Vindicated!

Your humble Devil has, for a number of years, pointed out that Nadine Dorries is a fucking liar.

How nice it is to be vindicated!

See The Appalling Strangeness for more on Mad Nad's fiction admission that 70% of her blog is fiction...

UPDATE: via Twitter, my good friend Bookdrunk reminds me of his pig-rocket...

Would Nadine Dorries now like to retract her previous claims, and apologise for calling her opponents liars? Or would you perhaps instead like to go to the moon on my pig-rocket?

Your humble Devil felt that Dorries was unlikely to apologise for any such thing and has been hassling Bookdrunk for that pig-rocket ride for some time...

Mad Nad: declaring war on scantily clad women

Corrupt Tory MP, "Mad" Nad Dorries has another target in her sights right now—posters of scantily-clad women.

If you live or work in London you simply cannot help but be confronted by posters adorning the sides of all TFL buses depicting three beautiful teenage lingerie models. The poster is frankly OTT. Since when did it become acceptable to have larger than life posters of provocative and scantily clad women moving up and down every street in London? Where did the mystery go?

Woah! Could this be the same Nadine Dorries who carries a prominent picture of a scantily-clad ropey old boiler surrounded by other scantily-clad (and possibly under-age) girls on her blog's header banner...?


Yes. Yes, it could.

Oh, where did the mystery go, Nadine? Where?

Oh woe.

A gratuitously insulting post

Blogging Barbie doesn't have a cunt at all, let alone one that's like a clown's pocket...

This is the new Blogging Barbie which has numerous advantages over many bloggers—including the ability to do more research than many of them. Which is why it is particularly apt that Tory Bear should caption this picture of Blogging Barbie as follows...

Watch out Nadine, you've got competition.

Yup, that's right, Nadine: you've got competition in writing elegant, well-written and well-researched posts from a hunk of pink plastic dressed like some refugee from the Eighties. And not the good bit of the Eighties either.

Still, I think it's a bit harsh of TB to link Blogging Barbie to Nadine: I'm sure that—being a piece of inanimate plastic—Blogging Barbie isn't a lying, expenses-fiddling lunatic...

Not just mad, but bad too

So, did we pay for that sofa? Nadine Dorries: mad, bad and irritating to know.

As regular readers of The Kitchen will know, Nadine "Mad Nad" Dorries is something of a laughing stock around these parts.

Of course, were she not one of the 646 bastards who rule us, she would simply be another mad old bag-lady with whom no one wants to associate—but since she is one of those crooks, she thus falls under the purview of your humble Devil. And, to be fair, I think that this is a good thing, because few things please me quite as much as showing up these corrupt arseholes for the fuckwits that they are—and, in that area, Nadine is a gift that just goes on giving.

A few days ago, Nadine thought that whingeing about how her daughter—who has just graduated—faced "a grim future" was a good use of Commons time. To be fair, it was probably more relevant than most of the shit that she witters on about—and it was certainly more based in fact.

Luckily, as one of the 646 makers of law in this fine country of ours, Nadine is in a position to help her daughter. Nad could lobby for a reduction in the stupidly high maternity payments to women, perhaps, or campaign for a lowering of NICs rates—both measures would help to create more jobs for women everywhere.

Unfortunately, Nadine couldn't be arsed; plus, of course, her poor daughter couldn't just wait around for the months or years that it would take darling Dorries to sort out these positive, job-creating measures.

So, Nadine found another solution (a tip of the horns to Old Holborn for flagging it up).

Shameless Nadine Dorries has handed just-graduated Jennifer an estimated £28,000-a-year taxpayer-funded job in her Commons office – weeks after complaining that the girl couldn’t find work.

MPs will be banned from employing family members under reforms following the expenses scandal. But Dorries, forced to apologise after revelations about her expenses, took on 22-year-old Jennifer before the new rules came in.

Eldest daughter Philippa, 24, has also previously worked for the Mid-Bedfordshire MP.

Nice work if you can get it, eh? I wonder if this is the daughter who "broke down in tears" when discussing the effect that the expenses scandal—and, presumably, the revelations that her mother was a thieving cow—had on the Dorries family?

Who knows? Or even cares? Except for the fact that I wonder if said daughter will break down in tears over these revelations...?

But then the 52-year-old installed Bournemouth University graduate Jennifer as full-time maternity cover for her House of Commons PA.

And despite some of the brightest graduates in the country vying for jobs in Parliament, she insisted her children were the best for the job.

She said: “They go the extra mile. My constituents love Jenny and Philippa because when they speak to them they know they have my ear.”

Riiiiight. So, how soon before Jenny and Philippa start setting up a lobbying firm, eh? All people would have to do is to pay JenPhil Lobbying and they'd get the ear of an MP—albeit one who is a Grade A Barking Nutjob (you'd have to be to employ your daughter so soon after the expenses scandal, wouldn't you?) with a nice line in smearing opponents.

Still, it's a good thing that Nadine is so anti-abortion because otherwise she'd be really short of staff...

UPDATE: over at Liberal Conspiracy, Chris Paul has some more details.

I reported last Wednesday that Jenny Dorries has been asserting that she was being paid around £50,000 plus jolly good perks, that this was being excused by her MumP as being because she is covering two jobs, and that Jenny was also reporting that she didn’t have a political bone in her body and was also often completely out of her depth. Those JD remarks and similar were made quite some time earlier. Soon after Jennifer got the job or at least rocked up to work. Freely disseminated to friends and strangers alike.

The £28,000 figure is an estimate reported by the Mirror crew. They also say the range for Office Manager / Senior Researcher (which is the job title Philippa has been reported under) is 18 to 39 (or something like that). It is in fact 21 to 40.

On the scale they reported £28k is about the mid point of the scale for SENIOR workers. Jenny Dorries doesn’t have a Politics degree, isn’t interested in Politics, doesn’t have an MA, and was written off by her own MumP as unlikely to be worthy of a job in these straightened times.

There is even more on this over at Chris's Labour of Love blog.

Boo-fucking-hoo

Like many MPs, Nadine has had a stressful time: the lesson for all MPs is that you shouldn't lie repeatedly, smear your opponents and steal money.

Via The Englishman (who is not sympathetic in the slightest), I see that Iain Dale was listening to the radio the other day.

Earlier today Radio 4 broadcast a half hour programme on the MP expenses scandal. It is a close look at the effect the scandal had on MPs and their families. Among others, it features Nadine Dorries, Ann Cryer, Denis MacShane and Andrew George. Nadine's daughter breaks down in tears when discussing the effect it all had on her, and Nadine openly discusses the fact that she has thought about standing down.

Good. You should be pleased Iain: it doesn't look good for the Tories to have a proven liar as an MP—especially one who is happy to smear her opponents (and then try to sue people for smearing her) and who is is barking fucking mad to boot.

Unfortunately, Mad Nad won't stand down: it's just bluster.

I suspect that many people will have an adverse reaction to the programme and accuse the MPs of shedding crocodile tears and think they deserved all they got. Many did.

Yes, they did.

But several of the MPs featured in this programme were clearly driven to the edge of reason by what happened.

"But"? What's this "but"? Look, a while ago we were told that some MPs were on "suicide watch"—have we seen any suicides? No, no we haven't. It was simply a cynical ploy to try to gain the public's sympathy.

This is precisely the same: these colossal egotists just cannot stop whining about how unfair it all is and how there are going to be dire consequences, and how we need more rules, and...

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

No one cares. No one cares about your troubles because it was our hard-earned money that you were stealing. You stole our money: do you really expect us to be upset that you were slightly put out for a few days? Really?

You fucks have been repeatedly raping us up the arse, without lube, for years and years and years and you want us to feel sorry for you? Fuck. Off.

"Driven to the edge of reason"? Yes, I imagine that they were: after all, I bet that Bernie Madoff and the Enron management team were also "driven to the edge of reason"—I imagine that it is pretty fucking stressful when you have committed fraud on a grand scale and you realise that you are about to get caught. So?

The solution is not to commit fraud. Do you see? We don't need more rules, and we definitely don't need more self-pitying witterings from you slippery, solipsistic bastards. Because the solution is very simple—don't steal, don't defraud the taxpayers and don't be a disgustingly dishonest little cunt.

And if you get caught being a disgustingly dishonest little cunt—as many of you were—why don't you try employing some of that famous British stiff upper lip? At the very least, you should shut the fuck up about how you became a little upset when you realised that your crimes were about to be uncovered. Do you understand?

You were dishonest: you were caught, and you were fucking lucky not to be prosecuted—any one of us would have been. So count your lucky stars and crawl back under your rock, you thieving slugs.

I have absolutely no sympathy at all, for any of you: fuck off.

I'm not Spartacus

After the alleged Telegraph take-down of her blog, a number of people are doing the "I'm Spartacus" bit in solidarity with Nadine Dorries.

Your humble Devil is afraid that he isn't particularly sympathetic. Mad Nad is pretty much the personification of the stereotypical blogger: self-serving and self-obsessed, stupid, pointless, vacuous and prone to throwing out wild—and demonstrably false—allegations that would already have landed most people put in court.

Her behaviour throughout the last few months has been, frankly, pathetic and concisely documented by Bookdrunk, as he points out that Nadine Dorries might like to admit the fact that she has happily smeared people, that she also seems to have been economical with the truth (whilst believing that she has cleared herself), that she seems to spend little time in the country, that she has failed to answer pertinent questions, that Dorries is a massive fan of hyperbole, and that maybe she should have seen what was coming and that she seems to have no sense of proportion and that even ConservativeHome readers appear to have realised that she is a mendacious little shit. True, Bookdrunk also expresses disquiet about the take-down of her blog but, given how quick Nadine was to wheel out the lawyers over Smeargate, perhaps the poor dear might have taken a crash course in defamation?

As many have noticed, Mad Nad really is the gift that keeps on giving. Which is why Bloggerheads is able to publish a long article detailing why Nadine has broken the ACA rules. Oh, and again. Oh, and maybe Nadine should update her Register of Members' Interests entry: surely it must be kept up to date under "the system"?

Tim also asserts that Nadine Dorries is "no blogger, and no blogging hero" and I am inclined to agree.

I have written this post to show solidarity with those who believe that the libel laws in this country are a fucking joke, and that they should be reformed as soon as possible. I have written this post in order to point out that I do not agree with those who pull down blogs at the slightest provocation.

I have not written this post in order to show solidarity with Nadine Dorries. Not only is she a vacuous moron, but she brings the whole blogosphere into disrepute; and not even because of what she says—there are plenty of bloggers with whom I disagree (including Bloggerheads and Bookdrunk, much of the time).

However, there is a code of blogging—netiquette, if you like. These rules include technical aspects such as having proper permalinks, but they also include taking comments and replying to them. They also include linking to your sources when you make allegations or cite data.

So, I stand here to defend blogging, but I couldn't give two shits about Nadine Dorries or her fucking "blog". She's a fucking disgrace, frankly.

Living above the law

The MPs' expenses scandal rumbles on: just as you think that there is no more to be revealed, yet more filthy troughing is exposed.

The thing that really pisses off your humble Devil, however, is the systematic hypocrisies indulged in by our disgusting rulers—the exemption from tax on benefits in kind, for instance.

Thus, it is the news that MPs have been putting accountants on expenses that really fucks me off this morning.

The Chancellor was among nine members of the Cabinet who used publicly funded expenses to pay for an accountant to complete their personal tax returns, The Telegraph can disclose.

Alistair Darling, along with others including Hazel Blears, Geoff Hoon and Jacqui Smith, have all claimed for the costs of accountancy advice using expenses intended to fund their parliamentary and constituency offices.

A tax expert described the claims as “scandalous”, especially as the expenses are tax-free.

Under HM Revenue and Customs rules, most people are not allowed to claim the cost of employing an accountant to fill in a self-assessment tax form as a legitimate business expense.

This is pretty fucking awful: once again, MPs are exempting themselves from the laws that govern us. Or, as the Daily Mash puts it...

Chancellor Alistair Darling, Borrower Hazel Blears, pornography enthusiast Jacqui Smith and six other non-entities insisted they had acted within the rules that allow them to dodge the tax system they gleefully impose on you under threat of imprisonment.

But it is related aspect that really grips my shit...

Your humble Devil has, for some years, campaigned for simpler taxation, for a couple of reasons.

• The first reason is that it would make it considerably easier for people to do their own tax returns, making it far cheaper for freelancers and businesses to operate.


• The second is that people would be able to have far greater visibility of the tax burden that they carry; this would, I would hope, help people to understand just what the costs of our state are.


• The third reason is that if you want to stop people evading tax, then you need a simpler system. The more complicated you make the system, the more loop-holes will be found.
  
  I like to think of it as knitting a blanket, with the wool being the laws, and the gaps inbetween the stitches being the massive fucking loopholes. The more stitches there are, the more loopholes you introduce.

Ultimately, the tax system has become rather like the MP expenses system: it is constructed as it is simply to deceive the people of this country. As Timmy points out, riffing off Nadine Dorries's ridiculous "McCarthy" assertions, the ACA was put in to give MPs a hidden salary rise.

Yes, the ACA has grown because no one was willing for MPs to have the pay rises the salary review boards suggested over the years. It was felt that MPs should not get whacking great pay rises, for the public would not wear it. Thus have expenses instead which the public won’t know about and thus won’t complain about.

She’s absolutely correct, this is indeed what has been going on.

However, the truth ain’t all that great an excuse.

For the logic of it is is that, umm "You wouldn’t give us more money so we took it without you knowing".

In other words the Nadine Dorries defence is "It’s OK because we were lying to you".

The tax system's complexity has a similar motivation at the heart of it—to attempt to conceal from the people of Britain the sheer scale of the tax that they pay.

However, the system has also been designed to allow the richest in society to take advantage of loopholes and pay less tax than they might—in this way, Labour convinced the rich to continue to donate to the party.

So, NuLabour have happily continued previous governments' policy of ensuring that the heaviest tax burden falls on the poor, rather than the rich. Because the poor sure as hell can't afford to pay millions of pounds towards Labour's lying billboard adverts.

If anyone thinks that Labour Party is a friend of the poor, then they are a fucking idiot.

Even in the midst of all this joy...

... Mad Nad Dorries contrives to make an idiot of herself.

I also didn’t expect to be one of the four people that Damian McBride had slandered in the email, but I am.

The email accusations regarding myself are 100% not true. They are slanderous and therefore libellous.

Fucking hellski, Nadine: slander and libel are two different things: in short, slander is spoken and libel is written. As such, this line...

They are slanderous and therefore libellous.

...could only be written by a moron.

Anyway, as these allegations were written down—in an email—this is, in fact, libel. If you are going to be consulting lawyers, as you claim, perhaps you should ask m'learned friends to educate you in the finer points really fucking basic points of defamation?

Anyway, McBride and Draper, eh? Aaaaaaahahahahaha!

UPDATE: Bookdrunk points out that Nadine Dorries is not above doing a bit of smearing herself.

Shorter Nadine Dorries: it is utterly disgraceful that anyone should attempt to smear their political opponents with entirely false.. oh, wait, never mind.

Unity also summarises some of the finer points of Nadine's hypocrisy over at Liberal Conspiracy. Rumours that Nadine lives in a glass house are entirely unfounded...

But it's something that I never was...

Britblog Roundup #193 is over at A Very British Dude's place, and I feel that I should answer a couple of comments thrown at your humble Devil.

Devils Kitchen, a rightie monomaniac, thinks it's not the welfare state, It's those dastardly eurocrats, and anyone who thinks the Tories are going to be any better are "delusional".

Apart from the concept that the Tories won't be significantly better than NuLabour, this sentence is almost entirely incorrect. I wouldn't call myself a "rightie monomaniac" (some might, but coming from Jackart, it's a bit rich frankly) as I write about a number of subjects on this blog, and maintain an interest in considerably more areas outwith it. But, Jackart is entitled to his opinion.

Aside from that, I have argued many times that the Welfare State is at the heart of our problems, even so far as to say that it has changed the culture and attitudes of the British people for the worse. I don't think that anyone could accuse me of giving the Welfare State an easy ride.

Furthermore, I certainly didn't mention EUcrats in the post that he references. It is, however, no secret that I believe the EU to have such a stranglehold on our legislation that not one of elected representatives can make any significant changes. As such, voting for any party which is pro-EU (which all of the Big Three are) seems utterly pointless unless you want more of the same (or very nearly the same).

Lest anyone should have forgotten, what I did say in that post was this:

And for all of Jackart's nit-picking—especially as to who the real Guido Fawkes was and what he was fighting for—this is what V manages to do: he not only makes people understand what has been done to them (one of the hardest tasks) but he unites people in indignation and gives them the inspiration to do something about it. It is for that reason that I find V For Vendetta so very uplifting.

And then, of course, the film ends and I am back in a depressing world where people barely comprehend the state control being stealthily imposed upon them, where no one can be bothered to do anything about it, and where alien-voters and their fucking Party tribalism effectively neuter protest and keep the same gaggle of corrupt rulers in power.

I think that I make it fairly clear where the blame lies, although I could have put more emphasis on the fact that the people themselves are very largely to blame. But then, I have posted that speech from the film of V For Vendetta enough times, have I not? But the relevant bit is this:

Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

My contention has long been that the Welfare State has been instrumental in the cowing of the British people—whether I have approached it from the position that we are now all in hock to the state and must thus dance to its tune, or from the stance that the state allows people to abdicate responsibility to other human beings (instead of seeing someone homeless on the streets, the thought is not "what can I do to help a fellow human in distress", but, "why hasn't the state done something about that?")—I have never been one to avoid blaming that (possibly) well-intentioned construct.

To which I point to America. If libertarians are going to have any traction, it is as a strong wing within the main parties arguing against authoritarianism, wherever it is found.

Why should I do so within the main parties? And what voice would I have? Some time ago, the Nameless Libertarian—once a Tory activist and now a member of that LPUK that Jackart so despises—wrote an article about the futility of this idea.

I've said before but I'll repeat it here again - there is no point in winning power if you have abandoned the ideas and policies that made you seek power in the first place.

I don't see that anything has changed since he wrote that piece.

As it is, over the six months, I have occasionally visited universities and sixth form colleges to talk to the people there, most recently to the Cambridge University Conservative Association (and I am back there on Tuesday evening with my LPUK colleagues). Maybe they will make a difference to the Tory policies, and maybe not.

But what could I do? Were I to be in a position to influence policy, I would also be in a position to be worth gagging. And I am The Devil's Kitchen first and foremost, and I will not toe any party line.

It is not going to be at a Libertarian party, which will be a talking shop, never to be elected and eventually foundering in a nightmare of inter-faction warfare.

Maybe: maybe not. We shall see, for it is early days yet. We are just finding our feet and are immensely grateful to those who have supported us thus far. Next year is when we shall start getting into action properly: these things take time, especially when you are learning.

By abandoning the Tories, Devils Kitchen and his ilk are leaving the party likely to form the next Government to Nadine Dorries' ilk with their obsessions about controlling human reproduction.

It is those who continually elect people like Dorries to be their representatives that are the ones at fault here, Jackart: those in your party. Now, go fight them: you don't need a loose cannon like me.

On another point, I have never been a Tory. I have never been a member of the party and, although I have voted for them, it was because I disliked them the least. I hated the social authoritarianism and I couldn't stand their pro-EU stance: they just happened to be the least offensive people on the podium.

Finding libertarianism was like coming home: it is the first time that I have found a political philosophy that I agree with in its entirety. Because the very foundation of libertarian thought is that you should live your life as you wish, as long as you harm no one else. To be able to vote for a party espousing that view will be a relief—no longer will I need a pair of Polly's famous nose-pegs.

Do you want the Tories to look like a post-McCain republican party purged of moderates and existing to further the interests of a narrow religious, authoritarian world-view?

If they are so close to it that that is a possibility, my dear Jackart, then there is little that I can do to stop it: let us not make the mistake of thinking that because I am a big fish in the tiny political blogging pond, that I have any influence on Call Me Dave, or the vast majority of the Tory activists out there presently.

If I have influence, it is on the youth of the party (although most do probably view me as a "rightie monomaniac") and on those who would not otherwise vote; or, of course, on those who, like me, voted for the Tories for the lack of anything better.

Well, now there is something better and, if people vote for us, then it will show Call Me Dave and his cronies that there is concrete support for a free society; just as voting for UKIP in the EU elections will show the Tories that there is a real and potent desire to leave the EU. There are only two things that will make politician change their ways: cut off their money supply or remove their votes (and the former often leads to the latter).

It's the only language, as my father used to say, that these teddy-boys understand.

You're an intelligent guy and a brilliant writer...

Why, thank you...

Why can't you use your talents where they might be useful?

And I do: I use them to try to convince people that freedom is good for everyone; that freedom also means tolerating those things that you disapprove of and not just the things that you like; I try to show that the state does things badly, that politicians are corrupt and that they lie; but mostly I try to make people think about what they believe, to wonder if maybe they are not being a little close-minded or out of touch with reality.

Whether or not I succeed in those targets, I don't know for sure—in many cases I do know (from the emails that I receive) that I have at least made people think again about their positions or encouraged them to be more active in making their voice heard. For many people, I have been a comfort, as they have realised that they were not the only ones who were angry enough to rail at this world.

And that is where my talents as a writer lie—if, indeed, I have such skills—and it is to this purpose that my talents are best employed. Some may take on board my rantings and decide to join the LPUK; some, of course, may (like you, Jackart) think that the Tories—as those most likely to get into power—hold out the best hope for freedom. Some may choose to do nothing at all.

It is not my place to tell them what to do (although I am happy to advise!); I seek only to get people to question their beliefs.

It worked for me: why not for others?

UPDATE: Patrick writes on a similar theme at the LPUK blog...

Well, would you believe it?

Apologies for the lack of posting: what was a very busy time at work has become near insane and it's only going to get busier from here on in. My colleague is due to return sometime next week, so maybe it will let up slightly: we shall see.

In the meantime, Nadine "mad as a box of frogs" Dorries has been trumpeting her popularity all over the place this month.

If anyone is interested by the way...

Unlikely, frankly...

... May was a record month with 674,000 hits—June was down a bit to 547,000.

I can't actually believe those figures—what's going on?

A very good question. Since, as we all know, Nadine is a horrible, stinking, fucking liar—telling massive porkie-pies about anything from her age, to abortion statistics to... well, anything at all really—I certainly don't "actually believe those figures" because, when someone has form like Dorries does and they are an MP, you just know that she is telling untruths.

So, shall we let Unity tell Nadine "what's going on"? I think we should.

Dorries’s site does not use any third party trackers or metrics systems and so, when she talks about ‘hits’ she’s taking a count from her server logs as supplied by her hosting company, Acidity.

A ‘hit’ is therefore recorded any time a resource, which could be a page of HTML output, a javascript routine loaded by that page or an image file, amongst other things, is accessed on her server.

This means that. if, on the first day of the month, she posts a text only article and someone visits her ‘blog’ and reads that article, that single page impression will generate in her logs:

One hit for the HTML page, itself.

One hit for the CSS file used to format the look of the page.

Two hits from favicon images, one of which - if you use firefox - puts a very small picture of her in the browser tab in which her site is loaded.

Four hits from four javascript routines loaded as inclusions.

Six hits for images used as ‘page furniture’, i.e. the page header, backgrounds for the calender and the RSS and Acidity logos.

And buried in the page but not visible are three 1-pixel spacer gif images the use of which I had thought had gone entirely out fashion. These relate to a hidden form containing three advertising links the relevance and purpose of which is entirely unclear and, perhaps, irrelevant other that for the fact that they generate three more hits.

So one visitor reading one piece of text on her ‘blog’ will generate a total of 17 hits, and that’s before she gets around to posting article with picture in the them—and by the end of June her ‘blog’ page for that month included 28 images, all hosted on the same server.

So a single new visitor would, by the end of the month, have added a total of 45 hits to her server logs for a single page impression—remembering that her site doesn’t support permalinks or display individual posts—and that’s assuming that, as an Active Server Pages based site, any server-side processing used to generate pages for display doesn’t add even more hits to her logs.

In short, all her talk of a ‘record month’ is absolutely meaningless—if she wants to set a new record this month all she need, given that she’s relying on hits, is double the number of picture she posts over the month and she’s easily rack up a bigger, but still meaningless, headline number.

Clear? There, Nadine—has that helped you to understand what's going on? I do hope so.

Still, Nadine is, nonetheless, very proud of herself. She has, you see, Achieved Something.

If I have achieved anything as a blogger, it has been my ability to unite left wing bloggers, who are by nature a divided and argumentative group (as one recently told me).

Their poor writing, viscious invective, bad language and inter-group warfare fades into nothing whenever my name is mentioned or written about, as they all dive in for the attack. I am apparently the absolute hate figure of the left wing bloggers.

Uh... Seriously, love, you can add in that you are also a hate figure for a number of right wing libertarian bloggers too. We libertarians object to your consistent and near-pathological inability to tell the truth, you see. You just confirm what we have always suspected: that MPs are lying cunts.

There is an old joke about being able to tell when an MP is lying simply because they are opening their mouth. In Dorries's case, you can tell she's lying because she's opened her legs.

Because, you see, she's a cunt. And not in a good way, either. I mean, I have no desire to fuck her, although I am absolutely happy to fuck her up.

As, of course, a number of those evil left wing bloggers have done, by complaining that she is abusing the Communications Allowance.

Once more, Unity gives us the low-down on Mad Nad's typically ineffective and dishonest response.

So, I am a libertarian who happens to believe that all politicians are lying, corrupt scum with a personal agenda utterly at odds with those that they claim to represent, and Mad Nad reinforces that notion at every turn. I don't know whether to praise her for proving me right, or excoriate her for being precisely what I loathe.

Perhaps we should put it to the test: that's right, let's get mediaeval on her arse (and other orifices) and go for trial by sharpened cockroach...

Although it pains me...

... to agree with any Labour minister, "Red" Dawn Primarolo's assessment of Nadine Dorries, whilst necessarily restrained, is entirely accurate.

The hon. Lady has asserted many things to be facts that are not.

In other words, Red Dawn is politely pointing out what we already know to be true: that Nadine Dorries is a fucking liar (and pig-shit thick to boot).

And if you want a comprehensive fisking of the shameful load of old bollocks that Dorries spouted during the abortion debate, I highly recommend that you hie thee over to the Ministry of Truth.

Biting at the ankles of Nadine Dorries and desperately trying to get the taste of stupidity, hypocrisy and dishonesty out of my mouth...

And now, having been utterly defeated, the lying whore-bitch for Mid-Bedfordshire has found that she just cannot stop lying: Bookdrunk reports...

As cheerfully predicted, here's the Daily Mail's Amanda Platell repeating whatever Nadine Dorries has told her without any regard for something so boring as fact-checking:

Mr Brown's whips dragooned their MPs into opposing the change and in one of the more shameful moments in the history of our democracy, Labour

MPs linked arms and formed a human barrier to stop their MPs voting for a reduction. Frank Field was one of the few Labour MPs with the guts and the decency to cross the line and vote with his conscience.

Yes, Frank Field.. and another 40-60 other MPs and junior ministers (including several Labour whips, depending on the vote).

Once more, ask yourself why only Nadine Dorries—and those gullible enough to believe her—is pushing this version of events, and that not a single, solitary other person has yet come forward to support her. On the contrary, we've heard from a pro-life MP who voted with Dorries stating that her claim of a three-line whip is "completely false." Could it be that she is some kind of liar?

Nadine? A liar? How dare you suggest that... Oh, no, wait... Ah, yes, you're right: she is a filthy, stinking, near-pathological liar.

More than that, Dorries really needs to get out more.

Almost everyone I know believes in a God. It may not be the same God as mine, they may not go to the same Church as me, but they do believe in something.

Strangely, Nadine, almost everyone that I know is a committed atheist. Ain't it odd how one tends to associate with people who share one's views...?

Although, of course, she might simply be lying.

Again.

P.S. As has been noted elsewhere, Iain Dale has taken to repeating Nadine's lies.

Now, I am sure that Nadine is a wonderful theatre-going companion, Iain, but do yourself a favour and don't believe a word that this moronic fraud utters: you're just going to end up looking silly...

Nadine Dorries: not only a liar, but a self-pitying waste of space

If you are one of the evil "Hounds of Hell" pursuing Nadine Dorries, why not display this badge of pride shame on your blog?

Both Tim Ireland and , in particular, Unity have pulled apart the latest whining load of old bollocks from proven liar, general thicko and all-round nasty piece of work, Nadine Dorries (do you think that her daughters are ashamed yet?); since her pathetic excuse for a blog doesn't have proper deep linking, here is the latest bullshit in full.

Hounds of Hell
Posted Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 11:07

The Hounds of Hell are chasing me.

We received another unpleasant parcel in the post today. Nasty web sites set up...

Really, Nadine? Show me the money! Or, rather, a link.

...email account and post bag bombarded...

How unusual for an MP, eh?

people crawling all over my expenses, which they are entitled and I am very very happy for them to do...

Yes, because the word "crawling" has such positive connotations in this context, does it not?

Scary, threatening angry and downright nasty phone calls.

What? Like, "Nadine: this is the truth calling. I'd just like to..." [Nadine slams down the receiver.]

A message smeared on my window.

Was it "clean me"?

This is all meant to destabilise or distract me.

Or, alternatively, drive you to suicide, which would be a far more satisfying outcome.

Mind you, I should point out that I have not been doing nasty things; I did consider sending her a turd a box, but I decided that she simply wasn't worth the effort.

I have a very clear message to those who are attempting to do this—back off. You will not stop me, you will not undermine me, you do not scare me. In fact, you make me much more determined than I ever was before. You give me strength.

And you give me strength, Nad. Well, not you precisely; it's just that every time that I read your crap, I end up yelling, "god! Give me strength!"

I received a lovely email today from the photographer who took the picture of Samuels’s hand reaching through his mother’s womb during the operation when he was 21 weeks gestation.

The picture below is of Samuel giving evidence to the US congress five years later.

God! Give me strength! We've already been through this, Nad; Samuel did not reach through the womb because the fucker was anaesthetised! Through placental transfer! The surgeon in charge who was performing the damn operation has denied that anything of the sort happened! You stupid fucking bitch!

The email reads:

"Dear Ms Dorries,

I can’t tell you how honoured I was to hear that you had posted the picture of Samuel reaching from his mother’s womb on your blog in an attempt to lower the age abortions can be performed……

I have been on pins and needles trying to keep up with the vote there in the UK….I would love to know if the attempt is successful…"

Michael Clancy

I think that it was very nice of Michael to feel "honoured" rather than insisting that Nad had infringed his copyright.

Further, I must admit to doing Michael Clancy an injustice when I last wrote about this issue: I implied that he was just in it for the money but now it appears that he was lying like a Dorries not only for the money but also because he himself supports curbs on abortion.

Anyway, back to the main attraction.

I will Michael if I survive long enough!!!

Well, I think that the obvious answer to this is that we hope that you don't but fear that you will. Oh well, one can't have everything. Although, I wonder how much it would cost to send Nadine a stout hempen noose through the post...

As a final aside, one should note that Nadine Dorries maintains that she only supports a reduction to 20 weeks. This, too, is a lie.

Via Unity posting at Liberal Conspiracy, I notice that Nadine Dorries—campaigning vigorously for 20 weeks because of all of that compelling research which says 20 is juuuuust right—has also signed up to support an amendment for 16 weeks.

Perhaps someone would like to ask her which bit of her own argument for 20 weeks which was so unconvincing.

Quite. But it also seems that even 16 weeks is too much for Nadine.

Then here's Dorries from last October (via Unity).

You are right about one thing, I do want to go lower than 20 weeks—I would settle for the European average of 13 weeks, but would prefer 9.

It's also helpful to remember that she allies herself with those who oppose all abortion on principle - and that she's made no attempt to distance herself from those hardline views. Oh, and there's also a post at Conservative Home, arguing for "20 weeks not 22 weeks" which conveniently omits to mention that she's signed up to support 16 weeks but would prefer something much, much lower. Pick a number, any number?

Is there absolutely anyone out there who can possibly believe that Dorries is in any way sincere, consistent or believable when she talks about her beliefs about abortion?

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller...?

Mad about the money

Dorries and a foetus, yesterday: one has an underdeveloped nervous system, cannot live independently, is unable to argue coherently, is somewhat slimy, is unfamiliar with the concept of shame and possesses an almost non-existant IQ, and the other is a foetus.

Continuing the delightfully fun kicking of Mad Nad Dorries—after all, it's so damn easy because she is, let's face it, as thick as pigshit—is Liberal Conspiracy: they are asking, who is funding Nadine's Campaign, eh?

A week ago Nadine Dorries launched the 20 weeks Campaign through the Daily Mail, which wrote up this glowing story and dedicated its editorial comment strip to supporting it. The 20 Weeks website has Nadine Dorries MP’s picture on every page and she has promoted it relentlessly through her blog. So we can reasonably assume it is her campaign.

Indeed,, and this is, of course, relevant from a funding point of view.

But who is behind this campaign? Is it just Ms Dorries? The website doesn’t say. On the Q&A; page however it does have this question: Is this a religious campaign?. Answer: “No. There are people of all faiths and of no faith who support this campaign.”

But that’s about it. Shouldn’t we be told who is running a campaign fronted by a Conservative MP?

Yup. And can you guess who it might be? Well, yes, obviously it's religious nutjobs; but which ones, eh?

I say this because thanks to Unity we can provide the answer. A search on the domain name reveals that it was registered by David Clark. Email address: david@ccfon.org.

That email address is a give-away because David Clark is in fact one of the founding members of Christian Concern for our Nation.

In other words, Nadine Dorries is fronting and representing campaign without declaring that is in fact being run by a religious group that: “exists to serve the Church by providing information to enable Christians to publicly stand up against a tide of unchristian legal and political changes in the United Kingdom.”

CCFON launched its own anti-abortion website recently called Alive and Kicking. AaK is linked to from the 20 weeks website in numerous places.

Let's not be too hard on Dorries though; not only is she so thick that the true extent of her stupidity is almost beyond comprehension, but she's pig-ignorant too. Although, come to think of it, that was an inappropriate phrase to use: they're very intelligent animals, pigs, and they are a fuck sight more useful than Dorries too.

Still, CCFON are not the only sky-fairy-driven loons involved in Nadine's campaign, oh no.

CCFON is close to the Conservative Christian Fellowship (CCF), which was co-founded by Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome and includes Caroline Spelman MP as one of its members. The website says that: “For many years the CCF has been hosted within Conservative Campaign Headquarters.” Sweet.

Well, isn't this cosy? Because I keep hearing rumours that Tim Montgomerie and Nadine Dorries are very, very good good friends. I couldn't possibly comment on whether or not they are actually fucking, because I don't know, but there's no smoke without fire. Although, to be fair, most of that smoke is probably coming from Nadine's burning underpants.

So, let us sum up Nadine Dorries, shall we?—financial obfuscation, shadowy undeclared backers, misappropriation of taxpayers' money, a quite embarrassing penchant for self-publicity, rumours of sexual shenanigans, misrepresentation of testimonials, total disregard for the rules that everyone else must obey, rampant hypocrisy, an inability to accept and digest established facts, a propensity simply to smear those with whom she disagrees, a near pathological inability to construct or sustain a cogent argument, a staggering combination of stupidity and ignorance and a quite fantastic inability to open her mouth or touch a keyboard without lying.

She's the perfect MP really, eh?

Nadine Dorries: still a corrupt liar

Has anyone noticed the uncanny resemblance between Nadine Dorries—a barking mad, out-of-touch-with-reality, lying cow in the UK Parliament—and Margot Wallstrom—a barking mad, out-of-touch-with-reality, lying cow in the European Union Commission? Are they in any way related? I think we should be told...

Now, as we all know, Nadine Dorries is a horrible, stinking liar who must be perpetually having to change the charred remains of her knickers (assuming that she wears any, of course). One can only hope that her children are so ashamed of their mother that her behaviour will act as a deterrent and they will become the sanest, most honest people on the planet.

Still, the saga rolls on. The Ministry of Truth has become rather adept at tracking down her lies and deceit; for instance, Marie Stopes International does not—contrary to assertions made by Dorries—support a lowering of the abortion age limit.

Further, it seems that Nadine may not have got her seat entirely on merit (not that this will come as a surprise: even for an MP she is outstandingly useless and dishonest).

“Nadine Dorries, the new Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, was parachuted into the constituency at the last minute by Conservative Central Office, just as she was parachuted into Hazel Grove (to the fury of local Tories) shortly before the 2001 election.

Why, we asked, is she always first choice for the parachute jump when Tory HQ in London decides to despatch its own candidate?

Nadine Dorries’s children were until recently classmates at Ampleforth College (one of the leading Catholic schools in the country, recently embarassed by a sexually deviant teacher!) with the children of one Trish Morris. As fellow parents Trish and Nadine got to know each other rather well.

And who is Trish?

Under her more formal moniker of Baroness Morris, she is vice-chairman of the Conservative party in charge of candidate selection!

Furthermore, you simply must read this Unity article, which corrals a whole selection of Nadine's lies, including the fact that Nadine lied about her age whilst campaigning.

Tim Ireland is now onto the evil, lying cow too—he maintains (with a fair degree of justification) that she is abusing her Parliamentary expenses.

I should make it clear that as far as I can tell, Nadine's website was and is - as stated on her website - funded from the Incidental Expenses Provision and not the new Communications Allowance, but I would advise any MP who is confused/concerned about such things to read The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery (2.31MB PDF) because, until the Green Book is revised, it offers the most comprehensive guide available on websites paid for with the public's money.

But in Nadine's case the misuse of taxpayer's money is clear and unarguable, so in this post we do not need to go any further than these extracts from Teh Green Book (870Kb PDF)

5.1.1. Scope of the allowance
The Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) is available to meet costs incurred on Members' Parliamentary duties. It cannot be used to meet personal costs, or the costs of party political activities or campaigning.

5.13.4. Communications and travel
Allowable expenditure:
—Printing and sending newsletters, establishing and maintaining websites.

Expenditure not allowable:
—Campaigning on behalf of a political party or cause
—Communications or travel on personal or party political matters

There are so many examples of Nadine breaking these clear-cut rules on her website - particularly in that section she laughingly describes as a 'blog' - that it's hard to know where to start (or end) but I think a good example is her recent targeting of four Labour MPs over the abortion issue, as it ticks all the boxes; it's personal in nature (though most of the purely personal entries on her blog are more vindictive than this) , it's party-political (look at who she targets), and it's done in support of a cause.

Tim also highlights ten... er... nine reasons not to trust Mad Nad, including the fact that she is not only incompetent but a self-confessed liar.

3. She has no bloody idea what she's doing most of the time:
   The above incident showed that Dorries is ignorant of parliamentary procedure, but there's an even more recent example of her ignorance; this week, Nadine staged her first ever press conference (bless!) but was surprised to learn that in most cases filming is not allowed in the Palace of Westminster without permission (note: in most cases). And, as with the Goldacre matter, she went on the offensive and had a full-on rant over an issue she knows sweet bugger all about. Because she's as vindictive as she is ignorant.


4. She's a liar:
   And, when she was forced to relocate her press conference to College Green, she was shocked to discover that she needed a permit there, too (and permission under SOCPA). To get her way and get her face on camera, she lied... outright and without shame:
   

   "As it was we de-camped onto College Green. Within seconds another security guard arrived. He asked me did I have a permit? I said yes. I lied, we began. Perhaps someone would now like to report me to the standards committee?"—Nadine Dorries (07 May)

   
   I've used this rather benign example because (a) here she admits it and (b) all of the other times she might be called a liar (example), one cannot rule out her instead being understandably mistaken because she is so impossibly stupid.

Although, it should be ten as Tim actually misses out one very obvious reason not to trust her, i.e. because she's quite obviously insane.

Rhetorically Speaking's Bookdrunk has also been doing sterling work in exposing Nadine Dorries' near-pathological, constant, fucking lying.

A few weeks ago, Nadine Dorries claimed that no NHS hospital would perform an abortion after 16 weeks, unless out of dire need.

She went on radio to repeat this claim, and accused someone who contradicted her of being a liar.

Dorries announced that she was tabling a written question on the subject.

Well, Dorries did indeed lodge such a question, for which there is now a formal written answer - one that proves that NHS hospitals routinely perform abortions after 16 weeks. In other words, she's entirely, irrefutably wrong. In fact, roughly a third of procedures take place in NHS hospitals.
...

(Incidentally, the parliamentary answer given quotes figures almost identical to those found by Unity in reaching the same conclusion, i.e. that Nadine Dorries is a liar. Huh. Turns out information really is king.)

Bookdrunk then sums up with a couple of lines that made me laugh out loud...

Would Nadine Dorries now like to retract her previous claims, and apologise for calling her opponents liars? Or would you perhaps instead like to go to the moon on my pig-rocket?

I have no idea what a pig-rocket is but, yes, I would love to go to the moon on yours, Bookdrunk. Because Mad Nad is not going to admit that she tells lies. Oh, unless those lies are told to Palace of Westminster officers, of course.

But never mind, at least her lies are so brazen that they keep us all entertained. Here's Bookdrunk again and, unlike Dorries, he has actually read the report that he's writing about (an awful lot of us bloggers do that: I wonder why...).

From her "blog," expressing disbelief in research showing no change in premature birth survival rates before 24 weeks discussed earlier today:

I think this report insults the intelligence of the public and MPs alike.

No improvement in neo-natal care in twelve years? Really? So where has all the money that has been pumped into neo-natal services gone then?

A baby born at 23 weeks today stands no better a chance of living than it did in 1996?

You'd never guess, but this is a selective and obvious distortion of the report's findings.

The report actually looks at births up until 2005—and does indeed show significant improvements in the survival of babies... but only amongst those born at 24 and 25 weeks. Of 497 babies admitted to intensive care in 2000–05, 236 (47 per cent) survived to discharge compared with 174 of 490 (36 per cent) in 1994–95.

In other words, not only does the report show what she claims it doesn't, but it provides evidence further that her position is full of crap.

And so it continues and this is going to run and run. I am utterly sure that there will be more to come but, via Tim Ireland, let's sum up with an old quote from SepticIsle.

Out of all the MPs that this blog has covered over the last few years, it's safe to say that none has been as underhand, as genuinely unpleasant, manipulative, vindictive and dishonest as both Dorries has been and apparently is. She is both a disgrace to politics as a whole and a liability to the Conservative party.

I have little more to add, except to point out that Nadine Dorries is still a shameless, shameful fucking liar who should never be in any position of authority.

Oh, and can someone, please, go and give her her lithium...?