16th Nov 2011
For those who came in late, here are the posts including the first two parts of this July 2010 letter from the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries to the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police:
Tomorrow is Part 4, and it will blow your mind. Today, Part 3, which will merely make you sick to your stomach, but there is a funny surprise for you at the end so hang in there, soldier.
Let’s begin with an April 2010 Twitter conversation between Nadine Dorries and another Conservative candidate from the recent election who also happens to be a lawyer; Joanne Cash.
This is a composite taken from saved versions of these pages that I captured and took notes from at the time. I have configured it so you can read from the top down, and I have made Dorries’ tweets as black as her heart so the conversation is easier to follow.
The conversation is from 27/28 April 2010. True to form, Dorries made this accusation of stalking in the wake of a major revelation about her connection to religious fundamentalists. There is now a clear pattern of Dorries using the accusation of stalking to divert attention away from such discoveries, but it was very early days here, and I’m really glad I saved a copy now. (OCD?)
Have a proper read of this conversation and you can almost hear the cogs turning in her head; it is not unreasonable to suspect that Dorries began portraying me as a ‘pied piper’ of Twitter stalkers as a direct result of this conversation, after being told that the offence of harassment could include “publication of material which leads to others harassing you also”. In Dorries World, my publishing evidence that she tells dreadful fibs qualifies as this kind of harassment, and you can see elements of this at the bottom of this section of the letter.
A week after making these enquiries about how one might complain to the police about ‘obsessive’ people (if one were so inclined once they had hard evidence) Dorries claimed a police investigation was already in progress into my stalking her and two other MPs.
But here, the main accusation is against a blogger named Chris Paul, so let’s do focus on that; Chris is a forensic blogger with better knowledge of Parliamentary gubbins than many MPs, and Nadine Dorries hates him for his ability to continually show her up as a result of this knowledge, his skill as a researcher and his tenacity.
You may also note that in the tweets above, Dorries (a) bases her accusation on her version of something she claims some ‘journalist’ said that Chris Paul said (it’s not even reliable enough to be called hearsay, purple monkey dishwasher), (b) specifically admits she has NO hard evidence to support the accusation, (c) is presented with a clear denial, but (d) goes ahead and continues to make the accusation anyway.
She then goes on to make the same accusation to police two months later, adding the word ‘apparently’ to her accusation for cover, and then portraying her critic as a sex pest (based on something “some people suggest”) for garnish.
It’s an appalling way for an MP to behave, but after failing to make the accusation stick in public, Dorries went further and sought to repeat the claim in this letter to the local Chief Constable.
She’s got no evidence to support it, and she bent time and space so often in her variations of this accusation that she even managed to confuse herself at one stage, accusing Chris Paul of coming to Flitwick to film her and accusing me of hanging around outside her house!
A few supporters of Dorries such as Jack Hart then went on to repeat the latter mis-assigned accusation. This is how I found myself repeatedly accused of hanging around outside people’s houses recently; it has always come from Dorries supporters, it’s based on an untruth Nadine Dorries originally told about someone else, and the result has been others treating/repeating it as if it were fact, and expanding on it to describe me hanging around outside Iain Dale’s house (and as with the repeated paedophile smears he did nothing to discourage, Iain’s just letting all of that stand uncorrected, because it suits his agenda and he’s a ****). Perhaps someone can ask Joanne Cash if this counts as harassment in her expert view.
Anyway, I’ve held you up long enough with atangent about my own problems. On with the third part of this July 2010 letter from Nadine Dorries to the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police and the ongoing autopsy of her accusations against critical blogger Chris Paul:
1. Fun Trivia: A few months before she wrote this letter to police claiming Chris Paul’s blog was 100% fiction, Dorries wrote what she wrongly assumed would be a private letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and claimed that her blog was “70% fiction and 30% fact” (more).
2. Everything Chris Paul says is a lie, says Nadine. Dorries. Oh, except for the stuff that she needs to be true for her bullshit accusation of stalking to stand. So it’s 100% lies, plus some other stuff.
3. Police once passed on a request from me that Nadine Dorries remove a link to a site that paraded my home address around. She refused to remove the link, even when told why I wanted the link removed. Her site still links approvingly to this same site. The same man who published those directions to my house also published accounts where he described what time my lights were on at night and what time our bedroom window curtains opened on a typical morning. After repeated warnings about the conduct of this man and his associates, Nadine Dorries continues to link to him approvingly, so she’s got nothing to complain about; she either approves of hassling people at their homes or she doesn’t, and she so clearly does approve when it suits her. However, I don’t bring this up merely to expose Dorries’ hypocrisy; I have complained about this conduct to the police and they say there is no legal constraint to stop this man walking down the street, even when it’s repeatedly past my house, and even when he lives much further away than he pretends. It is not against the law. To be clear, it is not something I approve of (or enjoy) when it is done to intimidate, and I do not intimate or suggest for a moment that Chris Paul has been anywhere near Dorries home(s), but there are many circumstances that would make the investigation of any property this MP was living in an entirely legitimate exercise both morally and legally; many people suspect Dorries had been (almost) caught pretending to live in one place while actually living in another and that the hysterical noises she made were not there to ensure privacy or security, but instead to hide a pattern of behaviour that might reveal expenses fraud (which is what she would be guilty of if she had been claiming ‘second home’ expenses on a home she lived in most of the time). The former Mayor of Bedford (the late Frank Branston) once showed a passing interest in where Dorries lived. She smeared him as a stalker. A newspaper journalist once photographed the tiny gatehouse she claimed was her main home. She smeared him as a stalker. Chris Paul got a photo of the local pub. She smeared him as a stalker. It’s something Dorries does a lot, and she can’t pretend it’s about violent pro-abortionists, because I list in this paragraph three people who did not involve themselves in the abortion debate; they merely wanted to know where Dorries claimed she was living most of the time. And before she started claiming all that lovely expenses money on a ‘second home’, Dorries was happy to show off her big expensive house and its unique name for everyone to see. Hell, after announcing to the world where the family lived, Dorries then announced where they planned to move to! Part of the Dorries charade about her seeking privacy/safety was that even the name of the village she lived in (Woburn) was and should be a secret, when it was in the public domain the whole time after she put it there (and not just in this article years ago, but recently and repeatedly on her blog… right up until the point when she had to pretend it was a big secret for security reasons).
You would think, if you had aspirations in that direction, that the day you were elected to parliament would be one of unbridled joy. Sadly for Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries, May 5, 2005, though undoubtedly thrilling, had the gloss knocked off it. On that very day she also had to part with a substantial sum of money for a garden that her electoral win, in Mid-Bedfordshire, had ensured she would never see bloom.The money in question was a cheque for £41,000, for a garden at her Chipping Campden home. This is no ordinary garden, and it is no ordinary home. Dorries, 48, a former businesswoman and advisor to the MP Oliver Letwin, is married to a “freak on the medieval period”, and since 1996 she and the freak in question, Paul, have been working on a restoration job so huge it still leaves her sounding dazed when she talks about it. Their home is Woolstaplers Hall, in the picture-postcard Cotswold town of Chipping Campden. The Grade I-listed Cotswold-stone hall, built in 1340 by Robert Calf, a wealthy wool merchant, nestles on the curved high street and is reputedly one of the UK’s oldest inhabited domestic properties…. It all sounds fabulous. Why are they moving? Well, MPs are supposed to live in their constituencies, and although Nadine has been renting in Mid-Bedfordshire, she is tired of a three-way commute on top of a 100-hour week. Now the end of the school year is in sight, the family is leaving Gloucestershire for Woburn. (Source: The Sunday Times)
(Bloody hell, that was a long paragraph, wasn’t it? Best take a breather. Relax for a bit. Short one coming next. Bit of a healthy chuckle too, if we’re lucky.)
4. Chris Paul is not obsessed with Nadine’s abortions campaigns, so obviously the attraction must be sexual. The End.
5. Where in the hell does Dorries or any woman get off using their gender in this way? There’s been some long-overdue talk about misogyny in online bullying lately, but this is the ugly flipside of that same coin; women pretending to be the focus of unwanted sexual attention in order to discredit and intimidate a critic. To understand how the latter works, I invite you to learn about two rambunctious little rugrats in my old neighbourhood who lived with a big, slobbering dog. Their favourite game was to grab a hold of your legs and yell and scream like you were attacking them, which made the dog leap over the garden fence and chase you. Dorries has more than one slobbering dog at her beck and call, and they just love to jump fences and chase people. Here, she’s trying this same trick on the police. ‘Roll over, officer. Now bite the nice man. Good boy!’ What a bitch.
6. I can’t for the life of me work out what Dorries is banging on about with “arranging to meet others”. I do know quite a few of us hashtaggers have become friends since our shared experience of this extraordinary person, and there’s been lots of talk about tweet-ups (people do this on Twitter), and quite a few jokes alongside genuine invites for me to travel up Bedford way. I have no idea where Dorries planned to be on the 20th of what I assume to be June 2010. I suspect some tweets have been taken out of context in a process involving unknown quantities of malice, confusion and paranoia, but I’m happy to answer any evidence Dorries may care to produce…. aaaand at the sound of scattered laughter we move swiftly on…
7. Skipping over our surprise paragraph, at the bottom of today’s segment is the secret formula of harassment according to Joanne Cash (as understood by Nadine Dorries); a person contacting her about what I have published is me harassing her. Perhaps this might apply if I had been publicising her home address or her home phone number as my critics (and her allies) have been doing to me, but this is not the case. Perhaps Dorries might have a point if I sought to mislead people about her, but (a) I do not, and (b) generally, that’s what libel laws are for, I’m told.
OK folks, you’ve been very patient through the most stomach-churning segment of this letter, and it’s time for that surprise I’ve been promising you; the identity of the mysterious ‘fourth stalker’.
According to Nadine Dorries, she reported four people to the police for stalking and four people are named in this letter, the only known complaint from Dorries to police, so the person referenced in this next paragraph is part of our ‘gang’, and the fourth stalker you’ve all been waiting to hear about.
Oh, man, you’re going to love this. If you thought Dorries’ sense of entitlement couldn’t get any more perverse, you are in for a BIG surprise. Nadine Dorries’ mysterious ‘fourth stalker’ that she reported to police is….
… her Liberal Democrat opponent at the General Election, Linda Jack!
Well, she’s a Lib Dem, as if that’s not enough on its own. Plus, I hear this Linda person did all sorts of stalkerish things like distributing pamphlets and knocking on doors and disagreeing with Nadine Dorries and stuff. Who knows, she may even have deluded herself into thinking that she could one day replace a woman chosen by God to be an MP. How DARE she etc. etc. etc.
So there you have it, folks. Four accusations of stalking, each one more ridiculous than the next… but we’re not done yet. The best of this letter is yet to come, and you get to see it all in the final chapter tomorrow.
Tomorrow: The fourth and final part of this letter. It contains imaginary tales of suspicious crimes and suspicious tales of imaginary crimes, and that’s all I’m saying.
BONUS EPILOGUE: As I was writing this post, I browsed through some old emails from June/July 2010 trying to work out what the hell Dorries was banging on about with her “arranging to meet others” nonsense. In there I found an old comment notification that reminded me of a conversation that took place on 9/10 July 2010 under this post by Chris Paul about Paul Dorries (a man that Nadine Dorries may or may not have been married to). Take a look at these two comments, submitted to Chris Paul’s site two days before the date on the letter from Dorries to her local Chief Constable:
Hope you are well insured. Mr Dorries is with the Police lodging a formal complaint against you right now. You have gone too far with your lies and smears.
10 July, 2010 13:51
Your blog and bloggerheads are both guilty under section 5. Your Twitter account and that of others you talk to are also guilty. Humphreycushion and others. I have no idea why Dorries hasn’t been to the police about the lot of you.
One thing for sure though, you will never see Peter Hands name anywhere, even though he was with Jacko today in Bedford firing her up. He will make sure nothing leads back to him when you are all payng your thousand pound fines.
10 July, 2010 23:44
At the time, both Chris Paul and I were left scratching our heads about who ‘Jacko’ was, but after reading the letter it is so obviously a reference to Linda Jack, and made by someone who is convinced there is some kind of dark conspiracy going on. Peter Hand is a former member of Dorries’ staff who reported his suspicions of expenses fraud. We are not colluding, though I’m beginning to think perhaps we should.
Note the first claim is about what Mr Dorries allegedly reported to police, but it is clear that the person who wrote these comments had inside knowledge of this letter and was not only privy to its content, but sold on its merits. ‘Section 5′ refers to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, and you will see specific mention of this in the final segment of the letter tomorrow.
Now, this anonymous person may be a friend or family member, or someone on Dorries’ staff, or it may even be a friend or family member on Dorries’ staff. It is also possible that it is a comment by Dorries herself, and long-time Dorries watchers (you bloody stalkers!) are invited to stroke their chins and ponder the significance of this additional anonymous comment left in the same thread, probably by the same person, in order to discredit those investigating the financial dealings of Paul Dorries:
Lol! This ‘detective agency’ has been taken on by Paul’s former girlfriend, Sheila Lockhart. His phone makes interesting reading with the ten a day text messages she sends him. He keeps them all because he knew she would do something crazy like this.Paul ended it when he realised she was seriously dependent on a Tarot card reader called Pete MacDonald, a former convict. She has her cards read every week and lives by what this guy tells her. Pete MacDonald has dozens of women who do the same and he makes a very lucrative living out of it. Paul and Nadine haven’t been together for years, due to his inability to remain faithful, but she is still the woman he would jump of a cliff for. It was the Pete MacDonald influence over Sheila that made him end it because he didnt want that to reflect on Nadine. Sheila put some money into a company Paul invested in because she wanted to be in with everything he did. She is mega rich and lavished clothes, holidays, watches,
a villa in Umbrio, reams of love letters, the lot, but he left her and she can’t get over it. If Paul had done something illegal or wrong, it would be the Police who were after him not a hick agency for rejected ex girlfriends.
You have got a lot of stuff wrong about Nadine on your blog too, stuff which is just factually incorrect.For instance, she sold Gorgeous to Coleen Rooney and made a bomb out of it. Nadine comes from a famous footballing family in Liverpool and it’s all a big family club.
10 July, 2010 15:42
As a final note, I’d like to point out that Nadine Dorries claims to have received specific instruction from police about handling her ‘stalkers’, but even if this is anything approaching the truth, someone appears to have missed a key lesson about not using friends/sock-puppets to poke your alleged stalkers anonymously with a stick. That, or the gleeful tone this person takes about “thousand pound fines” is just one example of an attitude that is less about any actual feelings of anxiety and harassment and more to do with using accusations of criminality to frustrate critics and political opponents.
15th Nov 2011
“LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent?
Who may live on your holy mountain?
The one whose walk is blameless,
who does what is righteous,
who speaks the truth from their heart;
whose tongue utters no slander,
who does no wrong to a neighbour,
and casts no slur on others… ” – Psalm 15:1-3
READ THIS FIRST! – > #Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part One)
All done? Then on we go.
Today we proceed from Nadine Dorries’ extraordinary sense of entitlement to… Nadine Dorries’ extraordinary sense of entitlement.
Dorries had been seeking to shape hustings events to her advantage well before the Flitwick hustings event in May 2010. It was reported to me that she had denounced supporters of her opponents and other critics as ‘plants’ and ‘spies’ and even had alleged/imagined enemies forcibly ejected from her own private meetings (titled ‘Nadine Unscripted’; picture a hustings with only one candidate and crowd control more attuned to Nadine’s own personal needs). Typically, it was only after the departure of alleged wrongdoers that she would address any doubts about her expenses claims for what was a rental property with extraordinarily misleading and yet technically factual statements such as “I don’t even have a mortgage”.
Dorries was at the time the subject of an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (and then/later the police), and yet she was presenting herself as the only MP with nothing to hide. The most frustrating aspect of this was that the evidence relating to these antics came down to hearsay. By the time the matter came to my attention, Dorries had already compelled organisers to move the final hustings to a date that was more ‘convenient’ for her (i.e. too late for the local papers to cover it before the election), plus arranged for a last-minute arrival and an early departure, the latter set mere minutes before the scheduled open Q&A (what a shame).
Concerned constituents wanted this final hustings event on record and made available to a wider audience, which is why they invited me to record and broadcast it.
Now, I do not deny that Dorries was properly frightened when she found out I was recording the meeting, but it had nothing to do with concerns about personal safety; Dorries was watching her political career flash before her eyes and would not be a politician if she did not immediately recognise the potential cost of my recording her response to any question(s) about her expenses two days before an election at a time when many suspected – and she knew – that she was under investigation for expenses fraud. Anyone asking even the simplest of questions about this rumoured investigation would put her in a position where she would have to admit the truth on camera, or lie on camera. This is surely why Dorries left the meeting even 15 minutes earlier than her previously-arranged escape window (then stood outside chain smoking for a while before dashing off); she could not afford to be inside that building anywhere near an open Q&A session while I was recording.
Thus the desperate lie that I had stalked three MPs and was under investigation for stalking Nadine Dorries at that very moment.
To this day, the only evidence Dorries has presented to support this accusation was my presence at the same event where she claimed a police investigation was already underway. She still cannot produce any evidence of her even having made a complaint prior to this event.
Also, more importantly, my presence at the Flitwick event is the sum total of her evidence of physical stalking. There have been other hysterical accusations aimed at other people (details of the main instance tomorrow), but these have been based on invention (if not extreme confusion), not ‘mere’ distortion. In this instance, I was actually in the presence of Nadine Dorries. Once.
All of her claims of being physically stalked boil down to this one distorted account of a single event… that took place after the period when she claimed she had been harassed and physically stalked to such an extent that police gave her advice on how to avoid her stalkers (i.e. by telling lies on her website about where she was staying most nights).
And on that note we turn to the 2nd instalment from Dorries’ July 2010 letter to the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police to take another look at this classic work of fiction by the biggest liar in Parliament:
1. If it were a private meeting, Dorries may have had a point about ‘gatecrashing’, but (a) gatecrashing is not stalking, and (b) it was a public meeting. One cannot gatecrash a public meeting, because you do not need an invitation to attend a public meeting, you only need to be a member of the public.
2. And besides that, I was invited! Much as she would have liked it to be, this was not Nadine Dorries’ own personal meeting; it was a meeting for the benefit of constituents, and constituents invited me.
3. If I had lied to the Chair about being a resident, Dorries may have had the beginnings of a complaint, but I had secured authorisation ahead of time by email and explained clearly who I was (and that I was not a constituent) upon arrival.
4. Travelling by train from Guildford to Flitwick was a doddle, and comparable to a jaunt into London, which I do often. This detail is garnish, as is the “sophisticated camera equipment”, which was as follows; 1 laptop with dongle, 1 domestic digital video camera (plus tripod), 1 bog standard webcam (plus stand). Oh, and I almost forgot the cutting-edge technology used to transport electrickery to these devices; a 5m extension lead.
5. In the minutes before the event started, the broadcast camera was connected to the provider (Ustream) and recording to their server as it sat there in stand-by mode waiting for me to begin the broadcast. This is how I have a recording of me describing both the recording camera and the broadcast camera to the Chair before I sought her OK to begin the broadcast by clicking the enormous (almost playing-card-sized) button on the laptop screen that said ‘broadcast’. My agreement with the Chair was to provide the organisation that had arranged the hustings with exclusive rights to the full recording of the event captured with the high resolution camera, which would be recording alongside the broadcast. I happily offered this asset as a gesture of goodwill and a public service, and I thought it was this ‘only for us’ agreement I was (re)agreeing to when asked by the Chair if the recording was exclusively for their use.
6. Members of the audience were able to detect the broadcast because it was no bloody secret. It was widely advertised on Twitter as the Flitwick hustings event, and featured on this page listing all of the candidates. I would’ve happily announced the broadcast to the crowd, but I did not think it was my place, and I figured the Chair would mention it if she thought the crowd needed to know that they could watch a live feed of an event they were already looking at. Any idiot could find it, and it would take an even bigger idiot to think it was hidden in some way. Happily, there was just such a idiot at that meeting. I recently discovered that the woman who complained about the broadcast – who also taught me how to pronounce ‘Flitwick’ by shrieking it at the top of her voice – first complained to the policewoman present in the lobby. The policewoman did not think it warranted interrupting the meeting, so the woman stormed inside and immediately interrupted the meeting herself. Ustream documented that 234 people connected to the live stream and watched the broadcast before it was cut off in the wake of this woman’s outburst. Yes, many people used the #Dorries tag when referencing the broadcast in Twitter, including me. This happened often when she opened her mouth. It happened rather a lot after she stood up in a room full of people and accused the cameraman of stalking her. It still happens on Twitter today any time Dorries appears on radio or television.
7. Even if it is ‘slightly odd’ for a non-constituent to attend a hustings, that is the beginning and the end of Dorries’ complaint, and it doesn’t add up to anything worth a call to police, never mind a letter to the Chief Constable. I might also add that Jeremy Hunt didn’t throw a wobbly when non-constituents ‘gatecrashed’ the Godalming hustings days earlier, but I wish I’d thought to complain about the three or four other sods who turned up with better camera equipment than mine. I didn’t realise at the time I could have some of them ejected for daring to carry sophisticated equipment across county lines.
On the subject of “Christopher Lee of the House of Commons Police”; Nadine Dorries is invited to explain exactly what she reported and when she did this. If she won’t do this, then I will dig the relevant data out myself and reveal the details for her.
(Oh, who am I kidding? I’ve already filed the paperwork and got my receipt.)
On the subject of the mobile phone number, Dorries conflates Parliamentary security with the security of a phone number that she has added to the bottom of emails to damn near every MP in the House. It is nowhere near as secure as she makes out, but I expect she engages in this charade because I did not use her phone number inappropriately* and she needs to put some kind of spin on this that is more in keeping with her ‘stalker’ narrative. If you’re wondering about my use of this number, Dorries had been dodging valid questions about her accusations of stalking and sought to pretend that she had never been notified of the vigilante element she was stirring up with those same accusations. I sought to at least alert her directly about the latter in way she could not later deny. Having learned her mobile phone number, I called it once (and once only), identified myself and asked to speak to Nadine Dorries. The staff member who answered the phone on her behalf pretended it was a wrong number. Obviously it wasn’t. I wish I’d written it on a few toilet walls now**.
On the subject of the woman accused in this part of the letter; this passage is about humphreycushion. A single paragraph across two pages is the extent of Dorries’ complaint to police about her, and it amounts to precisely zero. In this letter, Dorries described humphreycushion’s comments online as “aggressive and written harassment”. Police didn’t see it that way. End of, right? Well, no. Dorries decided to instead engage in a little trial-by-new-media in a pathetic hatchet job involving Paul ‘Guido Fawkes’ Staines; she smeared the poor woman, portraying her as a welfare cheat faking disability and defrauding the state. Dorries also managed to alienate many disabled people in the process; her attack on humphreycushion was based on common everyday distortions and innuendo, but these rested upon the rather unpopular assumption that if you could type, you could work.
Pardon my temporary loss of composure, but it is this kind of conduct that helps me better understand why critics so often team the word ‘Tory’ with ‘scum’.
Tomorrow: Part Three of the letter. Dorries accuses a third blogger of stalking and makes an entirely false accusation about them hanging around outside her house. Plus, the identity of the mysterious fourth stalker.
[*Compare this to the conduct of a bloggers Dorries does support. One sod - a man who this MP has had over to her house for dinner - once published my home phone number on his website, he says merely to 'annoy' me. The calling me at home and shouting at me was, one can assume from this, a casual attempt to mildly irritate me. More recently, Bedfordshire Police kindly passed on a request from me to Nadine Dorries that she remove a link from her site to that of another blogger who had included directions to my front door in a post attacking me (i.e. so people might 'see the home of a stalker’... no, not kidding). Dorries refused to remove the link from her site. Try to imagine how Dorries would have reacted to my doing anything like this to her. You'd probably have to mop the ceiling afterwards.]
[** This is a joke. I do not suggest or condone this kind of behaviour. Besides, what kind of madman would call for a Dorries when they were already standing inside a toilet?]
14th Nov 2011
“Do not spread false rumours, and do not help a guilty person by giving false testimony.” – Exodus 23:1
For several years now, Nadine Dorries has been using invented and distorted accounts of her circumstances both publicly and privately to mask her corruption to and make false allegations of harassment/stalking to discredit and frustrate those who dared to investigate it.
To get the meatiest fuss out of the way first, two of the bigger secrets she tries to hide with these lies are as follows…
:: A series of increasingly desperate obfuscations about her expenses, primarily to do with claims made against her constituency property and payments made to a close friend & neighbour.
:: Repeated attempts over the years to mask the involvement of Christian fundamentalists* in her anti-abortion campaigns – that she now pretends are ‘pro choice’ campaigns – in an ongoing mission to help this religious group lobby secretly for changes to the law that suit their agenda.
When pressed for details at about this time last year, Nadine Dorries claimed to have reported four stalkers** to police and eventually named me as the ‘worst’ stalker, if not the ‘leader’ of a gang of stalkers (sometimes extending to all of Twitter).
Now, this is not an easy or pleasant accusation to endure in the best of circumstances, and I’ve experienced the added joy of having to deal with a vigilante element that Dorries was knowingly stirring up, but this situation has put me in a unique position that allows me to establish the truth, and clear everyone who has been accused of stalking this MP.
Onwards to that detail…
In October 2010 Nadine Dorries told the public that she lied on her blog about the amount of time she had spent in her constituency not in order to deceive her constituents/association about her level of commitment to the area (as she told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) but instead because – she claims – she was specifically advised by police to tell little white lies about her whereabouts in order to throw physical stalkers off the scent (more).
This was a complete lie. Nadine Dorries has no history of being physically or even electronically stalked, ever. Instead, it has been confirmed by Bedfordshire Police that Dorries uses the word ‘stalker’ to describe bloggers and other critics. And from here, I’m going to let Dorries herself repeatedly confirm that same point for me.
The following is an extract from what appears to be the first complaint by Dorries to local police about any stalking threat; a letter Nadine Dorries hand-addressed to the Chief Constable (!) of Bedfordshire Police in July 2010, a couple of months after the hustings meeting at Flitwick where she told the audience an investigation into her stalker(s) was already in progress.
I have obtained this letter and other documentation from Bedfordshire Police through a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. There is further data to come from the London Metropolitan Police. I made a similar request to the Parliamentary office of Nadine Dorries, but she has defied the ICO on the matter, and portrayed my data request as vexatious and a waste of time. She does this while claiming to hold “vile, abusive messages” from me that she won’t show anyone, not even me.
There are only a few documents of key relevance, but there’s a lot in them, so please excuse my addressing some if not all of these documents in parts.
(Tomorrow: Dorries’ take on the Flitwick event and her accusations against blogger humphreycushion.)
1. It is true that Dorries first earned my attention while expressing her opinion on abortion. I watched her make a false accusation against a critic right before she claimed a 21-week-old foetus had punched its way out of a womb and misled Parliament alongside her secretive associate Andrea Williams. I dared to blog about such events. Shocking, isn’t it?
2. I have ONE account in the name of ‘Nadine Dorries’, and Dorries knows this. She has also seen this confirmed by authors of the other accounts using her name for a range of satirical vehicles. She also knows my and their use of this account name (and her name) is entirely legitimate. Even today she pretends it’s something it isn’t so she can present it as something that is not legitimate, and perhaps illegal.
3. I will write about the other ‘Vitim’ at a later date, but Dorries is having herself on here.
4. Having been accused of stalking by Dorries at a public event, I blogged about it and tried to get to the bottom of her claims that I had stalked others, that I had sent her “vile, abusive messages”, and that a police investigation was in progress. Even then my blog was not ‘dedicated’ to her and I invite you to judge this for yourself; May 2010, June 2010, July 2010. Sadly, this letter is not an isolated example of Dorries misrepresenting a reaction to an accusation of stalking as evidence of stalking.
5. I reject any suggestion that what I write is “almost 100% lies” or lies in any way. Dorries is playing the same tired old game used by Iain Dale; accuse your opponent of lying/libel, and when asked for evidence, wave a hand in the general direction of their website. I work assiduously to be accurate, and even if you want to cast me as unfair or incorrect, at least you have the opportunity to inspect the evidence and subject it (and me) to scrutiny. Not so with Dorries. She rarely portrays evidence accurately on the odd occasions she relies on any, and she shuns scrutiny to such an extent that she’s left Twitter in a huff twice now, and disallowed comments on her ‘blog’ since 2008. The accusation of lying is especially insulting from someone who admits to using “70% fiction” on her ‘blog’ before changing her story and claiming she meant 30% fiction, and then changing her story again to say that she really meant no fiction at all, if one didn’t count the special lies she says the police advised her to publish to avoid the imaginary stalkers. FFS, even at this relatively early stage she was already telling lies to cover up the lies about the lies she told.
6. It is clear from this letter that Nadine Dorries defines my conduct towards her from March 2008 up until May 2010 as a criminal act she describes as “internet stalking”. I not only reject this, I can easily show that the police rejected it, and that Dorries doesn’t have a leg to stand on legally or morally. I can’t say more than ‘more to come’ right now without ruining any of the lovely surprises in store.
7. Let us assume for a brief moment that Dorries has a point about my not being a constituent; she has endorsed a harsher web campaign against a personal/political opponent based on little besides malice and run by an associate of hers who was not a constituent of the MP concerned. “He’s not a constituent” doesn’t hold water even if you accept the weak argument behind it.
8. Who does she think she’s kidding with this ‘not a constituent’ nonsense anyway? All MPs are answerable to the electorate as a whole, especially when it comes to issues of conduct, and definitely when they campaign on the national stage and lobby to change laws as Dorries does.
The accounts of physical stalking I will address in upcoming posts, but the short version should hold you for now; no stalking took place at any time, and Dorries is imagining things where she is not making stuff up.
Dorries isn’t being internet-stalked or huge-attacked or death-threated or anything like that. She is just an extraordinarily self-important liar who has been digging a deeper and deeper hole for herself.
More data tomorrow.
(*Not hyperbole, folks. Genuine fundamentalists. People who describe themselves as fundamentalists.)
(**The four stalkers are three bloggers… and one big surprise. It is not a journalist, as previously thought. Details in an upcoming post. You’re going to love it. The sense of entitlement is off the scale.)
5th Nov 2011
Tonight, I am burning Robin Hood Airport in effigy.
There’s no need to call the police for reasons that should be obvious.
I applied a #TwitterJokeTrial hashtag mainly for the benefit of the many people down my way who have access to the internets, but may not be aware of Paul Chambers and the consequences of his joke Twitter message about Robin Hood Airport. I am not connected to the relevant campaign, but I will happily send them link love: Paul Chambers | Twitter Joke Fund | Donate! |
Cheers all. Have a safe Guy Fawkes night, and please try to avoid barbecuing any hedgehogs.
UPDATE (11pm) – Got some video for you, folks.
20th Oct 2011
Let’s take Ricky Gervais at his word and assume he is being sincere when he says he is merely reclaiming the word ‘mong’:
Because it is not a slur against any handicapped group, or a reference to any handicapped person or condition, it merely means ‘div’ or ‘gimp’ (source), and…
Hang on, let’s start again…
Let’s take Ricky Gervais at his word and assume he is being sincere when he says he is merely reclaiming the word ‘mong’… while wanting to stay out of the relevant debate, obviously:
Hang on, let’s start again…
Let’s take Ricky Gervais at his word and assume he is being sincere when he says he is merely reclaiming the word ‘mong’:
You would think from his time on the 11 o’clock show that Ricky Gervais would have observed some reactions to Ali G and developed at least a vague awareness of the risks of satire being misread. Now, depending on the subject matter, the goal, the audience and the execution, sometimes these risks might be warranted, and sometimes they might be open to criticism*.
[*Does not equal a call for anyone to be banned. Is merely a component in what is often called a 'debate'; something Mr Gervais wishes to engage in while running away and calling his critics names.]
For example, if you were going to attempt to reclaim the word ‘mong’ you would want to at least spend a few seconds thinking about the potential targets of a word that is still used in a hateful sense, and you would probably want to have a goal beyond wanting to use the word yourself to mock a dim-witted mate or even yourself as part of your PR for a telly show.
A few seconds thought about those human beings might make you more wary of some fans who might miss the point (see: ‘street’ kids who took to mimicking Ali G as part of their shtick without a lick of irony or awareness). It might also stop you from defending your stance with an accusation that critics are merely offended (see: the dictionary, where ‘harm’ and ‘hurt’ are some distance away from ‘offence’, and not just because of that alphabetical nonsense). It could also prevent you from insulting those you have injured by positioning yourself as the victim.
Speaking of victims, here’s a poor dear who Ricky Gervais kindly retweeted because she complained about the ‘pounding’ she got when her comment against one of Ricky’s critics was RTed by that critic…
… and here is an earlier conversation from her timeline that suggests a possible reason for some of the hostility she is facing:
Now, perhaps these comments from one of Ricky’s fans aren’t malicious/ignorant and are instead so deeply steeped in irony that the post-modernism is impossible to detect, but isn’t there at least the teeniest tiniest risk that either way these comments might somehow reinforce or even encourage further thoughtless, careless, or even malicious use of a word that causes harm in a way the able-bodied and able-minded might have a little trouble comprehending?
Further, if your comprehension of this harm was lacking, would you think it your place to take this kind of risk on behalf of any vulnerable person or group… and wouldn’t a celebrity with nearly half a million followers on Twitter want to be at least a little bit cautious about ‘reclaiming’ a word in these circumstances? Is Ricky Gervais really that confident in the intelligence and literacy of his fans?
To close, for no reason other than balance (*cough*) here is a random selection of recent tweets from Ricky’s fans pointing out that he is a genius. This being the case, perhaps I just don’t understand what a tight grip he has on this situation:
UPDATE (7pm) – Francesca Martinez is comedian who has worked with Gervais. She also has cerebral palsy, which would provide her with vital insight into this issue even if she hadn’t been called a ‘mong’ in the pejorative sense recently (and she has). Martinez has tweeted in support of the vulnerable generally and fellow comedian Richard Herring specifically; Herring has been copping some horrendous abuse as a result of his early and well articulated stance.
Here is a sample of related tweets from Martinez, including three of her most recent:
And below, a response from a Gervais supporter this evening that rather supports my point. Observe how faithfully it follows the pattern of Gervais talking down the careers/achievements of his critics as if that’s relevant to the argument:
This is what you are encouraging, Gervais. This is how your fans are reacting to your poor conduct and your pisspoor defence of same. Take a bloody look in your wing mirrors once in a while and wake up to yourself.
10th Oct 2011
Did anyone else notice anything funny about this picture of Adam Werritty’s business card, as featured in the Daily Mail? No? Just me then.
Was anyone else so blinded by irrational hatred for tabloid newspapers that they recognised it as backwards text and assumed this to be the result of their scanning it from another newspaper? No? Didn’t think so.
Was anyone else so jealous of the professional standard set by the Mail that they spent an entire 2.5 seconds reversing the image to confirm this, and then spent a further 6.8 seconds in Google so they might discover which newspaper the Daily Mail has been lifting material from without credit? No? Well, that’s to be expected.
Oh, and it was The Guardian, by the way; the Daily Mail scanned an image for one of their articles from The Guardian, and didn’t bother crediting them. But I’m sure this is one of those perfectly innocent oversights, and the Daily Mail had permission to use the image, which is why they used the high resolution version one can only get from scanning a two-day-old copy of a rival newspaper.
4th Oct 2011
Morning, folks. I have decided to email Nick Pisa about his conduct last night, when through the Daily Mail he reported how a series of people reacted to an event that never happened.
from Tim Ireland
date Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:56 AM
subject Your talent for invention
Do you have any response to the evidence that you and relevant Daily Mail staff were prepared to go to print with [an] entirely invented accounts of events, reactions and statements that you could not possibly have witnessed?
This is what I have prepared in advance;
“Oh, do calm down; EVERYBODY does it,” said a clearly emotional Pisa before calling his critics names and running away.
If you would prefer me to report something you actually said, rather than what I expected you to say, then please do get in touch.
I’ve already received a genuine response while preparing this post, and I look forward to publishing it shortly.
UPDATE – Nick Pisa is now suggesting that I contact the Daily Mail for a response (on the basis that they published what he imagined) but for the record, this is a summary of what he had to say for himself about the above. These are key extracts from a wider email conversation, but if Nick is worried about being quoted out of context, I would be delighted to publish the entire exchange if he so requests.
Nick Pisa: “If you knew anything about reporting and not blogging then you would know two versions are written for court stories on deadline. Also as you are so web obsessed then you will have seen several news organisations made the same mistake.”
Tim Ireland: “I did see others making a similar mistakes re: the verdict, but this is entirely distinct from inventing reactions and statements made in ‘response’ to something that hadn’t happened. Are you saying that you’ve done this before and you regard it to be acceptable?”
Nick Pisa: “No. Now you are twisting my words. It is a version that is fine tuned before being sent for publication or online… To be honest I think it’s best you get a response from the Mail. They posted it. I have told you what happened. I do not recall name calling in fact the jeering was from your side as I recall ! I did not run away. I did not see the point in discussing it and I am as angry as you are.”
I’m especially delighted that Nick took offence at my imagined version of his reaction before not calling me names and not running away. :o)
UPDATE (8pm) – The Daily Mail have expanded on their earlier statement (amounting to a blatantly false and entirely irrelevant claim about the ‘guilty’ story being up for only 90 seconds; something they persist with at their peril, as it undermines their denial) and have added the following to their site:
Confusion over the judge’s announcement meant Sky News and several news websites, including Mail Online, briefly reported incorrectly that Knox had been found guilty.
This was corrected just over a minute later when it became apparent that he had said she was guilty of slander before going on to say both Knox and Sollecito were innocent of Meredith’s murder.
We apologise for the error and have launched an enquiry to examine our procedures.
It is common practice among newspapers to prepare two versions of an article ahead of a court verdict and these are known as ‘set and hold’ pieces.
We would like to make it clear that Nick Pisa had no involvement in the decision to publish his set and hold piece on MailOnline.
The quotes were obtained from various parties in the event of either a guilty or not guilty verdict.
So the reactions to a guilty verdict that never came… were they obtained ahead of time, too? Perhaps Pisa based these sections of his piece on reactions to the slander verdict…
Amanda Knox looked stunned this evening after she dramatically lost her prison appeal against her murder conviction.
… but if this is the case, it makes no sense for these accounts of reactions to a verdict to be in a ‘set and hold’ piece, because the writer would at the time have been responding thinking he had a verdict.
UPDATE (06 Oct) – I urge you to read the unfolding comments, and when a clearer picture emerges I expect to update the body of this post with any crucial elements (i.e. instead of deleting it and pretending it never happened, as some tabloids are wont to do). At this time, it appears entirely possible that Nick Pisa at least acted in good faith, and with some rigour, though we may not see any relevant details until after the Daily Mail have conducted their internal investigation. Scare quotes from ‘journalist’ in my headline have subsequently been snipped to remove the likelihood of the man being judged by this alone.
(Many people only read headlines/link text. Many others will read a post only, and not the comments, which is why vital corrections belong in the body of a post if/when they emerge, and why headlines should be corrected in line with changes to content. IMO.)
21st Sep 2011
For those who are new here and/or otherwise left wondering what the hell is going on…
This latest outburst from Nadine Dorries is a textbook attempt by this MP to spoil a major revelation/disclosure that she knows is coming.
I now have evidence that Nadine Dorries lied about a police investigation that never took place, then abused her position to instigate a police investigation to cover her tracks, and then lied about the nature, details and outcome of that investigation. Among the documents I have secured; a redacted version of the complete Bedfordshire Police report in response to her complaint, and the complaint itself. It’s damning stuff. Absolute dynamite in places. (At one point in her letter of complaint, Dorries makes a series of entirely false claims that she cannot possibly substantiate… in the name of the law firm Carter Ruck!)
It is also worth mentioning that her self-penned no-names accusation in a recent edition of the Daily Mail makes it completely clear that she is trying to use clever wording on her not-a-blog in order to give people the false impression that I was issued with a caution as a result of her complaint (while associating me with recent threats she claims to have received, which is nice):
“One particularly obsessive man recently followed me round with a camera, whipped up online hysteria against me and eventually had to accept a police caution for harassment.” – Nadine Dorries (source)
This is complete lie that Dorries repeatedly publishes and broadcasts knowing exactly how it sets off an active vigilante element; primarily, people who have their own reasons to intimidate me into silence, but are visibly agitated by Dorries’ outbursts.
This leads me to the main reason why I have not yet published the damning evidence that I have mentioned.
A man who I will not name was so caught up in Dorries’ late-May ‘caution’ lies that he made his own complaint to police in the days that followed, called on others to do the same, and then made a threat of violence against me and another man on his own site, under his own name, on the same day he had an appointment with police to discuss his (false) allegations.
Police have not acted on any previous complaint from this man, and they did not act on this latest complaint. But they did take the threat of violence seriously, which is what has led to the scheduled court appearance* that makes it very difficult for me to expose Dorries as a liar without risk of prejudicing an upcoming trial.
(The man involved pleaded ‘not guilty’ because he did not wish to accept… yep, a genuine caution.)
However, as a sign of good faith to the lovely readers and followers who continue to stand by me, I am today publishing the worst thing that police report says about me.
Some of the report impacts on others, so it may not be published by me in its complete (albeit redacted) form, so I just wanted to be clear with folks that I am not hiding anything. That, and I’m curious to see the mountain Dorries will build out of this molehill while I wait to drop a shedload of bedrock on her.
(The redactions in red are mine, and a courtesy to the officer concerned until I have at least attempted to put their comments into context.)
I am currently in the process of researching the relevant officer’s account so I might better understand how they came to this conclusion, but if my memory serves me well, this negative impression most likely stems from my mentioning it was Dorries who was actually under investigation for expenses (which was true) when she claimed I was under investigation for stalking (which was not true). I am happy to discuss this in comments, but little else, for reasons I would hope are clear.
I will blog again as soon as I am able. In the meantime, you can find me on Twitter most weekdays. Do follow me, even if only to annoy the biggest liar Parliament.
*UPDATE (09 Nov) – I have been advised that the CPS have discontinued this case mere days ahead of the scheduled court date, so I’ll most likely be going live with the Dorries evidence within the next week.
5th Aug 2011
A small group of liberal elitists behind The Sun: Tabloid Lies, Mail Watch, Express Watch and other personal attacks on common sense and decency will be meeting for a London-centric Chardonnay-quaffing* session at The Monarch in Camden at 2:30pm on Saturday 6th August, 2011.
Members of the public are invited to attend, provided they are not operating under the constraints of an imaginary legal device.
Those attending may be exposed to furtive whispers about media standards as a spectacle, media-watching as a sport, and other aspects of the vast left wing conspiracy to impose accuracy and accountability on a self-regulated system that’s doing just fine without our incessant meddling.
[*There may be some drinking of popular colas and lager beer, purely for the sake of appearances, should a photo opportunity arise. PS - bring a camera.]
Media Watch Meet-up
6th August 2011
The Monarch in Camden:
Bags will be searched for pie.
15th Jul 2011
Holy cow! It looks like News of the World ‘hacked’ the phone(s) of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and/or Jennifer Aniston!
1. As I have already noted, if we are to hope to hold News Corporation to account for the conduct of newspapers operating under subsidiary News International, then what we need are victims of phone ‘hacking’ who are US citizens (or even, at this stage, US citizens who are potential victims). Given the enormous monetary/legal resources Rupert Murdoch has and the political influence he retains despite this massive scandal, it is preferable that these victims have ample resources and access to legal Rottweilers. So, if you’ll pardon the arrogance of my onomatopoeia; Boom.
2. Speaking of legal Rottweilers, I have already written about the pattern of celebrity stories that claim to be based on leaks from ‘friends’, but appear instead to have been based on illicitly-accessed phone messages, but I think News of the World would have been far more wary of basing a scoop solely/obviously on Brangelina’s phone messages than they would have been with your average citizen (and with good reason; the couple sued the newspaper over a later article in 2010). I suspect News of the World staff/editors retained most of what they discovered through this route and did not publish the usual level of detail until after the Pitt/Aniston break-up was public knowledge and there were enough actual blabbers around (i.e. in the bitter dispute that followed) to provide adequate cover. I expect I’ll know more once I get my hands on that October 2004 item mentioned in this article.
3. Look at the detail. The source News of the World rely on here appears to know a lot about the tone of voice people used in these intimate phone conversations. This does not look good for News of the World. This does not look good at all.
4. Like the Danielle Jones article, this item is not only prominent (Page 9), it makes specific reference to phones. We are expected to believe that then-editor Andy Coulson somehow missed this or looked at this item (knowing the pronounced risks of litigation) and did not make any enquiries about the source.
5. Hell, if you’re the speculating type, try to imagine Glenn Mulcaire listening in to this break-up of a leading celebrity couple, and then try to guess who he might speak to about this dynamite story. Personally, if I were a greedy tabloid scumbag, I’d be talking directly to the editor if not passing on messages about how many extra zeroes this one would cost.
6. Later today, I’ll get in touch with Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie’s London lawyers, Schillings. I’m ‘known’ to these lawyers, you know… for something completely different!!! (Sorry. Private joke. Moving on.)
7. I do hate to go on and on like a poorly-compressed MP3, but this revelation is the result of wholly independent research, and if you’d like to make sure that I have the time/funds/capacity to do more, then please donate today:
Cheers all. If there’s enough money in the kitty by early this afternoon, I can start making immediate plans for another jaunt into the British Newspaper Library early next week.