Bloggerheads

If we’re to believe Nadine Dorries’ local hokum (i.e. about 70% of her blog being fiction), when exactly did Nadine Dorries stop misleading her constituents about where she lived?

Nadine’s fictions regarding the amount of time she spent in her constituency took root in 2005, started in earnest in 2007, and culminated in this post on her not-really-a-blog on May 2009;

I spend more nights away from my constituency home than I spend in it and I use it for the purpose of my work. I do, however, retain the right to have my daughter, or daughter’s with me depending on who is with me at the time. It may only be a second home, however, it is a home… So, to my constituents and no one else, I am sorry. My crime is that I haven’t owned up to you that I don’t always live here… – Nadine Dorries, 16 May 2009;

An investigation into the expenses claims of Nadine Dorries followed. For the purposes of clearing her for many, many thousands of pounds on her constituency home as a second home, it was very important that she convince the Commissioner for Standards that she spent the majority of her time living away from her constituency home.

So why did Nadine Dorries claim that she lived mainly in her constituency home… on the ballot paper of the May 2010 election?

(Extract from) Mid Beds Statement of Nominations (.PDF)

Why did she declare via the relevant nomination papers that she lived in the constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, almost a year after apologising for lying about living in the constituency of Mid Bedfordshire (for then undefined reasons of personal security)?

Taking Dorries at her word (steady, now) and assuming personal security to be the issue; ballot papers don’t show addresses any more if the candidate chooses to instead “state the constituency in which (their) home address is situated,” but Dorries chose this option and chose to state that she lived within the constituency.

How did this measure protect Nadine Dorries from the time-travelling stalkers? How is this anything other than a deliberate lie designed to give a false impression about where she lived for entirely political purposes?

Or is this perhaps a case of Nadine Dorries claiming that she lived away from the constituency right up until sometime after January 2010, and then suddenly having a change of heart and deciding she would be better off living mainly in her constituency from early 2010 (i.e. for the duration of the election campaign)?

In any case, when were the relevant nomination papers submitted?

Further, this information was brought to the attention of the office of the Standards Commissioner on May 19, 2010. Why is there no mention of Nadine Dorries being confronted with this in the relevant report (PDF)? Just the day before, the Commissioner had written to Nadine Dorries making it clear that he believed her current main home to be in Gloucestershire:

Secondly, I am grateful for your description of your current main home in [second village in Gloucestershire]…Letter to Ms Nadine Dorries MP from the Commissioner, 18 May 2010

And what is Commissioner John Lyon’s reaction to Nadine Dorries flipping the figures on her earlier assurance that 70% of her blog was fiction and 30% fact? If she now maintains that she meant the reverse all along (30% fiction and 70% fact), doesn’t this at least vastly alter the number of conflicting claims she can discount (i.e. about where she was and when)? Also, doesn’t this flipping of figures amount to a lie to the Commissioner? The report makes clear that she had ample opportunity to correct herself.

–

UPDATE (25 Oct) – Over the weekend, Dorries revised her position yet again, and said; “I would also like to state that every word written on my blog is absolutely true.”

So she gets off the hook re: expenses by saying that what she published about staying in Woburn wasn’t true, and she now states that it was true. Surely this amounts to an admission that she lied to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

–

UPDATE (25 Oct) – John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, will not comment on his report, or any submitted evidence contradicting it. He refuses to comment on evidence submitted during his investigation that contradicts his understanding of certain crucial matters as stated in the report, and he even refuses to comment on why it was not included in his report. I am now left with no option but to refer the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee (a bunch of MPs) who are answerable only to the House (a bunch of MPs). Not liking my chances.

This evening, the 6pm edition of Anglia Tonight carried the following report about the excuses Nadine Dorries gave for lying to her constituents. If you’re in a hurry, just click here to zip forward to the relevant quote (orig):

Ms. Dorries agreed to do an interview for us and was unable to make it for whatever reason, but (I spoke to her) on the phone and what she said was that, following the expenses scandal that we saw, she found herself at the centre of some rather unwanted attention from some rather unsavoury people – ‘stalkers’, she called them – to the extent that she had to report 4 people through the Metropolitan or Bedfordshire police and she said to me; “I’d be a pretty stupid MP after reporting four stalkers to the police if I then put down exactly where I was staying.” – Matthew Hudson, Anglia Tonight (21/10/2010)

So Dorries maintains that she told lies on her blog about where she was staying and when to throw stalkers of the scent, and began doing so when she attracted “unwanted attention” from “unsavoury people”… (important bit coming up) following the expenses scandal.

The expenses scandal began for Nadine Dorries with this report in the Telegraph on 15 May 2009.

And here are the dates of the blog entries mentioned in the Standards and Privileges Committee report (PDF) that she explains away as ‘fiction’:

– 15 May 2009
– 16 May 2009

Dorries apologised for misleading her constituents about where she lived in this entry on her not-really-a-blog on 16 May 2009.

Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that in one day – on 15 May 2009, to be precise – Nadine Dorries not only attracted four stalkers, but then made credible reports to police about all four of them (in London and Bedfordshire), then went on to receive advice from police that convinced her that she should publish largely fictional accounts on her blog about where she was living/staying, then did so, and then went on to apologise for doing so the very next day.

Sorry, but no.

At the time of the expenses scandal, I catalogued relevant entries on her blog that gave the very clear impression that she was living in her constituency, and the dates of key examples are included below:

“In my local last night with friends, The Black Horse in Woburn…” 10 April 2008

“Last night a true friend and neighbour took me for dinner at the Birch in Woburn…” 7 June 2008

“I got the papers at seven and read every one back to front. Sky sent a car for me and I read all the way from Woburn to Islington…” – 26 February 2007

Dorries was declaring her intention to move to Woburn as far back as 2005, and blogging as if she were residing mainly in her constituency from 2007.

Even if she were dealing with a stalker problem back in 2007 (care to revise your statement, Nadine?), those phantom stalkers of hers would still need a time machine to intercept her, because she was blogging her movements after the fact.

By the way, the Commissioner may not have seen the blog entries above, as they were removed while the Commissioner was trying to get a good look at them earlier this year:

In response to your first point on where you spent your weekends, I know that there have been a number of statements on your blog. The blog itself seems now to have been taken down. – Letter to Ms Nadine Dorries MP from the Commissioner, 8 July 2010

And who did Nadine Dorries blame publicly for the removal of her blog? Why, the stalkers, of course!

But the truth is that Dorries published the misleading content before any concerns she claims to have had about stalking. The relevant accusations of stalking, by the way, also involve several works of fiction, including an outright lie about my being investigated by police for stalking her (and other MPs) that she has yet to answer for. (Never mind 75%; what Dorries told a room full of people in May of this year was 100% fiction.)

By Dorries’ own account to the Commissioner, she deliberately gave a false impression of where she was staying for entirely political reasons (not including this belated attempt to blame the Telegraph, which itself raises time travel issues):

I often posted comments on my blog relating to [name of town] in my constituency. Since I first rented in the constituency, I made a song and dance about being at the property. I have mentioned it on my blog a number of times. This was done to comfort my Association. The previous MP only visited the constituency occasionally—sometimes only as often as once every six weeks—and they were keen that I reversed that impression. His lack of time in the constituency contributed to his de-selection. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 25 January 2010

In the resulting report, the matter of why she lied about where she lived is reported as follows:

157. Some material on Ms Dorries’ weblog appears to suggest a pattern of use of her constituency property in some respects at variance with the evidence she has given, in that it implies she has a more permanent presence in the constituency. Ms Dorries’ evidence is that she gave prominence on the blog to her use of her constituency property both to comfort her constituency association and to demonstrate to her constituents the degree of her personal commitment to her Mid Bedfordshire constituency. Her evidence as to the reliance to be placed on material on her blog is that it is in fact 70% fiction and 30% fact, and relies heavily on poetic licence. She frequently replaces place-names, events and facts with others. She is conscious of the potential for political opponents to exploit her personal domestic circumstances. According to Ms Dorries, this, and the need to reassure her constituents of her commitment, was the reason behind the blog entries. It was also an attempt by her to retain some degree of a private life. – Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Note that none of this mentions stalking in any way; false accusations of stalking are a very recent addition to Nadine’s growing catalogue of outright lies (more).

To close, here’s a little treat for the good people at Anglia Tonight:

Matthew Hudson was reporting live from outside Parliament just after 6pm. In this screen capture, you can even see the time on the clock tower behind him as he says; “Ms. Dorries agreed to do an interview for us and was unable to make it for whatever reason”

Now here’s a photo that Nadine Dorries tweeted at 6:20pm. It clearly shows the time it was taken – 6:18pm – because it is a picture of a clock tower… the same clock tower (for those who don’t recognise it):

Obviously Nadine Dorries had other places to be (if nothing better to do) at the time… while sitting about a block away.

That deserves another screen capture, IMO. I think this one will do nicely:

[Psst! Nadine Dorries! You are in a very deep hole. Even if you care nothing about the safety of my family, for the sake of your own career you really need to stop digging. You are not clever enough to tell convincing lies, and lies of this magnitude have a way of exploding in people’s faces.]

–

See also: Nadine Dorries is a corrupt liar

–

UPDATE

Related post: Richard Bartholomew – The 70 Per Cent Solution: Who Are Nadine Dorries’ “Four Stalkers”?

–

UPDATE: Anglia Tonight transcript previously read “a fourth stalker” reported to police, but was updated as “four stalkers” reported to police. You can check the video for yourself if you’re in any doubt.

As I originally blogged back in 2009, the primary issue with Nadine Dorries and her accommodation expenses claims was her changing her story mid-stream about where her second home was. Today we are assured by her closest political allies that she has been ‘completely cleared’ by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Iain Dale offers a typical example in that he relies entirely on a press release from Nadine Dorries, and does not even link to the relevant report, because he is ‘too busy’. Some cynics might dare to suggest that this is because the detail is damning.

Standards and Privileges Committee Report – Nadine Dorries (PDF)
[note: linking to this took less than 30 seconds]

Upon reading this report, one cannot escape the conclusion that Nadine Dorries has had to admit to being a liar in order to avoid a charge of monetary corruption.

Further, the evidence that ‘clears’ Dorries comes to us from that same liar.

It’s not too much detail (come on, Iain, you can do this), so let me walk you through the highlights with the promise of a comedy payoff:

1. Nadine Dorries had to explain the conflict between (a) her claim to the authorities/Commissioner that her constituency home was her second home, and (b) the many entries on her blog portraying her constituency home as her main home.

To do this, she had to say that he had lied her constituents on this point and many others, and the relevant passage includes a quote that is going to haunt Nadine Dorries for a long time to come:

My blog is 70% fiction and 30% 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. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 1 March 2010

Basically, Dorries says she sought to reassure her constituents about her commitment to Mid Bedfordshire by knowingly misleading them about how much time she spent there. But Dorries even had the audacity to object to the Commissioner arriving at this same conclusion. She wanted this passage removed or amended:

167. Ms Dorries’ evidence to me was also inconsistent with statements she had previously made on her weblog and in the press, where she seemed to go out of her way to emphasise that she lived in the constituency… the weblog gave information to its readers, including Ms Dorries’ constituents and party supporters, which provided a misleading impression of her arrangements as the Member of Parliament for the constituency. – Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

This MP has repeatedly used her blog to attack her critics using accusations that are entirely reliant upon her statements; i.e. where the only evidence she presents is her account of what happened where and when… the same stuff she so breezily admits is “70% fiction and 30% fact”!

So when she attacks a constituent disabled by arthritis and maintains this person is faking it because she “stormed around the hall” (more), we now have to consider that the word ‘stormed’ may not be an accurate description, or even an honestly-held opinion, but instead the result of “poetic licence”.

2. Nadine Dorries had to account for testimony from neighbours that contradicted her account to the authorities/Commissioner (i.e. about the frequency of overnight stays at her constituency home).

Dorries complains bitterly about how long this investigation took, but one of the aspects that caused most of the delays was a series of attacks aimed at one of her neighbours that the Commissioner ruled to be irrelevant (and this is a move that’s going to seem grimly predictable to those who know how this MP operates):

170. My inquiries were also complicated and extended by Ms Dorries’ criticism of the one witness who gave evidence against her…. I regret the tone and intensity of some of Ms Dorries’ comments on the witness (not all of which I have included in the published evidence) and her attempts to persuade me not to consider that evidence… I do not believe it would have been just or fair to have taken the action suggested by Ms Dorries and refused to have accepted that neighbour’s evidence on account of the fact that he had discussed it with a newspaper reporter. – Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Dorries said this evidence should have been rejected for another reason, too. Comedy payoff pending. Stand by.

3. Nadine Dorries had to provide evidence that she stayed more nights in what she described as her main home than she did in her constituency home.

This is the other part that caused the delay; there was (to put it kindly) some difficulty in extracting from this MP a consistent account of where she stayed most nights:

176. I am disappointed Ms Dorries took as long as she did in providing me with consistent evidence to enable me to resolve this complaint… – Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

It wasn’t until 25 January 2010 that Dorries provided evidence establishing that she had spent the majority of nights in what she claimed was her main home. I urge you to follow the source link on this one to check the back-and-forth detail and the account she finally settled on for yourself, but the most telling part of it appears to be this note, under the final revision:

Ms Dorries said that the revised information for 2008-09 had been based on “closer examination of my 08-09 diary” and that the figures for other years had been revised to include nights she had spent in London. – Nadine Dorries MP: Schedule of overnight stays from 1 February 2007 (Revised version)

The Green Book states quite clearly that “Claims must be supported by documentary evidence, except where the House has agreed that such evidence is not necessary.”

In this instance, the Committee and Commissioner have agreed that the account repeatedly revised account of a self-confessed liar will serve in place of documentary evidence.

Some might think that’s not good enough. Some might think that the Commissioner should at least think twice before accepting the word of a liar.

Comedy payoff time… Nadine Dorries agrees:

I am aware that it is impossible for you to reasonably believe [neighbour 1] and disregard the consistent information provided by others and you may think I am over reacting to the evidence sent by [neighbour 1], however, that is not the point. I strongly object to lies being given any consideration whatsoever. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 6 July 2010

I take your point that his evidence will be balanced out against others, however, his evidence is a lie and I feel very, very strongly that a malicious person who has lied should [not] be given any consideration whatsoever. – Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 27 July 2010

(I had to tie up the second botched sentence with a missing ‘not’, but her intended meaning is clear, and I do not think the correction is unfair or in error.)

Nadine Dorries, who admits to lying about where she stayed and when, does not think the testimony of a liar should be accepted by the Commissioner… who then clears her on the basis of her much-revised account of where she stayed and when.

Nadine Dorries is a corrupt liar. Let her sue me if she is to maintain otherwise.

The 85th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s birth should serve as a reminder that some of her supporters are already planning for her death, and recently even floated the idea of a state funeral:

Daily Mail – Lady Thatcher to be honoured with State funeral
Guardian – State funeral planned for Lady Thatcher
Guardian – Harman: we have not agreed Thatcher state funeral
BBC – Thatcher state funeral undecided

We’ve had a change of government since then, and I’d like to ask if the proposal that we give Margaret Thatcher a state funeral is being seriously considered (or even quietly approved), especially in light of the savage and immediate cuts to expenditure the Tories insist are a necessary evil at this time.

I’m shooting myself in the foot here, as I did plan to sell DIY tap-shoe kits to the large crowds that would be sure to gather specifically to protest this expenditure, but I would also urge David Cameron and others to look at the logic of a privately-funded funeral:

–

Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.

You may recall the fuss in the streets when George W. Bush invited himself to town and awarded himself the honour of a state visit, and no-one in Blair’s government dared to object.

Many of the people I spoke to at the relevant protests were angry about the illegal invasion of Iraq, but stated quite clearly that they mainly objected to Bush being honoured in ceremonies and events paid for out of the public purse. It wasn’t the entirety of their case by any means, but it was this aspect that greatly swelled the number of protestors then, and I firmly believe a similar objection to public money being spent will lead to large and ugly protests if Margaret Thatcher is awarded a state funeral.

This confrontation can be avoided simply by honouring Margaret Thatcher appropriately upon her passing (and when I say ‘appropriately’, I do not mean according to a leftist doctrine that exists mainly in the minds of paranoid right-wing pundits).

Where there is error, may we bring truth.

Thatcher’s clearly stated political philosophy involved reduced state interference and a spirit of entrepreneurialism enabled by a free market; marking her passing with a state funeral that is agreed or even discussed in principle before her death risks labelling her an opportunist (fairly or otherwise), and if Thatcher is a believer in the free market and her supporters agree, then surely the most fitting tribute to the woman is to make a show of numbers and support their argument with a privately-funded funeral.

Where there is doubt, may we bring faith.

I not only propose that we take Margaret Thatcher at her word and attempt to honour her political legacy appropriately, I further propose that we tie this in with David Cameron’s flagship initiative; Big Society

If we’re to have soldiers lining the streets, for example, then let’s see them do so of their own free will in their own free time. Similarly, a volunteer workforce can organise the event, marshal on the day, and clean up afterwards.

I acknowledge that in some areas there are limits to what private money can do, particularly when it comes to policing the event, and on that note…

And where there is despair, may we bring hope.

I understand that many people will never forgive Margaret Thatcher for her actions, but I would trust even these people agree that there’s little point in shouting at a passing coffin if the relevant ceremony isn’t costing them anything.

So in closing I propose that if the Tories do embrace this idea and agree to drastically minimise the cost to the public, then their opponents should do the same, and minimise the cost of policing the event by taking potential confrontation out of the equation.

Save your energy for a private party, because if the Tories agree not to be ultra-hypocrites about this, there’ll be a lot to celebrate.

–

OK, I’ve presented my case. Does anyone have any objections that don’t involve merely shouting ‘leftist’ at me or accusing me of stalking a sweet old lady?

Yesterday, Nadine Dorries published a further attack on a constituent in an effort to justify her earlier attacks on that same constituent (more). A lot of what she publishes in response to this article in her local paper (while claiming her target is conning people) is wildly exaggerated or entirely false. The Credo covers two key claims here, and I’d like to cover a few myself, starting with this passage:

“Ms Cullen attended my local hustings. She stormed around the hall after me, shouted a great deal and even followed me outside, pacing up and down whilst I chatted to constituents. Odd that she has never mentioned once on twitter that she was the Labour party organiser. And believe me, she can walk pretty fast and shout very loud.” (Nadine Dorries)

As Nadine Dorries is aware, I recorded that hustings event on two cameras. Though I have only published ‘highlights’ from the main camera, one of those cameras caught her arrival, the other caught her departure, and the footage overlaps, so I have captured video and audio of every moment from her arrival to her departure.

I have now reviewed the footage, and it supports my recollection of the event:

Ms Cullen did not ‘storm’ after Dorries before or after the event, though I think what Dorries is referring to in this particular gross distortion is Ms Cullen following her outside (which I will get to in a moment). Nor did Ms Cullen ‘strut’ as Dorries claimed in an earlier post. These are exaggerations by Ms Dorries that prove nothing but her mind-boggling determination to portray Ms Cullen as a benefits cheat.

(Yes, Ms Cullen dared to walk, but this could best be described as an ‘amble’, and her ability to walk does nothing to disprove the condition of arthritis. All Dorries does here is stumble witlessly once again in the area that got her into so much trouble last week; not every disabled person is in a wheelchair.)

The only person at that meeting who could be described as a ‘shouter’ spoke in Dorries’ defence (it’s pronounced ‘Flit-ick’, children). Dorries cannot classify Ms Cushion as a shouter without calling herself one too… not that anyone’s capacity to shout is relevant beyond Ms Dorries’ attempts to portray Ms Cullen as aggressive.

Dorries claimed during that meeting (after she realised I was filming, of course) that she had to leave early at a certain time because of an unspecified event that took precedent over the final hustings before polling day. She ended up leaving some 10-15 minutes before even this predicted time, and yes, Ms Cullen followed Ms Dorries outside. Certainly not to berate her as she implies, but merely to observe. And what Ms Cullen (and others) observed was Nadine Dorries standing around and smoking when she had just moments earlier claimed that she had to leave because she was in a hurry to be somewhere else.

“An Open Letter to Nadine Dorries

However, what I want to know as one of your constituents is why you advised everyone that you had to leave at 8.45 for an important meeting, actually left at 8.30. stood outside smoking for 15 minutes and then started tweeting within half an hour.

Perhaps the people Dorries was talking to while taking her dose of nicotine would care to step forward and support her claim that Ms Cullen was a restless, pacing beast at this time. (Not that this would prove anything of relevance; see above.)

“Labour party organiser” stretches the truth to breaking point and the truth of this matter is covered by The Credo.

I did not witness Ms Cullen walking “pretty fast” and footage of her walking shows a slow amble at best. The claim that she “stormed around the hall” after Dorries is pure invention.

There is far more about Dorries’ latest outburst that I know to be false if not misleading, but for now I leave you with the arrogance of this assertion:

“This is my last comment on this as I am sure the voters will have their say at the ballot box.” -(Nadine Dorries)

If you’re feeling lost for words at that, you’re not alone, but it’s worse than you think; Dorries has opted out of the WriteToThem service and will now only respond to “constituents requesting advice or representation” by snail mail.

–

UPDATE (13 Oct) – A dignified response from the victim of Dorries’ mudslinging.

NAD-LIBS work just like Mad-Libs, only they focus on the adventures of everyone’s favourite Conservative MP, Nadine Dorries. (It’s hard to think of a more fitting tribute, given her tendency to imagine or invent stuff that happens to her, often at random, if not according to her specific publicity needs at the time.)

Because the game is designed to be played in real life (with real people), NAD-LIBS work best when there his high Nad-awareness (as there is this week, following Nadine’s attack on a constituent who had the temerity to complain about her conduct that has the disabled community and their supporters up in arms).

This week there is such a high level of Nad-awareness that I’ve written not one, but two extra NAD-LIBS, bringing the current collection up to 4 sheets of recyclable* mirth.

Here are the story-sheets that are available so far. Simply click on the version you would like to play, print it onto an A4 sheet of dead tree, grab a writing implement, and then find someone to play with:

–

– NAD-LIBS: Sheet# 1 – Nadine Dorries wins the day [DOWNLOAD]

– NAD-LIBS: Sheet# 2 – Nadine Dorries claims sexual harassment [DOWNLOAD]

– NAD-LIBS: Sheet# 3 – Nadine Dorries comes a cropper [DOWNLOAD]

– NAD-LIBS: Sheet# 4 – Nadine Dorries apologises [DOWNLOAD]

–

The BIG HINTS for playing this game successfully include:
a) never try to play online, because it rarely works as well as it does ‘live’
b) choose an audience that’s at least dimly aware of our dimmest MP
c) alternatively, just find some children (or some people who think like children)
d) let your audience know when you are halfway through the sheet, and nearing the end (this builds tension)
e) do not show or share any of the story to your audience until it is finished
f) when repeating any of the results online, please make sure you specifically point out that you are publishing the output of a NAD-LIBS game, or not-very-good lawyer Donal Blaney might serve you with a ‘writ’ or some other form of quasi-legal document written in official blue crayon.

REMEMBER: This game only comes to life when you print out a sheet or two and play it with friends. You are only expected to play it alone at home (possibly while sitting in a dark cupboard) if you are a disabled person sponging off the taxpayer.

[*Hint: if you fill the sheet(s) in with pencil, you can play the game once, have a few laughs, erase the old words and play the game all over again.]

I’ve been unavoidably detained (and not for the reasons some might have you think), but I need to get a quick post up on the matter of Andy Rayment finally replying to me, mainly to point out that it was me who shared this correspondence with Bedfordshire on Sunday, so while I’m less than happy that anyone would be this unprofessional, it’s not libel in this particular instance, and it’s not even slander unless he’s been repeating it in public (as Dorries has been):

Bedfordshire on Sunday: John Balls Diary (Sep 26)

BLOGGER Tim Ireland, best known for his spat with Mid-Bedfordshire MP Nadine Dorries at a pre-election gathering in Flitwick, has been complaining about her to Mid-Beds Conservative chairman Andy Rayment.

The Tory chief has a clear opinion on Mr Ireland’s email replying: “I do not waste my time communicating with nutters so do not expect me to respond to any of your communications, electronic or otherwise.” That’s telling him.

To provide the full and proper context, I’ve included the email that prompted this reply below. You can read an earlier letter to Andy Rayment here.

–

From: Tim Ireland [mailto:tim@bloggerheads.com]
Sent: 23 September 2010 10:53
To: admin@midbedsconservatives.com
Subject: FAO: Andy Rayment, Re: Dorries’ claims of ‘stalking’ (URGENT)

Dear Andy,

It has been well over 6 months since I wrote to you about the conduct of Nadine Dorries, and I have not yet received a reply.

(It has also been over 150 days since I filed a DPA/FOI request with the parliamentary office of Nadine Dorries, and I have not yet received a reply. Is this acceptable conduct for an MP in your view?)

Dorries is hiding behind an entirely false accusation that I stalked her, and I suspect from your ongoing silence that you believe her and take a similar position of silence dictated by a policy resting on this same false accusation.

If you believe I stalked Nadine Dorries, then where is the evidence you have seen? Would you care to specify what it is?

Be warned that when she is pressed for evidence, Dorries cites ‘vile’ and ‘abusive’ emails that she cannot produce, and talks of police investigations that never took place, then retreats to claims of police reports that amount to nothing more than nuisance complaints, if they were ever made at all, so you may be basing your judgement on nothing but lies.

Dorries refuses to name the officers involved in the complaints she claims to have made on the basis that I stalked her, when police procedure dictates that I would already know the names of the relevant officer(s) involved if I had done anything like what she describes, because they would have been in touch long before now.

Further, Dorries claims to have “forwarded relevant emails to police”, but every email to her office (bar one alerting her to an anonymous site attacking her and providing the relevant IP detail should she wish to pursue the matter) and every call/email to the Mid Beds Association related strictly to her false accusations of stalking. Without the accusations, there would only be one email to speak of! What did she base her original accusation of stalking on? The single email that sought to help her? The fact that I had dared to criticise her in public? How does the latter, or even my objection of false and entirely untested allegations of stalking being used against me, compare in any way to actual stalking or the stabbing of Stephen Timms?

Further, Dorries knows that a man named Charlie Flowers has been publishing my home address alongside false claims that I stalked her and others, and issued a death threat against her. When confronted with the news that he claimed to do this on her behalf, with her knowledge (!) she chose to give a misleading answer that implied she had reported Flowers to police when she had done no such thing. By failing to report or even discredit this man, which would have taken seconds of her time, Dorries put herself in a position where she was knowingly relying on the actions of cyber-vigilantes, and this is completely unacceptable and entirely indefensible, regardless of what she believes about my stalking her.

When will you be acknowledging this situation? What steps, if any, do you intend to take to remedy it?

Tim Ireland

–

From: Admin
Date: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Subject: FW: Andy Rayment, Re: Dorries’ claims of ‘stalking’ (URGENT)
To: Tim Ireland

Sent: 23 September 2010 12:33
To: Admin
Subject: Re: Andy Rayment, Re: Dorries’ claims of ‘stalking’ (URGENT)

I do not waste my time communicating with nutters so do not expect me to respond to any of your communications, electronic or otherwise

Sent from my iPhone

–

I really don’t think it’s too much for someone in Rayment’s position to look at the evidence, or even maintain a little decorum. If you’d like to have a word to someone about his conduct, you can send a polite but stern letter to the Conservative Party if you like, but I can assure you that it will do little more than make you feel better.

–

UPDATE – And here’s an unapologetic Dorries claiming my correspondence amounts to a ‘bombardment’.

I ask you; does this seem like the attitude you would expect from someone who genuinely thought they were dealing with someone who was unstable, and likely to do them or someone else a damage? Dorries has been playing the victim to explain away outright lies, but this gloating reveals what she’s all about.

–

UPDATE – Thank you, humphreycushion and Dick Mandrake.

A private discussion about this 18-month campaign of harassment with some of the people who could be most instrumental in ending the matter has proven to be an enormous waste of time and effort, for reasons that should become clear to anyone with the patience to read through the detail of the state of play as it stands.

I need time to summarise all of this in a way that is easily understood and digestible, but first I need to be correct and precise on the detail.

However, anyone with an eye for detail should regard this to be an immediate call to action. I am as of now raising funds for representation in this matter, and it is my intention to proceed with criminal proceedings as soon as I am able.

Dominic Wightman

Dominic Wightman (aka Dominic Whiteman, aka Richard Walker) is a staunch Conservative and a failed entrepreneur and former bankrupt whose amateur terrorism intelligence network ‘VIGIL’ failed to stay afloat on the mere promise of money. He is the man most instrumental in the attacks on me by various parties in the past 18 months, and he has published many of the associated smears himself (often anonymously or under a false name) but has manipulated others into publishing the worst/riskiest of these smears.

In early 2009, Dominic Wightman tried to manipulate me into attacking one Michael Starkey, a former partner in VIGIL, which collapsed in a bitter dispute about honesty and money (see: Ashcroft) and, it is alleged by all former partners, an attempt by Wightman to falsify evidence of a planned Muslim extremist terrorism plot involving bombs inside the shopping trolleys of ‘grannies’. Wightman gained my trust through an endorsement from a BBC researcher on the Donal MacIntyre team, along with a reassurance that, although he was a local Tory, he had nothing to do with “(Anne) Milton’s lot” (see below). He offered me evidence that supported my existing/published evidence, reinforcing my existing claim that another former partner, Glen Jenvey, had also falsified evidence of Muslim extremism. The evidence was genuine, but it is alleged by Jenvey and supported by evidence that, from the day Wightman agreed to meet me and act as an ally in this matter, he was also privately sharing my home address with Glen Jenvey along with a false accusation that I was a convicted paedophile who had somehow escaped justice and “needed sorting out”.

Despite there being two relevant police investigations to date, the police have failed to properly interrogate or investigate Wightman about his role in events, despite it being proven that Wightman anonymously published an article (that he tried to blame on the same man he tried to have me target; Starkey), accusing me of being an unstable alcoholic with “a history of criminal activity as well as a dysfunctional family”.

When his authorship of that article was discovered, Wightman was confronted about it, and his wider role in manipulating myself and others to the extent where I had been publicly accused of being a paedophile and a stalker. He insisted on a meeting, even trying to tempt me with an offer of paid work, and when this offer was repeatedly refused, he immediately accused me of stalking him (by hand-delivering a letter to my house late at night), refusing all contact while publishing a section of our private conversation that he dishonestly portrayed as a ‘confession’ that I was a stalker.

Despite his denials, there is further evidence that around this same time Wightman forwarded my home address to a man named Charlie Flowers alongside a further false allegation that I was an ally of religious extremists. Charlie Flowers and his associates went on to repeatedly publish my address alongside that allegation, and the further allegation of stalking (ultimately phrased as “Tim Ireland stalks women and send threats to MPs”).

Dominic Wightman and Charlie Flowers have accused me of stalking the following people; Conservative MPs Anne Milton, Patrick Mercer and Nadine Dorries, and the right wing bloggers Paul Staines (‘Guido Fawkes’) and Iain Dale.

Guildford Police

Though much of what Wightman has published is hyperbole/hysteria from others that he presents elsewhere as fact, police appear to have believed his stories/assertions, at least so far as not taking the evidence I present seriously or giving it any due care and attention. I am concerned that any further approach at this stage that is not decisive will risk branding me as a time-waster, even though Wightman is now broadcasting an entirely false implication that I was arrested for stalking him, and had computers seized from my property.

Before approaching the police, I wish to settle the false allegations of stalking that have prompted no action by police, but appear to be stalling any investigation into Wightman. That requires the cooperation of the following people…

Paul Staines

In 2008, publishing under the pseudonym of ‘Guido Fawkes’, Paul Staines heavily implied that I had stalked him when I attended his sentencing for drink driving after a notice of this impending event was announced in the gossip column of a national newspaper. In 2009, at the same time I was being smeared as a paedophile, Paul Staines was also publishing as comments a series of entirely false claims and implications that I was associated with the Draper/McBride affair.

An attempt to confront him and/or his business partner Jag Singh about this (and the further smears of advertising partner Iain Dale) via their MessageSpace office led to an unknown staff member making an extended, teasing sexual proposition in response. An attempt to confront Jag Singh about this led to a letter from Jag Singh (also of MessageSpace) sent to my home address, accusing me of harassment primarily on the basis that I was not a client of theirs and had ‘no reason’ in his view to contact him or any of his staff. When asked how he had obtained my ex-directory address, Jag Singh claimed that he “could not remember”. Paul Staines did delete many of the false allegations he had published about me, but so far has retracted none of it.

Wightman today cites a one-sided account of this event as evidence of my stalking this blogger.

Phil Hendren

Publishing as ‘Dizzy’ from ‘Dizzy Thinks’, Hendren is a former Conservative candidate, right-wing blogger and friend to both Iain Dale and Nadine Dorries. In 2008, Phil Hendren published a highly opinionated account of my attending Paul Staines’ sentencing for drink driving, describing it in the headline as “stalker(ish)”, and his report of an event that he did not witness stands largely uncorrected. [snip]

[MINI-UPDATE (15 Sep) – Phil Hendren has now voluntarily updated a post that has prior to this been cited repeatedly by Dominic Wightman as evidence of my having stalked Paul Staines, and he has my gratitude, especially as he has now made his position clear and gone out of his way to show good faith. Content in this post that sought to put his earlier post and any perceived accusations/implications of stalking into context has been removed, as I see no further need for it at present. As a sign of good faith by way of return, the previous ban stopping Phil Hendren from commenting on my site is now lifted; at present only two people are banned from submitting comments for publication on my site, but Phil Hendren is not one of them. That’s one down, folks. Note not one person down, or one scalp claimed, or any argument ‘won’, or any such nonsense, but Wightman has been robbed of one key piece of ammunition that he has repeatedly sought to use against me, and that’s what this confrontation/explanation is all about.]

Anne Milton

Anne Milton, Conservative MP for Guildford, refuses to elaborate on her past or present relationship with Dominic Wightman beyond saying (and here I paraphrase) it wasn’t quite what I thought it was. She refused any comment on her relationship with members of Wightman’s extended family (who are quite likely campaign contributors judging by their history, Wightman’s own account, and a very selective denial by Milton) on the basis that she could not comment on constituents*. Since border changes came into effect, the relevant people are no longer constituents, but she still refuses to comment on them.

Having being critical of Milton in the past, I assumed my 2005 microsite about her to be the reason for such an accusation. I recently asked Anne Milton’s staff “Is it Anne Milton’s position that I stalked her before, during or after the 2005 election?” Eventually I gained the reply that she did not take any stance on this, and “isn’t responsible for things other people say”. Sensing some evasion, I pressed the point and asked to be corrected if I were wrong about the following statement; “Anne Milton does not regard herself to have been stalked in any way, and has not said or done anything that she would regard to be a reason for anyone come to that conclusion and/or make that accusation on her behalf.”

The relevant email was forwarded to Anne Milton, but no correction was issued. I have since revealed that I can prove that Anne Milton privately accused me of stalking her, but there has been no response from her office about any of this. Milton has also managed to avoid any substantial comment on the actions of her former campaign workers and activists Dennis Paul and Mike Chambers, who in 2006 falsely accused a Lib Dem opponent of being a paedophile, and were also involved in the publication/promotion of a site airing numerous false claims about my personal life, describing me as a “bad father” with marital difficulties and accusing me of being a mentally unstable “computer hacker” dismissed from employment for “downloading porn”, likely to have “permanent residency status withdrawn”. That site further named what they took to be my employer at the time and gave their location, and listed and linked to some of their key clients in an obvious attempt to draw their attention to these accusations. It was later reported by one of my clients that they had received an anonymous phone call making similar accusations. There is no known record of Anne Milton’s opinion of these actions, and if they equate to potential stalking or harassment in her eyes.

Anne Milton also refuses to comment on a claim made since by Mike Chambers; that the evidence I submitted to the local Tory association was most likely ignored because Dennis Paul had made a claim (that Chambers says was widely believed within the organisation) that I was a computer criminal likely to unleash a virus or worse should anyone read an email from me, or follow any of the hyperlinks I provided (i.e. those establishing the clear connection between Chambers/Paul and these anonymous smears).

The current position of Jonathon Lord, the then-Chairman of the Guildford Conservative Association (and now Conservative MP for Woking), was that he/they disregarded my emails because he/they required a paper letter of complaint in order to act. Even at this stage it was obvious Chambers/Paul were far too close to the body some might expect to moderate their behaviour, and it had already been reported by a local whose reputation is above reproach that a letter by him published in the local newspaper critical of local Conservatives led to an unannounced visit by a Conservatives activist wishing to “discuss” the matter. There is no known record of Anne Milton’s opinion of these actions, and if they equate to potential stalking or harassment in her eyes. I found it to be intimidating if not downright frightening myself, especially in light of what had already been published about me and others (a phone number was published adjacent to the false claims of paedophilia, for example) and I did not want to risk revealing my home address in paper correspondence with that office at that time.

There was a limited police investigation into an email from Mike Chambers to the other primary victim of his smears. Police were clearly under the impression at the time that a key witness was an invented online persona; I now know this assertion to be untrue, and this single element alone raises the possibility that there has been an attempt to pervert the course of justice by parties unknown.

(*I was a constituent. She sure as hell ‘commented’ on me. As with her privately shared accusations of stalking, I doubt she is taking an entirely honest/consistent position on the matter.)

Nadine Dorries

Nadine Dorries is a Conservative MP and someone I have been highly critical of since she published and maintained a highly damaging and entirely false allegation about one of her critics, and began using dishonest moderation techniques on her ‘blog’ to avoid being called to account.

Dorries’ current position with regards to me personally would be totally unsupportable if she weren’t hiding behind a wall of silence supported by a false accusation of stalking; she claims to have made a credible report of harassment to police and further claims that this proceeded to the investigation stage. I know this claim especially has no basis in truth.

Nadine Dorries cannot or will not provide any details about which officer(s) she claims to have contacted and/or any of the relevant reference numbers. If she had made a credible complaint as she claims to have done, I would already be aware of the relevant details, because police would have been in touch by now, for a friendly warning if nothing else.

The only conclusion one can draw from her position is that she is hiding the fact that there are NO reference numbers to reveal because, even if she made complaints of harassment as she claims, then the receiving police recognised as a waste of their time and not worthy of so much as a friendly warning in my direction.

(NOTE – Glen Jenvey went through a similar process when first confronted about his falsification of evidence of extremism and also falsely claimed to have prompted an investigation.)

When pressed for evidence of my stalking her, Dorries cites emails that she cannot or will not produce that she claims came from me, but that I did not send. She also cites as evidence my attempts to confront her since she implied then claimed that I had been stalking her; a clever if underhanded self-reinforcing smear that is all-too-common among a small group of people, many of whom just happen to be friends, and all of whom are aligned with the Conservative Party.

Patrick Mercer

Mercer is a Conservative MP and former associate of Glen Jenvey (who smeared me as a paedophile) and Dominic Wightman (see above).

Like Dorries, Mercer and his staff use my attempts to confront them since their false accusation of stalking as their primary justification for their accusation of stalking; the initial attempts to contact Mercer directly and via his office would not be regarded as harassment, much less stalking, by any reasonable person. Subsequent attempts have been entirely within reason and the law, despite this leading to weeks then months of delays.

It is my firm belief that Mercer, like others, cottoned on to the effectiveness of the ‘stalker’ smear among his Conservative associates and used it himself to avoid any comment of his past/present relationship with Dominic Wightman and Glen Jenvey.

I have to hand evidence pre-dating my contact with Mercer that shows him ignoring the plight of an earlier victim of Wightman’s, suggesting an ongoing pattern of selfishness and neglect in this respect; Mercer knows Wightman is a conman and a liar capable of dangerous acts of incitement. He also knows that I am not his only victim. But he chooses to avoid taking any public position on the matter.

Iain Dale

Iain Dale is a blogger and publisher who has made repeated unsuccessful attempts to become a Conservative candidate after failing to secure the seat of Norfolk North in 2005. He and I have very different views on how a blogger should conduct themselves, especially with regards to comment moderation (i.e. if one should allow a high-traffic site to be used as a platform for anonymous attacks, or if bloggers should allow allies to pose as more than one person without interference), but the details of this are rarely discussed by Dale who has repeatedly chosen to portray these concerns as a series of political/personal attacks based on exaggeration if not fabrication.

Iain Dale published the original/recent claims that I had stalked Nadine Dorries and Anne Milton (the latter began as anonymous comments on his site) and at least reinforced the similar view/position of Mercer and his staff. These accusations of stalking are hysterical hyperbole at best and certainly not supported by the evidence.

Dale now refuses to discuss the position taken by Dorries that I had/have stalked her, despite being the first person to publicly accuse me of doing so. He also regards any detail of my contact with Anne Milton and her activists as irrelevant… but he continues to maintain that his opinion should and will stand, even when he knows he refuses to defend it in any detail, and knows that it is being presented elsewhere as fact.

Dale also accuses me of stalking him. In early 2009, after agreeing to contact Patrick Mercer because I was being smeared as a paedophile by Mercer’s then-associate Jenvey and his office was not passing messages on, Dale didn’t contact Mercer (justifying this on information he received after the fact) but instead (a) contacted the same office that was not passing messages on, (b) didn’t report the ‘paedophile’ smear, (c) didn’t even ask them to pass a message on, and (d) reported back to me, leaving me with the clear impression that Mercer was now personally aware of Jenvey’s actions when he knew this wasn’t the case.

When confronted about this, Dale refused to discuss it beyond a single incomplete account, part of which he insisted remain secret. He did not deliver a full account for a year and a half (i.e. until late last week). He was at the time also knowingly misleading his readers about a highly damaging claim about a Labour MP (Tom Watson) that he had deleted from his site but not retracted (that he must have known stood uncorrected in at least one major newspaper on the day as a direct result of his actions). Further, he was exposing me to great risk by running a highly-popular thread in an open, unregulated state at a time when I was being falsely accused of paedophilia. Given that Dale primarily runs regulated threads (comments are not published until he approves them) I took this to be a highly reckless act in the circumstances, if not a deliberate attempt at intimidation; he was certainly publishing other false claims at the time about my mental state and allegations about my involvement in political scandal.

Dale then went on to describe my attempts to confront/contact him about this (and my wish to have him contribute to a statement due to be submitted about what was by then an active criminal investigation) as harassment, addressing this with a public accusation while publishing a private email and presenting it entirely out of context.

This, like many other groundless accusations published by Dale, was later deleted but not retracted.

Despite the circumstances of this event, after years of throwing the word ‘cyber-stalker’ around at the slightest provocation (without filing a single complaint to police or proceeding with any civil action), he still expects that he should have been taken seriously at the time.

I am aware of the relevant law, and still regard my actions at the time to be reasonable, and within legal and moral parameters, though I can certainly understand how it might appear to the layman when my attempts to contact him are presented out of context (as they have been repeatedly by Dale and others, despite their knowledge of how this material was and is being used against me).

Dale still privately defends his multiple accusations of stalking/harassment as valid opinion, when he knows it is passed off elsewhere as fact (often alongside my homes address). Now, rather than make a statement or contribute to a statement like everybody else, as I requested a year and a half ago, he wants to contact police by phone at his leisure, presumably so he can deliver his statement over the phone (and ‘wing it’ based on his opinion/recollection).

I am not comfortable with this offer (which, it must be recognised, has only emerged because Dale has been put under pressure by other bloggers/readers to cooperate), especially when he stands by ‘opinions’ he can’t defend, and has been repeatedly careless about allowing these to be taken/understood as fact.

I would instead rather that Iain Dale drafted a statement acknowledging that he expressed the views he did as opinion, but he can’t even admit to himself that he based his opinions about my stalking Conservative MPs on his friendship/kinship with these people and not the circumstances in which I ‘attacked’ them (which he regards to be irrelevant detail).

However, I fear he will not cooperate to this extent, because it risks revealing, highlighting and/or admitting (at the very least) his negligence, and that of his Conservative friends/allies/associates; even in a private conversation he could not bring himself to comment on key evidence showing where/how he and they had been drastically wrong in their judgement.

(His failure to comprehend this has led to a situation where he has apparently convinced himself he has acted in good faith at every turn. There is no reasoning with him.)

Lord Ashcroft

Lord Ashcroft is a major figure in the Conservative Party (despite his pledge to step down after the election) and a major investor in the magazine published by Iain Dale; ‘Total Politics’.

Ashcroft (or even his diary secretary) could easily disprove a core claim made by Dominic Wightman in a way that would establish monetary fraud and be of enormous help to a string of victims that the public are largely unaware of at this stage, but his staff have refused to cooperate or even communicate (beyond accepting the request to cooperate, and then ignoring it).

CONCLUSION

I need to get lawyered-up and approach Guildford Police without the cooperation of any of these people, or possibly at the same time as proceeding with civil action that will be expensive, but highly effective in calling their collective bluff.

Given that others are likely to retreat from the same bluff once it is called, I should be able to minimise costs by starting with one single ‘domino’ but I will need donations from the public to get even to this level.

To repeat what I said at the outset:

I need time to summarise all of this in a way that is easily understood and digestible, but first I need to be correct and precise on the detail. However, anyone with an eye for detail should regard this to be an immediate call to action. I am as of now raising funds for representation in this matter, and it is my intention to proceed with criminal proceedings as soon as I am able.

If civil proceedings are required to make this happen, relevant measures may precede any attempt to pursue the matter through the criminal justice system. I am afraid I cannot predict exactly what the immediate priorities will be until I have received advice. All I can say is that the intent is to clear my name and protect my family, not settle scores.

Please donate what you can spare; this matter goes nowhere without money (justice for the rich; yay!), and Wightman gives every indication that he will remain a menace for as long as the law fails to recognise what he has done.

–

UPDATE – Iain Dale has claimed that this post contains “lies” about him. As usual, I challenged him to list specifics, and I’m happy to post the response and my subsequent reply if he’s willing to have it aired. I doubt he’ll dare to expose any of his ‘opinion vs. fact’ games to sunlight; he never has before. FFS, it took him a year and a half to expose his account of the Mercer calls to public scrutiny, but in the interim he saw fit to accuse me of stalking him based on his opinion of his version of events (an account/version which went largely unseen and therefore unchallenged).