Posts
EXCLUSIVE Doggy Fashion?: Is This Nadine's "Table Drier"?
LOL are Laughing Out Loud at the suggestion from one Cath Elliot in LibCon comments that Nadine Dorries MP bought a "Table Drier" like this with her "everybody's at it! (so lay off little me)" Tax Payer Slush Fund Money.
To cut a long story short this is a device for cleaning and drying a dirty dog. And "Table Drier" is one of the things in Nadine's "full" (blog cache) disclosure of what she has and has not claimed on her ACA. These are also available for drying photographs, drying silk screen printing, and other arts and crafts. HERE. We don't believe she meant a Tumble Drier. We believe this is an attempt to hide a gadget for Man's Best Friend, his "Significant Other" if you will, en plein air.
We like it so very much that we will repeat the news that Nadine Dorries MP in fact reaches her "main home" through a curious old wardrobe in the spare bedroom at her Woburn "second home" in Mid Narnia. Though not sure that squares with the travel claim.
FOOTNOTE 11:45: David Prescott has blogged "The Good, the Nad, and the Ugly" in defence, sort of, of Nadine's right to randomly accuse Billionaires whose paper might be about to "get her" of being supporters of the nearest thing on the planet to the Nazi Party. While I think they should sue her or let her be, I don't think it's on (seriously) calling people with reputations and fortunes to lose Nazi sympathisers. See that blog cache.
7 comments:
What, you think they should be able to take here down like that?
They should sue her or leave her alone. All the blog apart from the offending post should be reinstated forthwith. If that's what Nads now wants. I think she will have been leant on and told to take it down by the Tories myself.
Otherwise the ISP has given in too easily. Cf Creosotemanov. The ISP maybe have taken her down. Or perhaps David Cameron has taken her down with a threat of summary de-selection and the ISP and indeed the Barclays are getting a bum rap here?
If it is the Barclays they are boosting their reputation as right wingers though resisting in this way. Again cf Creosotemanov.
They should have asked the blogger first, then the ISP to remove the particularly problematic blogpost under threat of escalation to legal action.
The ISP should stick the ridiculous blog back up with that post or posts removed. The Barclays Bros could have no complaint then. If it is them doing this.
Nadine has nothing to back up these lurid suggestions of a Barclays Brother conspiracy. It's a damn good story. Proprietors who back proper democratic parties, even Labour, would have bought and run this one I think if the price was right. You don't have to like UKIP still less the BNP to like a good sleaze expose.
I think they - if it is the Barclays, is that reliably confirmed? - should sue her or let her be as I said in the post. But what she said is even more stupid than usual and is certainly actionable the way she has said it. Careful juztaposition of factual statements could have carried her meaning without being actionable.
Clearly the taxpayer has in effect been paying for the blog despite the disclaimers. She writes it in work time on work computers and it is hosted by the same ISP and in the same livery as the PCA funded site. The rest of the site has no traffic, no amendments, no value.
But that's another matter.
Iain Dale http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/telegraph-takes-down-nadines-blog.html citing Dizzy, has posted this:
"Lawyers acting for the Barclay brothers, Withers, instructed the takedown to Acidity via mail last night, citing the Acceptable User Policy. The takedown will be bolstered by the Godfrey vs Demon precendent, where an order can be made and it will be done instantly. Of course, if the website was being hosted in the USA it would be much harder to order the instant takedown. You'd think though, that if the allegations were moonbat untrue there would just be a "point, laugh and call them ridiculous" strategy rather than ordering a takedown to gag Nadine from saying it. This is especially the case I would've thought because once Recess is over, Nadine would be free to say such things in the House and be protected by Parliamentary Privilege. By taken her down like this the Telegraph will have fed the very idea of some sort of hidden agenda. Suppression, whether it is of speech that is right or wrong, is usually counterproductive."
They could take out the offending posts and ask to stick it back up. However it is my view that now it's down Cameron will not want it back up. He will want Nadine to cease and desist with her nonsense.
She went to the danger on Smeargate and she's done it again on Trousergate. 24-carat liability. Particularly as the blog is on the PCA funded site, the arms lengthing is completely unsatisfactory. This is a tax-payer funded site with a semi-detached part defaming people.
Of course I agree that the "take down" option is completely OTT. It has also drawn attention to the accusation. That accusation was I think so very barmy that no-one would have paid the slightest bit of attention to it, apart from ridiculing the blogger.
Now there's even a danger that people will see the OTT legals and think the BBs are too keen to slap this poor benighted woman and people might even start to think Nads was onto something ...
Reprise: Now it's down CCHQ will be relieved. They won't be fighting to get it back up.
PS Paul, any thoughts on the Table Drier?
I think it probably means a small Tumble drier for a small kitchen.
Post a Comment