Sim-O

Seeing as Nadine Dorries is so keen on keeping the record straight about who she associates herself with, you would’ve thought she would be just as worried about who is claiming to be doing things in her name as who she is claimed to be working with, too.

Ministry of Truth is having a few technical issues at the moment and as a result, a post Unity has published is not showing on his site.

I have found it on Googles’ cache, here, and also mirrored it at my old place because well, you know Unity, it is rather long.

Here is the preamble:

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

(source)

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

1. Abortion.
2. carry the pregnancy through to term and put the baby up for adoption
3. 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.

The ‘plethora of studies Dorries cites to support her case are either not very scientific or do not actualy support her point at all.

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.

1. Choice: Women already know what the choices are when it comes to unwanted prgnancy.
2. 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.
3. 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.

(via Martin Robbins)

Update: For a thorough fisking of Nadines article see Unitys’ post at the Ministry of Truth.

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 little show (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’.

Never mind the evidence, eh?

Cue nashing of teeth and much shaking of fists…

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?

The Speaker of the House position maybe up for change, if Iain Fale is right, with Ming Campbell offering himself up.

The uprising is lead by, amongst others, Nadine Dorries. But why the buggery is there the focus on John Bercows wife?

Political Betting…

So is Ming going to do it? That’s hard to say but there’s one strong point in his favour – his wife, Lady Elspeth, is never in a million years going to make an arse of herself on Twitter

Mrs Bercow has bugger all to with with House business, and neither will anybody elses spouse unless they are elected.

Maybe it would be a better course of action to look who is leading this and how much of an arse they are rather than their other halves before deciding which way to vote on Bercow.

Tim Ireland went to Flitwick to record and broadcast a hustings that Nadine Dorries was appearing at.

It didn’t quite go to plan, due to a couple of misunderstandings. Even leaving those misunderstandings to one side, the amount of vitriol spewed by Dorries in the form of lies and smears is incredible. All of which she is unable, to substantiate.

For more see Tim’s post about it:
Nadine Dorries has finally gone too far

and Adam Crofts’ post. Adam was attending the hustings and is not associated with either Tim or Nadine.

(Special mention also goes to Chris Paul that somehow also got dragged in to all this even though he wasn’t present and coined the phrase ‘The Flitwick Flounce’.)

The Nadie Dorries Project has shifted gear – literally.

We have a plan, and the resources, to actively campaign in the constituency of Mid Beds.

The Motive…

Right, that’s it; I am thoroughly fed up with the notion that Nadine Dorries can lie and cheat her way through a term and expect to keep her all-too-safe seat. The good people of Mid Bedfordshire need to be warned about the party-political (and often all-too-personal) games that Nadine Dorries plays using the power they afford her.

So, along with Dave Cross and Sim-O, I have successfully negotiated 4 weeks off work & family duties, and together we intend to campaign against Nadine Dorries.

Running as an independent is a mug’s game, and we’re not going to pretend for a minute that any of us are prepared to represent the people of Mid Bedfordshire as their Member for Parliament. Hell, we’re not even going to endorse any of the other candidates. What we seek to do is inform the good people of Mid Beds of the full consequences of voting for Nadine Dorries (if they suspect they’ll have a mind to).

The Plan: The Peoples Pamphlet…

We all have our own ideas for what questions Mad Nad should be answering. Personally, I’d like to ask how many foetuses she saw ripping holes in their mothers’ stomachs whilst she was a nurse. But we need to realise that what’s important to us might not be import to the people of Mid-Narnia. Hence the need for the wiki. This afternoon we’ll be throwing it open for people to suggest questions for Ms Dorries. Once we have broad agreement on the contents of the “people’s pamphlet” we’ll lock the page and print copies of the pamphlet to be distributed in Narnia.

The resources…

John Prescot has his Battle Bus, Jon McCain had his Straight Talk Express and now we have our Campaign Camper… the NadMobile!

It’s time for…

———-

Update: April Fools!

The camper van and stalking stuff was a joke, all except for the Peoples’ Pamphlet… and maybe Daves’ camera authentication on the Wiki.

The Peoples’ Pamphlet…

The relevant wiki is brought to us by the capable and clever Dave Cross (cheers, Dave):

Fellow Traveller’s Wiki: Home of the People’s Pamphlet

Anyone claiming this to be a personal attack of bile and vitriol is going to look a little bit foolish (not to mention dishonest), as it’s designed from the ground up to be as relevant and issue-driven as possible. The whole exercise revolves around deciding on the best issues to put forward, and the fairest (yet most effective) way to present them.

Transparency? The whole thing will be built/negotiated in public, which normally would give the subject plenty of time to prepare for any of the questions raised… but the difference with Dorries over many other MPs is that there are now far too many pertinent questions that she has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid, and by now she cannot afford to answer any of them with any honesty.

So, unlike the baseless, childish and pathetic #kerryout attacks, this will be an issue-driven campaign that will be more transparent than anything that’s come before it.