Nuts in November: Nadine, Q48-50 redux and Q90-100 as well

It was 40 questions ago in the Nuts in November series that we introduced the news that the Mum-P Nadine V Dorries née Bargery was in effect caught up, for richer or poorer, with a former Copper Mining Engineer Paul David Dorries who had turned his hand via various enterprises, none of which he was particularly trained for, mostly indeed exclusively in private companies involving only himself and/or the Mum-P Nadine as Director-Shareholders, to an enterprise involving other people's money, other people's risk, and as it goes other people's losses.

Or so it would seem. Here's a little flashback:

Question 48: We've asked before. But do tell us more about Paul David Dorries? Perhaps you can begin with an answer to this request. That is your Paul Dorries isn't it? We'll call it Question 48:

For the sake of the bots and arachnids crawling the web we'll spell out the content at this point. The illustration is a screengrab from a new forum for journalists at Journalism.co.uk and is a post headed "Paul Dorries and Investment Advice". The writer is a newbie and this was their only post ever at the time of grabbing. They called themselves "Chamber" and it was around 3pm on September 16 this year when they wrote:

I am currently researching a story on a Mr Paul Dorries and investment advice given by him. Does any other member have anything they think may be of use to the story?

So far, so coy. And then there was our follow up:

Question 49: And while we're at it we'll call this one Question 49. You must be very proud of Paul David Dorries leaving behind his Copper Mining history and retraining as an investment adviser? Presumably he did retrain and did get accreditation and a licence?:

Which screengrab is from The Motley Fool which is a famous site dedicated "To Educate, Amuse and Enrich". The message so grabbed is on a forum called "Investors' Roundtable" sub-section "A Fool and His Money ..." and had been posted about three hours before, with the same heading, and clearly by the same individual. This time tagged: "Chamberint". It said:

To all fool members, if there's anyone out there who has had any business dealings with, and particularly investment advice from a gentleman by the name of PAUL DORRIES, then please get in contact with me via this board. I would love too (sic) hear your story.

Alongside the message in the grab there happens to be a Motley Fool announcement: Boiler Rooms FAQ Cold-called by someone selling a sure-fire investment? This is against the FSA's rules. Check this FAQ for detailed advice and, if in doubt, just hang up! (Updated: 8 Oct 06) with the next announcement headed How to Spot an Investment Scam (Podcast). This was the environment in which Paul Dorries was being investigated.

Although LOL could take the Runnings of the Dorries Family as our Mastermind specialist subject we were not "Chamber" or "Chamberint". And nor was it the News of the World as one commenter suggested, picking up a hint from some careless (?) tweet of ours. Though the News of the World did know at that point that there was a story to be had. But it wasn't them. We went on:

Question 50: And this intriguing follow up can be Question 50. Seems he isn't actually accredited or any of that red tape pallaver? Can you help? Are these assertions about Paul's methods true do you think?

For sure, this was the point where LOL's stuff pricked up. Ears. The follow up post at the Fool.co.uk rip-off section was again from Chamberint. It was sent the very next day. Just before elevenses. There were signs of a sugar slump. Chamberint said:

I am UK based, and have checked that Mr Dorries is not registered to give investment advice.
It seems that Mr dorries works for himself.
I have a group of people who have all paid money into Mr Dorries' bank accounts and seen nothing in return.
They also seemed to have been duped into Spread betting type contracts, sold as surefire cannot drop investments.
I would love to speak to anyone else who has had dealings with this man.

Of course, the "surefire cannot drop investment" line - copper-bottomed you might say - chimes with the Boiler House announcement doesn't it? But we also know that this man, known as Paul Dorries, and I can exclusively confirm despite the Mum-Ps lack of responses that her ex- is the only relevant Paul Dorries on the block who might be referred to in this question. Do tell us if that's not right Nadine. Or Paul.

So, if it's alright, we'll get back to the main Nuts in November series and ask some more Questions:

Question 90: Clearly Nadine you are aware of this Chamber/Chamberint character. And their clients too. Would you like to tell the LOL readers who they are and what they are about?

Question 91: Or would you prefer LOL to explain and provide contact their contact details for any reader interested in sharing their experiences of Paul Dorries investment advice?

Question 92: We'll come back to that. In the meantime can you provide an estimate of the number of times you have been apprised by phone and text and letter and whatever of your chum and former bedfellow Paul Dorries' modus operandi and of the losses that have been suffered?

Question 93: Here's one for the general readership. If you had to guess the type of investor recruited by Mr Paul Dorries to his surefire investments who also contacted Chamberint, whatever that is, which of the following categories would you choose?
(a) Hardened and extremely wealthy gamblers who can afford to lose five, six and seven figure sums who understand that when an amateur and inexperienced advisor says "surefire cannot drop investments" or "copper-bottomed" they're expecting you to know in your heart of hearts that it's really a huge risk;
(b) Cautious folk who scrutinise everything they consider, use due diligence at every turn, would have at least checked how many sets of annual accounts Paul Dorries had submitted per enterprise, and were generally savvy investors;
(c) Hardened but extremely poor gamblers who have already lost far more than they can afford but can always scam together some cash for a surefire cannot lose investment;
(d) Widows spending far more than they can afford in an attempt to safely recover their comforts after their man deceased; flattered by attention from an MP consort, albeit balding, 5 feet 11 inches, a bit war torn, and "rather rough";
(e) All of the above. Except (b).

Question 94: All of the above (except b) may be right of course but if you had to guess Nadine which group would be making a fuss which would you say? And if you chose (d) Widows in the lurch would you guess that none of the losers had been approached:
(a) For at least three or four years;
(b) For two years at the very least;
(c) Oh go on! After a year would be fine;
(d) For six months, why not;
(e) After three or four weeks;

Question 95: Right, back to the who are these Chamber/Chamberint folk question. Are they:
(a) Police officers;
(b) Customs and Excise officers;
(c) Inland Revenue investigators;
(d) Drug squad;
(e) Forensic accountants;
(f) Private investigators;
(g) The Fees Office;
(h) The Commissioner for Standards;
(i) The Financial Services Agency;

Question 96: Though there's no discounting the possibility that all these groups might be interested in investigating Paul David Dorries, or not, we'll have to admit, as Nadine Mum-P knows, that Chamber/Chamberint are private detectives hired by some of the investment losers. Ain't that the case Nadine?

Question 97: In fact there have been quite a few inward calls to the Mum-P Nadine Dorries requesting that she assist in investigations. Is that right Nadine?

Question 98: And at least one of the victims of terrible, unlicenced, unregulated, but at times dirty flirty, Paul Dorries investment advice has written to the Tory would be Prime Minister and flim flam merchant David Cameron and asked for his support in recovering their funds and preventing any repetition of such things. Ain't that right?

Question 99: And they got a letter back didn't they Nadine? Saying that what you and your family got up to in your own time was a matter for yourselves? Or words to that effect?

Question 100: There are lots more questions of course Nadine. Though our month is up we're hardly started. But let's have a suitable 100th question. The Tories have suggested that Labour have allowed the Financial Services industry to take the piss. Ridiculous given that Tories have generally spoken out against regulation at every level.
How embarrassing is it that a Mum-P's partner with no training or experience or expertise in investment has avoided FSA regulation by talking investors into granting him powers of attorney? And then lost all their money? Yet been paid hefty commissions? Is this the Tory model for the future?