In it I only had information from your entry on your ‘blog’. But what Nadine failed to mention was that the complaint was UPHELD.:
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.(source)
Bang to rights. But there are other issues that are to be explored:
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.
The more is the 20 weeks campaign and her links to fundamental Christians.
I’m looking forward to it.