Friday, February 12, 2010

Nadine Dorries MP: "Toast" With or Without Marmite, Director's Cut

Doesn't time fly? It was way back on Sunday morning that Dizzy_Thinks was graced by THIS steaming pile of peese extract, taking the piss, entitled "N for Vendetta?". Widely linked to by the likes of subject's mates Tim Montgommerie and the like. The subject has so many mates it's untrue, and "enemies", which is kinda the point of the Dizzy post.

In which a young Aylesbury Duck - clumsy, waddly and overweight creatures that they are, not very bright, easy to catch out, often mistaken by townies for a goose having a gander - Mr Phil Hendren, for it is he, ever so very slightly missed couch potato doyen of the ill-fated 18 Doughty Street bloggers sofa, makes some wild assertions about fellow bloggers of a more progressive persuasion.

To whit that myself "the Manchester Labour blogger Chris Paul", Sunny Hundal and Unity at Liberal Conspiracy (also at Pickled Politics and Ministry of Truth respectively), and in particular Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads have an unconscionable down on a certain notorious daughter of Liverpool.

Now on a constant and arduous, nay Sisyphean journey between Beds and Cots, Cots and Beds, Beds and Cots. Second and Main. Main and Second. Second and main. Apparently. So she say. Which we must of course believe. Until and unless anyone shows anything different.

Mr Hendren ignores the many and varied interesting dimensions of his heroine Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P's character and behaviour and utterings and creates a bizarre narrative arc for the bloggeration - shorthand for the critical and incredulous bants and repartee - generated by this imagined "progressive conspiracy" against the Princess of the Blogs, Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P. So bizarre that I feel a song coming on and must digress at this point. [digression]

Her old man's a dustman
He wore a dustman's hat
He wore cor blimey trousers
And he lived in a council flat

Well not quite. Nad's dad George Bargery was salt-of-the-earth, but not ever a dustman as far as I know. He had no need for hats. He almost certainly did not wear [rather Cockney] cor blimey trousers. Except perhaps to a fancy dress do. More likely cool drapes or leathers. And while much of the family went on to live in a council house. George didn't. As far as I can work out. From extensive research.[/digression]

Goodness, I don't know why I threw that song in really. But hey ho. That by the way is an Australian version of the loved and loathed yeasty spreadable. Diddy Thinks suggests we're not bewitched exactly by Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P .. because she is a girl and that obviously makes her silly so what we on about. Or something like that anyway. Which is I feel a vile smear, and as the careful-when-it-suits him, Hendren might say a "potentially actionable" one at that.

The man who is about to look such a damned fool, before very long I'd guess, goes on to say that we'd all "hate" her even if she were a socialist. Because she's like Marmite. You either love her or loathe her.

What! Projectile! Rot! That! Is!

Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P has attention from both the mainstream press - good and bad - and attention from the bloggerati - good and bad - ENTIRELY on merit. Because she's worth it. Just as this classless meritocrat would want it. And, My Mate Phil, it's way more complicated than Marmite. Here's what Dizzy did to my comment, offered in good faith, with much love and respect:

Which is, actually, a completely unfounded smear-and-a-half. What he did next I understand was to forward the unpublished "much of it possibly actionable" (in his writ) comment to Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P. And what else is he suggesting? What a complete twunt! In the nicest possible way. More of which, anon.

So, here (yawn, I know, zzz Phil) is my comment as would have been in a blogger's comment context that Diddy Rascal would not publish and saw fit to smear me over, and to pass on to his heroine:

Let's be clear Dizzy:

  • 1. I don't hate Nadine, not one bit of it; I'm the Labourer of Love; but I do think she's ridiculous and like you say Marmite, but more so: charming the birds from the trees or alternatively giving a very good interpretation of a ruthless self-serving piece of work; in other words there are two different Nadines as well as two different Points of View;
  • 2. There is very little in her early official CV, and wikis - still in very wide circulation from plagiarising web-whackers - that actually checks out, lots of fibs and/or mistakes and either way contradictions and don't ring trues;
  • 3. Show me any other MP of whatever party, gender, race, creed, orientation, competence, intelligence, age, hair colour, BMI etc with anything like the interesting back, present and future story as Nadine and I'll be there, investigating and asking questions for the subject to deal with, if they chose to;
  • 4. Nadine Bargery-Dorries is quite simply an interesting subject and as far as I know there really are no comparators;
  • 5. It really troubles me (figure of speech) Phil that you suggest that Tory conbloggers would not be taking an interest in such a subject if they turned up on other benches. Tell that to Jacqui Smith, and Harriet Harman, and Margaret Moran, and Tessa Jowell, and Caroline Flint, and Hazel Blears, and so on - none of whom, not even Moran, long since Marmite-on-toast - match Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P for interest and intrigue.
  • 6. It's not just the Marmite question Phil it's a matter of factual true facts:
  • (a) Nadine V Dorries Mum-P has REFUSED to identify her main home arrangements in the normal way to the Fees Office;
  • (b) Despite this the Fees Office have paid her second home expenses. I think that was a grave error on their part myself, they should have finessed the information by withholding the payments, they've been bullied/charmed (Marmite);
  • (c) Nadine Vanessa Bargery-Dorries Mum-P also employed Philippa Storm Dorries, her eldest daughter, at unknown rates and responsibilities until she stormed off down under, only to return and find she's still on the books (on unpaid leave);
  • [(d) There is no d] <- I've added this!
  • (e) Philippa does not fit the usual profile for what is understood to be her rank and scale. She has a non-glittering bachelor degree in Ancient History, no Postgraduate training, no expressed interest in party politics; though she is a party girl we hear. Utterly untypical and under-qualified for what are highly sought after jobs, serving constituents who have every right to expect VFM and the very best quality workers;
  • (f) ditto Jennifer Lauren Dorries with a degree in Hospitality from what used to be a catering college, with which there is nothing wrong of course, except perhaps a disconnect with the roles she's been parachuted into;
  • (g) Jennifer has been reported as being on an estimated £28,000 (Mirror) - not bad for a first job for someone whose own mother stated in parliament, possibly after a vacancy had already been identified if not ear-marked, that she was destined for long term unemployment and penury;
  • [(h) There is no h] <- I've added this!
  • (i) Jennifer reported herself to a variety of colleagues as being on towards twice the Mirror amount and her Mum-P explaining this as a Chief of Staff role;
  • (j) All sorts of problems re homes and all that;

  • (k) All sorts of issues re marriages and divorces;
  • (l) A trail of "mom and pop" and/or "pop" limited companies, all but one of which had no filed returns or accounts whatsoever and been struck off;
  • (m) Her "mom and pop" property in South Africa has been repossessed by ABSA (Bank) and was put in a no reserve auction to part satisfy a secured debt, back in 2007 but kept secret for two years;
  • (n) Discrepancies in declarations to RMI on staffing and property certainly and perhaps on other matters too;
  • (o) Husband Paul - a former Tory County Councillor and would be PPC - under investigation for various business arrangements and Nadine apparently coming out to bat for him on her blog in a very cryptic possibly ghost-written post;
  • (p) Her quixotic campaigns and self publicity;
  • (q) A short-lived recent Company Directorship with a curious little company.

  • As you know I think, I could go on. All this Telegraph/Lib Con kerfuffle about PR Companies aside there are many more lines of interest.

    Are you seriously suggesting there is no reason to look into any of this? Could be Guido would have made a better job of dragging these things into the light of day, we'll never know, but the idea that this is just Marmite or in anyway not an appropriate topic is just crackers. Marmite on Crackers.

    Watch this space as they say.

    All the best

  • * I've made a couple of very small amends to this as it's not a blog comment any longer, but essentially it's as near verbatim as damn it. Clearly in the usual run of things a blog comment may then attract further comments and a conversation may ensue. If the blog owner allows this. Like Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes aka Mister GuF, and Iain Dale, perhaps more so Mr Hendren is a notoriously partial moderator, editor and selector of comments to publish. That's his choice. Just pointing it out.

    Soon enough Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P wrote to me (Howzat!? I never knew she cared) after it seems receiving this comment from the Diddy Thinks. Who was copied in. Suggesting that Carter Ruck should henceforth be taking my twitterings and bloggerings and so on into account when they were weighing up who to gag and suppress with firm but fair bullying. But essentially a chummy blogger-to-bloggger missive. Which I appreciate. There's no reason to fall out now is there? Facts are sacred but comment is free. Quoth a great Scott.

    Ridiculous as ever! Nadine! This is why we all love you so! There were four particular points made about the above "much of it possibly actionable comment" (Phil Hendren) and I must presume also the last Nadine-related post on my blog also.

    So, Nadine would like me to point out that:

  • There was absolutely nothing wrong she says with her directorship of what I called "a curious little company". And that, when she asked the authorities about registering that interest, they said she didn't need to as it was unremunerated; or, indeed, as it read that she was forbidden from doing so;
  • That, she says, she didn't ever own the property in South Africa to which I refer above, but she asserted in any case that it had been sold at a profit;
  • That Philippa Storm Dorries, the elder daughter, had been a PA elsewhere. I had never suggested otherwise. Just not sure she's cut out for parliamentary and/or constituency work is all. Would she win such a job in an open competition? I've never met her or spoken with her or communicated with her but on the face of it I don't think so. There are so many very talented would-be applicants to choose from;
  • Nadine's employed her mate Lynn before and will do in future (which is a Telegraph/LibCon story that is hugely interesting, but not top of my list, and to which I've scarcely referred).

  • Later we'll deal with at least one of these four areas. With some pictures and maps, and few words. Which will make a pleasant change. Meanwhile here's Delboy's take on the Marmite, Frankenstein Foods question:


    Aylesbury Muck said...

    Where's the private and personal stuff Dizzy claimed was in there? Have you edited it out? And what's potentially actionable? Does look like Dizzy was quite simply smearing a blogger from the other side of the tracks.

    Cupid Stunt said...


    To any fair-minded person it's obvious.

    Deep down, you are in love with Nadine.

    I'm sure you would make a beautiful couple.

    dizzy said...


    dizzy said...

    ALso, to say I've smeared you is also bollocks. YOu posted a load of stuff which I was not in a position to verify, simple as that. Hence the "possibly actionable". Added to that your use of middle names and knowledge of catering college courses is the worrying level of knowledge.

    Calling it a smear is like the way Tim Ireland throws the term around when someone observed his actions and expresses an opinion about him he doesn't like.

    On a more personal level, as to the references about Aylesbury, I'd expect nothing less of a Wycombe Hellfire boy.

    Chris Paul said...

    Dizzy mate

    There are THREE smears here

    1. The general accusation that progressive bloggers are picking on Nadine because she's a girl and not interested because of underlying issues - absolutely ridiculous - whereas some of your Tory colleagues have a case to answer over Kerry Out, picking on Ellie, and so on STRIKE ONE!

    2. That much of the comment is "possibly actionable" is just ridiculous. You can choose to included as much of the comment or not as you like. Spiking the lot - all of which HAS been published elsewhere and suggesting it is libel is nothing more of less than a smear STRIKE TWO!

    3. Ever hear of "desk research?" - I know you have you're quite good at it yourself - the suggestion that knowing widely used middle names, appearing on BMD records, appearing in company registrations, or of knowing public domain available info on courses is just another silly smear. The innocent reader might assume there was *actually* something private and personal in the suppressed comment STRIKE THREE!

    As for your schoolboy taunts (!) .. like water off a duck's back.

    Chris Paul said...

    Can't see any sign of Dizzy retracting his vile smears. So I've made a further comment at his blog:

    Hi Dizzy

    I am searching for some kind of clarification of the ridiculous mangling and misrepresentation you gave my comment. Three times a smear by my reckoning.

    HERE is my response to your post in its totality. And HERE's my response to your "there are no smears here" crap.

    Family members who work for MPs - particularly if apparently under-qualified and generously paid are surely not beyond comment? Still less a husband with whom an MP has had various business arrangements, property ownerships, legal judgments, and ongoing connection.

    I cannot speak for the Telegraph but for myself I can say that I do not hate or dislike Nadine, I just think her goings on are ridiculous and fascinating for that.

    Finally any of your readers who are interested in Nadine's South Africa house and the repossession thereof - with scans of the relevant legal document proving that - can look HERE.

    All the best

    Chris P