Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Nuts in November: Question 2, Nadine, Admin Error or Obfuscation?

As LOL revealed exclusively HERE last Wednesday and followed up HERE last Thursday Ms Nadine Dorries MP has followed up her employment of one Philippa Dorries on the taxpayer with employment of one Jennifer Dorries on the taxpayer. And the common surnames are not in fact a coincidence. They are all related!

Nadine's third parliamentary employee is one Catriona Rowen (listing) of whom we are not about to comment at this stage. Though one Iain Dale also popped up in the same "staff" register, sponsored by Keith Simpson MP.

We explained at some length yesterday how we came by the information about young Jennifer Dorries' joyous surprise employment with her MumP (pronounced "Mum-Pee" not "Mump"). There's no need to go over all that again.

But we specifically asked:

Question 1: Nadine, Jennifer claimed, amongst her peers, that she was being paid some £50,000. Though the Mirror reported an estimate of a mere £29,000. Including roles at parliament and in constituency base, which is it? And ..

Q1a the supplementary: Post Conway and Post Telegraph and Mid Legg and Pre Kelly how did you, Nadine, think it would look employing a series of Little Dorrieses in this way? Did you really think this would pass muster?

The big problem today is trying to decide which two questions to pose today. There were so many to go at already. And in the last 24 hours the regular trickle of story tips on the Member for Mid Narnia, from her many well wishers, at one point threatened to overspill the banks.

We'll begin with a question already begged in yesterday's post:

Question 2: Jennifer's appointment is not in the least bit apparent from Part Two of the Register of Members Interests editions dated either 2 September 2009 (html) or 14 October 2009 (pdf). Though Philippa shows, as if she is still in post whereas we understand - largely from that MumP "blog" of yours - that she set off for Australia early in September. Should we put this down as Jennifer's first major administrative mistake? Or is it deliberate?

No comments: