Posted by Tim Ireland at 1 November 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

This article by David Allen Green that is very much about Nadine Dorries and what she told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has resulted in a string of remarkably similar comments underneath that article from an unknown number of people pretending to be more than one person, with strikingly similar views on it being less about the corruption and lying and All About Teh Stalking. Two examples:

01 November 2010 at 16:18
Slightly over the top don’t you think? I notice you don’t mention the stalker/nutter Tim Irealnd who gatecrashed our public meeting to film her? Or the fact that she was altering name, dates etc on the advice of the Police to protect her family and staff from people like him. She was cleared of an investigation into her expenses and didnt have top pay a penny back.Not the case with Labour MPs. That was the real story.

A voter
01 November 2010 at 16:27
Tim Irealnd is a man well known to the Police. he can ‘debunk’ all he likes. He even posted a video on you tube of his being caught filming her whilst pretending to be someone else and lying to the meeting organisers.If she was my wife, I would want her to cover up where she was. he is seriously weird.

I “gatecrashed their public meeting” and was caught filming her… on my own camera in a planned live broadcast. There are some days when satirising it becomes near to impossible.

This evening, Jim Hamilton kindly took the time to explain the situation as it stands to one of Dorries’ remaining supporters on Twitter. I didn’t have time to get a fresh summary together today, and this does nicely (thank you, Jim):

Jim Hamilton

On Monday 1st November 2010, said:

OK, where to begin. First, you are majoring on how Mrs #Dorries was “cleared” by the HoC standards and privileges ctte. Based on Mrs Dorries submission that 70% of her blog was, in effect, lies. This was a written submission to the House authorities, and Mrs Dorries had every opportunity to change her position before the investigation ran its’ course. She waited until this evidence (and be under no illusions, it is evidence) was accepted and the investigation closed to casually say that the evidence was in fact incorrect. The only two conclusions possible from this are (a) She lied to the commons to achieve a fraud on the public purse or (b) she routinely lied to her constituents. Assuming, for the sake of the argument that (b) is the case; first, this is morally reprehensible to me as her constituent – largely through her cavalier attitude to this breach of the covenant. Her position that she only changed some details to protect herself from “stalkers” is interesting. She has been unable to provide evidence of this serious offence having been comitted. I spent 6 years working at a reasonably senior level in the Criminal Justice system and can say a few things about Mrs Dorries claims. 1. If you report a credible suspect for “stalking” they will be interviewed by the Police, either under arrest or by voluntary attendance at the Police Station – the named blogger has had neither happen to him. You will also be issued with a Crime reference number, you will not have to ask for this, it will be provided freely. Mrs Dorries, despite being given the opportunity to provide this has failed to avail herself of the opportunity – why would this be? There is no risk to her in the slightest. If any interaction with the police has taken place – and there is absolutely no evidence that it has – one can only deduce that they have decided that there is no case to answer and that Mrs Dorries (admittedly vocal) critics are operating entirely within the law, and their rights as citizens of this country.

In short, Mrs Dorries has accused people of crimes, publicly and without evidence to back the assertion – nor even a logical argument to provide the benefit of the doubt, she has revelled in the way she has either misled parliament or her constituents.

The conclusion? – She needs to be deselected by the Conservative party, a by-election needs to be called and if (as is likely) a Conservative is returned to the seat, so be it – but let it be an honourable, decent, hard working constituency MP – rather like her neighbour in NE Beds, Alistair Burt.

This is not a party political issue – no matter what I and others think of the parties of government, it is a matter of public probity and decency.

Sorry, couldn’t say all that in 140 characters

That’s about the size of it. On Friday (Oct 29) Nadine Dorries promised to provide dates of complaints and relevant reference numbers. She claims an investigation followed one of many complaints involving four different stalkers. For every proper complaint she made, she should be able to identify a log/incident number, the file for which would reveal the date of the relevant complaint(s). For every investigation, there should be a crime reference number. Today, no supporting data has emerged.

Dorries has yet to produce any evidence that police gave her anything like the advice she claims to have received from them – i.e. to mislead her constituents about her whereabouts – which is the purpose of this story she offers the press (which greatly contradicts the story she gave the Commissioner). She has yet to produce evidence to support her now months-old claim that a police investigation was in progress, and the language she is using at the moment appears to suggest that she cannot even provide evidence of making any complaint, which would make the matter even more of a disaster for her.

Currently she is reduced to making nonsensical claims in the name of the local Chief Constable, making major unmarked edits to the wildly inaccurate if not entirely false claims she publishes on that ‘blog’ of hers, and shouting ‘puerile’ at an article composed mainly of the findings of a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

UPDATE (02 Nov) – A chunk of the opening sentence was missing, and has now been reinstated. Dorries is up and about and mouthing off, but still unable to produce any evidence backing any of what she claims.

Posted by Tim Ireland at 29 October 2010

Category: The War on Stupid

It is just past midday on 10.29.10 29.10.10. There are now less than 24 hours to go before midday on 10.30.10 30.10.10. That makes it impossible for anyone to apply for police permission to stage a London demonstration in favour of sanity (or anything else) at 12pm tomorrow within the confines of the designated area displayed in the map below.

If you wish to have a rally to restore sanity anywhere in or near Parliament or Downing Street midday on 30.10.2010, there is now NO way to gain permission to do it legally; the official deadline passed days ago, and even the short notice deadline would require the use of a time machine. That’s the law.

(See: Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005)

If you wish to hold an urgent and spontaneous demonstration outside Scotland Yard or the Home office in protest, this too is illegal without police permission (see map).

rally4sanity map

The KeepFearAlive rally for London does have police permission to stage a demonstration within the designated area (from 12pm-2pm), and we will also be demonstrating in favour of the law that grants us this exclusive privelege:

London/Westminster Rally to Defend SOCPA and Keep Fear Alive
12pm Saturday 30.10.2010
Old Palace Yard SW1 (map)
Wear BLACK, or a BLACK costume. (No excuses!)
Authorised placards ONLY please!

Placards and further details: or

Subscribe to the mailing list to confirm your attendance and discuss the event.
Join the London MeetUp group.

In summary, for anyone wishing to demonstrate in favour of sanity anywhere near Parliament tomorrow, I present one of the authorised placards for our event:

Fear Poster 02

I look forward to seeing my fellow fear-mongers at the event. Click here for further details and downloadable placards. Don’t forget to wear the blackest of your black shirts.

Fear Flyer

Posted by Tim Ireland at 28 October 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

Dorries has published a series of claims about me in this post on her not-really-a-blog. To describe it as “70% fiction” would be putting it rather too kindly.

Also, since uploading it late last night, she has made a series of amendments that I’ll address alongside the (rare) detail:

On Monday, the Sky Boulton blog, not only ran a negative and imbalanced story, it legitimised the very person the Police advised me to disguise my movements from, Tim Ireland.

I’m sure, the article, that she doesn’t link to, contains too few commas, for her liking, but it can be found here.

Nadine Dorries is using false accusations of stalking to excuse lies she told her constituents long before I blogged about her. Even if I have secretly invented time travel (and I’m not saying I haven’t) she told the Commissioner that she gave a false impression that she was mainly resident in the constituency to “reassure” her association and constituents. Even if I have travelled back in time to retro-stalk Nadine (and I’m not saying I haven’t), never at any time have I acted in any way that could give police cause to advise Nadine Dorries to hide her movements from me as she describes.

In fact, the only time we have ever been in the same room was at a public event for candidates and constituents. Constituents invited me to that event. Dorries has previously sought to use my presence at that event as her sole excuse for describing me as a stalker at that same event (and claiming I was the subject of a related police investigation at the time). It’s not only a lie, it’s an old lie.

Not only has this man stalked me, he can telephone my constituency office so many times in a morning, the staff disconnect the phone, making it impossible for constituents to make contact.

I have not stalked Nadine Dorries.

What she implies about a nuisance calling is entirely false, even in this vague state. It’s especially insulting that her embellishment aims to portray me as an enemy of democracy standing between her and her constituents (and not for the first time).

He never telephones the London office. He possibly suspects those calls would be recorded.

For some reason, Dorries added this the morning after she first uploaded this article. She needn’t have bothered. It’s garnish.

FYI, I called the number provided for the office of the Mid Bedfordshire Conservative Association, in an attempt to resolve this without talking to the hysterical Dorries or any of her staff/daughters. I had no intention of speaking to her constituency office, but it appears the two are indivisible.

I have reported him to the House of Commons police on three occasions and the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police explored the option of triggering section 5 of the Public Disorder Act.

Reporting someone for stalking does not make the subject of your claim a stalker. If police thought there was anything in what Dorries claimed about me (there is no knowing at this stage how much of what she told them is/was fiction or things she is/was very confused about), then they would have been in touch long before now.

But at least, after months of asking Dorries to put a number and/or officer name and station to her claims, I know enough to make contact with Gillian Parker, Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police.

If Gillian Parker or any other officer did explore “triggering section 5 of the Public Disorder Act” as Dorries claims, without talking to me about it, then they must have concluded that there wasn’t sufficient evidence of an offence taking place, and/or that my conduct was reasonable.

What this smells like is Dorries using her position of power to kick it all the way upstairs so the most senior officer available had to explain this to her.

The House of Commons Police informed me that Mr Ireland had actually rang their office demanding to know if he had been reported. He had and they were seeking advice from the Met harassment unit.

This was also added after the original article was uploaded. It appears to be based on my account rather than anything told to her by the ‘House of Commons police’. If only she would put some specifics to what she claims.

Perhaps while Dorries is mouthing off she’d care to stipulate on which dates she made complaints to police about me, what specifically she claimed I was responsible for, and who she spoke to about this, at which station.

And on the subject of Dorries and her poetic air of uncertainty…

You only have to look at the huge number of Twitter accounts and web sites he has registered in my name…

I run one Twitter account that satirises Dorries. There is a secondary account for a super-powered foetus that is part of this same joke. Either Dorries believes I am behind every Twitter account that mocks her, or she is deliberately misrepresenting the scale of my activity. Again.

There is a blog that documents her worst outbursts, and I dared to mock her on YouTube. I’m cross-platform. Using free third-party platforms, this necessitates provider-specific accounts. Dorries is totally misrepresenting that.

… and the very odd, obsessive nature of his writing to understand why I was given the advice I was.

I would dare to describe this passage as bordering on the subjective. Dorries thinks a 21-week-old foetus can punch its way out of an incision in the uterus, but my questioning the detail of her claim makes me obsessive in her eyes.

Oh, and the advice she speaks of (even if it was anything like she implies) is a false excuse for lies she told long before I even knew of her, as I have already mentioned.

Sorry if that attention to detail creeps you out, by the way.

What he writes is aggressive, untrue, disturbing in it’s intensity.

Another ‘morning after’ sentence. And it’s garnish, too.

During the election, he travelled to my constituency from Surrey by train, [not an easy journey], laden with computer and camera equipment, lied to the organisers of a public meeting about who he was in order that he could get close to film me.

Note how she lays this down after earlier implying that I had been following her around to the extent that she had to mask her movements (something she cannot possibly hope to prove because it never happened).

It’s beyond obvious; it’s childishly pathetic. Isn’t anyone on hand to give her proper guidance on this? Even if she expects to get away with libel on the basis of her assumption that her target(s) dare not sue her, she looks like a petulant, vindictive child, attacking people with accusations that have already been proven false and using excuses that were wholly discredited days ago.

“Laden with computer and camera equipment” we can put down to poetic licence (along with the far more contentious flair of my wanting to “get close” to her). She also later added that this was “not an easy journey”, but it was a doddle.

As for that public meeting, I was invited.

I most certainly did not lie to organisers about who I was, or why I was there. Dorries did not witness this event, but I can produce people who did. Further, the organisers have recently gone on record as not remembering the event in quite in the same way that Dorries does.

Now Dorries has updated this passage so it reads:

He then supposedly lied to the organisers of a public meeting about who he was, in order that he could get close to film me.

I hope to say more after being in contact with those same organisers, assuming Dorries continues to stand by her (now softened) lie that I lied which she is using to push her lies about stalking, which she is using to excuse the lies she said* she told to her constituents.

(*It should be noted for accuracy that many people suspect this to be a lie.)

In case you haven’t worked it out yet; Nadine Dorries says these things because she is worried about being thoroughly exposed as a liar.

I am not the only person he has harassed and stalked and when I spoke to a well known law firm about him recently, he was well known to them. For something completely different.

Pfft! She can’t possibly swing ‘known to police’, so she tries ‘known to lawyers’. Her hatchet jobs are getting increasingly low rent.

I’ve only ever had cheap threats and cheap tricks from those lawyers who don’t remember me fondly. Even if we assume there’s any truth to the story behind Dorries’ dark implications, so what?

Further, a lawyer is not a policeman, but a man who knows the law and works for hire. And if one of them had evidence that I had broken the law in any way, then they would have little difficulty getting that across to a policeman.

I’ve yet to receive any letters from any lawyers claiming to act on behalf of Dorries, BTW.

(Please note that those lawyers she doesn’t name didn’t act to get that Sky piece removed. But perhaps Nadine was talking to them about… *dramatic sting*… something completely different.)

The Sky Boulton blog was outrageous and distressing. John Craig, their political reporter felt there was nothing wrong in legitimising a man I and other MPs have felt the need to report to the Police.

If any other MP has reported me to police about anything, I have yet to hear about it, and when it’s serious they tell you about it. Dorries earlier claimed that I stalked Anne Milton to the extent that police had to get involved, but the truth is that the police investigated one of Milton’s activists. Anyone can call Anne Milton’s office and ask. She won’t be able to deny it.

I have never been the subject of a police investigation as Dorries implies here and has claimed elsewhere. I have never even received a friendly call from a policeman who might be a little worried that I am overdoing it with Ms Dorries or anyone else.

Even when using characters/satire, I have always blogged in a way that makes no secret about who I am, and if Dorries had made a complaint of any credibility and substance to any officer anywhere in the land, then the police would have been in touch with me long before now.

Dorries is a liar who knowingly uses damaging falsehoods about her perceived enemies, and here is the detail in my case.

In May of this year, Dorries claimed a police investigation was underway into my activities. If there is any truth to this, then Nadine Dorries should be able to produce at least one relevant crime reference number. If any journalists get in touch, I’m happy to provide the relevant crime references numbers that verify what I claim. Dorries is not.

Nadine Dorries is a liar. A corrupt liar, to be precise.

UPDATE – Nadine Dorries is a Liar and Unfit to Hold Public Office, a post that seeks to dig some sense out of Dorries’ claim that a Chief Constable “explored the option of triggering section 5 of the Public Disorder Act”.

For your reference: A picture showing the relevant amendments (via Richard Bartholomew) and links to previous versions (captured by Gareth Winchester)

Posted by Tim Ireland at 27 October 2010

Category: The War on Stupid, Tories! Tories! Tories!

The Rally To Restore Sanity is a cheap, populist campaign by some upstarts in America with a popular television show (The Daily Show). It is now apparent that this rally may actually go global, with people marching in major cities across the world this Saturday 12pm midday (local time) on 10.30.10 30.10.2010

Currently, under British law it is forbidden for you to stage a demonstration in or near Parliament and other designated areas without prior permission from police (ideally, six days in advance). A repeal of the relevant part of the SOCPA act has been in the works since before the last election, but we are not sure at this time where the present coalition government stands on this.

I suspect some people who seek to follow the crowd like sheep and involve themselves in The Rally To Restore Sanity may wish to stray inside a designated area without permission, or perhaps even target Parliament itself.

I have subsequently applied for (and received) police permission to stage an urgent demonstration to protest outside Parliament against any violation of this law, and in support of protecting the law as it stands:


I ask you; what reasonable person would make their way down to Parliament on short notice expecting to be taken seriously?

I call on you to join me this Saturday to take stand against such people:

London/Westminster Rally to Defend SOCPA and Keep Fear Alive
12pm Saturday 30.10.2010
Old Palace Yard SW1 (map)
Wear BLACK, or a BLACK costume. (No excuses!)
Authorised placards ONLY please!
Subscribe to the mailing list to confirm your attendance and discuss the event.
Join the London MeetUp group.
Link to or

The law is the only thing that stands between us and absolute chaos. We can’t have people marching on Parliament at a moment’s notice. We need the threat of arrest to keep them at bay. Perhaps a little kettling if they try to stare us down. Something that’ll make them think twice, at any rate.

Now don’t go making that face. Fear is good. Fear works. Fear will keep the local systems in line.

In fact, I want you to overcome your fear of fear. I want you to campaign for the careful and responsible use of fear in the defence of our democratically-elected leaders! (Can I get an ‘amen’?)


Date: 12pm Saturday 30.10.2010
Location: Old Palace Yard SW1, London (map)

Old Palace Yard is in Westminster, here, under the shadow of the Jewel Tower It’s right by the place where journalists do their pieces to camera outside Parliament, but we’ll try not to get in their way.

You must wear black. You may dress in a scary costume if you wish, even if it seems a peculiar and rather American thing to do, but I must insist – as the keeper of the authorisation document – that you dress in a uniformly black ensemble. So that leaves… witches, the Grim Reaper, cat-women, Catholic priests, that chap from the movie ‘V for Whatever’, or perhaps my own personal choice; a sensible suit with a sturdy but tidy overcoat and a nice briefcase that really tells those workshy scroungers that you mean business. Perhaps a nice black shirt to set it all off. Yes, that’s the ticket.

I can be contacted via the usual email facility and Twitter if you have any questions (the relevant hashtag and link: #KeepFearAliveUK and If you need to find me at the event, I’ll be the one wearing the black armband.


Because we don’t want to be going too far ourselves and free-wheeling on the placards at short notice or anything untoward, I’ve made some pre-prepared ones that you can print out on any printer as A4, then soberly enlarge to A3* at work, (or your local newsagents or post office if you’re an elderly). A limited number of regulation-size placards will be available in exchange for a £1 £2 donation, with proceeds going toward a large screen something or other.

Fear Poster 01      Fear Poster 02

Fear Poster 03     Fear Poster 04

(*Please advise me if you plan to enlarge your own poster to A2 or above, as I will need to clear it with the committee. Please also get in touch if you want to join the committee.)

(Credible lobbying organisations like Christian Concern for our Nation understand the value of uniform placards. Take a look and see them in action.)


You may have noticed that things have been changing recently and some developments are not to everyone’s liking. People have been gathering near Parliament and making ugly noises about the sincerity of the government’s actions regarding some rather harsh cuts, for example. But, as you all know, the cuts are very necessary, entirely the fault of the previous administration, and nothing can be done to stop them.

If Thatcher should die suddenly of being very old, and the £3million+ budget for the planned state funeral became a matter for debate, obviously it would be a time-sensitive issue and a lot of people worried about the expenditure in these times of austerity would want to march on Parliament and complain about the money before it is spent, and I would understand their sense of urgency to a point, but there are limits. Who do some of these people think they are? You can’t just walk up to Parliament and demand answers without permission.

Worse; some of these people have had jobs to get on with, or should be doing something useful or quiet with the time we pay for on whatever benefits scam they’re running.

Something really must be done about the people who expect to be able to walk up to Parliament any time they like and make a fuss over things we cannot change. Further, these people do not understand that they are concerned about things that clearly aren’t important, or are going to happen whether they like it or not. They don’t comprehend that they should simply take their lumps and go away, or at least try to roll with the tide. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if something might be wrong with them, and I’ve half a mind to report some of them to police, even if they don’t turn up on Saturday. I’ve heard tell that these same people send vile and abusive messages, and set up foul and disgusting websites objecting to all sorts of perfectly reasonable things.


As you can see, I have a more enlightened outlook since we last spoke about this and have moved on from my previous (naive and uninformed) view on SOCPA, and I urge you to not only join me, but also inform your colleagues by putting this poster up at your place of work:

Fear Flyer

(Once you have displayed your flyer, make sure you also send an internet email around your office or update your Facebooks so everybody knows about the stand you are taking for democracy!)

London/Westminster Rally to Defend SOCPA and Keep Fear Alive
12pm Saturday 30.10.2010
Old Palace Yard SW1 (map)
Wear BLACK, or a BLACK costume. (No excuses!)
Authorised placards ONLY please!
Subscribe to the mailing list to confirm your attendance and discuss the event.
Join the London MeetUp group.
Link to or

(Please be aware that video footage may be recorded at this event. Persons carrying unauthorised, off-topic placards risk arrest.)

Posted by Tim Ireland at 25 October 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

Dear Journalists,

I know it is tempting to carry out interviews as follows and get things done by lunchtime…

“Were you really stalked by [name]?”

“YES! Don’t make me sue you! I know people!”

“OK, thanks for your time.”

… but please remember that the person you are talking to in this case is a liar*, and you’ll really want a little more to go on than her word.

So, to help you in your quest to determine the substance of Nadine’s claims, I have created the following flowchart that contains key questions that someone (other than me) might like to ask Nadine Dorries at some stage:

The Nadine Dorries Cries ‘Stalker’ Flowchart (click for enlarged version)


Good luck in your quest. Oh, and watch your step. Nadine Dorries is an extraordinarily vindictive person with a long track record of attacking her critics and/or perceived enemies with entirely false accusations, some of which may be as dangerous as they are damaging.


Tim Ireland

[*I would say ‘self-confessed liar’ but Nadine Dorries appears to be a little bit confused on this point at the moment: she has gone from saying to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that her blog is 70% fiction, to saying that what she really meant all along was 30% fiction, to saying that every word on her blog is absolutely true.]

Posted by Tim Ireland at 24 October 2010

Category: Anne Milton, Tories! Tories! Tories!

Nadine Dorries is currently attempting to explain away an enormously damaging admission about misleading her constituents with a compelling sob story about stalkers.

This is no better than her hiding behind a human shield at the height of the expenses scandal with an hysterical if not calculated announcement about fears of a suicide (which she made just after some ill-advised comments about expenses that made her look both corrupt and arrogant).

I am here to attempt to tempt you far enough into the detail to not only establish the sob story of Nadine Dorries to be a calculated lie, but also expose a dark side of right wing blogging that the present Conservative leadership have repeatedly turned a blind eye to.

I warn you that even in this condensed state, there is a fair amount of detail, not least because Dorries’ lies involve a series of people who have intersecting personal relationships and political interests. Some of Dorries’ supporters would delight in dismissing it all as a wild conspiracy theory on that basis, but if you would care to look into the detail below you will find that anything reliant on mere suspicion, opinion or contention is clearly defined with appropriate language.

Unlike some, I do not seek to pass off an expression of opinion, belief or fiction as fact.

Unlike some, if challenged on any of the specifics, I can produce evidence that shows what I publish is both accurate and pertinent.

So, let’s begin by getting you sorted for a nice hot tea or coffee, and perhaps a biscuit.

I’ll wait while you fetch and fix.

Seriously, you’ll thank me later. You’ll at least want to hydrate at some stage.

Go. Do.


All ready? Good. Let’s proceed with the detail:

In January 2009, I uncovered a plot to generate tabloid headlines and anti-Muslim sentiment through fabricated evidence of extremism in web forums.

The man who fabricated the relevant evidence was Glen Jenvey, then a professional associate of (and source of intelligence for) the Conservative MP Patrick Mercer; a man on the fringes of his party, who puts himself about as an expert on matters of extremism and terrorism and earns quite a bit of money on the back of this.

Mercer’s office refused to respond to (never mind act on) emails and calls alerting them to Jenvey’s actions, even after Jenvey submitted/published dozens of entirely false claims – via over 50 websites – that I was a convicted paedophile.

I am not a paedophile, convicted or otherwise, though I have been labelled a ‘nutter’ for daring to object to these damaging lies.

Mercer later denied working with Jenvey after his fabrications were exposed, but this was a lie. He now refuses to discuss the detail with me or anyone else anyone on the grounds that I am an “electronic stalker”, claiming that he has received advice not to speak to me or even about me.

I am not a stalker, electronic or otherwise, though I have been labelled a ‘nutter’ for daring to object to these damaging lies.

The source of Jenvey’s claims of paedophilia appears to be another associate of Mercer’s named Dominic Wightman (aka Dominic Whiteman, aka Richard Walker, aka Olivia James, etc. etc. etc.). Jenvey maintains that Wightman told him that I was a convicted paedophile who had escaped justice and assured him that I needed ‘sorting out’ before emailing that man my ex-directory home address. Wightman denies some of this, but his previous denials have been gross distortions if not outright lies. Obviously, that does not make him guilty of this act, only a liar, but his denials do little to counter the evidence that he refuses to discuss in detail…. on the grounds that I am an “electronic stalker”

Mercer will not say if or when he broke contact with Wightman and why (again, citing his claim that I am an “electronic stalker”; he won’t comment on Wightman’s harassment of me because he claims I am harassing him by complaining about it).

While Jenvey was smearing me as a paedophile and members of Mercer’s staff were refusing to act on the matter, Iain Dale promised to contact Patrick Mercer directly to alert him to this, failed to do so, then lied about it. It only emerged a year later that Dale had called the very same staff members that he knew were not passing messages on, didn’t mention the paedophilia smears to them, and didn’t even ask them to pass any kind of message on. Iain Dale still equates this with contacting Patrick Mercer and fulfilling his promise while refusing to be drawn on the detail, which is a gross distortion of the truth if not an outright lie.

Shortly after pulling this stunt, Iain Dale then hosted a discussion thread that was deliberately held open for no other reason that I can determine other than facilitating his libel of the Labour MP Tom Watson during ‘Smeargate’; Dale had issued an entirely false claim that Tom Watson was CCed on a crucial Draper/McBride email, which cost two newspapers an apology and a “substantial sum in damages”. Despite being forced to withdraw the claim, Iain Dale failed to retract it in a timely manner (he later lied about when he had done this), and actively exploited a series of highly questionable content and comment manipulation techniques that left his readers with the false impression that his accusation stood. The best that can be said in his defence was that he knowingly misled his readers on the specifics because he was certain of Tom Watson’s overall guilt

At the same time this was happening and the relevant discussion thread was being held open by Dale in a way that would publish any comment immediately (not standard procedure on Iain Dale’s site by any means, and risky at the best of times), two bloggers aligned with Iain Dale and Nadine Dorries, ‘Guido Fawkes’ (Paul Staines) and ‘Tory Bear’ (Harry Cole or Alexander or whatever the hell his name is), both started publishing entirely false claims and implications that I was associated with Draper and/or McBride and/or their planned smear campaign(s). On Staines’ site particularly, this involved a series of false claims and implications that I not only supported the plans of Draper/McBride, but did so in return for money.

I am not a smear merchant, paid or otherwise, though I have been labelled a ‘nutter’ for daring to object to these damaging lies.

Iain Dale, too, had begun to publish comments suggesting I was a smear merchant in league with Draper/McBride, but was only deleting my comments complaining about it. By this stage, Dale was not only using the open thread as a weapon against Tom Watson, but as a weapon against me, and he knowingly did so at a time when his thread was one of the hottest in town, and by then turning up for searches of my name, at the same time that Glen Jenvey was known to be cruising for open comment threads in which to publish his false allegations of paedophilia, while armed with my address and threatening to use it.

Dale was ignoring emails about this, and deleting comments urging him to moderate more responsibly. I still do not know if Dale did this mainly out of ignorance or malice, as he refuses to discuss the detail… on the grounds that I am an “electronic stalker”.

Iain Dale now cites repeated phone calls made in these circumstances as evidence of my stalking him, as does Dominic Wightman. Neither person mentions the context in which the calls were made. Years earlier, Dale also published entirely false claims that I had stalked Anne Milton and Nadine Dorries. He has offered to delete these claims from his site, but refuses to issue a retraction, despite knowing that what he privately defends as opinion or hyperbole is being presented by Dominic Wightman and others as fact.

(Dale’s only response to this is a denial about contact with Wightman. This is as meaningless as his denials about contact with Jenvey; he cannot substantiate what he has published, even as opinion, and yet continues to maintain these false claims knowing that his word on the matter is being used against me in an ongoing campaign of harassment. He does not have to engage in a conspiring dialogue for this to be wrong. His politics is blinding him to the action that should be obvious; we should as a blogging community be rejecting the antics of people like Wightman, not actively exploiting them to gain advantage over rivals or silence critics.)

When Dominic Wightman’s schemes and duplicity were discovered (he had been posing as my ally for months as his harassment campaign got rolling), he went to ground and I instead found myself having to deal with a group of self-described ‘cyber activists’ led by a man named Charlie Flowers; a man who had previously worked with Wightman in his harassment of Glen Jenvey (a former associate of Wightman’s in an amateur ‘terror tracking’ venture that collapsed in acrimony and disputes over money).

Charlie Flowers began publishing my home address alongside a claim that I was in league with Muslim extremists.

I am not in league with extremists, Muslim or otherwise, though I have been labelled a ‘nutter’ for daring to object to these damaging lies.

Wightman is the most likely source of my home address and the only possible source of the relevant ‘evidence’; at present he explains this away with a fantastical and absurd claim about his computer being hacked.

Charlie Flowers, both alone and in conjunction with several people he was manipulating at the time, repeatedly broadcast my home address to people they regarded to be hostile toward me (including members of the BNP). When the accusations of association with extremists began to fall flat, they proceeded to publish my home address alongside the accusations that I had stalked Patrick Mercer, Paul Staines, Iain Dale, Anne Milton and Nadine Dorries. They further claimed that I had sent death threats to MPs, implying Dorries to be the main target.

When confronted about this, Charlie Flowers made a statement that he was doing this on behalf of Nadine Dorries and others and claimed to have informed her of his actions and intentions. When this was brought to the attention of this MP, Dorries only pretended to report him to police and instead (she claims) reported me to police for stalking her.

(Currently, Dorries is blurring the lines between claims she now makes about four unnamed people stalking her, but is heavily implying that I have been sharing her personal details on the web. This is not only untrue, it is astonishingly near to the opposite of the truth; Dorries has knowingly exploited a situation involving the publication of my home address. She has also had a man over to her home as a dinner guest who, prior to all of this, had repeatedly published my home phone number on his site – he says just to ‘annoy’ me. Further, in recent weeks, Dorries has attacked a constituent of hers who had dared to be file a complaint about this. Dorries attacked this constituent with a false allegation that this woman was a benefits cheat, and furnished journalists with the woman’s name and home address as part of her smear campaign. I do not know how Dorries came by this personal/sensitive data, but surely she should face repercussions if she came by it as part of her duties as an MP, through a letter to her or via her office/party access to the electoral role, for example.)

Later, during the 2010 election, I was invited by constituents of Nadine Dorries to a public meeting where they expected Dorries to lie about the investigation into her expenses, and the circumstances surrounding it.

(During this investigation, Dorries explained inconsistencies in her account to the Commissioner by stating that 70% of what she published on her blog was fiction. After the investigation concluded – she claims in a way that exonerated her of any wrongdoing – she publicly backtracked to claiming she had only meant 30% of her blog was fiction, before going on to maintain a day later that every word she published on her blog was absolutely true. I have also recently discovered that Dorries insisted on a change to the date of the hustings (!) in a way that avoided any report of the event in her local paper prior to the election, and also arranged the timing of her arrival and departure so she might avoid any direct confrontation or open Q&A session. Dorries is legendary in political circles for her pretences at engagement when in fact she shuns it, only engaging with people who do not confront her with difficult questions. After previous hustings, she knew she was on a sticky wicket and likely to face some difficult questions at the final hustings before the election. So did her constituents. It’s why they invited me to come and get the evening on record in the interests of democracy. But Nadine is so far gone; she sees this and any attempt to confront her about her ongoing lies as a personal attack and an affront to democracy.)

Knowing full well that my home address was being published alongside a false accusation that I had stalked her and others, Dorries sought to escape that situation by twice addressing a hall full of hundreds of people and accusing me of stalking Patrick Mercer, stalking Anne Milton “to the point that police became involved”, and stalking her to the point that a formal police investigation was underway.

Dorries then not only stood by that accusation knowing it to be entirely false, she went on to build on it, using the stabbing of the MP Stephen Timms to explain her decision to close her blog and Twitter account shortly after the election, with a direct and unmistakable insinuation that I presented an equal danger to her; this included a claim that she was advised by police in this context to cease any tweeting/blogging. It later emerged that Dorries had closed her blog and Twitter account a week before Timms was stabbed. Unless her recent self-diagnosis as a sufferer of “profound dyslexia” covers confusion about which way time flows, her claim that this event prompted her decision cannot be seen as anything but a calculated lie.

Andy Rayment, Chairman of the Mid Bedfordshire Conservative Association, responded to my concerns about Dorries’ repeated attempts to portray me as a mentally unbalanced stalker (including the evidence showing Dorries to be a liar) with a curt email in which he declared that he refused to communicate with “nutters”. Dorries then revealed any concerns she may have had about me being mentally unstable and potentially violent as a sham when she gleefully repeated this correspondence on her blog.

To be clear about the accusations that some journalists might be tempted to take at face value:

– There is no evidence of Patrick Mercer making any credible report to police about my stalking him. If he had, I would have been contacted by police a long time ago. It is standard procedure. (I know this from experience, and not in the way some would have you think. The people who have been involved in the worst of the harassment targeting me have so far escaped prosecution, but all of them have received unwanted attention from police as a result of my complaints.)

– The same applies to Iain Dale, who still refuses to discuss the circumstances in which he sought to exploit my being smeared as a paedophile, and actually seeks credit for not actually smearing me as a paedophile personally. (So *much* to be proud of, Iain!) He is now incensed that I may have to resort to civil action to have him issue a retraction of his repeated claims that I stalked him and others, even though he knows he cannot possibly substantiate his claims in criminal or civil court, or even in an open debate. Instead of taking the route he insists I should take with those harassing me (i.e. reporting them to police, as if I have not done so), Iain Dale has sought to address his claims that I harassed him with accusations made primarily behind the scenes, in what can only be described as a whispering campaign.

– In Anne Milton’s case, the only person who was investigated by police was a Conservative activist then working under her (and very closely with her), who sought to target a political opponent with an anonymous and entirely false claim that his opponent was… wait for it… a paedophile. Milton won’t like talking about that, but she cannot deny it, and she cannot deny knowing about it and the evidence of that man’s involvement before going on to endorse him as a candidate for local council. (She only ‘blanked’ him after he lost; what a lovely person. Yay, politics.) On that note, I should also point out that Anne Milton is also a (hopefully former) associate of Dominic Wightman’s (i.e. the man doing the key dirty work in this ongoing campaign of harassment against me). Milton denies saying anything to him or anyone else that might give them the idea that I was stalking her, but I can prove this to be a lie.

– Nadine Dorries cannot produce any evidence of a police investigation into my stalking her, as no such investigation took place. Through her supporters – mainly ‘Tory Bear’ – Dorries now presents my presence at that meeting (where she claimed I was under police investigation for stalking her) as the ONLY evidence of my stalking her. In any case, even if Dorries thinks she is telling the truth about some of her stalking claims (which we cannot discount, as she appears to be genuinely delusional on some points, not a claim I make lightly), the lies she told to constituents pre-date any of her cited or published concerns about stalkers.

To be clear on this point:

All of the events Nadine Dorries describes as ‘stalking’ took place after the lies she told constituents about the amount of time she spent in her constituency.

Further, she gave the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards an entirely different reason why she engaged in this deceit:

I often posted comments on my blog relating to [name of town] in my constituency. Since I first rented in the constituency, I made a song and dance about being at the property. I have mentioned it on my blog a number of times. This was done to comfort my Association. The previous MP only visited the constituency occasionally—sometimes only as often as once every six weeks—and they were keen that I reversed that impression. His lack of time in the constituency contributed to his de-selection. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 25 January 2010

When Nadine Dorries claims or implies that she lied to her constituents about the amount of time she spent in her constituency only so far as to alter a few key dates and locations to throw stalkers off the scent… She. Is. Lying.

Nadine Dorries is lying because she has dug herself into a deep hole after a series of earlier lies, and she appears to have lied not only to her blog readers, constituents, and a series of journalists following this up, but also to John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

I am willing to be interviewed about or challenged on any or all of this, and can produce evidence to back up everything I relate and describe, including the crime reference numbers relating to the two police investigations into this (ongoing) campaign of harassment against me, that recently got so ugly as to involve anonymous and entirely false accusations of criminal damage against my children.

If you press Dorries or Dale or Mercer or anyone else about this, they will refuse to talk to you or lie to you, but they will not be able to produce any evidence* to back up what they claim outside hearsay and opinion from their circle of deceit.

(How this works: Dorries claims I stalked her and points to what Iain Dale says as evidence. Iain Dale claims I am a stalker by pointing to what Nadine Dorries says as evidence. At one stage, Iain Dale even went so far as to declare that I only criticised Nadine Dorries as a way of getting at him. He even has the audacity to suggest that there is no smoke without fire when he knows damn well that he is the one generating the bulk of the smoke.)

Make no mistake; this is nothing more than a smear campaign involving people with aspirations of influence that far outweigh their integrity.

Calling the police and accusing someone of stalking does not make the subject of your claims guilty of stalking.

Hell, even Jenvey was calling police and accusing me of harassing him while he was publishing entirely false allegations about my being a paedophile.

Dorries is no better. She knowingly exploited a situation that put me and my family at significant risk and in considerable fear of danger, and heightened this with a damaging and self-serving lie about a police investigation that never took place.

And Nadine Dorries did this for no other reason than political gain; at best, to talk her way out of a corner.

I have never been approached by police about any complaint of harassment aimed at me, which is standard procedure for them following any credible complaint.

I have never been investigated for stalking or harassment or been issued with any kind of warning by police about my behaviour in this respect.

I have no criminal record for violent crime or any other kind of crime.

Nevertheless, I have been the target of entirely false allegations of stalking (and worse) made by people attempting to mask or excuse their lies and corruption.

Three of these people are Conservative MPs, and one of them is a member of Cameron’s cabinet.

If you’ve read this far, I’d like to ask you to do something about it by (a) writing about it, (b) getting the word out on Twitter, (c) filing a complaint with the Conservative Party, and/or (d) writing a letter to David Cameron at 10 Downing St.

Thanks for your time.

[*As should be clear from an earlier passage, if Anne Milton is able to produce a crime reference number, it will not relate to an investigation of my conduct, but an investigation of the conduct of one of her activists. While it did not culminate in a prosecution, that investigation did NOT clear the relevant activist or his associate(s) of wrongdoing, despite what Anne Milton or Iain Dale may imply. I am in possession of that same crime reference number should Milton attempt denying any of this.]

Posted by Tim Ireland at 22 October 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

If we’re to believe Nadine Dorries’ local hokum (i.e. about 70% of her blog being fiction), when exactly did Nadine Dorries stop misleading her constituents about where she lived?

Nadine’s fictions regarding the amount of time she spent in her constituency took root in 2005, started in earnest in 2007, and culminated in this post on her not-really-a-blog on May 2009;

I spend more nights away from my constituency home than I spend in it and I use it for the purpose of my work. I do, however, retain the right to have my daughter, or daughter’s with me depending on who is with me at the time. It may only be a second home, however, it is a home… So, to my constituents and no one else, I am sorry. My crime is that I haven’t owned up to you that I don’t always live here… – Nadine Dorries, 16 May 2009;

An investigation into the expenses claims of Nadine Dorries followed. For the purposes of clearing her for many, many thousands of pounds on her constituency home as a second home, it was very important that she convince the Commissioner for Standards that she spent the majority of her time living away from her constituency home.

So why did Nadine Dorries claim that she lived mainly in her constituency home… on the ballot paper of the May 2010 election?

(Extract from) Mid Beds Statement of Nominations (.PDF)

extract from Mid Beds nomination form for ge2010

Why did she declare via the relevant nomination papers that she lived in the constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, almost a year after apologising for lying about living in the constituency of Mid Bedfordshire (for then undefined reasons of personal security)?

Taking Dorries at her word (steady, now) and assuming personal security to be the issue; ballot papers don’t show addresses any more if the candidate chooses to instead “state the constituency in which (their) home address is situated,” but Dorries chose this option and chose to state that she lived within the constituency.

How did this measure protect Nadine Dorries from the time-travelling stalkers? How is this anything other than a deliberate lie designed to give a false impression about where she lived for entirely political purposes?

Or is this perhaps a case of Nadine Dorries claiming that she lived away from the constituency right up until sometime after January 2010, and then suddenly having a change of heart and deciding she would be better off living mainly in her constituency from early 2010 (i.e. for the duration of the election campaign)?

In any case, when were the relevant nomination papers submitted?

Further, this information was brought to the attention of the office of the Standards Commissioner on May 19, 2010. Why is there no mention of Nadine Dorries being confronted with this in the relevant report (PDF)? Just the day before, the Commissioner had written to Nadine Dorries making it clear that he believed her current main home to be in Gloucestershire:

Secondly, I am grateful for your description of your current main home in [second village in Gloucestershire]…Letter to Ms Nadine Dorries MP from the Commissioner, 18 May 2010

And what is Commissioner John Lyon’s reaction to Nadine Dorries flipping the figures on her earlier assurance that 70% of her blog was fiction and 30% fact? If she now maintains that she meant the reverse all along (30% fiction and 70% fact), doesn’t this at least vastly alter the number of conflicting claims she can discount (i.e. about where she was and when)? Also, doesn’t this flipping of figures amount to a lie to the Commissioner? The report makes clear that she had ample opportunity to correct herself.

UPDATE (25 Oct) – Over the weekend, Dorries revised her position yet again, and said; “I would also like to state that every word written on my blog is absolutely true.”

So she gets off the hook re: expenses by saying that what she published about staying in Woburn wasn’t true, and she now states that it was true. Surely this amounts to an admission that she lied to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

UPDATE (25 Oct) – John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, will not comment on his report, or any submitted evidence contradicting it. He refuses to comment on evidence submitted during his investigation that contradicts his understanding of certain crucial matters as stated in the report, and he even refuses to comment on why it was not included in his report. I am now left with no option but to refer the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee (a bunch of MPs) who are answerable only to the House (a bunch of MPs). Not liking my chances.

Posted by Tim Ireland at 21 October 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

This evening, the 6pm edition of Anglia Tonight carried the following report about the excuses Nadine Dorries gave for lying to her constituents. If you’re in a hurry, just click here to zip forward to the relevant quote (orig):

Ms. Dorries agreed to do an interview for us and was unable to make it for whatever reason, but (I spoke to her) on the phone and what she said was that, following the expenses scandal that we saw, she found herself at the centre of some rather unwanted attention from some rather unsavoury people – ‘stalkers’, she called them – to the extent that she had to report 4 people through the Metropolitan or Bedfordshire police and she said to me; “I’d be a pretty stupid MP after reporting four stalkers to the police if I then put down exactly where I was staying.” – Matthew Hudson, Anglia Tonight (21/10/2010)

So Dorries maintains that she told lies on her blog about where she was staying and when to throw stalkers of the scent, and began doing so when she attracted “unwanted attention” from “unsavoury people”… (important bit coming up) following the expenses scandal.

The expenses scandal began for Nadine Dorries with this report in the Telegraph on 15 May 2009.

And here are the dates of the blog entries mentioned in the Standards and Privileges Committee report (PDF) that she explains away as ‘fiction’:

– 15 May 2009
– 16 May 2009

Dorries apologised for misleading her constituents about where she lived in this entry on her not-really-a-blog on 16 May 2009.

Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that in one day – on 15 May 2009, to be precise – Nadine Dorries not only attracted four stalkers, but then made credible reports to police about all four of them (in London and Bedfordshire), then went on to receive advice from police that convinced her that she should publish largely fictional accounts on her blog about where she was living/staying, then did so, and then went on to apologise for doing so the very next day.

Sorry, but no.

At the time of the expenses scandal, I catalogued relevant entries on her blog that gave the very clear impression that she was living in her constituency, and the dates of key examples are included below:

“In my local last night with friends, The Black Horse in Woburn…” 10 April 2008

“Last night a true friend and neighbour took me for dinner at the Birch in Woburn…” 7 June 2008

“I got the papers at seven and read every one back to front. Sky sent a car for me and I read all the way from Woburn to Islington…” – 26 February 2007

Dorries was declaring her intention to move to Woburn as far back as 2005, and blogging as if she were residing mainly in her constituency from 2007.

Even if she were dealing with a stalker problem back in 2007 (care to revise your statement, Nadine?), those phantom stalkers of hers would still need a time machine to intercept her, because she was blogging her movements after the fact.

By the way, the Commissioner may not have seen the blog entries above, as they were removed while the Commissioner was trying to get a good look at them earlier this year:

In response to your first point on where you spent your weekends, I know that there have been a number of statements on your blog. The blog itself seems now to have been taken down. – Letter to Ms Nadine Dorries MP from the Commissioner, 8 July 2010

And who did Nadine Dorries blame publicly for the removal of her blog? Why, the stalkers, of course!

But the truth is that Dorries published the misleading content before any concerns she claims to have had about stalking. The relevant accusations of stalking, by the way, also involve several works of fiction, including an outright lie about my being investigated by police for stalking her (and other MPs) that she has yet to answer for. (Never mind 75%; what Dorries told a room full of people in May of this year was 100% fiction.)

By Dorries’ own account to the Commissioner, she deliberately gave a false impression of where she was staying for entirely political reasons (not including this belated attempt to blame the Telegraph, which itself raises time travel issues):

I often posted comments on my blog relating to [name of town] in my constituency. Since I first rented in the constituency, I made a song and dance about being at the property. I have mentioned it on my blog a number of times. This was done to comfort my Association. The previous MP only visited the constituency occasionally—sometimes only as often as once every six weeks—and they were keen that I reversed that impression. His lack of time in the constituency contributed to his de-selection. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 25 January 2010

In the resulting report, the matter of why she lied about where she lived is reported as follows:

157. Some material on Ms Dorries’ weblog appears to suggest a pattern of use of her constituency property in some respects at variance with the evidence she has given, in that it implies she has a more permanent presence in the constituency. Ms Dorries’ evidence is that she gave prominence on the blog to her use of her constituency property both to comfort her constituency association and to demonstrate to her constituents the degree of her personal commitment to her Mid Bedfordshire constituency. Her evidence as to the reliance to be placed on material on her blog is that it is in fact 70% fiction and 30% fact, and relies heavily on poetic licence. She frequently replaces place-names, events and facts with others. She is conscious of the potential for political opponents to exploit her personal domestic circumstances. According to Ms Dorries, this, and the need to reassure her constituents of her commitment, was the reason behind the blog entries. It was also an attempt by her to retain some degree of a private life. – Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Note that none of this mentions stalking in any way; false accusations of stalking are a very recent addition to Nadine’s growing catalogue of outright lies (more).

To close, here’s a little treat for the good people at Anglia Tonight:

Matthew Hudson was reporting live from outside Parliament just after 6pm. In this screen capture, you can even see the time on the clock tower behind him as he says; “Ms. Dorries agreed to do an interview for us and was unable to make it for whatever reason”


Now here’s a photo that Nadine Dorries tweeted at 6:20pm. It clearly shows the time it was taken – 6:18pm – because it is a picture of a clock tower… the same clock tower (for those who don’t recognise it):


Obviously Nadine Dorries had other places to be (if nothing better to do) at the time… while sitting about a block away.

That deserves another screen capture, IMO. I think this one will do nicely:


[Psst! Nadine Dorries! You are in a very deep hole. Even if you care nothing about the safety of my family, for the sake of your own career you really need to stop digging. You are not clever enough to tell convincing lies, and lies of this magnitude have a way of exploding in people’s faces.]

See also: Nadine Dorries is a corrupt liar


Related post: Richard Bartholomew – The 70 Per Cent Solution: Who Are Nadine Dorries’ “Four Stalkers”?

UPDATE: Anglia Tonight transcript previously read “a fourth stalker” reported to police, but was updated as “four stalkers” reported to police. You can check the video for yourself if you’re in any doubt.

Posted by Tim Ireland at 21 October 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

As I originally blogged back in 2009, the primary issue with Nadine Dorries and her accommodation expenses claims was her changing her story mid-stream about where her second home was. Today we are assured by her closest political allies that she has been ‘completely cleared’ by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Iain Dale offers a typical example in that he relies entirely on a press release from Nadine Dorries, and does not even link to the relevant report, because he is ‘too busy’. Some cynics might dare to suggest that this is because the detail is damning.

Standards and Privileges Committee Report – Nadine Dorries (PDF)
[note: linking to this took less than 30 seconds]

Upon reading this report, one cannot escape the conclusion that Nadine Dorries has had to admit to being a liar in order to avoid a charge of monetary corruption.

Further, the evidence that ‘clears’ Dorries comes to us from that same liar.

It’s not too much detail (come on, Iain, you can do this), so let me walk you through the highlights with the promise of a comedy payoff:

1. Nadine Dorries had to explain the conflict between (a) her claim to the authorities/Commissioner that her constituency home was her second home, and (b) the many entries on her blog portraying her constituency home as her main home.

To do this, she had to say that he had lied her constituents on this point and many others, and the relevant passage includes a quote that is going to haunt Nadine Dorries for a long time to come:

My blog is 70% fiction and 30% fact. It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 1 March 2010

Basically, Dorries says she sought to reassure her constituents about her commitment to Mid Bedfordshire by knowingly misleading them about how much time she spent there. But Dorries even had the audacity to object to the Commissioner arriving at this same conclusion. She wanted this passage removed or amended:

167. Ms Dorries’ evidence to me was also inconsistent with statements she had previously made on her weblog and in the press, where she seemed to go out of her way to emphasise that she lived in the constituency… the weblog gave information to its readers, including Ms Dorries’ constituents and party supporters, which provided a misleading impression of her arrangements as the Member of Parliament for the constituency. – Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

This MP has repeatedly used her blog to attack her critics using accusations that are entirely reliant upon her statements; i.e. where the only evidence she presents is her account of what happened where and when… the same stuff she so breezily admits is “70% fiction and 30% fact”!

So when she attacks a constituent disabled by arthritis and maintains this person is faking it because she “stormed around the hall” (more), we now have to consider that the word ‘stormed’ may not be an accurate description, or even an honestly-held opinion, but instead the result of “poetic licence”.

2. Nadine Dorries had to account for testimony from neighbours that contradicted her account to the authorities/Commissioner (i.e. about the frequency of overnight stays at her constituency home).

Dorries complains bitterly about how long this investigation took, but one of the aspects that caused most of the delays was a series of attacks aimed at one of her neighbours that the Commissioner ruled to be irrelevant (and this is a move that’s going to seem grimly predictable to those who know how this MP operates):

170. My inquiries were also complicated and extended by Ms Dorries’ criticism of the one witness who gave evidence against her…. I regret the tone and intensity of some of Ms Dorries’ comments on the witness (not all of which I have included in the published evidence) and her attempts to persuade me not to consider that evidence… I do not believe it would have been just or fair to have taken the action suggested by Ms Dorries and refused to have accepted that neighbour’s evidence on account of the fact that he had discussed it with a newspaper reporter. – Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Dorries said this evidence should have been rejected for another reason, too. Comedy payoff pending. Stand by.

3. Nadine Dorries had to provide evidence that she stayed more nights in what she described as her main home than she did in her constituency home.

This is the other part that caused the delay; there was (to put it kindly) some difficulty in extracting from this MP a consistent account of where she stayed most nights:

176. I am disappointed Ms Dorries took as long as she did in providing me with consistent evidence to enable me to resolve this complaint… – Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

It wasn’t until 25 January 2010 that Dorries provided evidence establishing that she had spent the majority of nights in what she claimed was her main home. I urge you to follow the source link on this one to check the back-and-forth detail and the account she finally settled on for yourself, but the most telling part of it appears to be this note, under the final revision:

Ms Dorries said that the revised information for 2008-09 had been based on “closer examination of my 08-09 diary” and that the figures for other years had been revised to include nights she had spent in London. – Nadine Dorries MP: Schedule of overnight stays from 1 February 2007 (Revised version)

The Green Book states quite clearly that “Claims must be supported by documentary evidence, except where the House has agreed that such evidence is not necessary.”

In this instance, the Committee and Commissioner have agreed that the account repeatedly revised account of a self-confessed liar will serve in place of documentary evidence.

Some might think that’s not good enough. Some might think that the Commissioner should at least think twice before accepting the word of a liar.

Comedy payoff time… Nadine Dorries agrees:

I am aware that it is impossible for you to reasonably believe [neighbour 1] and disregard the consistent information provided by others and you may think I am over reacting to the evidence sent by [neighbour 1], however, that is not the point. I strongly object to lies being given any consideration whatsoever. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 6 July 2010

I take your point that his evidence will be balanced out against others, however, his evidence is a lie and I feel very, very strongly that a malicious person who has lied should [not] be given any consideration whatsoever. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 27 July 2010

(I had to tie up the second botched sentence with a missing ‘not’, but her intended meaning is clear, and I do not think the correction is unfair or in error.)

Nadine Dorries, who admits to lying about where she stayed and when, does not think the testimony of a liar should be accepted by the Commissioner… who then clears her on the basis of her much-revised account of where she stayed and when.

Nadine Dorries is a corrupt liar. Let her sue me if she is to maintain otherwise.

Posted by Tim Ireland at 13 October 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

The 85th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s birth should serve as a reminder that some of her supporters are already planning for her death, and recently even floated the idea of a state funeral:

Daily Mail – Lady Thatcher to be honoured with State funeral
Guardian – State funeral planned for Lady Thatcher
Guardian – Harman: we have not agreed Thatcher state funeral
BBC – Thatcher state funeral undecided

We’ve had a change of government since then, and I’d like to ask if the proposal that we give Margaret Thatcher a state funeral is being seriously considered (or even quietly approved), especially in light of the savage and immediate cuts to expenditure the Tories insist are a necessary evil at this time.

I’m shooting myself in the foot here, as I did plan to sell DIY tap-shoe kits to the large crowds that would be sure to gather specifically to protest this expenditure, but I would also urge David Cameron and others to look at the logic of a privately-funded funeral:

Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.

You may recall the fuss in the streets when George W. Bush invited himself to town and awarded himself the honour of a state visit, and no-one in Blair’s government dared to object.

Many of the people I spoke to at the relevant protests were angry about the illegal invasion of Iraq, but stated quite clearly that they mainly objected to Bush being honoured in ceremonies and events paid for out of the public purse. It wasn’t the entirety of their case by any means, but it was this aspect that greatly swelled the number of protestors then, and I firmly believe a similar objection to public money being spent will lead to large and ugly protests if Margaret Thatcher is awarded a state funeral.

This confrontation can be avoided simply by honouring Margaret Thatcher appropriately upon her passing (and when I say ‘appropriately’, I do not mean according to a leftist doctrine that exists mainly in the minds of paranoid right-wing pundits).

Where there is error, may we bring truth.

Thatcher’s clearly stated political philosophy involved reduced state interference and a spirit of entrepreneurialism enabled by a free market; marking her passing with a state funeral that is agreed or even discussed in principle before her death risks labelling her an opportunist (fairly or otherwise), and if Thatcher is a believer in the free market and her supporters agree, then surely the most fitting tribute to the woman is to make a show of numbers and support their argument with a privately-funded funeral.

Where there is doubt, may we bring faith.

I not only propose that we take Margaret Thatcher at her word and attempt to honour her political legacy appropriately, I further propose that we tie this in with David Cameron’s flagship initiative; Big Society

If we’re to have soldiers lining the streets, for example, then let’s see them do so of their own free will in their own free time. Similarly, a volunteer workforce can organise the event, marshal on the day, and clean up afterwards.

I acknowledge that in some areas there are limits to what private money can do, particularly when it comes to policing the event, and on that note…

And where there is despair, may we bring hope.

I understand that many people will never forgive Margaret Thatcher for her actions, but I would trust even these people agree that there’s little point in shouting at a passing coffin if the relevant ceremony isn’t costing them anything.

So in closing I propose that if the Tories do embrace this idea and agree to drastically minimise the cost to the public, then their opponents should do the same, and minimise the cost of policing the event by taking potential confrontation out of the equation.

Save your energy for a private party, because if the Tories agree not to be ultra-hypocrites about this, there’ll be a lot to celebrate.

OK, I’ve presented my case. Does anyone have any objections that don’t involve merely shouting ‘leftist’ at me or accusing me of stalking a sweet old lady?

  • External Channels

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons