Archive for the ‘The Political Weblog Movement’ Category

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 20, 2008

Category: Christ..., The Political Weblog Movement

David Modell (the man who once captured the Hamiltons’ entire marriage in a single photograph) has well and truly got the goods on the Christian fundamentalist movement here in the UK, and I invite you to catch the entire documentary on YouTube (links below via) or watch it air again on More4 at 9pm on Wednesday:

Dispatches: In God’s Name (1/5)
Dispatches: In God’s Name (2/5)
Dispatches: In God’s Name (3/5)
Dispatches: In God’s Name (4/5)
Dispatches: In God’s Name (5/5)

(Or use/share this link that lets you watch all 5 parts in sequence.)

[MINI-UPDATE – Only Part 5 of this sequence is now available online. It is embedded below.]

Of particular interest to regulars of Bloggerheads is Part 5, where we see the cosy interaction between Nadine Dorries and Andrea Minichiello Williams.

Just the sight of Andrea Williams fills me with joy. She deserves more television time, she does. It’s a lot of fun watching her play the media expert as she herds shoutier supporters away from the camera.

She doesn’t want Christian fundamentalists to come across like a pack of wild-eyed fruit-loops, y’see.

And Andrea does it soooo much better…

Her most impressive weapon is that solid black border around her eyes, which doesn’t make her look at all wild-eyed.

[rolls eyes]

And, bless her little cotton socks, when pressed with a difficult question, she will totally take control of the situation… erm, by asking for the camera to be turned off with a pleading grimace or unplugging her microphone with a smug grimace.

More air-time for Andrea, please.


The Telegraph published Nadine’s (allegedly) militant “pro-abortionists” nonsense, and also this David Modell article about his doco on politically-active Christian fundamentalists… but they lose points for not drawing attention to the obvious connection between the two (more) days ago.

Similary, welcome as it is, those of us who worry about media manipulation would have enjoyed the participation of Modell, Aaronovitch and Cochrane much earlier than this.

Nadine said outright on camera (see from 3 min on here) that she gets her information from Andrea Williams, and in the past week or so we’ve seen many outrageous and unsourced claims from Dorries. Many of those claims were published verbatim by MSM, and too few questions were asked at the time.

Now it would appear that a lot of the bad science and questionable poll data came from the same woman who penned Dorries’ amendment… a woman who thinks that the world is around 4,000 years old.

It’s obvious to anyone with a brain that Nadine Dorries is either knowingly in league with fundamentalists or being used by them.

The response is unusually slippery for the dim-witted Dorries; she feigns outrage over an accusation that hasn’t been made and says that she personally isn’t a fundamentalist (which therefore makes everything OK):

Nadine Dorries: God help me!
Posted Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 11:54

Apparently now I’m a religious fundamentalist! Of all the arrows I’ve had slung at me since I picked up abortion, that has to be the most ridiculous.

Am I a Christian? Yes I am. Do I go to Church? Occasionally. Do I pray? Sometimes. Do I believe in God? Yes. Does this make me a freak? Well, if it does, we’re a nation of freaks, that’s all I can say.

Almost everyone I know believes in a God. It may not be the same God as mine, they may not go to the same Church as me, but they do believe in something.

My position on abortion is motivated by my experience as a nurse, witnessing late botched abortions .

I will say this once again – I am not a religious fundamentalist !!!!

I will say this only once… I!!!! DON’T!!!! CARE!!!!

Nadine Dorries has allowed herself to be influenced by religious fundamentalists and she has worked to further their agenda while taking measures to mask or minimise their involvement.

And now she’s been caught, she thinks she can wiggle out by claiming that she herself isn’t one of the zealots she’s been taking instruction from.

She’s a bigger fool than I took her for… and that’s saying something.


rhetorically speaking – nadine dorries: late abortion is murder
Richard Bartholomew – Documentary Looks At UK Christian Right
Pickled Poltics – Christian fundamentalism in the UK
Indigo Joe Blogs – The ugly face of the British evangelical lobby
Family Lore – A Frightening Prospect
Media Watch Watch – A new Dispatches affair?
Sadie’s Tavern – Whipping, Nad Dorries, and other odd perversions (In which Sadie watches Iain Dale breaking eggs on his face. Tch, to think that he wasted all that time keeping a safe distance from Dorries.)
Independent – Dispatches: Making a giant leap of faith: (In which David Modell “reveals how he gets ‘extremist’ subjects like these Christian fundamentalists to open their hearts to him”)

UPDATE: Ministry of Truth – The (almost) Final Indignity: Regardless of the outcome of tonight’s vote, Dorries walks away with zero credibility and a reputation as a purveyor of long-debunked hoaxes, crap science and a woman who cannot even muster the most basic integrity necessary to be honesty about her motives. And then, to cap it all, along comes Channel 4’s Dispatches to verify that the links between Dorries and Williams that I exposed here, with the help of Tim Ireland, were right on the money.

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 16, 2008

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

By now most of you are aware that, yesterday, Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) was, after his second drink driving offence, hit with an 18-month supervision* order, a 3 month 9pm-6am curfew (enforced via electronic tag) and a 3 year driving ban… and that I was there to watch the proceedings.

I have a busy day today, so pardon me for serving this lot up late in the day and in bite-sized chunks. I have little time for elegance…

(*Yes, a supervision order. The kind of thing they normally reserve for juveniles who lack self-control and access to a responsible adult. I don’t think the judge placed a lot of faith in this 41 year old man’s ability to control himself.)

1. Why was I there? Reasons in full:

– I wanted to meet up with some other bloggers and have a bit of a jolly. (Sadly, this bit didn’t work out.)

– I wanted to see if the multi-talented Donal Blaney turned up as Staines’ lawyer. (He didn’t. Paul appeared alone and without representation.)

– I wanted to see if anybody noteworthy turned up in Paul’s list of character witnesses. (The judge made no mention of it, so I will assume that nobody noteworthy spoke up for Paul.)

– I wanted to ensure that reporting of this event wasn’t left to ‘old media’. (The Mirror has Paul driving without a licence here when what he was driving without at the time was insurance…. and brains. Pandora do better here, but they let the “4 bottles a week” figure slide.)

– And, finally, out of sheer curiosity – with a side order of carefully restrained glee – I wanted to see Paul Staines in a state of contrition. Simulated or not, I just wanted to see it. Just the once. (And it was lovely, thanks for asking. I wish some of his many victims could’ve been there to see it.)

2. Paul Staines doesn’t have a gracious bone in his body. All I had to do was pass a copy of this article to the prosecutor and his day would have ended quite differently:

Pandora – Blogger ‘Guido Fawkes’ is led off to the Tower: “I had been speaking at the Adam Smith Institute,” Guido explains. “They have made a lot of money so the booze is usually pretty good. I moved on with a few people to the Westminster Arms, where I bought drinks, and then to the Kennington Tandoori to show everyone the picture of Prezza on the wall. Then I was giving a few people a lift to Victoria station when the fuckers pulled me over.”

But does he thank me? Does he bunnies…

3. Not only is Paul Staines playing the ‘stalker’ card and publishing mostly anonymous comments pushing his one-card hand, but one of them comes with a ‘paedo’ tag:


Nobody should have to put up with paedo-smearing. It’s evil and dangerous and totally uncalled for as a political tactic. Regular readers might recall Nadine Dorries doing it to Alex Hilton and Paul Staines doing it to Mark Oaten (and showing not one ounce of care or regret, as usual). Long-time readers may remember that the main shitstorm over blogging standards started after Iain Dale and Paul Staines stood by and let Milton’s sock-puppeting activists get on with doing it to someone else BIG TIME in Guildford and I subsequently took an interest in the mostly anonymous thugs hanging around their websites and how these two actually manipulated that activity to gain advantage over any readers/bloggers who might disagree with them…. i.e. pretty much exactly the same thing Staines is doing here.

All the guy had the guts to say to my face on the day was “this must be a nice day out for you” and he had all morning to think it up.

And now he unleashes his ‘wit’ and the wrath of his sock-puppeting tosspots? Spare me.

(PS – Bloggage on the subject here would have been considerably lighter had Dale or Staines given me an honest answer to a fair question on their site(s) once in a while instead of throwing sock-puppets and abuse at me. They can both rack off with their ‘stalker’ crap. That goes for their current head-boy and hanger-on Dizzy, too.)

4. How many bottles of wine? “Four a week” said the judge after consulting a piece of paper. Surely this figure comes from Paul Staines’ own rather conservative estimate? Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny that when he’s finished yelling “Stalker!”

[Paul? Your sock-puppeting followers are making something of this and I want to know where the figure came from. How about an honest answer to a fair question? Go on… just this once.]

5. The judge had his eye on that VW Golf and had the power to seize it. In fact, he’d just seized a vehicle in a previous and very similar case.

Paul was asked about the car and IMO only it being registered in his wife’s name saved it from seizure.

That might ring a few bells with regulars.

6. So what’s going on here, then?

Judge Stone: “What do you do for a living?”

Paul Staines: “Advertising.”

Advertising? Beg pardon? With who?

During Spinal Stats we received the following assurance from the advertising firm MessageSpace:

“Paul Staines is neither a shareholder, director or employee of MessageSpace and never has been.”

And Paul can’t be talking about making a living from the Commission Junction banners and what not on his own website. Even if he’s pulling in 100,000+ unique visitors a month (and he’s not) and there’s no overlap month to month (there is), the best he can hope for is baked beans with his four bottles of wine a week.


I think there’s something that Paul’s not telling us. That, or he’s telling wee porkies in court.

7. According to police, Paul Staines was driving “at speed in the Kennington area”, which caused a camera to flash. Police who witnessed this then ordered him to stop and it was noted that he “seemed to be have difficulty staying in a straight line.”

Admittedly, the swerving part could have been the result of Paul’s arms turning to jelly upon seeing the dreaded ECILOPs in his rear vision mirror, but police also reported that “(Paul Staines’) eyes were bloodshot, he strongly smelt of alcohol and his pupils appeared to be dilated” and gave him a (delayed) breath test, which he failed.

At the time Staines claimed to have been “drinking Cobra beer at an Indian.”

Presumably he thought it best not to mention the drinks consumed earlier at the Adam Smith Institute and the Westminster Arms.

8. This was Paul’s second drink driving offence, and fourth drink-related offence.

If drinking causes problems, then you have a drinking problem. If drinking causes serious problems, then you have a serious drinking problem.

A crucial part of the exchange involved Judge Stone’s concern over Paul Staines’ decision not to seek help for his obvious drinking problem. (Paul had instead decided to follow self-imposed “guidelines”.)

He’s rediscovered his bravado since, but the nearest Paul Staines came to saying ‘boo’ in the courtroom was during this exchange:

Judge Stone: “You can’t resist it, can you?”

Paul Staines: [my notes read; “inaudible sound that may have been a protest”]

Judge Stone: “What happened this time?”

Paul Staines: “I was out for a drink.”

That’s where the curfew came from. Right there.

9. Judge Stone also said that Paul Staines’ actions were wholly irresponsible and that Staines lacked the insight to realise when he was a danger to other people, but I already knew that.

In fact, it’s been a primary point of mine from the beginning.

It’s why Paul and his gang of pretend-blogging thugs engaged in a conspiracy of silence about this (and a number of other items).

They demand accountability from others, often in an extremely selective, unfair or dishonest fashion, when they have no intention of being held to account themselves.

Accountability to an audience is the price bloggers are supposed to pay for their power, but people like Staines, Dale and Dorries have no interest in it and will even play the victim if you call them on it… basically crying wolf with their stalker nonsense at the expense of genuine victims of stalking.

It’s selfish, dangerous and destructive behaviour and I really wish they’d stop it.

10. Back to “4 bottles a week” for this last one;

It doesn’t really matter how much you drink. If you can’t stop, then you are by definition an alcoholic. Staines would have received a lighter sentence had he sought treatment for the drinking that was clearly causing him problems, but he didn’t. So he’s either stupid, a glutton for punishment, or an alcoholic.

So, while I hope his electronic tag itches during the day and bothers him when he sleeps, like Clive, I’d like to show Paul that it’s not all ill will over on this side of the fence.

And, speaking for myself, I also want to make sure that I can actually stop anytime I want to.

So for the next 30 days I will be 100% dry… and safely home by 9pm each and every night.

You’re welcome to join me, or sit back and watch me twitch.

NEXT: UK Libel Law, the Demon Almost-Precedent and the Bastard Duke of Brunswick

UPDATE: If you’re at all concerned about your own intake, you might want to grit your teeth and take this test.

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 15, 2008

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

A tease? Yes.

Expect more tomorrow.

(Oh, you *love* it….)

UPDATE – Hell, yes:

The UK Today – Sympathy for the Devil: From what I know of Paul and others with similar issues, the next three months will be difficult. So, in a gesture of non-partisan solidarity and support, I’m going to forswear alcohol for the next month, and be safely tucked up at home by 9pm every night. Furthermore, any other bloggers who wish to show Paul that it can be done, that he can master alcohol instead of being ruled by it, you’re all welcome to join me.

Make that us.

No beer, booze or wine, at home by nine.

30 days.

(What can I say? I’m feeling frisky after the fags.)

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 14, 2008

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

Bolder than expected, but sadly inevitable…

Nadine Dorries’ most recent ‘blog’ entry, reproduced here in all its textual glory for two reasons:

a) Her permalinks don’t work

b) I suspect she may one day delete this (as she has other entries on her site that she has later regretted)

Nadine Dorries: Hounds of Hell
Posted Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 11:07

The Hounds of Hell are chasing me.

We received another unpleasant parcel in the post today. Nasty web sites set up, email account and post bag bombarded, people crawling all over my expenses, which they are entitled and I am very very happy for them to do…

Scary, threatening angry and downright nasty phone calls. A message smeared on my window.

This is all meant to destabilise or distract me.

I have a very clear message to those who are attempting to do this – back off. You will not stop me, you will not undermine me, you do not scare me. In fact, you make me much more determined than I ever was before. You give me strength.

I received a lovely email today from the photographer who took the picture of Samuels’s hand reaching through his mother’s womb during the operation when he was 21 weeks gestation.

The picture below is of Samuel giving evidence to the US congress five years later.

The email reads:

“Dear Ms Dorries,

I can’t tell you how honoured I was to hear that you had posted the picture of Samuel reaching from his mother’s womb on your blog in an attempt to lower the age abortions can be performed……

I have been on pins and needles trying to keep up with the vote there in the UK….I would love to know if the attempt is successful…”

Michael Clancy

I will Michael if I survive long enough!!!

Beginners to Nadine’s particular style of blogging will want to study the subtle techniques that Ms Dorries uses here to tie her critics to alleged threats of violence or harm and thereby undermine their credibility.

Also note the cool efficiency of the entry; she is cleverly playing the victim while smearing others (genius multi-tasking there), and she manages this without linking to a single item or producing one shred of relevant evidence as she (again) recycles the Hand of Hope myth.

No wonder Iain Dale rates her so highly.

UPDATE – Loving this reponse from Unity…

Ministry of Truth – A Hell-Hound responds…: Take a look around and ask yourself just where your ‘friends’ are? Where are the massed ranks of the supposedly ‘dominant’ Tory blogosphere and why aren’t they leaping to your defence?

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 12, 2008

Category: Rupert 'The Evil One' Murdoch, The Political Weblog Movement

Matthew Norman – ‘This year’s Scam award goes to…’: Meanwhile, a shift in emphasis on this subject is noted in The Sun. Whenever the BBC is involved in an appalling abuse, such as the misnaming of the Blue Peter kitten, the paper has gone to town, yet on Friday it relegated the ITV scandal to page nine – and even then the report was slanted in A’n’D’s favour by focusing on how appalled they were, and how abused they feel, to discover this appalling abuse. So let’s state for the record that this was solely a matter of news judgement, and had nothing to do with a) Rupert Murdoch’s unending crusade against the BBC, and b) Mr Murdoch’s large (although soon, touch wood, to be reduced) stake in ITV.

Quite a few of us watched the most prominent right-wing weblogs websites having absolutely nothing to say about the drink-driving adventures of one of their own. Even most comments relating to the event have been censored. The authors of these weblogs websites even had the audacity to later chastise left-wing bloggers for not blogging every moment of Brown’s difficulties.

Meanwhile, over at The Sun, the Turn to Tories is complete.

While you’re mulling this over, also consider how many ‘news’ outlets granted Nadine Dorries a free ride this past week, even though she’s been spouting transparently misleading nonsense.

Between you and me, I think we’ve entered a new age of political bullshit.

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 10, 2008

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

… I’m just standing there minding my own business when I suddenly find myself thinking; “Where the hell did all these boobs come from?”

On a totally different note, here’s a few bloggers talking about a right tit:

Sim-O – Nadine Dorries & abortion: No reasoned argument then Nadine? Just a ‘Pah! It’s biased!’ response.

Oldie but a goodie:

rhetorically speaking – nadine dorries: I’m really quite unpleasant when you get to know me: So, even though Dorries was completely wrong, and smeared Caroline Flint with manifestly false allegations, it’s apparently unthinkable that she should apologise.

Another oldie, showing that she has past form using taxpayer’s money for campaigning purposes:

David Reeves – Nadine Watch: Nadine was found to have clearly breached rules by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges in 2006 when she used House of Commons stationary to personally endorse a candidate in a local authority by-election. (House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges, 12th Session Report 2005-06).

And, finally, a typically comprehensive post from Septicisle that pulls no punches at the end:

Septicisle – The lying lies and dirty secrets of Ms Nadine Dorries MP: Out of all the MPs that this blog has covered over the last few years, it’s safe to say that none has been as underhand, as genuinely unpleasant, manipulative, vindictive and dishonest as both Dorries has been and apparently is. She is both a disgrace to politics as a whole and a liability to the Conservative party.

Hear hear.

PS – Note here that Nadine doesn’t say 2000 what:

“After a slow start the 20 reasons for 20 weeks web site has suddenly begun to gather momentum. I have watched the ticker clicking by and I reckon within the next few minutes we will have passed 2000!” – Nadine Dorries

I’ve already bet 5 quid that Nadine was kept on a leash until after recent elections were over. I’d wager a second fiver on Iain Dale giving her advice on What Not To Say.

(Psst! And, like Iain, she appears to think that every visit to her website is a vote for her.)

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 9, 2008

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

There are already a few angry Tories buzzing about because I’m criticising their precious little darling Nadine Dorries so, to save time, here are two links from the sites of Nadine’s staunchest supporters, Iain Dale and Tim Montgomerie, showing that they clearly disapprove of use of taxpayer’s money for campaigning purposes…

Iain Dale – Labour MP Abuses Communications Allowance

ConHome – CCHQ highlights widespread abuse of parliamentary communications allowance by Labour MPs

… and I look forward to their blogging about it again soon because that’s just what Nadine Dorries has been doing via her website.

I should make it clear that as far as I can tell, Nadine’s website was and is – as stated on her website – funded from the Incidental Expenses Provision and not the new Communications Allowance, but I would advise any MP who is confused/concerned about such things to read The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery (2.31MB PDF) because, until the Green Book is revised, it offers the most comprehensive guide available on websites paid for with the public’s money.

But in Nadine’s case the misuse of taxpayer’s money is clear and unarguable, so in this post we do not need to go any further than these extracts from Teh Green Book (870Kb PDF)

5.1.1. Scope of the allowance
The Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) is available
to meet costs incurred on Members’ Parliamentary
duties. It cannot be used to meet personal costs,
or the costs of party political activities or campaigning.

5.13.4. Communications and travel

Allowable expenditure:
– Printing and sending newsletters, establishing
and maintaining websites.

Expenditure not allowable:
– Campaigning on behalf of a political party
or cause
– Communications or travel on personal or
party political matters

There are so many examples of Nadine breaking these clear-cut rules on her website – particularly in that section she laughingly describes as a ‘blog’ – that it’s hard to know where to start (or end) but I think a good example is her recent targeting of four Labour MPs over the abortion issue, as it ticks all the boxes; it’s personal in nature (though most of the purely personal entries on her blog are more vindictive than this) , it’s party-political (look at who she targets), and it’s done in support of a cause.

I’ll be quoting from those entries in full mainly because Nadine’s permalinks don’t work on her joke of a website that you and I paid for:

Nadine Dorries: Beyond The Limit
Posted Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 11:45

Laura Moffatt. Labour MP, Crawley. Majority 37.

As a result of a number of polls, we know that the majority of the public, as many as 72 per cent, wish to see the upper limit at which abortion takes place, reduced from 24 to 20 weeks.

Many MPs, however, choose to use Parliament as a place to pander to their own preference, or ideology, rather than to represent the will of the people.

Each day, I am going to highlight MPs who may need to think very seriously when voting on the issue of reducing the upper limit to 20 weeks, because if they don’t, they may see their majorities wiped out at the next election.

Laura Moffat voted AGAINST counselling before the termination of pregnancy in 2007; and abstained during a vote to reduce the upper limit to 21 weeks.

I have no problem with abstention on an ethical conscience issue, if an MP truly does not want to compromise their own principles, and ensure that they do not misrepresent the majority of their constituents’ views.

However, trotting through the noe lobby on a 20 week amendment will be something entirely different.

If you know your MP’s voting intentions, please link to the Alive and Kicking campaign web site and let them know.

Nadine Dorries: Beyond The Limit (2)
Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2008 at 12:07

Barbara Follett MP. Labour. Stevenage. Majority: 3139.

Barbara Follett is the founder of Emily’s list, which provides financial help and assistance to women wishing to become Labour MPs. In order to receive funding they have to support Labour party values, and be pro-abortion.

This means that any potential candidate of faith, ie, Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Muslim or Hindu would not qualify, which makes the list discriminatory .

Barbara Follett MP has voted against reducing the upper limit and against a bill introduced to provide counselling and support.

72% of her constituents want the upper limit reduced to 20 weeks.

Will she represent their views at the next vote, or her own?

If you know your MP’s voting intentions, please link to the Alive and Kicking campaign web site and let them know.

Nadine Dorries: Beyond The Limit (3)
Posted Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 11:28

Jacqui Smith (Labour). Redditch. Majority: 2716.

Jacqui Smith has abstained during many abortion votes, however, she has taken funding from Emily’s list on the basis that she supports pro-abortion values.

As I’ve said before, abstention is fine if she feels that by voting for her pro-abortion beliefs she would be mis-representing her constituents. One to watch.

If you know your MP’s voting intentions, please link to the Alive and Kicking campaign web site and let them know.

Nadine Dorries: Beyond The Limit (4)
Posted Wednesday, 2 April 2008 at 10:21

Margaret Moran (Labour) Luton South. Majority: 5650.

Margaret Moran MP has abstained during many abortion votes, however, she has taken funding from Emily’s list on the basis that she supports pro-abortion values.

As I’ve said before, abstention is fine if she feels that by voting for her pro-abortion beliefs she would be mis-representing her constituents. One to watch.

If you know your MP’s voting intentions, please link to the Alive and Kicking campaign web site and let them know.

All but one of these entries included the following banner promoting her cause…

… and now she’s pushing the new 20 weeks website/campaign on the front page:

It’s too much. She’s stepped way, way over the line in pursuit of her anti-abortion agenda and she needs – and deserves – a damn good slapping for it.


UPDATE – Via Unity, a report that Nadine Dorries has campaigned as a pro-choice candidate. Heh. I’m not sure if this was *quite* what Dr Crippen was after…

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 8, 2008

Category: Christ..., The Political Weblog Movement

Nadine Dorries has been making out that her campaign crusade to restrict abortions is nothing to do with her religious beliefs… so why, pray tell, is her campaign crusade so closely tied to a network of Christian politicians and evangelical organisations?

(Psst! Christian Concern For Our Nation / CCFON are a modest lot; take a look at where/how they list themselves as ‘supporters’ on websites they created here and here.)

Even more soon… let’s give Nadine some time to take this on board first. Nadine? Any response?

PS – Watch Tim Montgomerie completely fail to declare an interest as he hails this “cross-party campaign” (supported not by 200 MPs as he claims but instead 13 Conservative MPs and one MP each from Labour and the Lib Dems).

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 8, 2008

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

Please excuse the mind-dump, which is untidy in places. Wading through Nadine’s bullshit gives me a headache at the best of times, but I needed to get all of this out of my head before starting on a fresh slapping of this stupid, deceitful woman:

1. She presents myths as facts:

The clearest example of this is her use of the ‘Hand of Hope’ myth which – even after a thorough debunking (that she described as “an amazing response”) – she still uses as the lead item in the ‘pictures and video’ section of ‘her’ campaign website. It’s worth looking closely at this one, as Nadine’s apparent belief in this myth now relies on her belief that militant pro-lifers made the surgeon change his story about a foetus capable of punching through human flesh. You can find more here and here.

2. She refuses to be held accountable for her lies ‘mistakes’:

In late 2007, Nadine Dorries aimed a false accusation at Dr Ben Goldacre. Instead of facing up to the many comments in defence of Dr Goldacre (and simple common sense) she simply stopped accepting comments on her ‘blog’ (more)… and then had the temerity to play the victim!

3. She has no bloody idea what she’s doing most of the time:

The above incident showed that Dorries is ignorant of parliamentary procedure, but there’s an even more recent example of her ignorance; this week, Nadine staged her first ever press conference (bless!) but was surprised to learn that in most cases filming is not allowed in the Palace of Westminster without permission (note: in most cases). And, as with the Goldacre matter, she went on the offensive and had a full-on rant over an issue she knows sweet bugger all about. Because she’s as vindictive as she is ignorant.

4. She’s a liar:

And, when she was forced to relocate her press conference to College Green, she was shocked to discover that she needed a permit there, too (and permission under SOCPA). To get her way and get her face on camera, she lied… outright and without shame:

“As it was we de-camped onto College Green. Within seconds another security guard arrived. He asked me did I have a permit? I said yes. I lied, we began. Perhaps someone would now like to report me to the standards committee?” – Nadine Dorries (07 May)

I’ve used this rather benign example because (a) here she admits it and (b) all of the other times she might be called a liar (example), one cannot rule out her instead being understandably mistaken because she is so impossibly stupid.

5. She claims to be a blogger when she is not:

The permalinks don’t work in most browsers, she no longer accepts comments; let’s face it people, this is not a blog. And it’s nowhere near as popular or successful as Nadine makes out…

6. She misrepresents passing mentions as awards:

Dorries once issued a press release claiming that she had been named ‘princess of the blogs’ by the British Computer Society. Anyone reading that press release or seeing the big button on her website might have got the impression that Nadine had actually won an award or even the competition overall, when this simply wasn’t the case. She even went so far as to state that hers was “one of just three MP’s websites to be highly commended” while completely failing to mention that 11 other MPs, instead of being ‘highly commended’ had to make do with being finalists and/or actually winning awards.

Nadine Dorries is so full of it7. She misrepresents overtly critical articles as endorsements:

Nadine has been running another promotional button on her website, and you can see a grab of it to your right. It’s enormous, it’s on the front page and it’s complete and utter bulldust. “As featured in Private Eye” might suggest to more trusting readers that Private Eye had run a positive or flattering feature on her ‘blog’, when in fact they had run a small item (following what can only be described as a rant about that magazine on her site in Nov 06) that read; “Mad Nad appears to be getting even madder”… and “she shrieks on her blog”. It did at one stage say that “the Dorries blog is full of delights”, but the delights they mentioned were her inability to recall the name of the first woman MP and her interest in “hunky personal bodyguards”. They closed by responding to a dark/vague threat (Nadine’s great at these) by asking; “What can the old fruitbat mean?”

Nadine responded (in Dec 06) by thanking them for traffic and claiming to have more readers. Later, when all the fuss had died down, she re-ran events according to her own version of reality and the illusion of an endorsement was born.

She is a piece of work, isn’t she?

8. Even the Daily Mail is embarrassed by her bullshit:

The online version of this story peddling Nadine’s nonsense originally carried a graphic of Nadine’s ’20 reasons for 20 weeks’ list… until it was picked apart again and again and again. Yesterday, they replaced the graphic of Nadine’s list with a stock image of the MP.

Oh dear.

9. Even those who support her campaign’s aims are embarrassed by her bullshit:

Dr Crippen wishes she could be more honest about the abortion debate and her position on abortion.

(Note for regulars: and he manages this with the handicap of generally taking Iain Dale at his word.)


Yes, I know that’s only 9, but like I said, this is just a mind-dump and there’s a fresh item on the way…


Posted by Tim Ireland at May 2, 2008

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

Congratulations, Boris.

For a number of reasons I stayed out of this fight, but let me point you in the direction of some opinion now that it’s all over and the Conservatives have a cherry atop their cake.

(Psst! Enjoy your celebration, boys… but mind how you go on the way home.)

Chicken Yoghurt – Constructivism

Blood & Treasure – the mot juste

Schrodinger’s Pig – An open letter to Labour MPs from Labour voters.

Septicisle – “We’re all fucked. You’re fucked. We’re all completely fucked.”

I didn’t even bother watching any of the election coverage, which turned out to be a blessing:

Liberal Conspiracy – BBC: From dumb to dumber

Ministry of Truth – Election Night Redux

Oh, and I can now share with you the following story:

Months ago, Boris Johnson’s newly-formed campaign team wanted temporary access to his main website so they could add a splash page for a day. Clive and I were a teeny bit insulted not to be trusted to handle this small job ourselves, and a tad concerned about the track record the Tories have on the web (many don’t know how to handle the technology and most who do can rarely be trusted with it), but we sorted out an FTP profile for them and the following is a transcript of the phone call made to issue the password for that profile:

Tim: OK, have you got a pen?

Team Boris: Yes

Tim: Right, the password is; one…

Team Boris: One.

Tim: … two…

Team Boris: Two.

Tim: … three….

Team Boris: (sigh) OK, I see what you’re getting at…

  • NEW! You can now support Bloggerheads by buying handmade firelighters for camping and utility or deluxe firelighters for your home fireplace. Visit to see my products.

    Fire Burn Good fire lighters

  • External Channels

  • Tim Ireland

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons