Our complaint against Nadine Dorries MP upheld


7:55 pm - September 24th 2008

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

A few months ago I submitted a complaint, with the help of some Liberal Conspirators to the Parliamentary Standards Commission against Nadine Dorries MP. In short, it was regarding her blog. Last weekend I had a response.

The most relevant parts of the letter stated:

The rules of the house, however, do require Members to make a clear distinction between websites which are financed from public funds and any other domain. At the time of your complaint, Mrs Dorries’ website did not meet that requirement. Nor was it appropriate that she use the Portcullis emblem on the weblog given its contents. And the funding attribution on Mrs Dorries’ Home Page should have been updated to reflect that the funding came from the Communications Allowance and not from the Incidental Expenses Provision.

To these three technical aspects, our complaint was upheld. But, the Commissioner adds:

I am, however, satisfied that Mrs Dorries has take effective action to rectify the situation, for which she has apologised…. She has expressed her regret for the confusion caused.

Somehow, Nadine Dorries MP managed to escape censure even though the Commissioner admits we were right to complain on three technical aspects. Maybe it was because Dorries hurriedly re-jigged her site. But can you see any apology on Nadine Dorries’ blog for misleading her readers? Of course not.

The complainant clearly has a lot of spare time on his hands, so much so that he felt it necessary to submit a 21 page dossier to the House of Commons authorities, about my ‘conduct’ with regards to my blog.

I wonder how much time, resources and money has been used by the parliamentary authorities to look into the matter of my ‘conduct’?

There’s a few issues here. Firstly, Nadine Dorries is complaining that we have too much time on her hands. This is a bit absurd coming from an MP who has recently re-submitted amendments to the HFE bill that try to bring down the 24 week limit, even though that amendment was already voted down. Submitting the same amendment again is a waste of parliamentary time. So who’s the fool now?

And most of our ‘evidence’ was actually screenshots from her blog threatening other MPs with losing the next election just because they didn’t agree with her position on abortion. Yeah, she’s a real tolerant one, Dorries.

There’s another point. As the HFE Bill is coming back to the Commons for a third reading, Dorries will no doubt be ready to spout the rubbish she was last time, publishing hoax pictures and mis-representing the science. We’re putting together a briefing which collates all this information, exposes her true agenda, and more.

Furthermore – we also exposed on LibCon that the domain for her 20 weeks campaign was actually registered by someone at Christian Concern for Our Nation, a homophobic and bigoted group that a documentary on Channel 4 showed had close links with Ms Dorries MP. So why does Dorries have close links with a group that describes itself as ‘fundamentalist Christians’?

And did they develop the 20 weeks campaign site? If they did, and Dorries fronts it, then that would be a clear indication that a fundamentalist Christian group is financing a political campaign through a Tory MP. Has Ms Dorries declared all this ‘support’ in financial terms? Did she get any money or development support from CCFON? If so, how much?

This isn’t over yet.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,e) Briefings ,Equality ,Feminism ,Nadine Dorries ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


First rate job by all involved. Get stuck into the silly cow.

Ah, the delights of seeing a worthy candidate getting a metaphorical slap – even if it could have done with being a damn sight harder one.

But did you seriously expect any repentance, contrition, or admission of guilt from someone so clearly committed to their invisible friend? 🙂

And so Dorries is once again shown to have been completely dishonest. How many times do this have to happen before the Conservative party as a whole notes her behaviour?

“And so Dorries is once again shown to have been completely dishonest.”

And check out this classic move from Iain Dale. He’s actually demanding an apology from Sunny here for what he describes as a ‘smear’:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/09/sunny-hundal-nadine-owe-each-other.html

Even if one took Dorries at her word that she was let off the hook entirely (which is sure to be Iain’s defence if he ever mentions this again), any fair-minded person who had looked at the evidence would have considered that to have been through luck alone.

‘Smear’? Hardly.

The only smears here come from Dale and Dorries, who actually have the audacity to issue them while pretending to hold the moral high ground.

(Still, it could be worse. They are so made for each other, it is almost a certainty that if Dale weren’t homosexual and Dorries weren’t a long way past 40, these two would be married and making babies by now.)

We’re not gonna hear another word about it from Dale. He doesn’t ‘diss’ on his friends in public when they f**k up.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz yawn ….what is he still talking ?

Well done – you handed the Commissioner a nice sharp knife, not your fault he failed to drive it in.

I think the answer to your question, “So why does Dorries have close links with a group that describes itself as ‘fundamentalist Christians’?” is actually fairly obvious. She is one herself (or at least shares enough of their strange viewpoint to be a fellow traveller amongst the dens of the iniquitous).

I’m sorry SE, but while Dorries may associate with fundamentalist Christians (i.e. attempt to use them when they are in fact using her), she is nowhere near being one herself.

Fundamentalist Christians do not do things like prattle on about their unique qualities as a Gemini:

(“Smart and witty. Outgoing, very chatty. Lively, energetic. Adaptable but needs to express themselves. Argumentative and outspoken. Likes change. Versatile. Busy, sometimes nervous and tense. Gossips. May seem superficial or inconsistent. Beautiful physically and mentally.”)
http://blog.dorries.org/Blogs/2008/Mar/14#14

It strikes me that the motivation behind this whole thing isn’t the fact that she (wrongly) used the portcullis logo but simply because you disagree with her on abortion. Surely you would make better use of your time attacking her on the basis of her views or campaigns (especially if she is actually caught lying) rather than concentrating on what is quite a petty issue.

“It strikes me that….”

Unfortunately, this is only an opinion and it means nothing until someone banks their reputation on it. Anyone want to have a go at it?

Anyone? Bueller?

“Surely you would make better use of your time attacking her on the basis of her views or campaigns (especially if she is actually caught lying) rather than concentrating on what is quite a petty issue.”

Wow, “petty”? I’ll remember how petty it all was when we stop bothering and just let external bodies with adequate funding dictate policy direction and MPs are freely able to spread their personal and party propoganda, in some cases with false authority, using our tax money…

“Wow, “petty”? I’ll remember how petty it all was when we stop bothering and just let external bodies with adequate funding dictate policy direction and MPs are freely able to spread their personal and party propoganda, in some cases with false authority, using our tax money…”

Fair point and I accept that’s a good reason to go after her. But I can’t help but think that it was her views on abortion that incentivised people to make the complaint. That said, as someone who sympathises with her view on abortion, I think she’s an embarrassment and I’m glad DK and LC fisked her so thoroughly.

But I can’t help but think that it was her views on abortion that incentivised people to make the complaint.

It wasn’t her views on abortion that got people to make the complaint.
It was the fact that she lied and manipulated and decieved and spun that got people to complain.
For instance, just the latest incedence (sp?), ‘wondering’ how much of Parliaments time and money has been wasted looking into the complaint, when Dorries is wasting a far more time etc in a far more serious manner re-introducing a bill that has already been voted on and settled.

We (ha, look at me, ‘we’!) can handle Nadine having a difference of opinion, it’s just all the bollox surrounding it that winds people up.

Richard:

There was a fair bit of chatter about the apparent questionable status of her blog for quite some time before the complaint went in but as Sim-O rightly points out, its not her opinions on abortion that got people’s back up but her obvious contempt for the little ‘niceties’, like honesty and accountability.

If you want to trace the antipathy towards Dorries back to one incident, it’ll be the infamous smear on Ben Goldacre, where she abused her position as member of the ST&C to make a false allegation and then shut off her comments to prevent anyone calling her out over it.

. Surely you would make better use of your time attacking her on the basis of her views or campaigns (especially if she is actually caught lying) rather than concentrating on what is quite a petty issue.

As is quite obvious from the post itself, we are doing that too.

Could Sunny post the full text of the letter, or even better, a scan?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Dishonesty Dorries Rides [Yet] Again | Ministry of Truth

    […] found time to confirm the elements of the complaint that have been upheld by the Commissioner… The rules of the house, however, do require Members to make a clear […]

  2. Sorry, Are You Into Politics? « Back Towards The Locus

    […] likes to imply that her opponents are paedophiles. I really can’t be bothered to join in the kicking that she’s received for the dishonest financing of her blog, but while casting an eye or two over the site I thought […]

  3. More Smears From Nadine Dorries… « Back Towards The Locus

    […] smears those that oppose her (in one case, accusing a blogger of being a paedophile). She has made no attempt to address the concerns of people who call her out on this, which is a bit ironic when she wants to […]

  4. Nadine Dorries and Sunny Hundal's complaint | Liberal Democrat Voice

    […] think that “completely cleared” has only one meaning. But it would appear not, because Sunny Hundal has now posted this from the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, ruling on the complaint: The rules of the house, […]

  5. Liberal Conspiracy

    New blog post: Our complaint against Nadine Dorries MP upheld http://tinyurl.com/dn2oyl

  6. Liberal Conspiracy

    New blog post: Our complaint against Nadine Dorries MP upheld http://tinyurl.com/dn2oyl

  7. Melinda Wood

    Liberal Conspiracy » Our complaint against Nadine Dorries MP upheld http://tinyurl.com/yc885ag





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.