(As an aside, I do believe the barrister (and Dorries’s chum) featured prominently in the programme had quite possibly the most slappable face I have ever seen.)

This is simple enough for even you to understand.

The complaint references the relevant regulations and provides clear evidence of where and how these have been breached – and you, above anyone, should be aware of precisely what I’m capable of when it comes to tracking down and recording evidence – or do I need remind everyone of exactly what it is you had to say about George Osborne.

Its now in the hands of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner who, from reading previous reports, will hardly be surprised to see either a complaint of this kind or that it relates to the conduct of Nadine Dorries.

Oh, and this only the beginning… there’s much more entertainment to follow.

No, she would not be justified in the claim.

There are clear guidelines about how, when and where contributions to public debate is considered acceptable and good practice, so if and when it is proved that she has contravened them (and therefore also undermined our national institutions) then to make this claim would be a dishonest and false excuse exemplifying why she is unfit for office.

Frankly Ms Dorries is childishly subversive in the pettiness of her behaviour and I would be surprised and depressed if she were able to survive at the forefront of the public arena for much longer.

Unfortunately, this thread has come down to this side issue rather than addressing the posted criticisms of Ms Dorries and, more particularly, Ms Dorries’ own positions.

xD.

She would be justified.

David Blunkett
Tom Levitt
David Anderson

Should the weight of the state be used to intervene in the internal political debates of the nation it’s legitimate right to use force is brought into question and creates a constitutional crisis.

There is a clear and obvious distinction between the two sides of judge and jury, which, should any anomoly become apparent must swiftly be moved against. This is an issue of legitimacy by which Dorries’ use of the Portcullis to give credence to her campaign undermines the stature of all other laws.

One could argue that this was the history behind the religious wars of the reformation and earlier, as the principle question asked is about the precedence of legitmate authority.

Dorries’ anti-secularism is exactly why there remains lingering suspicion against perceptions of popery in Roman Catholics in this country (the theological similarities with islamist promoters of a single temporal caliphate are striking).

“maybe this is a Very Big Thing within westminster”

Trust me, it is – Parliament is extremely protective of its public image, hence the plethora of regulations covering what MPs can and cannot legitimately do when acting as Parliamentarians as opposed to simply being politicians and members of a political party.

the Portcullis: if you say so. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered anybody who would treat something more seriously because it had the Portcullis on it. I can’t imagine it having any practical significance, and as a point of principle – well, it feels like you found a point of principle to have something to beat her with. But I’m not well-informed on the niceties of parliamentary procedure – maybe this is a Very Big Thing within westminster.

“…wouldn’t a Parliamentary Committee have already spotted her misusing her blog seeing as it’s been running for quite a while?”

Not necessarily.

The structure for dealing with breaches of standards in parliament is a tribunal-based system in which investigations are conducted only in response to complaints.

They would only have cause to review the manner in which Dorries funds and operates her website if given cause to do so by a complaint – they are not a proactive regulatory body.

It may, perhaps, be a little surprising that no one has formally complained about her antics before now, although there may be a school of thought amongst Labour/Lib Dem MPs and supporters that she routinely provides such a rich vein of stupidity that its worth leaving her alone in anticipation of having reams of campaign material to mine come the next election.

Dave’s correct – the money side is likely to be relatively trivial when compared to, say, Derek Conway buncing his kids through Uni at the taxpayer’s expense.

It’s the use of the Portcullis, which amounts to a claim to the imprimatur of Parliament, that is the more serious issue here…

There is also the question of Nad’s personal integrity and credibility, which will be explored in considerably more detail over the course of the week.

One thing you might find interesting to reflect upon is that if you visit the blog of ‘Dr Crippen’ , who is probably as the top medical blogger in the UK (’John’ is a GP although, obviously, ‘Crippen’ is a pseudonym) you’ll find that while he would support a cut in the upper time limit to 20 weeks, he will not be supporting Dorries’ campaign out of distaste for her tactics and general lack of verisimilitude.

I’ve personally got a lot of respect for John and even though we disagree over the time limit, I understand and respect his reasons for advocating a reduction to 20 weeks – in no sense could I respect Dorries’ views,.

In fact I have more time for the likes of Anne Widdecombe, who is at least honest in her outright opposition to legal abortion, than I do for Dorries, who thinks nothing of trading in lies, smears and misinformation in order to advance her agenda.

Dan @ 22 – there needs to be a distinction between the apparatus of state, the machinery of government and attempts to change the former.

Worth remembering that Ms Dorries has been warned about a related issue in the past:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmstnprv/1368/136802.htm

Er, no.

The point is not the money, but the principle of using official funds and the Portcullis device to lend weight, whether deliberately or not, to a political campaign.

It’s not just about the money.

Either:
a) Blogging is cheap – in which case Dorries’ misuse of funds is insignificant
or
b) Blogging is expensive – in this case attacking Dorries is more reasonable, but the chilling effect on other blogging MPs will be more serious.

Maybe she is the only MP ‘misusing’ a publicly-funded blog like this. I’d be surprised, but I’m not about to go hunting for counter-examples.

Anyway, I don’t mean to dump on your campaign. I won’t be cheering it on, but you might technically (if not morally) have a case. And at least you’re doing something (which is more than I am…)