Too much information, Nadine
Saturday, May 23, 2009 I have met Nadine Dorries twice, and very briefly; once when she was a panellist at a Free Society event ("Freedom and the Internet") at last year's Conservative party conference, and again when she was a judge in our Tories Got Talent competition at the same conference.
For what it's worth I sympathise with her domestic situation. She's a divorced mother-of-three, which can't be easy. It doesn't bother me that she kept quiet about the location of her "main home". She is self-evidently a hard-working MP and the fact that she spends most of time in her constituency (where she has a second home) should be considered a plus not a minus.
Nor do I care that she described the Daily Telegraph’s daily disclosures of MPs’ claims as “torture” and warned that some MPs are "at suicide risk". OK, it was almost certainly ill-advised (if I was David Cameron I'd be hopping mad) but that's her opinion and she is entitled to it.
What I do object to is that she described herself on her blog this week as a "cheeky scouser", adding:
"I like to go into the rooms of the faceless and nameless in Parliament, sit on their desk and ask pertinent questions like: who are you? What do you do?"
For that image alone I am calling on the member of parliament for mid-Bedfordshire to do the decent thing. Nadine, spare us any more of these distressing revelations, please!
Simon Clark
I wrote a draft version of this post last night but I didn't publish it because I was interrupted by Have I Got News For You and Reggie Perrin - and after that I fell asleep.
The original unpublished post featured a much longer quote from Nadine's blog which mentioned the owners of the Telegraph and some idle speculation about the paper's motivation for running so many stories about MPs' expenses. I've very little time for conspiracy theories so I didn't take any of it (including her final comment, "Scary stuff!") seriously.
This morning I discovered, via Iain Dale, that Nadine's blog had been taken down. Dizzy Thinks has the full story.
If the speculation is true (it hasn't yet been confirmed) it strikes me as an extraordinary over-reaction by those responsible because it will only fuel further speculation not to mention the paranoia of excitable MPs. Free speech is just as important as freedom of information. A major national newspaper should be big enough to defend both.
What it does highlight is that the internet is not isolated from the real world. The same laws of libel and defamation apply and everyone - bloggers and those commenting on blogs - should bear that in mind.
Reader Comments (5)
Maybe Nadine Dorries would serve a better purpose by staying at home and looking after her three children, rather than making stupid statements regarding conspiracy theories about the fact that MP's did cook the books.
"I like to go into the rooms of the faceless and nameless in Parliament, sit on their desk and ask pertinent questions like: who are you? What do you do?"
I'd rather Ms. Dorries spent time debating legislation and holding the Government to account. When they are in Parliament that is what they should be doing but too many of them are feckless or have become convinced they have no authority. They each have all the authority their constituents lend them but many of them prefer to play party politics.
Nadine Norris backs smoking bans because, as she once said on Question Time, "my clothes don't stink when I go to the pub anymore".
The woman obviously has no idea what true freedom is and for that very reason she is not worth suporting nor his her party. We need less people like this in parliament and not more and I for one am sick of them taking the piss at the public's expense.
I wish she and her ilk would go for the sake of this country!
I say this in no spirit of vindictiveness but I would hope that the MPs' experience, as a class, of 'denormalisation' might give them some understanding of the feelings of smokers.
Norman - I agree.
They've been attempting to denormalise me for years - it won't work.
I like people - people like me. I live honestly and legally. I have done nothing wrong.
I smoke - so what? It is legal and it is very enjoyable and therapeutic.
I do not fleece off anyone, unlike our law-makers.
No wonder they voted for the blanket ban with the amount of money floating around within the anti-smoking extremists groups.
Are all laws passed in this country based on funding? That's what I'd like to know