There’s still no word on where the Right to Know campaign is getting it’s funding.
I thought I would add my little voice to the throng of people wanting to find out so I sent them a letter via their ‘contact us’ page…
hello.
Would you mind publishing where your funding comes from, please?
People are asking questions and they think they, quite rightly, have a ‘right to know’, especially as you guys have made such a fuss of where other people get their funding from.
Abortion Rights have made it known where all their funding (and biscuits) come from after you chaps huffed and puffed about it.
Don’t you think it’s fair that you now spill the beans?
My local newspaper editors and journalists are well aware of him and describe him as a ‘menace’ and much, much worse.
Bartholomew asked, via Twitter, the editor of Bedfordshire on Sunday. The resulting conversation, I must say runs completely against what Steven Baxter reckons about local rags, but then there is alwasy an exception. Oh, wait. Tim would be recognised as a local to Chris Gill, and so I suppose, just like Dorries ‘isn’t accountable to non-constiuents’, Chris doesn’t give a toss about non-locals either.
Whoa! Something has got Nadine Dorries pissed off this evening and she really wants to take it out on someone.
After two lines expressing her disappointment about the judgement of a plumber that harassed his wifes’ lover, with one of those two lines taken up by the hyperlink, Dorries embarks on a tirade against Tim…
I myself am in the position, as noted by Guido, http://order-order.com/ of being subjected to a particularly nasty form of online harassment.
Noted by Paul Staines? With a link to his blog, not where he does actually note it. And what’s this ‘particularly nasty’ form of harassment? Being called out on lies? Bringing to the attention of the public rather large payments to a friend for not a lot work? Trying to get personal information someone is legally entitled to, but being ignored?
Mainly due to the fact that I campaign against late term abortion and for a more responsible society which allows our children to enjoy a childhood free from the influence of an over sexualised culture and for a more responsible approach to sex and relationship counselling.
No, this level of scrutiny is due to avoiding the truth, not telling the truth and hiding the truth, whilst being a public servant.
One of the especially ‘poorly’ compulsive obsessive’s, recently alarmed the Police enough for them to issue a verbal warning on tape following a five hour interview. Following the warning, his tweets and blogs have remain monitored, as are those of people he communicates with on a regular basis in which I am discussed or mentioned.
Oh, I just love the scare quotes around the word ‘poorly’, implying this person not well. Obviously, the scare quotes mean that that is not what is meant. But we know, don’t we? We’ve read newspapers, we know how they work, don’t we? *gives conspiratorial wink*
Yes, this man, fuck it. We all know she is talking about Tim. Yes, Tim was given a warning. A verbal warning. A verbal warning is not anything official, like a caution. It was for one incident, the Flitwick husting. Not for any series of events. If you’ve been following this saga, you would not be surprised that it took five hours for the police and Tim to discuss this issue and it’s complexities.
Seeing as I am in quite regular contact with Tim, and a member of the Nadine Dorries Project, can I assume that, and I am gonna ‘sex’ this up a bit, can i assume that I am being bugged? Probably not. You see, the letter from the police saying that Tim got a verbal warning, for which he had to ask for, also explains that the matter is closed and only relates to the one occassion. Why would the police monitor all the people Tim has contact with to keep an eye on any mentions of Dorries if all they can do is say ‘be a bit careful in future’?
Frankly, I remain blissfully unaffected. I don’t ever read them and never come into contact with anyone in my constituency who does. I believe that to read them lets a sliver of nastiness into my day that I just don’t need.
Dorries doesn’t read anything that isn’t from a supportive constituent either. She leaves it to her staff to filter out the non-supportive and supportive mail.
This particular man also harasses anyone he comes across who has any contact with me, by bombarding them with emails, freedom of information requests and repetitive telephone calls.
No. Tim asks questions. When he gets the run around, he investigates further as to why they are being evasive. And usually comes up with something that explains why they are being evasive.
He even travelled across the country into my constituency once to a local meeting pretending to be a local to film me and lied to the meeting organisers and the audience about what he was doing, until a Labour supporter ‘outed’him.
From Tims’ place to Flitwick is hardly ‘across the country’. Its an hour away. As for lieing to the organisers of the Flitwick hustings? Take a look for yourself…
TIms’ post about it is here, along with independent accounts here and here. Make up your own mind.
Therefore, I cannot mention on my blog where I am going, only where I have been and am very careful about photographing who I have seen, tagging or naming people on photographs. I don’t mention what people have said or who they work for. I am careful about mentioning the names of anyone I am in contact with, where they live or where I am or what I am doing on any particular day, until the day is done. I hardly mention anything, because I don’t want other people to be subjected to what Ed West, of the Daily Telegraph, describes as ‘deranged’ behaviour. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100090868/nadine-dorries-is-right-about-child-sexualisation-why-does-this-make-people-so-angry/
But Dorries does mention all those things, and twist things up. She used the stabbing of another MP as the reason she shut her blog down and closed her Twitter account, saying it was on police advise. The stabbing of the MP happened after she closed her blog though.
This online menace certainly appears deranged as the other people he harasses in a less public way than me will testify.
Who? Who will testify that Tim is that deranged that they have had to involve the police? No one. That would be why there is nothing on police record.
And therefore, for the sake of the people who work for me (he has already forced one member of staff to resign) I had really hoped for a different outcome today.
Dorries’ mate resigned when Tim looked into their business relationship and started asking questions about how little work was seemingly being done for the amounts being paid.
Let’s hope another court case comes up soon with more compelling evidence. Who knows, maybe it will have to be mine.
The amount Dorries bleats on, she should have plenty of evidence to get Tim banged up for a spell.
I wonder why the police have done so little, then…
Update: 18/6/2011 11.20am
Dorries’ post has now been removed, but I have a screen grab here (see next update if this link doesn’t work).
Update 19/6/11
Dorries has reposted her work of fiction, under the title of My Day In Court. It is pretty much the same but with added guff, and no more truth.
I have given the original screen grab a more permanent home. You can find it here, and a screengrab pof the new post can be found here. (Due to a plugin-in or something, you may need to copy and paste the URL into a new window/tab to get a full size look at the screengrabs.)
Some links with regard to Dorries Ten Minute Rule bill wanting manditory abstinence sex education for girls only.
The Ministry of Truth corrects Dorries on who is taught what at what age…
Dorries is playing the tired old tabloid trick of making false claims about the subject matter taught to seven year olds based on the contents of the full PSHE and SRE (sex and relationships education) curriculum, which runs of early years education (3-4 years) right through to the end of secondary education (year 11, 15-16 years), presenting children and young people with age appropriate information at each key stage and year of the curriculum.
Dorries’ speech referenced an interview on the sexual revolution which Joan Bakewell gave last year in the Radio Times, but Bakewill did not come up with these statistics and I find it doubtful that she would have cited them.
The statistics are actually a boilerplate talking-point which has been doing the rounds on Christian websites for years, sometimes attributed to a “Florida State University study”. One example of their use is the 1993 book by Bill Hybels and Rob Wilkins, entitled Tender Love: God’s Gift of Sexual Intimacy.
Tim over at Bloggerheads realises that Nadines’ choice for her all-time favourite song is a curious one given her campaign on “let young girls know that to say no to sex when they are under pressure is a cool thing to do”…
If Nadine Dorries actually means it when she claims she wants to teach teens that it’s “cool” to say ‘no’ to sex (i.e. if this isn’t just a further attempt to halve the abortion rate for entirely biblical reasons), she may want to choose a new favourite song…. because Raspberry Beret is a song about a teenage romance that culminates in what is unmistakably a first-time sexual experience.
and finally The Heresiarch has a thoughtful post, that concludes that maybe Dorries is aiming her campaign at the wrong gender…
Being 18 years old and a virgin is considerably more embarrassing to a boy than to a girl, though, who would more likely be able to thrill her partner with the revelation that she had been “saving herself” for him. But would Dorries tell a boy that it was “empowering” or “cool” to say no to sex? Would anyone?
For anyone who cares to know, blogger, Tim Ireland, who chooses to write blogs which are malicious, un-founded and for the most part totally untrue, has been warned by Police not to enter Bedfordshire.
Without going into the mailicious, unfounded and un-true part of that sentence (I know who I believe, and it’s the person that produces evidence to back up his claims), I do not believe for one second that Tim has been warned off from entering Bedfordshire.
Seeing as Tim has not had a visit from the police [see Tims' comment below] about his behaviour towards Nadine, they’re hardly going to send someone/a message to him to warn him off from going x miles near Nadine. They might do if they had previously had reason to tell Tim to cool it, but they haven’t.
The police cannot stop someone going anywhere without a court order, ASBO or some other statutory instrument, again, of which Tim would’ve been notified of if there was one against him. Which there isn’t.
So what we have is a member of parliament, again, smearing someone with the accusation that the police are on to him and he is up to no good without any evidence.
However, this doesn’t stop him from wasting tax payers money via freedom of information requests and then letters of complaint to the information commissioner when they don’t work. Stopping that comes next! My poor staff :(
So, how exactly is Nadine going to stop someone submitting FoI requests and writing to the Information Commissioner? What powers, exactly does she have to stop it?
A document obtained yesterday by the Ministry of Truth exposes the full but hitherto hidden agenda behind Nadine Dorries’ ‘Right to know’ campaign, which has recently put forward two abortion-related amendments to the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill.
The document, a Powerpoint presentation produced by Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship for the Lawyers Christian Fellowship in 2007, indicates that Dorries’ current campaign and amendments are part of long-term strategy put together by an alliance of prominent anti-abortion organisations with the overall objective of securing the complete prohibition of abortion in the UK on any grounds, including rape, serious foetal abnormality and even serious risk to the life of mother.
Clear and verifiable links exist between Dorries and at least three of the organisations involved in the development of this campaign strategy, one of which – the Lawyers Christian Fellowship – was intimately involved in the running of Dorries’ earlier ’20 reasons for 20 weeks’ campaign.
Another member of this alliance – CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) would, in all likelihood, be the major beneficiary of the first of Dorries’ new amendments, which seeks to prevent established abortion service providers, including the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes International, from providing pre-abortion counselling, forcing women into the independent sector which has been heavily infiltrated by anti-abortion organisations. CARE has well documented links with a number of other current MPs, to whom it provides bursaries and/or interns, and with the influential Conservative Christian Fellowship, which was co-founded in 1990 by Tim Montgomerie, who is also the co-founded of Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice and the editor of ConservativeHome website.
Go and read the rest, as I say, either here in Googles cache, or here or if MoT is running properly here.
Charlie Flowers once claimed to be doing the work of Nadine Dorries. No, he didn’t claim to be a researcher, but a thug harrassing and threatening Tim Ireland. Nadine has said nothing about it.
Well, it seems someone else has decided to join in on the action, not against Tim, but someone else Nadine sees as a mortal enemy, Ms Humphrey Cushion.
. @humphreycushion Enjoy your day tweeting. Remember Nadine and I might be watching you! ;) (closely) and oh lastly FUCK OFF #blocked
It’s not as if @DarkblondAngel is unknown to Nadine, infact the tweets between each other I’ve seen between them, before Nadine quit Twitter (again) could be described as quite chummy. Will Nadine denounce this latest bit of imtimidation and bullying like she didn’t with Charlie Flowers? Probably not.
At least these people aren’t hired thugs, but I’m guessing this isn’t an example of the ‘Big Society’ the Tories’ will be trumpeting.
What the fuck is it with this thing about abortion and ‘informed choice’? That women should be told of all the choices about what they can do when they discover they are pregnant and don’t want a baby?
As far as I can tell the options are
Abortion.
carry the pregnancy through to term and put the baby up for adoption
carry the pregnancy through to term and keep the baby.
Have I missed any? No, I didn’t think so. Are there any women anywhere in this land that doesn’t know about these choices or are there women about that think the only way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is to terminate it, that have never heard of adoption? Who is ‘witholding vital information’ about the alternatives to abortion?
So why is Nadine Dorries going on about choices?
The other thing that Dorries may have a point about is the psychological after effects of having an abortion. No one disputes that having an abortion is a serious matter that needs to be thought through with careful consideration. I don’t know if I would be able to go through with it, and I’m sure many women are the some and wouldn’t know what to do either until placed in the situation.
The problem Dorries has is that she may have apoint that there may be serious mental consequences but, as usual, her sources for her information is erm, bollox.
Several times The MP for Mid-Beds has used the phrase “multi-million pound abortion industry”. It is nothing of the sort. The largest provider of abortions to the NHS (and it’s only one service they provide) may have an income of £25 million, but it is not all profit, as Dorries implies…
For 2009-10, the standard NHS tariff for abortions ranged from £502 for a medical abortion to £649 for a ‘D&E’ (surgical dilation and extraction). Had BPAS done nothing else that year but carry out medical abortions for the NHS at its standard tariff then, with 93% (51500) of its clients having their treatment paid for by the state, it would have generated an income of £25.85 million from the NHS.
This would be £840,000 more than its actual income for the year. Far from making ‘vast amounts of money’ it seems that BPAS actually provides the NHS with a range of cost effective services at less the NHS’s own internal tariffs.
So on all three counts, choice, evidence of mental health issues and of an abortion industry positively rolling in profits, Dorries is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Choice: Women already know what the choices are when it comes to unwanted prgnancy.
Mental health: There is no conclusive proof that women that have abortions are more likely to have mental health issues in the future as a result that women that carry through to term.
The implication that people are getting filthy rich on the back of all these abortion is a fallacy.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much sums up the Honorable Member for Mid Bedforshire.
In what seems to be fairly typical of someone trying to defend Nadine Dorries Tory Tottie has, well, been fairly typical.
As the Anti-Nads bandwagon rolls into town once again, those on the collective witch-hunt have been well and truly buoyed up this week, by a piece in the (surprise surprise) New Statesman. entitled:
“Is Nadine Dorries MP using social media to both mislead and attack constituents?
The answer is, of course, no.
The ‘Anti-Nads’ bandwagon is not so much on a witch-hunt, more like sat on the porch watching a car crash happen extremely slowly… and the answer to the question is not, of course, no but yes.
My blog is 70 per cent fiction and 30 per cent fact. It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another.
Reassuring constituents that spends more time in her constituency than she actually did. Oh, no. That’s not misleading at all, is it?
This littleshow (followed by this) wasn’t orchestrated at all, oh no.
The behaviour by certain people on Twitter is more akin to a scene from Mississippi Burning than a civilised social media site.
Twitter? Civilised? I must’ve missed that sign on the way in.
And David Allen Green of the Statesman delights in throwing another burning canister of gasoline onto the flames.
Referring to Nadine as someone who has engaged in
“the astonishing abuse by an elected Member of Parliament of her blog”
he calls her behaviour ‘weird’ and ‘worrying’.
Read. Davids’. Post…
I used to admire her blogging in her early days: see my comment here. Accordingly, what I have now to report cannot be dismissed as the smears of some long-time opponent. Instead, it is accompanied by the sadness one has when witnessing any decline and fall.
There is no hint of maliciousness or glee or any show of delight in it. It is worrying that an elected representative can throw around the sort of accusations that Dorries has been doing without showing any sort of evidence or proof to back it up. It is weird when someone who previously may have just been disagreeable starts showing signs of some sort of paranoia.
Decline and fall? Of what exactly. Nadine isn’t declining, or falling for that matter. The strength she’s shown in the face of the perpetual, random and hateful abuse on Twitter has been stellar. And her blog continues to go from strength to strength.
The decline and fall of an MP. What else? The perpetual, random (perceived) abuse Dorries encounters on Twitter may seem perpetual, because she never give a straight answer to any questions. The questions aren’t exactly random, about expenses, her attacks on constituents and claims of being stalked as well as constituents asking other questions. From what I’ve seen, almost without exception, any questions Dorries has received has been polite – there isn’t much room to ask a question and call someone a cunt in 140 characters. I’m not saying Dorries doesn’t receive any abuse on Twitter, everyone does at some time or other and being an MP Dorries will get her fair share, but the people asking the pertinent questions have not been abusive because that would be the one way *not* to get an answer.
She may have blocked a few people here and there, but then wouldn’t you if people persisted in engaging in what constitutes nothing less than cyber-bullying on a daily basis.
Asking questions? Cyber-bullying? oh, come on.
Allen goes on the allude to:
“Other serious allegations about Dorries’ use of her blog”
“A pattern of wayward – almost random – behaviour has been apparent for many months now.
“For example, she recently resorted to a blogpost to raise implicit allegations of impropriety against a constituent who had been engaging with her on Twitter; and then, only last week, she made direct allegations of criminal activity against a critical blogger.”
If the posts I’m thinking of are the ones on this page, Nadine has simply laid bare a few home truths, turned over a few rocks and exposed the crustacea underneath.
Yes, they are the posts, David is thinking of. I have linked to the individual ones earlier in this post, but there is also this one, which incidentally was edited twice before becoming the version left on Dorries’ site.
As far as home truths are concerned, well, that’s what this is all about, isn’t it? And as far as Dorries is concerned it’s the truth because she says so. Everyone else can back up what they say, but Dorries’ word is gospel and doesn’t need such inconveniences.
And that’s the problem.
I bet it’s not.
Outrageous left-wing political correctness is at the heart of this. Not Nadine’s behaviour.
Hahahaha! Fucking Lefties! Nothing to do with ’70%’ fiction or accusing a constituent of claiming disability benefits or accusing a blogger of stalking with no evidence. What. So. Ever.
The kind of political-correctness that breeds the disdainful double-standards adopted by an entire generation of ‘Nu Labour’ since 1997.
Lovingly crafted by Harriet ‘Ginger Rodent’ Harman, in her ridiculous pursuit of some kind of high-brow idealogical concept of equality that doesn’t exist.
The Left jump up and down like rabid oompa-loompas the minute there’s a sniff of challenge to their politically correct utopia, where everyone’s equal, we all live on pink fluffy clouds and just love everybody ‘so hard man’.
So in a society where disabled people are referred to as ‘PWD’s, where prostitutes are now known as ‘sex care providers’, where boring is ‘charm-free’ and BO is ‘non discretionary fragrance,’ it’s hardly surprising that one cannot air one’s own opinions on one’s own blog, without being hunted down by hysterical socialist lunatics!
And that’s what’s happened.
It’s political-correctness-gorn-mad-it-is!
Nadine has dared to voice her own opinions on her own blog.
God forbid.
Once again Tory Totty has completely missed the point. No one gives a fuck about Nadines’ opinion any more than they do any other politician. It’s the fact that these opinions are being presented as fact that is the problem.
If Nadine, tomorrow, said here are the incident/crime numbers of the complaints she has supposedly made against Tim Ireland, you would hear a massive ‘crack’ as a fuck load of people snap their necks turning to look at Tim. Scrutiny would then be on Tim and everything else Dorries has said would gain a bucket load of credibility.
But that’s not going to happen, is it.
It’s not just ‘lefties’ that are challenging Dorries, as David Allen Green says himself in the comments…
I am actually a Coalition supporter, having voted Lib Dem. And I am opposed to socialism and the Labour Party.
and he’s not alone from *that* side of the fence.
*Cue quotes which prove nothing.*
So after all that, what was Tory Tottys’ defence of Nadine Dorries? In amongst all her waffle I think it was something like ‘leave her alone, a woman, speaking her mind. You horrible socialist commies’.
So, thousands of soldiers lose their jobs. The very people who have risked their lives every day in order that the BBC can function and fail, over and over, to support the sacrifice they make .
The BBC will only receive the equivalent of a 16% cut over five years. That just isn’t good enough.
Just what the fuck does that second sentence mean? It makes some sense up to the comma, where you start to feel the rage stoked by the army cutting the numbers of soldiers turns Dorries’ limited ability to construct a coherent sentence to goo.
5 years? 16%? Is that it? Oooh, those bloody lefties have gotten away far too lightly. Again.
The BBC has done a very good job over the last thirteen years to support the Labour Government. They have facilitated the very process which has resulted in the cuts every family in the nation has to bear. The blood which will flow from the cuts is all over BBC hands too.
And the BBC will undoubtedly be a little more bias towards the Tories, because although there is the independent board of what-ever-they’re-called running the BBC, it is still the government of the day that pulls the strings and can completely fuck the BBC if they wanted.
Although the BBC might have been a bit soft on the Labour government, I think Nadine will find that it was the Labour government and it’s love of the ‘wealth creators’ of the city that facilitated the slide down the u-bend in to the cess-pit we currently find ourselves. You can hardly say the BBC were willing facilitators. You’ll probably find the current demand to fuck over the BBC is just a continuation of the shit started in 2004 by, yes the Labour government. Bullied into submission that it is still trying to recover from.
Having displayed such bias, the Corporation should take more of the pain.
Oh? How, Nadine? Please, do tell.
We should demand to know what each presenter is paid. Because we pay. Students who have to buy a TV licence for each room in a student halls. Each person who is ill, elderly or infirm – we all pay from our taxed income.
We? who the fuck is this ‘we’? Some people might want to know what the presenters and ‘stars’ are paid. Some people couldn’t give a shit.
We know what teachers, nurses and MPs are paid. Why is the BBC allowed to function under this veil of secrecy?
We know what MPs’ are paid because they proved themselves to be extremely untrustworthy when it came down to spending and justifying the spending of other peoples money. And until recently MPs’ set their own pay. Who the fuck else got to pay themselves what they wanted from other peoples money?
We know the pay of some of the top paid headteachers, but not because of any dishonesty or lax rules, but because the information got leaked or the head disclosed it themselves. And nurses? Where can I find out how much a specific nurse gets paid? Go on, where?
The ‘veil of secrecy’ that the BBC is supposedly operating under is probably less secret than Nadines recruitment process for her constituency helper. *cough**daughter**cough*.
We need to know the exact cost of every production. How much each person on the production team receives. Every expense receipt going back over five years should be produced for everyone to see. Because we paid.
We need to know, do we? Does it really matter what the runner got paid, or the second soundman? It’s the total cost of the production that should be monitored, if you wanna go that way. It probably is already. Programmes rejected or not commissioned because of cost.
And where is the money going to come from to gather and collate and show this information in a meaningful way? From the BBC itself, so that there is less for actually producing shows or is this another job for the Big fucking Society?
That just sounds like petty vengeful snarking. ‘I’ve got to so you have to, too’ kind of thing. Oh fuck off you stupid fucking bint*.
The argument to justify the BBC licence fee used to go that the BBC made outstanding period dramas.
…and documentaries. Don’t forget documentaries, because everything else the BBC is utter shite.
I have a two word answer to that. Downton Abbey.
Man, that’s one killer argument. What’s Downton Abbey? I’m guessing it’s a period drama, but is it a shit BBC drama that proves the BBC don’t make outstanding period dramas anymore or is it an ITV one that shows that the BBC must be a shit waste of money because someone else can do good drama too?
