadine Dorries (source/PDF)

“I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. ” – Nadine Dorries (source/PDF)

… Nadine’s contention that her previous ‘middle way’ option would put her at odds with pro-lifers is a fallacy if not a deceit; the entire campaign was conceived, written and backed by large pro-life groups whose full role Dorries has repeatedly attempted to hide from the public (detail | video) .

Second, those same groups are coordinating/enabling her latest efforts where Dorries and others are masquerading as “pro woman” campaigners seeking to protect vulnerable adults from the physical/mental harm they and other religious groups claim is a common post-abortion problem… but this article/interview from 2007 makes it very clear that Dorries is driven primarily NOT by a desire to protect women, but instead a deeply religious decision to reduce the number of abortions by any means possible, even if these means appear, intially, to be at odds with the anti-abortion agenda:

“I’ve been told my Bill will get nowhere while I have pro-lifers and abortion rights people against me. But my argument is: How can anyone argue – on any grounds – that my proposal is not right. Currently there are about 600 abortions a day in the UK. I’d like to reduce that number by at least half. The public is not interested in banning abortion. Those who hold out for a complete ban have not changed the law – they have not saved a single life. To me, saving some lives is better than saving no lives at all. I hope pro-lifers will come to share my view that some progress is better than no progress. ” – Nadine Dorries (source/PDF)

The full text of the interview/article appears below. It also includes some detail about her living arrangements at the time that will raise an informed eyebrow or two. She also repeats her dumbfounding contention that she is not accountable to those who live outside her constituency, even while she is campaigning to restrict their access to appropriate medical care.

War Cry, image of article

MP call for lower abortion time limit

Salvation Army ‘War Cry’ #6182, 2 June 2007 (source/PDF)

HERE’S one for A Question of Sport: Which MP’s grandfather was a co-founder of Everton Football Club? Answer: Liverpool-born Nadine Dorries, Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire.

‘My grandfather, George Bargery, founded St Domingo’s FC which became Everton FC,’ she says as we talk in her Westminster office. ‘Everton’s first game in the newly formed Football League was against Accrington. My grandad was the Everton goalie. He had a good game and became quite a local hero.’

That game was played on 8 September 1888 – the opening day of the season. It was played not at Goodison but at Anfield, which is today home of mighty Liverpool. So, the most important question to ask of any Scouser: Red or Blue? Liverpool or Liverpool Reserves?

‘Red, definitely,’ says Nadine. ‘I suppose because of my grandfather I should support Everton, but I can’t just stop supporting my team. I couldn’t swap to Everton any more than I could cross the floor of the House of Commons.’ Nadine grew up on the Breck Road, a long kick from the Kop.

‘On match days I used to earn 2/6 looking after people’s cars,’ she says. ‘Money was very tight, so the football money helped. The family food bill was 7/6 and my father was ill from when I was very young. I had an impoverished childhood. I had to borrow shoes from a friend to go to school and one year my winter coat came from church or The Salvation Army.’

Nadine started her working life as a nurse in the Royal Liverpool Hospital. She then moved to Zambia with her husband, and took over the running of a community school.

‘I didn’t go to Zambia with that intent,’ she says, ‘but the woman who was running the school died of malaria. She was pregnant and wouldn’t take anti-malaria pills because of the risk of inducing a miscarriage. In the event mother and baby died. It was very sad. I just happened to be there so I took over the running of the school.’

Nadine returned to England and became managing director of a company. From 1998 to 1999 she was a director of BUPA.

She fought her first general election in 2001 in the Greater Manchester seat of Hazel Grove. But it wasn’t until 2005 that she entered Parliament.

How big a career change is it to move from being a nurse to being an MP?

‘It’s not such a big change, actually. It might sound corny but it’s about caring for other people. In that sense it’s just a different aspect of what I’ve done throughout my working life.’

Nadine says she finds it difficult to pin down the moment she decided to become an MP. In fact, it is easier for her to identify a point which almost led her not to become an MP.

‘I was in church one Sunday around Easter when I said to God that maybe I should give up on the idea of being an MP. In 2001 I’d fought a difficult seat. I was bringing up children and was busy. I thought I had missed the boat. Maybe I’d got completely the wrong idea of what I should be doing.

‘I was struggling. One minute I’d tell myself to stay calm because something would work out for me, the next I’d panic and think it wasn’t going to happen.

‘I can still recall the chair I was sitting in. I remember looking at the cross and saying to God; “I’ve obviously got the wrong idea. It’s in your hands now.”

‘I walked out of church feeling relieved. I’d given up chasing something I’d been after for years. Then a few days later I got a phone call to tell me to keep a certain date free. I went along to a selection meeting as invited, was chosen over 17 other candidates and within six weeks of that day in church I was elected to Westminster.’

Two years on from that election victory, what is it like being a working mum who is an MP?

‘The hardest thing to deal with is the long Westminster hours. My two oldest girls are at university and my 15-year-old stays with her dad from Monday mornings until Thursday nights when I get back home. While male MPs might put their feet up when they get home, I go home to pick up my other full-time job – being Mum.

‘MOST of the time the girls are great about it but there are times when pressures build up. I’m accountable to 77,000 constituents, to my local Conservative Association, to the whips’ office and to the chamber of the House of Commons. Most of all I’m accountable to my daughters.

‘Even though I try to put them on the top of the pile, sometimes the phone rings, somebody wants me to do something and I can’t give them the time I’d planned to. It gets a bit tricky balancing family and work.

‘We need more women in Parliament. Women make up 52 per cent of the electorate and need representing. Being an MP is twice as difficult for a woman as it is for a man. Westminster is a harsh, unfriendly environment. Many women MPs retreat into being constituency MPs rather than parliamentarians.’

What makes that constant juggling of time, energy and demands worthwhile?

‘I feel I’ve built a really good relationship with my constituents. Before I became an MP I didn’t realise the scale of problems some people face. Being able to help people through such problems is immensely rewarding. I love being in Parliament. I love taking part in debates. But for me it is the people I represent who come first.’

As well as representing the people of Mid-Bedfordshire, Nadine is sponsoring the Termination of Pregnancy Bill to reduce the upper time limit for abortions from 24 to 20 weeks.

‘This year is the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act, which introduced the 24-week limit,’ she says. ‘Medical technology has changed enormously in that time. For example, thanks to 4-D scanning we know that a foetus can feel pain early in pregnancy.

‘No Labour Government will ever restrict a woman’s right to an abortion. They have what is known as Emily’s List, an organisation which helps finance the campaigns of women parliamentary candidates. Only pro-choice women are eligible for funding. Even if a future vote to abolish abortion carried a party whip, the Emily’s List MPs would support a woman’s right to abortion.

‘On the pro-life side of the fence, the public takes little notice of those who want to abolish abortion. They are dismissed as extremists. If I were to argue that all abortions should be banned, the ethical discussions would go round in circles because one person’s opinion is as valid as another’s.

‘My view is that the only way forward is to argue for a reduction in the time limit. I’ve heard the arguments about how it’s every woman’s right that she should be able to have an abortion. But I say it’s every baby’s right to have a life because science tells us that by 24 weeks they feel pain, they laugh, they smile, they hear and they think. There is a lot of public sympathy for the opinion that 24 weeks is too old for a foetus to be aborted.’

But doesn’t offering a middle option mean that you get caught in the crossfire between strident prochoicers and avid anti-abortionists?

‘Yes it does. I’ve been told my Bill will get nowhere while I have pro-lifers and abortion rights people against me. But my argument is: How can anyone argue – on any grounds – that my proposal is not right.

‘Currently there are about 600 abortions a day in the UK. I’d like to reduce that number by at least half. The public is not interested in banning abortion. Those who hold out for a complete ban have not changed the law – they have not saved a single life.

‘To me, saving some lives is better than saving no lives at all. I hope pro-lifers will come to share my view that some progress is better than no progress.

‘Doctors who carry out abortions are increasingly worried that they’ll deliver a live foetus, even at 20 weeks. The way babies are terminated from 20 weeks is horrendous.

‘According to Royal College guidelines, a canular is inserted through the mother’s abdominal wall into the heart of the foetus, which is given a lethal injection. Doctors wait two days to ensure that the baby is dead and then it is delivered.

‘I have seen scans of this process. It was like watching murder. I have seen the foetus moving away from the needle. It is the most heart-wrenching, awful thing to see.

‘If the public saw these images, they would be firmly in favour of reducing the age limit on abortion.’

Taking on such an emotive and explosive area as abortion is not a soft option for any MP, let alone one so new to the trade.

‘When I first started this campaign I felt under attack,’ says Nadine. ‘I had hate mail. I felt my personal world was falling apart. My faith has helped me pull through. People are praying for me – not only fellow MPs but also thousands of people across the country.

AS a child Nadine was brought up to go to church. ‘But like a lot of kids, I left the church when I was a teenager,’ she says. ‘At the time I would have described myself as a Christian but it was only about 15 years ago that I was converted through an Alpha course. I realise how shallow my belief was before my conversion.’

It was the vicar of her local church who invited Nadine along to the ten-week introductory course on Christianity.

‘My first response was to tell him I didn’t need to go,’ she says. ‘But I ended up going anyway. I suppose I was going to church without even knowing the most important aspects of Christianity – what it means and what it is about. Like many people I didn’t really know why Jesus died on the cross, how he could forgive our sins or who the Holy Spirit is. All of that was a revelation to me.’

What does Nadine’s faith give her?

‘My faith tells me who I am. It tells me why I am here. It tells me who is with me while I am pursuing my goals. I sometimes think if I didn’t have my faith, who would I be? How would I live my life?

‘My faith constantly gives me my reference point. It keeps me grounded. I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did. There is nothing amazing or special about me, I am just a conduit for God to use.’

And who is Jesus to Nadine?

‘Jesus is alive with me. I have my times of wondering – of not quite sensing his presence. I don’t know everything. I can’t do everything. And I can’t achieve anything in my own strength.

‘I need guidance. I need protection – and so does my family. I pray a lot for these things. ‘I try to live my faith. Some days I fail quite miserably but I constantly try to do what Jesus would do.’

And whether a Scouser comes from the red or the blue side of Liverpool, they’ll tell you one thing for sure: God loves a trier.

Perhaps God exists, and perhaps he/she does love a trier… but their alleged position on liars isn’t quite so favourable.

Nadine Dorries is a liar and her latest campaign has a dirty great lie at its heart.

Once again, I’m calling her out in front of her constituents, in front of her supporters, and in front of her god.

-

UPDATE – Stuart Wood made a perfectly reasonable request for a picture of Nadine Dorries on a mission from God, and here it is (image also posted to B3ta):

Nadine Dorries on a mission from God

Anne Milton: out of the blue

In early 2009, a man appeared out of nowhere offering me dirt on some of his former colleagues. One of those former colleagues later reported* that this same person approached them at the same time, first warning them that I was a convicted paedophile who had escaped justice, and then furnishing them with my home address; he was clearly trying to set one party against the other (in the most damaging and dangerous way) from the outset.

(He currently pretends that he acts in the way he does because he claims I ‘betrayed’ him over an article reporting his past conduct as – don’t laugh – an amateur anti-terrorism operative.)

From the very beginning and throughout our conversations, this person offered repeated assurances – often apropos of nothing – that he was nothing to do with Anne Milton (a local Tory MP of whom I have been critical). At one stage, he offered to operate as a ‘peace broker’ between us, and he would also speak in ways that gave a very clear impression that he was a regular at local Tory fundraising events, and there is certainly no denying the role his family have played in local Conservative politics (for generations).

Now, I can understand this person’s motive for wanting to use someone in my position to get at his former colleagues, but as random as the universe is, I do not think it safe to assume that he would do something so serious as falsely accuse a person of paedophilia on a mere whim.

In fact, I suspect the decision to smear me as a paedophile specifically was entirely calculated, and planned in response to the matter a the heart of my dispute with Milton; my proving that her activists smeared an opponent as a paedophile, and her deep embarrassment at being entirely unable to respond to that now she has turned a blind eye to it for years.

So, even though this person has made none-too-subtle threats about turning his attentions on my family should I dare to raise the names of any of his relatives, I asked Anne Milton about her relationship with this man, and after she (eventually) gave an infuriatingly vague answer, I went on to ask if this person or his blood relative(s) had donated any money to her past or present election campaigns.

It took me a month to get this ‘answer’ out of her:

“The law sets out which donations are public and private and I can’t tell you who made a private donation.” – Anne Milton

What Anne Milton refers to here is the law that states she must declare donations over a certain amount**. It does not state that all amounts under this must remain private, but this is exactly what Milton implies.

However, even if Milton were facing genuine legal/confidentiality difficulty, she would have no problem answering my question if the answer put her in the clear… and it is here that Jeremy Hunt (another local Tory MP) finally makes himself useful for the first time.

I asked Jeremy Hunt the same question, and this was his answer:

“In regard to the other persons you name, I have checked with my agent in South West Surrey as with all donations we have adhered to the rules and regulations laid out by the electoral commission. Personally both these individuals are unknown to me and checking the register they have not donated money to my campaign.” – Jeremy Hunt

Until Anne Milton can come forward with an equally clear answer about donations and a clearer answer about her relationship with the person who smeared me as a paedophile and broadcast my home address (with the unmistakeable intention of having one appear alongside the other), the dark shadows of uncertainly she leaves are only going to foster suspicions that this person acted (at least in part) on her behalf.

Further, if this is the case, after her ‘stalker’ outburst (that she denies, despite the evidence) Milton has a case to answer even if this person acted initially without her knowledge, and she certainly needs to take a position now this person is boldly repeating false accusations made by her and claiming the endorsement of local Conservatives.

Instead, Anne Milton refuses to make a clear public statement about her relationship with this man, and even pretends that the law prevents her from asking a direct question about campaign donations from this person and/or his family.

One might expect this kind of behaviour from a wild-eyed back bencher, but Anne Milton manages to get away with this while maintaining a position in David Cameron’s cabinet.

-

(*Some of this relies in part on the testimony of a particularly vulnerable individual, but they and another party have provided enough circumstantial evidence to support, at least, their contention that this person shared my address with them. They could not possibly have known, for example, the date of a crucial meeting, which corresponds neatly with a relevant email they shared. In any case, the person I accuse of engineering a paedophile smear against me has repeated the same accusation and worse on their site, and published details about my home address on that same site… cleverly disguised in a story where he describes taking locals on a guided tour of my street so they might see the home of ‘stalker’. This person has issued a belated denial about the paedo-smears, but has recently also denied ever having been in my street. In other words; any way you slice it, he’s a liar, or very, very confused about what he did or did not do.)

(**”Under Electoral Commission rules, only gifts totalling £7,500 or more for a central party, or £1,500 for a constituency association, have to be declared… The thresholds increased earlier this year from £5,000 and £1,000 respectively.” – BBC, 23 August 2010 )

Nadine Dorries: the missing punchline

[Please be aware that this post contains a graphic image of in utero surgery. If you are so inclined you can learn more about the original here. ‘NSFW’ may not be the proper tag, but please do approach the ‘Hand of Hope’ with similar caution if linking to it and/or to this post; not everyone has a stomach for surgery.]

If you’re new here, this is probably your best introduction to Nadine Dorries, as this single matter not only shows Nadine at her very best medically, but also serves as an excellent introduction to the type of conduct that makes her unfit to serve as a Member of Parliament.

I’ll let Nadine introduce herself, and then we’ll crack on.

“I am aware that in laying down this amendment there will be those who will attempt to misrepresent my position. The fact is that I am pro-woman. ” – Nadine Dorries (source | mirror)

The great sage Dorries (who has foretold stabbings, you know) predicts she is about to be ‘misrepresented’. Tragically, she may actually believe this.

She then declares herself ‘pro-woman’ in order to distinguish herself from deeply religious people (i.e. people like her secretive backers), much like she declared the ‘charity’ Forsaken to be “pro women” (i.e. and not “pro life”) in the House of Commons. This group turned out to have a deeply religious agenda. Dorries’ only answer to this at the time (and since); a series of outright lies about the way I dared to scrutinise this claim and what she had clearly implied about the organisation’s size, credibility, and charity status.

Back to Nadine, the day after:

“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” – Nadine Dorries (source | mirror)

Classy the way she shields herself with vulnerable women, isn’t it?

That aside, if anybody had ‘mis represented’ her position on abortion, she’d be sure to challenge their fictions head-on, right?

Well, if you’re new here, watch and learn:

“I have never claimed a baby ‘punched’ it’s way out of the womb” – Nadine Dorries (source | mirror)

Dorries first published this as a comment under the original article at ConservativeHome. Soon after I responded, the site owner Tim Montgomerie (staunch Christian and close friend of Dorries) deleted my comment that consisted of (a) this recent claim from Dorries and (b) this earlier claim by Dorries on her website which clearly contradicts her;

“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.” – Nadine Dorries (source | mirror | dumbfounded blogger 1 | dumbfounded blogger 2)

[MINI-UPDATE – Psst! After deleting my comment, Tim Montgomerie had the cheek to publish a comment that implied my content (that only he could see) was somehow “nasty” or even abusive. He then deleted that, but threatened me with more of the same treatment should I dare to submit a comment to his site again. What a nice man.]

Later, Tim Montgomerie removed Nadine’s comment, subsequently erasing the responses by two other people challenging her assertion in exactly the same way (i.e. by linking to this same text):

Jake L said in reply to Nadine Dorries MP…

["I have never claimed a baby 'punched' it's way out of the womb"]

Yes you have.

http://awurl.com/KsCAUoaAR#first_awesome_highlight

(March 07, 2011 at 16:38)

-

Dave Cross said in reply to Nadine Dorries MP…

“I have never claimed a baby ‘punched’ it’s way out of the womb”

It is, however, easy to see how people might think that you have claimed exactly that. See http://awurl.com/KsCAUoaAR#first_awesome_highlight

(March 07, 2011 at 16:49)

Then, Dorries posted the text of this same comment on her ‘blog’, where no comments from readers are allowed, thus allowing her to maintain that she never claimed a foetus had punched its way out of the womb without fear of contradiction.

(Incidentally, the original ban on comments on Dorries’ site dates back to… the incident where Dorries claimed a foetus punched its way out of the womb.)

If anybody has misrepresented her position about anything, then let’s have Dorries challenge those misrepresentations, not delete or ignore them.

What is her position, exactly? That she didn’t say ‘punched’ specifically? Was it more of a jab, then? Or a karate chop?

Or does she instead maintain that she said a foetus did this, and not a baby? Somehow, I doubt she would make this distinction. Dorries is on record as being fiercely defensive of certain literal interpretations of Bible passages supporting the concept that life begins at conception (a deeply religious view approaching if not stepping over the line into fundamentalism that makes every abortion a murder in the eyes of most if not all of her closest supporters… not that these people can afford to admit it in public while campaigning on abortion).

In short, if her position has been misrepresented on this, then Nadine Dorries has entirely failed to explain how this is being done.

That said, the last incident where I saw her rise publicly to any challenge like this was on Twitter in April of 2010, and she did offer this at the time:

“It was an in utero op and pictured during surgery. Interesting that not one reputable pro-choice group denies the authenticity.” – Nadine Dorries (source deleted, see screen capture below)

screen capture of preceding quote

Let’s put the matter of who did or did not deny its authenticity to one side, and let Dorries have this one. (In other words; let’s pretend that she is not merely pretending that this never happened.)

Instead, let’s look at what she asks us to take into consideration when we judge her account of that event.

Yes, it was an “in utero (operation)”, and I’ve acknowledged this myself…

“I’ve heard some MPs talk bullshit in my time, but the idea that a 21-week-old foetus could punch its way out of the womb (with or without a starting incision) reached new heights for me.” – Me, also in April 2010

… but the best that can be said for Dorries, if we are to accept that the 21-week-old foetus acted independently in this way at all, is that she was saying that the doctor gave the ickle foetus a bit of a head-start with his scalpel.

What Dorries clearly proposes here is that the “jiggered” edges resulted from the foetus thrusting its arm out with such force that it tore human flesh (please excuse the unsavoury mental image, and the image that follows):

screen capture of the Hand of Hope image and accompanying text by Dorries

In layman’s terms, she maintained that a 21-week-old foetus had punched its way out of the uterus, or ‘womb’ as it is more commonly known. It does not matter is she didn’t use the exact word ‘punched’ or if she argues that the foetus had a head-start or not; her claim that it happened at all is as absurd and as insulting to the intelligence as her implication that the surgeon changed his story because he feared the wrath of violent pro-abortionists.

This is why you should not listen to Nadine Dorries about anything of a medical nature, because if she isn’t a liar, or an idiot, or delusional, then she’s a lying, delusional idiot.

These are not just “bad words” or some mere abuse/insults I throw around lightly. I use these words quite deliberately and entirely accurately:

liar
(n.)
a person who tells lies,

lie
(n.)
1. an untrue statement deliberately used to mislead,
2. something that is deliberately intended to deceive,

delusional
(adj.)
suffering from or prone to belief in something that is not true,

idiot
(n.)
1. a foolish or senseless person,
[synonyms: fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numbskull]

I also say the following knowing that my words could not be more damaging to someone campaigning on the subject of abortion; 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.

On the latter point, what Nadine Dorries offers in her current round of proposed changes to abortion law is profoundly dishonest to begin with; it amounts to the ‘choice’ to be legally compelled to be ‘informed’ by people with a hidden religious agenda. Meanwhile, Dorries issues dark whispers about the profit motive of care providers who conduct abortions and portrays them as the primary if not sole opponents to what she proposes.

Well, I oppose what she proposes, but primarily I object to the absurd lies she has used to push her anti-abortion campaigns, and the malicious lies she has aimed at critics who have dared to challenge her. It is what brought me to her attention, and the only thing that has really surprised me about her response to my challenges is how inexcusably childish, malicious and dangerous her resulting accusations have become, and how much the Conservative Party have let her get away with… especially after they defended this same MP against a proposed smear campaign while declaring that there is no place for this kind of behaviour in politics.

Did Nadine Dorries claim that a 21-week-old foetus punched its way out of a womb? Yes, she did. She did exactly that. And, incredibly, that’s not the worst of it.

Nadine Dorries has no credible role to play in the abortion debate. She’s lucky she’s still an MP.

Boris Johnson and the dangerous Tory smear campaign

I was producing/administrating Boris Johnson’s weblog at the time Anne Milton’s activists were smearing an opponent as a paedophile, but I went out of my way to avoid jeopardising the all-too-rare example of a Conservative MP subjecting themselves to a little public scrutiny (most of them still treat it like it’s kryptonite; a point I plan to return to, with gusto, shortly).

Hell, I even bit my tongue when Boris jovially referenced Anne Milton during a meeting and described the relevant dispute as a “personal disagreement”.

I was a fool. I should have known this effort was pointless (Boris essentially shunned his blog and the loyal supporters running it from the moment he was elected mayor), and I should have pressed him on this matter.

In fact, I’ve often wondered how things would have turned out if I used my position to press the point with Boris Johnson at the time, and now I’ve got a pretty good idea because, as the following correspondence reveals, someone else took it up with Boris Johnson at the time (after his public endorsement of Anne Milton) and he took no discernable action.

As in the previous post, this correspondence has been edited ONLY to avoid publicising the target of the smear and revealing the name of the person complaining about it, with the latter measure being necessary to avoid potential reprisals from those (still active) supporters of Milton’s who do things like broadcast my home address in revenge attacks while repeating her accusation of stalking (while this ‘wonderful’ MP pretends it’s none of her concern):

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri 2/2/2007 5:34 PM
To: johnsonb@parliament.uk
Subject: University of Surrey

Dear Boris,

I was present at your appearence at the University of Surrey Students’ Union – thank you for making the short journey from London. As someone interested in politics – though certainly not of your colour – it was refreshing to see that you attracted plenty of people.

I’m afraid I have to take exception with your comments about Anne Milton. She is far from being a wonderful MP ‘fighting crime on the streets’. She’s is both ineffective and profoundly dishonest. Two Conservative local activists, who will be standing in the local elections, and who were sitting in the front row at your appearence, have been involved in dirty campaign involving the setting up of a libellous blog to spread viscious rumours about a political opponent [snip]. This has been exposed by Tim Ireland – the person who built your weblog – and David Cameron’s office has been made aware. You can read the details at Tim’s site by following the links in this article: [link snipped] Anne Milton has known about this campaign for a substantial amount of time and, by not reacting to it, she has provided her tacit support to such revolting measures. Today, you provided the bumbling yet ever-so-lovable face of the Tory party and you clearly captivated the students – this is no doubt due to your affable nature. It is also incredibly dangerous. Dirty campaigns such as this one, which are supported by your MPs and even your leadership, show that the Conservative party is still insidious to its core. It truly deserves the ‘nasty party’ label. I’m disappointed that you extended your support to Anne Milton today, though I appreciate that you were probably unaware of what has been going on in Guildford. If, as I hope you do, you find this repulsive, then please have a word in David Cameron’s ear and get him to make it clear that such actions won’t be tolerated.

Thanks,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx

——————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 11 February 2007 23:02
To: JOHNSON, Boris
Subject: FW: University of Surrey

Dear Boris,

I sent this email just over a week ago and have not yet received a reply. I’m re-sending it because it’s possible that it got lost in my university’s email system.

Best wishes,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx

——————-

From: JOHNSON, Boris [JOHNSONB@parliament.uk]
Sent: Mon 2/12/2007 11:15 AM
To: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Boris Johnson notes your comments.

Frances Banks
Boris Johnson’s office

——————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 05 March 2007 17:48
To: JOHNSON, Boris
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

As comforting as that is, it’s now over a month since my original email and the blog in question is still live and being updated with further libellous content. You, David Cameron, Anne Milton and the Guildford Conservative Association are all aware of this and have been for some time, yet it continues. When will it stop? Will it take vigilante action on the person targeted for the Conservative Party to say enough is enough? Everyone is aware how emotive child abuse is and unfounded accusations like this put someone in potential danger – I’m sure you remember the incident of a paediatrician being set upon by local do-gooders.

Take the opportunity to distance yourself from such sick-minded members of the Tory party and my local MP who continues her shameful tacit support of this person.

Kind regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx

——————-

From: JOHNSON, Boris [JOHNSONB@parliament.uk]
Sent: Tue 3/6/2007 10:21 AM
To: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Thank you: I write to acknowledge your email.

Frances Banks
Boris Johnson’s office
——————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun 18/03/2007 11:32
To: JOHNSON, Boris
Cc: camerond@parliament.uk; miltona@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

I have copied in David Cameron and Anne Milton to this email so they are aware of this exchange – not that they haven’t been aware for months but nevermind. The more awareness there is, the less the Conservative party will be able to wriggle out of it when they decided actually to do something.

The weblog is still live. It is still being updated. The person in question remains a candidate at the local elections. That’s Conservative action.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx

——————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun 4/8/2007 2:00 PM
To: johnsonb@parliament.uk
Cc: camerond@parliament.uk; miltona@parliament.uk
Subject: FW: University of Surrey

You people really, really don’t care, do you?

——————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat 4/21/2007 3:38 PM
To: johnsonb@parliament.uk
Cc: camerond@parliament.uk; miltona@parliament.uk
Subject: FW: University of Surrey

It would appear that the Tories are very quick to act when their image is at stake over storms in teacups (Boris being sent to Liverpool*, Patrick Mercer**), but while it’s a local issue silently affecting someone’s well-being, you simply aren’t bothered.

——————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 09 May 2007 14:01
To: JOHNSON, Boris
Cc: CAMERON, David; MILTON, Anne
Subject: FW: University of Surrey

Right, now that the elections are over and the Tories did oh-so-well, don’t you think that it’s time that this odious member of your party was finally brought into line? Especially since the twisted little blog no longer serves any electoral purpose that the Tory party member in question could exploit (he lost, his opponent that he was trying to discredit won, everyone is over-the-moon).

Appealing to your opportunistic sides, do you not think that a party that is preparing itself for government (and God help us all if this sorry episode represents your moral standards) should put such shocking demonstrations of your ‘nasty’ side behind you? God forbid if you should ever get into government and the press take notice of this.

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx

——————-

From: HILL, Simon [HILLSA@parliament.uk]
Sent: Thu 5/10/2007 6:19 PM
To: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: CAMERON, David; JOHNSON, Boris
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email to Boris Johnson, copied to Rt Hon David Cameron MP and Anne Milton MP. I suggest that you contact the chairman of Guildford Conservative Association, Jonathan Lord, in writing as he is the individual responsible for the conduct of Guildford Conservative Association members. Mr Lord’s contact details are as follows:

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, Guildford Conservative Association
Unit 17a, Loseley Park
Guildford
Surrey
GU3 1HS

Yours sincerely,

Simon Hill

Simon Hill
Office of Anne Milton
Member of Parliament for Guildford and
Shadow Minister for Gambling, Licensing and Tourism
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: +44 (0)20 7219 0017
Fax: +44 (0)20 7219 5239
E-mail: hillsa@parliament.uk

——————-

(* Boris was sent to Liverpool in 2004 to apologise for his remarks about that city.)

(** Patrick Mercer was sacked from the Tory frontbench in 2007 after his remarks about race and the army.)

You can read where the correspondence went from this point in yesterday’s post. The short version is that Jonathan Lord (and his fellow Tories) did not dare address the issue during the relevant election, and tried to brush it under the carpet after that same election. I was subsequently smeared as a stalker (and, later, a paedophile) by supporters of Milton and that smear/harassment campaign continues to this day.

Even if Boris Johnson plays the classic card of implying/claiming that his staff did not pass these messages on (in spite of their use of the phrase “Boris Johnson notes your comments” and my knowledge that emails to the relevant Parliamentary address went to Johnson’s email Inbox while being copied to his staff) the fact of the matter is the correspondence ended with the matter being referred to Jonathan Lord, and Jonathan Lord took no discernable action so, while Boris Johnson may be able to reveal/prove that he did indeed raise the issue with Anne Milton or even David Cameron in some way, like Anne Milton and David Cameron, Boris Johnson is now in a position where he must at least acknowledge regret that no action was taken after the matter was referred to Jonathan Lord… especially now that audio has been published by me where Jonathan Lord confesses that made his decision to take no action (and keep the relevant activists on as candidates!!) for entirely political reasons.

So, let’s hear from Boris Johnson on this. He was made aware of a smear campaign where an innocent man was smeared as a paedophile and this man’s name, photo and whereabouts were published alongside the allegation.

Boris is an educated, media-savvy individual; he knows what the intent of such a measure is, and what the potential consequences are. He also knows that he can get away with being a bit of a buffoon and rascal at times, but showing a complete lack of care and integrity is another matter entirely.

Did he take any action? If so, what action did he take?

Did he take NO action? If so, there are many people who will regret giving him the benefit of the doubt over the Darius Guppy incident (for example).

Oh, and let’s not forget the glorious Third Way favoured by so many Tories:

Will Boris pretend that none of this has happened? If so, you can look forward to me being a wild-card campaigner in the London mayoral race, not least because his saying nothing is a strong indicator that found out about this and DID nothing, and during an election campaign is the perfect time to press the point.

(Psst! Over to you, Boris. Time to let one of your most loyal supporters on the left know if you’re a bit of a doofus or a total bastard.)

Jonathan Lord failed to act on more than one complaint

Previously (for those who came in late):
Jonathan Lord (MP for Woking): Smears
Jonathan Lord turned a blind eye

The following is some correspondence shared with me by someone who was a student at the University of Surrey in 2006/2007 when some local Tories who ran for council started smearing an opponent as a paedophile.

I have removed their name, mainly because of the likelihood of still-active Tory smear merchants having a go at this person. Any edits are a direct result of this measure, and clearly marked.

I have no doubt Simon Hill, Anne Milton and Jonathan Lord will know who this person is, but I doubt any of them will be so stupid as to ‘out’ them or leak their name, as this would take them well beyond the point of mere complicity, and rob them of their remaining shreds of deniability.

Do note the following:

1. This portion of the correspondence begins with Simon Hill from Anne Milton’s office, clearly referring the matter to Jonathan Lord (who was then Chairman of the Guildford Conservative Association)… and yet Anne Milton still refuses to comment on the matter now she cannot deny knowing that Jonathan Lord failed to act (and why).

2. This correspondence also shows Milton keeping a safe distance between herself and this scandal, despite the correspondent specifically requesting that she take an interest and (at least) refer the matter to Lord personally. If this ever happened, there is no known record of it.

3. I suspect that by this stage Simon Hill had been briefed by Jonathan Lord about demands for written correspondence. I further suspect this was an initial stalling* tactic, designed to keep the matter at bay just long enough for the relevant election to run its course, but Lord persisted with the tactic long after the election, and continued to make nonsensical demands for “evidence in writing”.

(*It put me right off because of the reported behaviour of local Tories; i.e. turning up unannounced on people’s doorsteps to ‘discuss’ letters of complaint to the local paper. I don’t think I was alone in my concerns, especially after what the Tory activists Mike Chambers and Dennis Paul published/broadcast, including personal phone numbers of targets.)

4. There is some further email correspondence that preceded these exchanges with Simon Hill and Jonathan Lord. I plan to publish it tomorrow; it reveals the name of another senior Tory who was made aware of this scandal and its implications, but did nothing.

5. None of the local Conservatives acknowledged this person’s complaint until 5 days after the relevant election (this section of correspondence begins with Simon Hill “finally” replying on May 10, 2007, when the council elections took place on May 3, 2007). This is entirely in keeping with Jonathan Lord’s ‘off the record’ confession that he did not act more stringently/appropriately at the time because he was concerned about the potential impact on the election campaign he was directing at the time. Only a fool would think Simon HIll and Anne Milton responded to these emails without prior discussion with Jonathan Lord, but every scrap of supporting evidence is welcome.

6. Jonathan Lord seems to imply in his emails that the person complaining about the conduct of his activists is using a false identity, which would be a bit rich considering what he must have known his activists were up to by this stage… but perhaps he is merely making the classic mistake of judging others by his own standards.

————-
From: HILL, Simon
Sent: Thu 5/10/2007 6:19 PM
To: Xxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXXX Xxxxx, XXXXXXX Xxxx
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email to Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, copied to Rt Hon David Cameron MP and Anne Milton MP. I suggest that you contact the chairman of Guildford Conservative Association, Jonathan Lord, in writing as he is the individual responsible for the conduct of Guildford Conservative Association members. Mr Lord’s contact details are as follows:

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, Guildford Conservative Association
Unit 17a, Loseley Park
Guildford
Surrey
GU3 1HS

Yours sincerely,

Simon Hill

Simon Hill
Office of Anne Milton
Member of Parliament for Guildford and
Shadow Minister for Gambling, Licensing and Tourism
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: +44 (0)20 7219 0017
Fax: +44 (0)20 7219 5239
E-mail: hillsa@parliament.uk

————-

From: Xxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
Sent: 10 May 2007 19:18
To: HILL, Simon
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Thank you for finally acknowledging my emails.

Unfortunately contacting Jonathan Lord would be a futile pursuit and one that I’m not prepared to embark upon; he’s already aware and has been for a considerable amount of time. Equally, you seem to be suggesting that the local MP has absolutely no sway over her own local party where she is the Member of Parliament. I find that hard to believe.

If Jonathan Lord is technically responsible for this member’s behaviour, how about Anne Milton shows her principled side and contacts him instead of me? I’m sure she would rightly disassociate herself from such behaviour so why not be pro-active and take responsibility herself? What’s more, the voice of an upstanding Member of Parliament from the same party will undoubtedly carry more weight with Mr Lord than that of some uppity student.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

————-

From: HILL, Simon [HILLSA@parliament.uk]
Sent: Tue 5/15/2007 2:19 PM
To: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail. I can only reiterate what I have already.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Hill

Simon Hill
Office of Anne Milton
Member of Parliament for Guildford and
Shadow Minister for Gambling, Licensing and Tourism
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: +44 (0)20 7219 0017
Fax: +44 (0)20 7219 5239
E-mail: hillsa@parliament.uk

————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 15 May 2007 14:29
To: HILL, Simon
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Thanks for your reply again.

If that’s the case, would you have an email address for Mr Lord? The reason is that I’m leaving Guildford soon and I’m unsure as to where I’ll be living next. I wouldn’t want to send written correspondence giving a return address that I might not be at in a week’s time.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

————-

From: HILL, Simon [HILLSA@parliament.uk]
Sent: Thu 5/17/2007 6:38 PM
To: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: University of Surrey

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your e-mail. I suggest that you use the Guildford Conservatives’ e-mail address which is on their website ( info@guildfordconservatives.com) marking the e-mail for the attention of Mr Lord.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Hill

Simon Hill
Office of Anne Milton
Member of Parliament for Guildford and
Shadow Minister for Gambling, Licensing and Tourism
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: +44 (0)20 7219 0017
Fax: +44 (0)20 7219 5239
E-mail: hillsa@parliament.uk

————-

From: Xxxxxx XXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, May 21, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Subject: FAO Jonathan Lord
To: info@guildfordconservatives.com

Dear Mr Lord,

Please see below an email exchange that I have had with some Conservative MPs over a relatively extended period. You should read from the bottom upwards.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

————-

[NOTE - 'from the bottom upwards.' refers to all correspondence above this email; I have rearranged these emails so they are in sequential order]

————-

On 5/24/07, Guildford CA wrote:

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email and email thread.

I had some (amicable) dealings with the Chairman of the local Liberal Democrats during the course of the election campaign. An inappropriate link was brought to my attention which was then removed from the blog section of a candidate’s personal website.

If you have allegations to make against any member of this Association, I would ask you to put them in writing (with all supporting evidence) and send them to the following address:

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, Guildford Conservative Association
Unit 17a, Loseley Park
Guildford
Surrey
GU3 1HS

Thank you again for your email.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, GCA

————-

On 5/24/07, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Mr Lord,

As far as I can tell the evidence is included in my first email; it’s quite clear.

Finally, as I mentioned in my email to Simon Hill which you can see below, I don’t want to send written correspondence because I’m moving out of Guildford soon and I don’t know where I’m going to be living. I therefore can’t indicate a return address and so prefer to communicate via email.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx

————-

From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
To: Guildford CA
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: FAO Jonathan Lord

Mr Lord,

Do you have any further information with regards to our recent correspondence?

Regards,

Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx

————-

From: Guildford CA
Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: FAO Jonathan Lord
To: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx

Dear Xx Xxxxxxxxx,

I have double-checked your first email.

You call Anne Milton MP “profoundly dishonest”, and you refer us to a blog that is antagonistic to Anne Milton MP and Guildford Conservatives.

If you have a complaint that you wish to be taken seriously then I require it in writing, and with any supporting evidence in writing. I therefore refer you to my previous email.

I am sure that there is a return address (of your parents, of a friend, of your place of study or your workplace) to which any reply of our Association could be directed.

Our email correspondence on this matter is now at an end.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, G.C.A.

————-

That “first email” will be published tomorrow. The blog he refers to is mine; Jonathan Lord implies that issues of partisanship cause him to distrust the evidence presented by me (and others). He has also repeatedly pretended that he was never seen any of the relevant evidence, and he does so again to a considerable degree here.

The evidence in question was live on websites other than mine, and far more convincing in its live state than any written version might be.

Further, in this exchange, Jonathan Lord also gives what I suspect is at least a one-sided take on his correspondence with local Lib Dems (looking into it, folks) in which he reveals he was fully aware of a key point of evidence; one of his activists clearly published an “inappropriate link” on a political blog published in his own name.

It is clear from my discussion with Mr Lord that this is a reference to a link published on Dennis Paul’s weblog, and he would only have known it was inappropriate if he had followed the hyperlink.

By this stage, the site this “inappropriate link” led to had not only maintained the accusation of paedophilia for almost a year, it also featured a photo of the target and details of where they might be found, and had also published a personal phone number as part of its ‘investigation’.

The discovery that Dennis Paul had knowingly linked to a site of this nature should have led to the immediate termination of his candidacy and his expulsion from the Conservatives. It didn’t.

The removal of this link should not have been the end of the matter, but rather the beginning of a full investigation into his conduct and that of fellow Tory candidate Mike Chambers. It wasn’t.

Jonathan Lord turned a blind eye to the matter, before and after the relevant election, for entirely selfish/political reasons.

Tomorrow, I plan to name and shame another senior Tory (other than David Cameron) who was made fully aware of this dangerous smear campaign and yet took no discernable action.

(In fact, they later had the audacity to describe the dispute that arose from it as a “personal disagreement”.)

Anne Milton cried ‘stalker’ and later denied it: here’s the evidence

Recently, some Tories have been producing doctored evidence to support an ongoing smear campaign against me while others have been demanding I produce evidence to support my contention that there is an ongoing smear campaign against me involving some Tories.

Putting the asburdity of this situation aside for moment, there’s a lot of evidence involving many people in a long and complicated saga, so I asked the latter Tory what* they wanted me to prove. The nearest I could get to a straight answer was an objection to this letter to Steve Hilton. No specific point was raised; they chose instead to challenge the whole letter.

This same person claims to be a member of a government communications team, and this claim seem plausible. What doesn’t seem plausible is that they would refuse to report it to their superiors because they haven’t seen enough evidence to date to warrant this effort.

I aim to make this point today by reiterating a key claim from that letter to Steve Hilton and presenting the relevant supporting evidence:

Anne Milton recently denied saying anything that may have even given people the impression that I had harassed or stalked her in any way, but I can prove this to be a lie. – (source)

This is from an email exchange with James Clayton from Anne Milton’s office from January 2010. Previous to this, I had made it clear to Milton that the specific accusation that I had stalked her had been published alongside my home address:

“Anne asked me to let you know that she doesn’t have a ‘stance’ on you. She also said she isn’t responsible for things other people say about you.” – James Clayton, Office of Anne Milton MP

I took this to mean that Anne Milton does not regard herself to have been stalked in any way, and has not said or done anything that she would regard to be a reason for anyone come to that conclusion and/or make that accusation on her behalf, and the wider correspondence supports that this was indeed her contention at the time.

However, I can prove that Anne Milton did make this specific accusation herself and she is responsible for some things other people say about me when they go on to repeat an accusation like this… like Sandra Howard did on the Conservatives’ own website in 2005:

“In Guildford our candidate, Anne Milton and Michael stand on the flower market steps and tell the large gathered crowd they are ready to shoulder it. Michael wants to better people’s lives and he knows how to do it. The jeers of a few vocal protesters are drowned by the cheering. It’s a rousing reception. One deeply unpleasant man near me, called Anne a “Dipstick”; she says he’s been stalking her on his website as well. .” – Sandra Howard (source)

Note the ‘as well’, which implies that my presence at the event amounts to stalking. I was there at a public event to photograph people who were there to have their photograph taken. According to the logic of the people who did not want me to reveal what a charade their campaign was, this was an arrestable offence.

In fact, some Tories claim that police subsequently took an interest:

“He has harangued the MP for Croydon**, Anne Milton, to the point where she had to involve the police.” – Nadine Dorries (source)

But this claim by Dorries is a lie if not a gross distortion; the police got involved when they looked into the conduct of Milton’s activists (latest/background). At no stage was my conduct under question… unless you count the anonymous comments consistently traced back to Mike Chambers and/or Dennis Paul that later started appearing on Iain Dale’s website (shortly before he started repeating the accusation of stalking as if it were fact).

Dorries also claimed the following:

“I have had to report him to The Met police on two occassions… You can speak to a number of MPs including Anne Milton, including Patrick Mercer, and others MPs who have the same issues with him… all of (these) other MPs have also reported him to police.” – Nadine Dorries (source)

Did Anne Milton report me to police as Nadine Dorries claims? The accusation is being made in her name and Dorries is using her as a named source to back up her accusations… do I really need evidence that Milton made this specific allegation herself if I’m to expect her to take an interest?

I would argue not, but I’ve produced that evidence anyway; Anne Milton herself is the earliest known source of any claim that I stalked that woman and, through Sandra Howard***, her claim was subsequently broadcast on the Conservatives.com website

Anne Milton needs to either (a) deny making the allegation, (b) support the allegation with evidence, or (c) withdraw the allegation and take immediate steps to address the smear campaign she has (perhaps unwittingly) involved herself in.

Until then, her silence is evidence of her complicity.

Actually, make that ‘further evidence’ of her complicity.

Anne Milton has known about all of this for months now and yet has repeatedly engaged herself in the deceit that it is none of her concern… even after she has been informed of Sandra Howard’s testimony.

The following is a series of questions that Anne Milton has so far only sought to address by (finally) making good on my DPA request to her office:

from: Tim Ireland
to: Anne Milton
date: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:12 AM
subject: ‘Stalking’

Anne,

1. Your recent denials about accusing me of stalking are contradicted by the published testimony of Sandra Howard who said in 2005 of my attendance at a public event in the local High St; “(Anne Milton) says he’s been stalking her on his website as well”. Who else did you share this quite specific and wholly unjustified accusation with? Do you deny sharing it with Iain Dale, for example?

2. I talked to your son on the day of that same public event. He approached me and accused me of using ringers in reviews of my books on Amazon (ie as a counter-accusation to your use of ringers in your campaign literature). His conclusions were all wrong, but he could not have arrived at them without subjecting me to the same level of scrutiny that you described as ‘stalking’ when it was aimed at you. Do you think your son stalked me? Do you think it would be fair if I described this as your son stalking me?

3. Did you ever file a police report complaining about my stalking you? If not, on what basis do you justify your use of the word ‘stalking’ (or do you regret your use of what amounts to extraordinary hyperbole)? If the latter is the case, given you are wholly aware of the conduct of Wightman and others, do you think it’s appropriate for a cabinet minister to tolerate if not rely on vigilante action by party/campaign supporters (if not donors), including the dissemination and publication of my home address alongside the accusation that I stalked you specifically?

4. Do you recognise the role played by Dennis Paul and/or Mike Chambers in the publication of intimate details and false claims about my work and family life? If so, why didn’t you describe/condemn this as ‘stalking’? If you do not recognise the role they played in the publication/promotion of the relevant site, why not?

5. What explanation can you give for not complying with my DPA request for over 150 days, and what reason can you give for not complying with the aspects of my FOI request that do not involve constituents beyond myself and my immediate family? (I assume you will not be complying with the FOI request. If you’d care to comply as a sign of good faith, I’d be delighted to be proved wrong.)

6. What explanation can you give for my DPA/FOI request being viewed by someone in the office of the Guildford Conservative Association? What business is it of theirs?

7. Mike Chambers claims than an internal investigation took place into the anonymous sites smearing myself and [named snipped]. Is what Chamber claims true? Was an internal investigation conducted?

8. If it is true, who conducted the investigation and why do you think the current Chairman (Andrew Colborne-Baber) might be having difficulty locating the relevant paperwork?

9. If an internal investigation took place, why was I not advised of its outcome?

10. Do you have any comment on the police being under the false impression at the time that a key witness in this matter, [name snipped], did not exist?

11. Do you have any comment on the claim by Mike Chambers that, following accusations by Dennis Paul, you and Jonathon Lord believed me to be a computer criminal (ie what he described as a ‘hacker’, and creator/propagator of computer viruses)? If true, what evidence were you basing this on, and how did this influence your thinking at the time?

12. Finally, do you have any comment on the practice of representatives making unannounced visits to the homes of people who wrote letters to the Surrey Ad that were critical of you and your 2005 campaign and included details of their address?

Tim Ireland

You may note that some of the later questions have also been answered in part by Jonathan Lord’s ‘off the record’ response to similar questions; there wasn’t anything approaching the kind of investigation that Mike Chambers described when speaking in his defence… which is something else that Anne Milton and David Cameron need to address. Both of them referred the matter of anonymous smear sites to Jonathan Lord for action… and he took none.

The next round of evidence will deal (again) with this point and reveal the name of another senior Tory who turned a blind eye to the antics of Milton’s supporters/activists.

Then perhaps we can turn to the subject of how correspondence between those supporters/activists and Sue Doughty wound up in the possession of Dominic Wightman (see: doctored evidence) and what further statement Anne Milton might wish to make about her relationship with this man.

(Anne Milton’s staff requested 24 hours to respond to the first draft of this article. 24 hours passed, and no response came. )
-

[*Psst! At one stage this anonymous Tory chap portrayed my accusation(s) as the allegation of a government conspiracy against me (i.e. as if they challenged me to prove that), but the way I see it (and will have repeatedly tried to put it) it goes as high as some people IN government, but this is far more likely to be an broadly connected series of selfish bastards looking out for their own interests, and basically behaving according to type. I have not alleged or implied - as Iain Dale has, for example - that there is a Downing Street authored document detailing a plan to 'get' me. It's a straw man.]

[**Anne Milton is the MP for Guildford, not Croydon.]

[*** Rachel Whetstone (see: the letter to her husband, Steve Hilton) was the former chief of staff for Michael Howard at the time. She would’ve cleared this text for publication if she were doing her job properly.]

Bedfordshire on Sunday: indiscretion

You may have noticed some minor damage control going on this past week as the Conservatives took some limited measures to bring Nadine Dorries to heel while ignoring the wider problem of the smear campaign she has involved herself in.

The main problem with Nadine Dorries as far as Tories are concerned is that she is woefully indiscreet; a mean-spirited clot who is far too certain of her ability in the Machiavellian arts.

Last week, her primary indiscretion was her announcement that she had a one-to-one meeting with the PM, and the stunted Machiavellian component was her repeated assurance that it must have gone very well indeed, because it is widely-understood (she says) that the absence of coffee is bad news, and (she claims) coffee was present:

Dorries blog/tweet 8-9 Feb 2011

Days after this one-to-one and really-quite-good-because-it-had-coffee meeting with David Cameron, Dorries had closed her Twitter account without a word of explanation, and her best friend Lynn Elson had resigned from the very same highly-paid and vaguely-defined position that was recently examined on this blog:

Bloggerheads – Nadine Dorries: Go Compare
Bloggerheads – Nadine Dorries and Marketing Management Midlands Ltd

However, it is as obvious as a wet turd on a windshield that the Tories are perfectly comfortable with the wider smear campaign and have no wish to bring that to an end, because Dorries was left free to excuse/explain the resignation (and to a lesser extent the closure of the Twitter account) by again resorting to the same damn ‘stalker’ smear that the Conservatives continue to pretend is none of their business.

It is on this note that we turn our attention to Bedfordshire on Sunday, a local newspaper distributed within Nadine’s constituency, and their take on these matters:

Bedfordshire on Sunday, Page 5, Feb 13 2011

Chris Gill, editor of Bedfordshire on Sunday, has for near to a month avoided printing any mention of the matter of Nadine Dorries’ expenses that has not only been investigated by police, but subsequently referred to the CPS. The referral was rumoured/reported by one national newspaper then confirmed by another, and even the fact that this was leaked at all is a potential story, but Gill dismisses the matter as ‘unsubstantiated’ and thereby avoids any mention of it (or any reason to look too closely at it, lest he accidentally confirm it to himself).

Meanwhile, he and his staff brag that they present the facts to their readers and allow them to decide…

Bedfordshire on Sunday staff tweets

… but that is not what is going on here at all. In reality, relevant, pertinent facts being kept from the readers of this newspaper, while other facts are being presented selectively and distorted willingly.

Meanwhile, they help to smear me as a stalker to draw attention away from what I have uncovered, instead of doing their damn job… which is to properly examine this same material and raise the obvious questions raised by an extraordinary level of expenditure on a poorly-defined role filled by a close, personal friend of an MP. What they assert to be intrusion is the bare minimum that their readers should expect from them!

Lynn Elson called Bedfordshire police to complain about my conduct (which amounts to analysis of facts and figures in the public domain… how very dare I), was rightly advised that she should instead take the matter up with her local police force, and subsequently called Gloucestershire police, to no discernable effect. Gill could barely confirm the initial call to Bedfordshire, and yet rested his newspaper’s assertion of “intrusion” on the mere fact that maybe a phone call had been made.

My calling police to accuse Chris Gill of rape does not make him a rapist. Chris Gill understands this, and any person in his position should understand the significance of Elson being referred by one force to another in these circumstances, but Gill somehow thought it appropriate to pretend that this was some form of ‘dual’ report (i.e. a matter so serious that it involves two police forces). The article he subsequently granted a quarter page to (above) also implied that the web-published material prompting Lynn Elson’s complaint/resignation was somehow personal in nature, and fabricated to boot.

Even though I am hilariously castigated in Gill’s paper for not attempting contact with a person who appears to be accusing me of stalking her (!), Chris Gill did not contact me prior to publication of this article. Even after publication, when challenged to identify the “fabricated” material or support his assertion of “intrusion”, Chris Gill has repeatedly refused to respond.

I suspect he will go on pretend that I should have informed him before publishing all of these points that I have already put to him, but even if he did have a valid complaint of this type (he doesn’t) his defence is no better than ‘tit for tat’, and in any case he is bound by PCC guidelines and I am not.

Currently, Chris Gill moans that I am being unfair to him personally, and uses further unsubstantiated accusations of ‘mud slinging’ to support his position (of making claims he cannot substantiate) before declining any further response:

from: Chris Gill
to: Tim Ireland
date: Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Tim
Can I email you privately , not for publication
chris

-

from: Tim Ireland
to: Chris Gill
date: Tue, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:03AM

You should know my answer to that. I don’t negotiate privately with the unprincipled any more.

By your recent actions, you mean to shield Dorries from scrutiny and smear me as a stalker. I’ll not stand for it, and I intend to not only challenge you on it, but to bring your poor conduct to the attention of the readers whose trust you betray so readily.

Tim

-

from: Chris Gill
to: Tim Ireland
date: Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Tim
I wasn’t planning to negotiate, just wanted some info.

I notice you are good at mud slinging but first to cry when there is something you do not like.
Some of your assumptions are very, very wide of the mark and offensive.
I am not guilty of any ‘poor conduct’ in any walk of life and your assessment that I betray readers is a stain on my character. You do not know me, have not met me and you cast slurs which are unsubstantiated.
I should also point out one thing I ain’t mate, is soft in the head. Believe me
Chris

-

from: Tim Ireland
to: Chris Gill
date: Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Oh, spare me.

Identify this ‘mud’ you speak of, and tell me how it justifies your publishing material that you know to be a gross distortion (at best).

While you’re at it, show me the fabricated evidence your article refers to and the deeply personal component you imply I published, and produce evidence of the intrusion your headline declares to be a certainty.

Tim

Chris Gill was unable to offer anything in his defence other than what one hopes is a pretence that he is offended. (He doesn’t have to answer any questions I raise about his apparent corruption because I have dared to raise questions about his apparent corruption! Brilliant!)

Speaking of pretence; having an open thread at all under an article of this type is unacceptable to begin with, but Gill took it a step further and pretended to be offline and unavailable when comments carrying damaging and entirely false allegations about me were published on his site using the free-for-all comments facility. Meanwhile, he and/or his staff busied themselves deleting comments that contradicted their position or dared to mention the matter of the CPS referral.

For those who are left wondering how Dorries has got away with being a corrupt liar for so long, this is part of the answer.

As Dorries’ attempts to involve the police in her lies have become more pathetic and transparent, the editor of this local newspaper has shared and indulged her indiscretions to a degree that is now undeniable, and easily demonstrable:

Chris Gill will not report the matter about the local MP and an expenses investigation being referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, but he will target a lesser-known figure, a critic of that MP, using nothing but a half-confirmed claim that someone made some phone calls to police that may or may not have got past the switchboard.

Prior to this, Gill was so indiscreet about his treatment of Dorries’ belated ‘stalker’ complaint to police that he allowed Dorries to a ‘no comment’ on a story when it should have been clear to him or anyone else in his position that she was the only possible* source.

(*If we are to assume Gill is not implying that the police are the source of this leak. I’m sure he is not.)

It is now so obvious it is embarrassing; Chris Gill is the kind of person who will pretend that he serves the interests of the local people, when in fact he will willingly enter into collusion with the local MP and her supporters (including those on his staff) instead of holding her to account as he should.

That is a disgrace, and it is something that every reader of Bedfordshire on Sunday should care about.

And, should the point escape some of the more dogmatic supporters of Dorries; I say this because of adherence to a principle, not fixation on a person.

We each should have a right to hold those in power to account, and we should have the right to challenge such people when we suspect them of dishonesty.

This applies to politicians, and it applies to publishers, and it is especially important that this principle is adhered to when the latter only pretends to hold the former to account.

If Chris Gill is going to abuse power in this way, I make no apologies for my attempts to bring it to the attention of the people who grant him that power.

If he has any objection to that, it should begin with a clear explanation about his recent editorial choices.

-

(Psst! Gill’s staff have begun a bit of a PR push in Twitter, while pretending they do so in a purely personal capacity. In their rush to build a following, one of them has repeatedly linked to the account of a person who has previously published my homes address online in what they part-defend as a revenge attack on behalf of Nadine Dorries. This does not look good when Beds on Sunday staff are being painfully indiscreet in their cheery exchanges with other supporters of Dorries while accusing me of intrusion.)

-

Back soon with the next round of evidence about widespread collusion in Tory smear campaigns, folks. Have a nice weekend!

-

UPDATE (19 Feb) – There are moans from within the Dorries camp that Lynn Elson resigned on the 7th of February, i.e. before the coffee-means-good meeting. Assuming this claim to be true/well-informed, there is no published record of this anywhere (Bedfordshire on Sunday do not mention it), and the news came near to a full week after that date, so there was no way I could have known/expected this without communicating with Dorries or her staff, and it is clear from Dorries’ past conduct that attempting this was futile and likely to lead to a damaging and dangerous outburst. And it changes little, as pressure/expectations from the party are likely to have compelled Dorries to take action prior to her appointment with Cameron, and Elson herself contends that she resigned as a result of web articles about her, which is the core of what I dare to suggest here. Elson may claim she resigned due to “intrusion”, but the only visible articles about Lynn Elson immediately preceding her resignation concern themselves specifically with her professional conduct, not her personal life as she implies. If she seriously claims any of that material is fabricated, she has yet to specify it and her moaners have yet to bitch about it. And if we must play this game of Chinese whispers, perhaps one* of them can get back to me with the answer to a simple question: does Lynn Elson claim to have resigned before or after the ‘Go Compare’ article was published?

(*But send a different thug or maybe a cuddly carrier pigeon this time please, Dorries peeps. The person you keep using is everything Dorries accuses me of being, and he’s been warned very clearly and politely that I do not want to hear from him any further.)

Jonathan Lord turned a blind eye

Let’s begin with a brand new and very special episode from Conservative Change Channel:

CCC11-01: Jonathan Lord: ‘off the record’

I hope you enjoy a few laughs, but the guts of it is about as serious as it gets:

What the audio I have published in this episode reveals is that Jonathan Lord took NO discernable action against Mike Chambers and Dennis Paul when they involved themselves in a smear campaign where an innocent man was branded a paedophile, and he did so for entirely political reasons.

Jonathan Lord admits that he did no more than have informal conversations with these two Conservative candidates, in private and entirely off the record, because an election campaign was in progress.

(As if this is any way acceptable or his candidates didn’t smear an opponent because of that same damn election. The part-justification he gives for this decision is an insult to the intelligence; he claims he was worried about how I or others might distort it. Well, if he’s worried about my distorting any of this, he’s welcome to come out and debate the matter in public or instruct his lawyers.)

No wonder these two carried on as if they were untouchable. Dennis Paul even tried to breathe new life into the smear campaign through his personal website on the eve of the relevant election.

Because Lord even went so far as to turn a blind eye to the evidence presented to him by me and others, he allowed these two candidates to continue their pretence that they weren’t really involved in the relevant websites, which meant that damaging and dangerous accusations aimed at their opponent (and at me) remained in place for months/years afterwards.

Further, because Jonathan Lord swept this under the carpet, those who were involved (and those who turned a blind eye like Lord did; take a bow, Iain Dale) were able to excuse/disguise their disgraceful behaviour with entirely false implications if not specific allegations that I imagined or invented the whole thing as part of what they contend to be a harassment campaign against Anne Milton. Yet Lord (who recognises that I did not harass or even libel Milton) insisted that his position/decision remain off the record, even after it was explained to him how his continued silence contributed to the subsequent smear campaigns against me.

What. A. Bastard.

Now for the really important bit:

Anne Milton and David Cameron were both advised of the blogs and comments accusing an opponent of child rape at the time, and both referred the matter to Jonathan Lord for action. Today, I have published evidence that proves he took no discernable action, and that he made this decision to protect personal and party interests.

So, from the moment of this revelation, both Anne Milton and David Cameron have a single opportunity to come forward and express their disapproval at this decision, or they own an even bigger chunk of it than they already do, and risk sending the message that they are entirely comfortable with their/Conservative candidates smearing opponents as child rapists, computer criminals, etc. etc. etc. (so long as these operatives are canny enough to only do so within criminal law, during an election campaign, etc. etc. etc.).

Yet I fully expect that they and every other member of the Conservative party will continue to engage in their conspiracy of silence. After so many years, how can I have any less faith in them?

There’s even more to come. Also, since my decision to end these ‘off the record’ games, I’ve been passed correspondence that implicates another big name in the Conservative Party, and it’s not Jeremy Hunt or anyone else I have named so far. I plan to publish this as part of my new policy to shine the brightest of lights into every damn corner of this sordid affair.

Go to Top