Friday, July 09, 2010

(Probably) Lies About Nadine Dorries: 3. Living Over the Broom

Despite telling the world pre- her election to parliament in 2005 that she had married Paul Dorries, a mining engineer on her return from Zambia; and telling the world post- election and in parliament to boot that she married him in Zambia before their return, laden with child, there is no record whatsoever of her ever marrying the man. There should be even if the wedding was overseas. Clearly then there would be no need for any divorce! Messy or otherwise. They were just living over the broom as it were. And with a woodyard at the back of Nadine's ridiculous seven-bedroom "second home" there are all the makings of a new broom when Mr Dorries gets his affairs in order.

Although he's been a missing person for some time his red saloon, a Jaguar or similar, has been spotted in the vicinity. And the rascal has even sneaked in late at night and used the Mum-Ps land line telephone - including for at least one international call - to try to score some more with his chronically ill-advised rich widows. A MissPer poster campaign has we're told begun with an epicentre in South Warwickshire where he had digs and indeed a mate's sofa as a refuge when he had to leave the Mum-P. Well wishers have now hired a most excellent Private Investigator to find Paul and help get him back on the straight and narrow.

DORRIES TRIVIA: The picture these chaps are using is from 2003, taken on the occasion of the opening of Nadine's ill-fated, nominally Gorgeous shop in Prestbury, Cheshire. The hand creeping in on the right of shot belongs to a rather famous former coke fiend and adulteress, now in recovery and selling thousands of snort and tell tomes. As it goes there is another mystery fella in one of the other shots on this reel. We may come back to that one and try to crowd-source his identity another time. But I digress. And Paul may have changed a bit in the intervening seven years.

DORRIES CROWD SOURCE: Have you seen this man? A former Gloucestershire councillor who harboured parliamentary ambitions before his partner rained on his parade and took the gig. Sometimes of course "the disappeared" who want to stay disappeared may use an alias or three but in this case we've no reports of such. Mike Lenny's team would love to catch up with Paul. Please ring 020 7794 8100 if you can help. Perhaps you've done a bit of business with the fella and you'd like to give him a reference?


Anonymous said...

Hope you are well insured. Mr Dorries is with the Police lodging a formal complaint against you right now. You have gone too far with your lies and smears.

Anonymous said...

Lol! This 'detective agency' has been taken on by Paul's former girlfriend, Sheila Lockhart. His phone makes interesting reading with the ten a day text messages she sends him. He keeps them all because he knew she would do something crazy like this.Paul ended it when he realised she was seriously dependent on a Tarot card reader called Pete MacDonald, a former convict. She has her cards read every week and lives by what this guy tells her. Pete MacDonald has dozens of women who do the same and he makes a very lucrative living out of it. Paul and Nadine haven't been together for years, due to his inability to remain faithful, but she is still the woman he would jump of a cliff for. It was the Pete MacDonald influence over Sheila that made him end it because he didnt want that to reflect on Nadine. Sheila put some money into a company Paul invested in because she wanted to be in with everything he did. She is mega rich and lavished clothes, holidays, watches,
a villa in Umbrio, reams of love letters, the lot, but he left her and she can't get over it. If Paul had done something illegal or wrong, it would be the Police who were after him not a hick agency for rejected ex girlfriends.
You have got a lot of stuff wrong about Nadine on your blog too, stuff which is just factually incorrect.For instance, she sold Gorgeous to Coleen Rooney and made a bomb out of it. Nadine comes from a famous footballing family in Liverpool and it's all a big family club.

Chris Paul said...

Anonymous 13:51: gone to the police? That makes sense, not. Is he going to report me for a public order offence or something?

Anonymous 15:42: will you identify yourself? You have added some interesting ideas into the mix and revealed a rather intimate knowledge of the Dorries runnings. But also some deranged crap which may as far as I know and tend to believe be utterly made up.

I would advise all readers to treat every word of this with a pinch of salt, unless you identify yourself and also provide some corroboration.

The title transfer for Gorgeous does not link up as far as I can see to Colleen Rooney, there was though some Nads spin at the time along those lines and also mentioning another footballer, but the shop has been sitting empty for five years, has an awkward peppercorn tenant in part of its demise, and has been on the market for some time and just been reduced by the best part of 20%.

Someone else has lost their shirt on that one I'm afraid.

The "made a bomb out of it" line which Nadine peddled in an extraordinary press release to the Macclesfield paper along with saying she'd never lived in the area, and was moving her main home into her new constituency probably deserves wider circulation.

And the famous footballing family is also - as you well know - utter and complete Nadine Bargery tosh.

Tim said...

"Mr Dorries is with the Police lodging a formal complaint against you right now."

Pfft! Either that's a joke or you are, Anonymous @ 13:51

Chris Paul said...

Guess he may have got the idea from former Lib Dem councillor Christian Walker who got thrown in the cells, convicted and fined after a drunken, racist and homophobic end to a great night out at Chris Davies MEPs office party or the like.

He has been claiming my November 2008 post about his outrageous carrying on was an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act. It was and is actually true facts and fair comment. A bit irreverent considering what respect such a fine upstanding elected representative was getting up to.

Just for the avoidance of doubt the affairs in order I refer to are business affairs and when Paul is reffered to as trying to score with his ill-advised widow women this is a reference to his optimistic expectation that they or their charitable trusts might invest in more of his ventures.

I'll be taking the second comment apart when I get a bit of time. Have some gardening to get done, and stuff.

Anonymous said...

Your blog and bloggerheads are both guilty under section 5. Your Twitter account and that of others you talk to are also guilty. Humphreycushion and others. I have no idea why Dorries hasn't been to the police about the lot of you.
One thing for sure though, you will never see Peter Hands name anywhere, even though he was with Jacko today in Bedford firing her up. He will make sure nothing leads back to him when you are all payng your thousand pound fines.

Chris Paul said...

Eh? Anon 23:44 will you please identify yourself and also explain this legal point of yours?

Presumably a large proportion of the political blogs and tweets in the world would also be guilty if you were correct.

I have no idea who Peter Hands is.

I have no idea who Jacko is.

I will

Chris Paul said...

(cont.) .. give the two names a quick run through a nearby search engine.

Chris Paul said...

Results from search engines (update) .. nothing whatsoever of any use in identifying the "Peter Hands" to whom our anonymous friend refers. "Jacko" is not a term with prospects.

I'm going to persist with this for a bit. But if anon 23:44 would be so kind as to make some sense of their comment(s).

Is anonymous 23:44 the same person as anonymous 13:51?

Is anonymous 23:44 the same person as anonymous 15:42?

Are anonymous 13:51 and anonymous 15:42 one and the same?

This won't do will it? I am interested in facilitating an exchange of information and views in these comments with the proviso as far as it goes that I recommend all readers to regard anything anonymous above as unworthy, untrue and mischievious.

Much of it is obviously utter tosh.

I will if necessary introduce moderation of comments and a requirement to have an identity, but come on people, own up as to who you are and what your interest in these matters is.

Chris Paul said...


We have found a Peter Hands who is multi-qualified in various alternative therapies and clinical -ish trades. Would that be the one anon 23:44? Might link into the grand narrative implied elsewhere by other anons and so on. Or is that simply a coincidence?

Also one or two in the USA and others in Australia and so on.

Perhaps you can see anon 23:44 how very difficult it can be is you accuse somebody called Peter Hands of something very vague (but not good it would seem) while not identifying themselves or yourselves?

Chris Paul said...

Progress Report:

We have now found another (more obscure search engine wise) Peter Hands who may be the Dorries connection intended in anon 23:44 ridiculous comment above - which I continue to urge readers to exercise every caution over, it's simply tosh, as are the two other unsigned comments from anon 13:51 and anon 15:42 who may or may not be one and the same.

Don't believe a word of it unless published properly by an identified source and with appropriate evidence of why they actually believe any of that apparent crap.

This new Peter Hands - far more likely I'd say to be the one referred to - is the former member of the Nadine Dorries parliamentary staff. She wrote about him, very intemperately and arguably in a defamatory way, in the last blog post of her daft blog which was pulled within about half an hour of her comments going live.

This Peter Hands had been the former employee who blew the whistle on alleged mistakes in application of public funds to what he understood to be an unpublished and possibly unproduced edition of Nadines' parliamentary report.

Ms Lynn Elson had been involved in the work and had received a payment. Nadine - as well as slagging off her ex- employee - stated as I recall - that monies had been refunded when it was discovered or ruled or something that the report could not be distributed because of some issue with prejudicing the mayoral election in Bedford.

I think the jury's out on all that. But can we presume anon 23:44 that this is indeed the Peter Hands to whom you were referring?

So, now we've got somewhere on that one can anyone help on "Jacko"?

benchilltory said...

its a good job that the divine Nadine did rip off the british tax payer by avoiding inheritance tax on her late fathers estate

Chris Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris Paul said...

what are you on about BHT?

no avoidance there

are you simply trying to get in on the "probably lies" thing with the person or persons unknown channeling Dorries above?

if you actually know the details there'd be a fair amount of bad taste involved in your "joke"

Chris Paul said...

Message to anyone posting anonymously or with a dodgy iD: You cannot delete your own stuff which I am going to leave here unless requested by either those mentioned - in line with my published policy of correction, rebuttal etc - or proven authors requesting deletion.

I'm leaving the stuff here with the clear advice to readers that anything above that is anonymous and bileful is in fact not worth considering as being truthful - it is probably lies" - but this stuff does helpfully expose the "brains" of those who stand to fall.

Jimmy said...

"Hope you are well insured. Mr Dorries is with the Police"

I had no idea you could insure against the police. How does that work?

Knackered of the Wood Yard said...

Back in my day rolling up one's trouser leg and effecting a secret handshake or three was deemed very adequate "insurance" against most police action. Even those black-balled could call down Brothers to do their dirty work for them.

Chris Paul said...

If Mr Paul David Dorries - the apparently estranged partner of Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P - who is studiously avoiding being located by various interested parties, were to make a complaint to the police, under the unlikely cover of the section 5 of the POA or otherwise, he would have to:

1. Go to or otherwise contact a police station (oo-er)


2. Identify himself (oo-er)


3. Provide specific contact details of himself or his agent (e.g. a solicitor) (oo-er)


4. Show he had just cause and was not wasting police time (oo-er)


5. Provide evidence (oo-er)


6. Attend court if there were proceedings (oo-er)

Basically, this ain't going to happen even if this hideaway geezer had any grounds whatsoever.

Face the Music Mr Dorries said...

I happen to know that the "Hick" Detective agency are dealing with more than one person who consider themselves to have been defrauded by Mr Dorries.
Two of these people have specifically requested Mr Dorries to deal with the "Hick" agency. (as is their legal right.)
Mr Dorries has up until this point refused all requests for a meeting to explain where their tens of thousands of pounds have gone to.
Perhaps as a concerned and intimate friend of Mr Dorries, Mr Anon might bring Mr Dorries to the table and we can finally make sense of what has happened to these people and their money.
The agencies number is on the poster shown on this blog.

Chris Paul said...

Thanks FTMMD

I happen to know that several national newspapers are also trying to put a series of simple clarifications, questions and points to Mr Dorries.

I happen to know that at least a couple of solicitors who were handling his communications have ceased to act for him and can offer no current alternatives.

And that Mike Lenny is not the only agent or investigator involved in pursuing claims.

And that a major PR has also been involved in the hunt.

And that Nadine who kindly offered to provide direct answers to Qs lest there be any errors has not been answering Qs.

And that even Mr David Cameron himself has been asked to intervene to help resolve issues from disappointed customers. He declined to assist.

And that at least one enormously revealing text message intended for Paul reportedly went elsewhere through a slip of the thumb.

Clearly as we know from Anon 15:42 - the bountiful source of Dorries guff - that Mr Dorries has done absolutely nothing wrong. So why will he not provide a way of contacting him to clear things up?

I'm hoping to be on to fisking comment two shortly. This will be by way of a series of comments and questions for Paul and other dramatis personae.

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't be thanking FTMMD, CP, you should be slagging him off. He comes on here anonymously to post bileful stuff, which is against your express wishes. I have followed your instructions, however, and dismissed it as a bucket of crap.

Good job soembody's on the ball. You very nearly became hypocritical and that would never do.

Chris Paul said...

Bileful Anonymous 18:58? Really? Looks like a rehearsal of some relevant facts about the appointment of an agent, and a request that Mr Dorries come forward. Simples.

Anonymous said...

I was just going off your rules that people shouldn't believe a word of any accusations unless published properly by an identified source and with appropriate evidence of why they actually believe any of that apparent crap.

I know how much you want to be even handed at all times and that you would hate to be seen as a nasty, obsessed, myopic shit. I was just trying to help.