This entry was posted on
Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at
7:44 am and is filed
under Tories! Tories! Tories!.
Hi. New here? These are Parts 1, 2 and 3, if you’d like to read the rest of the letter and/or read more of the detail, but the way Part 4 is written you can tuck into these later if you feel like it:
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part One)
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Two: Flitwick & humphreycushion)
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Three: Chris Paul and a special surprise… or two)
Nadine Dorries is the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, and the short version of what’s been happening is that she has been claiming to be the victim of multiple stalkers as part of a rushed and reckless cover-up involving secret lobbying groups and some as-yet-unanswered questions regarding monetary fraud.
From 2009 to 2010, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was conducting an inquiry into evidence that Dorries’ ‘second home’ was in fact her first/main residence (put simply; the place she spent most of her time, usually understood as the place where one sleeps most nights). This was an issue because of multiple expenses claims Dorries had made on the basis that her constituency property in Woburn qualified for an allowance that only applied to second homes.
This investigation was, in my view superficial at best, and only took as long as it did because Dorries was being Dorries about it. I also feel the Commissioner was far too trusting of an MP who literally throws the rule book out the window, taking her word on some matters most of us would be expected to support with paperwork. The Commissioner did ask questions about a couple of very recent entries on her site, but I saw no evidence of her public diary being properly investigated. This may have had something to do with Dorries’ site being withdrawn from service for a very long time during the inquiry, but there were before then and still are today dozens and dozens of blog entries going back years where Dorries writes repeatedly of and about Woburn and her time there as if it were her primary residence.
Dorries sought to explain what little she was challenged on with the claim that she had deliberately given a false account of her whereabouts for purely political reasons; specifically, in order to give constituents and her local association a false impression that she was spending the majority of her time in the constituency. The Commissioner bought her story, but Dorries did not expect to have to publicly defend much of what she had told him, and suddenly faced an unexpected backlash about her casual declaration that her blog was “70% fiction and 30% fact”.
So she quickly expanded on an existing lie she had already told to discourage people like Chris Paul from investigating her property, to avoid questions about the relevant expenses inquiry at a local hustings, and to make local critics too shit-scared to even tweet about her; she publicly claimed that she had only published little white lies about where she was and when on the specific advice of police in response to what they recognised as a credible stalking threat.
And on this note we turn to the final segment of the letter Nadine Dorries wrote to the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire in July 2010, accusing myself, two other critics and a political opponent of stalking her:
Let’s skip right past Dorries trying to portray me as the source of violence aimed at her; it is too insulting given the care I have taken with my conduct toward others and the dangers she has knowingly exposed me to. I fear I may lose my temper and use the kind of rude words that will allow for further feigned hysteria.
Instead, I’d like us to focus on three simple items:
1. THE PUBLIC DISORDER THINGIE
Dorries claimed on 27 October 2010 that “the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police explored the option of triggering section 5 of the Public Disorder Act” against me. Yes, the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police explored the option of triggering section 5 of the Public Disorder Act because an MP who didn’t know her act from her elbow asked her to. There is no such thing as the Public Disorder Act.
By the way, this item gets even funnier later. (A new document starting next Monday, folks. You know where to find me.)
This is not the first I have heard of this alleged burglary that was never reported to police. When trying to convince me that poor Nadine was simply a single and misunderstood mother living alone and genuinely frightened by the attention of some awful people, a supporter of Dorries told me the following story. In confidence. I tell it to you now in the spirit of they can go **** themselves.
Nadine Dories claims that in early 2010, shortly before the election, she’d returned to her constituency home to discover that the front door had been removed from its hinges. She further claimed that nothing was actually missing from the house and the only thing the intruder(s) appeared to be interested in were her office filing cabinets, which had all been opened and rifled through.
Chris Paul blogged about Nadine Dorries. Dorries reported him to police as a stalker.
Ms Humphreycushion tweeted about Nadine Dorries. Dorries reported her to police as a stalker.
I blogged and tweeted about Nadine Dorries. I also attended a public meeting I was invited to. Dorries reported me to police as a stalker.
Linda Jack ran against Nadine Dorries in an election. Dorries reported her to police as a stalker.
But when Nadine Dorries comes home to find the front door off the hinges and her filing cabinets disturbed… she does not report this to police. Even if she only reports stalkers to the police, this sounds like just the sort of thing a real stalker might do.
I’m not buying it. You?
Dorries also claimed to have received multiple death threats, then said here that until August 2011 it was her policy NOT to seek to prosecution. But her critics get the ‘stalker’ treatment. Now, why is that, do you think?
More than two months before she wrote this letter, Dorries claimed that I had sent her and her staff “numerous offensive emails” and other “vile” and “abusive” and “explicit” messages, but she didn’t present any of these to police. For some reason. Even when I submitted a subject access request to her office legally compelling her to reveal what she claims are my emails, she refused to cooperate (!) in defiance of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Data Protection Act. What possible reason could she have to behave like this?
(Psst! I also find myself wondering why Nadine Dorries keeps her filing cabinets inside her ‘second home’ when any busy person/MP would want them in their main home, but the big question surrounds the potential purpose of this very-neat-burglar story, if it is an invention. It would not be a lie told lightly; it would have a purpose.)
“I have spoken to lawyers at Carter Ruck and they tell me that Tim Ireland is well known and that Guildford Police have dealt with a number of complaints regarding similar behaviour to others. He is apparently a well known computer hacker.” – Nadine Dorries
I contacted Carter-Ruck about the extraordinary accusations Nadine Dorries made in their name. I was curious to know what evidence they could produce to back the assertion that I was a notorious computer hacker with multiple complaints against me, but I didn’t get very far. Here’s their response:
” I can confirm that Nadine Dorries is a client of this firm. It follows that, as I am sure you will appreciate, all communications between Ms Dorries and ourselves are confidential in nature.” – Cameron Doley, Managing Partner, Carter-Ruck
Carter-Ruck were asked about the mysterious circumstances in which I found myself accused of harassment without so much as a letter from their office, but they had no comment to make about that, either. I do not recall ever being warned by Carter-Ruck about the appropriateness of my behaviour toward any of their clients, and seemingly neither do they.
:: If Dorries is telling the truth about her source, where is Carter-Ruck getting this information from?
:: If Dorries is lying about the source, where is she getting this information from?
This one gets even funnier later, too. If you thought this week was something, wait until next week when I start unleashing material from a 4-page ‘report’ that Nadine Dorries sent to Bedfordshire Police in November 2010. Dorries was at the time under pressure to produce evidence of an investigation she claimed had been in progress since before her only known complaint. Behind the scenes, she was desperately trying to initiate one.
It is like they say; it’s the cover-up that costs you… and I’m just getting started, folks.
UPDATE – The full July 2010 letter from Nadine Dorries to Bedfordshire Police (including some notes about what gets released starting Monday).
The Strong hArm Of The Law… #Dorries
A further dalliance in the wonderful world of Nadine Dorries
By Welshracer November 17, 2011 - 10:06 am
I do hope Private Eye would take this up and publish this story.
By Tim_Ireland November 17, 2011 - 10:25 am
Ian Hislop has said he is not interested in 'attacking' Nadine Dorries. When asked about it privately, he implies that her story and the associated bullshit of Iain Dale borders on the accurate.
By Paul Ferrari November 17, 2011 - 11:42 am
Tim, would it not be possible to raise a Data Protection Act request to Carter-Ruck that covers any correspondence where you are mentioned ?
By Tim_Ireland November 17, 2011 - 12:00 pm
Now there's an interesting idea. I'm sure they'd make me wait the full 40 days, though.
Guidance here: http://www.out-law.com/page-410
By @Unity_MoT November 17, 2011 - 1:33 pm
Unfortunately, one of the few clear exemptions to DPA is legal professional privilege, which Carter-Fuck will undoubtedly cite before telling you to fuck off.
The only conceivable way of getting anything out of them, other than burglary, would be to pull Dorries in legal proceeding and hope that a judge decides that the info you're after is sufficiently probative to warrent a disclosure order, which is going to be a major long-shot.
By Not a lawyer November 18, 2011 - 9:04 am
"Unfortunately, one of the few clear exemptions to DPA is legal professional privilege, which Carter-Fuck will undoubtedly cite before telling you to fuck off"
This may not be quite the stumbling block you first imagine – but let's test it out. The exemptions are stated to be quote: "any document which was created with the dominant purpose of being used in current or potential litigation…..(or) which was brought into being in order to obtain legal advice from a barrister or solicitor."
So attorney-client discussions are quite rightly sacrosanct.
But what did Dorries say that Carter-Fuck had TOLD HER:
a) Tim is "well known"
b) Guildford police have dealt with a number of complaints regarding similar behaviour with others
c) "He is apparently a well-known computer hacker"
Now I'm sure Tim has already got (b) covered as far as a DPA to Guildford police is concerned, but you're right; any attorney-client conversations between Dorries and C-F would be exempt.
But that's not relevant here – the issue is what information Carter-Fuck supposedly ALREADY HAD on Tim that they then TOLD Dorries about. How did they gather this alleged information and in what format was it held?
Any such data would surely NOT then be exempt unless it had ALSO arisen from attorney-client conversations (in which case they wouldn't be in a position to pass it on, no?)
Hope I've got the logic of this right…but I'm not a lawyer……
By Lorraine November 17, 2011 - 3:50 pm
Another bit that doesn't make sense in the unreported filing cabinet burglary: (this does assume that work stuff is in the filing cabinets and not just personal stuff – has she stated that was the case?)
An MP, who has filing cabinets at home, presumably containing information about her constituency, possibly constituent's information and likely personal and confidential details, has it broken into and gone through, and it's not reported to the police?
Isn't she liable under the Data Protection Act to report that?
By Tim_Ireland November 17, 2011 - 4:05 pm
Yes, but questions of this sort only apply if we assume that (a) she is telling the truth, and (b) constituency/Parliamentary paperwork was kept in the home-based office she describes
By Lorraine November 21, 2011 - 2:09 pm
Exactly, so if she said work things were in it, which would be nice.
Her options if questioned on it are:
i) No it didn't really happen. I lied.
ii) Yes, I am completely incompetent and should be prosecuted for not reporting it.
iii) There were no parliamentary documents in it, but then when I said I had a burglary I hadn't reported, I forgot there weren't any, but now I remember, there really, definitely weren't any parliamentary documents in it…I think…unless it suits me to say that there were next week.
iv) Someone from the Information Commissioners Office is stalking me. I've reported him to the police and been advised to pretend I'm an idiot to throw him off the scent.
I think she'd go for option iv.
The thing is, if she actually got properly questioned on the majority of the stuff she says, none of it holds up to even the lightest of scrutiny. it would be lovely if that could happen
By @NCCLols November 17, 2011 - 7:38 pm
I like Private Eye but it is very selective about the targets it picks. I suspect it very much depends on individual staff members' bugbears. I mean, how you can feature any other MP and not Dorries is pretty bizarre in the extreme.
By Carl Eve November 18, 2011 - 11:40 am
Ah, as Tim knows, the link-love reveals why. PEye reporter who link-loves Iain Dale who in turn very much link-loves Dorries. If you think Harry Cole/Paul Staines/Iain Dale/Nadine Dorries, you see a picture emerge. Effortless sources of inside info into the Government which you wouldn't want to lose.
As much as I also love the Eye, it's remarkly 'establishment' in its own way. As you say NCCLols, with a character like Dorries, why does the Eye ever bother writing about other MPs… she makes Boris appear competent.
By @NCCLols November 18, 2011 - 5:30 pm
Tim, why not try reporting the alleged filing cabinet incident to the Info Commissioner like Letwin was? I'm sure they would investigate and if the only result is that she is forced to claim that she made it up a) that's a win and b) the ICO has demonstrated a slightly more independent stance than John Lyons and might not accept her story so quickly?
On the other hand, that would be stalking wouldn't it? ;)
By Tim_Ireland November 18, 2011 - 10:25 pm
Dorries has already defied the ICO, but you are right about the paperwork security issue. If it ever happened in the way Dorries described it.
By @Lescromps November 18, 2011 - 6:51 pm
I think you,r only way of getting anywhere with this is to "Libel or Slander Dorries"Once she sues get her in court, she could be cross examined,might get some truth about the matter then,there again maybe not.
By Tim_Ireland November 18, 2011 - 10:23 pm
Nothing she has said about this would stand up in court, but that's not the way I'd go about dragging her there, really. For now I would like to continue to ask the questions 'Why should any of us have to put up with this?' and 'Why is this woman still an MP / endorsed by a mainstream party?'