Stay classy, folks…

If anyone asks I’ll deny it…

… but I am about to defend Nadine Dorries. This is not part of some cunning scheme to killer her off from shock, but really just a simple appeal to the rest of her detractors to “stay classy”.

It’s been reported in the papers that her relationship with her lover, John Butler, has come to an end. Readers might remember that her relationship with this man was somewhat controversial when announced, not only because this supposed Christian had allegedly had an adulterous affair, but also because of various comments made my Ms. Dorries surrounding her partner’s wife and alcoholism. I remember at the time being particularly appalled at her use of the guy’s daughters on her blog to try to vindicate her position.

That however was then, and this is now. The relationship has come to an end.

When she started in this relationship, I considered it to be a genuine target, raising as it did questions as to her integrity, and also her commitment to the supposed Christian faith that lies at the heart of so much that she does. However, the breakup of the relationship does not deserve the same attention – there’s no public interest to be served here. It’s tabloid stuff, and the fact that Dorries is the victim of it does not make it any the more palatable.

I’m not about to rejoice in what I am sure must be an extremely trying time for her. Nobody has won, and everyone involved has lost – as is typical of this sort of thing.

I will however continue to be hostile, where appropriate, to her conduct as an MP – because there is a very significant public interest to be considered there. That is where the press should be focussing their attention, and not on Dorries’ bedroom window.

We’re in trouble, folks…

I woke this morning to the news that the Home Secretary, Theresa May, would like us to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Just sit and ponder that one for a moment – SCRAP, HUMAN, RIGHTS.

Now, some of the politically aware amongst you will be thinking “Calm down… She’s going to bring in a Bill of Rights instead… What’s your problem?”. That is, when all is said and done, a good question – and it deserves an answer.

Content

It could be that the new “Bill of Rights” is just as encompassing as the Human Rights Act, and me and my liberal leaning mates are all worrying about nothing. However, you don’t make changes for changes’ sake, so it seems reasonable to presume that Mrs. May has some changes in mind. What are those changes? That’s right – we don’t know, do we? There’s been no attempt to produce a draft Bill of Rights either, has there? This means we are not in a position to evaluate it for ourselves, and instead must “take it on trust” that the government will act responsibly.

Simply put, I don’t. This government, just like the last, panders to the press – which is always a big no-no – but this government’s favourite tabloid is the Daily Mail – and that scares me.

More than anything though, if the government is being evasive, then they are being evasive for a reason.

Timing

I’ve yet to see an assurance that the new Bill of Rights would be in force by the time the Human Rights Act would be removed.

Justification

In the Telegraph Article, Mrs. May’s comments lead me to suspect that her main concerns are that Article 8 (Right to a family life) is getting in the way of deporting foreign criminals. You’ll note of course that she doesn’t seem to want to discuss precisely HOW it’s doing that…

The Moral Case.

If we were to remove Article 8, then what would be the effects of such a move? Well, the criminals involved would be denied a family life with their families. “So what?”, you might say, “They knew what they were doing when they committed the offence…”. In so far as it goes, I have some sympathy with that view – if you want to be able to see your family, live a law abiding life and it won’t be a problem…

However, Human Rights are HUMAN rights, they apply to all people. It is not for the state to just decide to remove them from specific groupings of people, even if (perhaps even especially if) those groupings happen to be unpopular in the public eye. There’s no room for discussion here – either something is a human right, and therefore applicable to all, or it is not.

A secondary, though extremely persuasive, argument is that removing Article 8 would not only have an effect upon the criminals, but also upon their families. Is it right that an eight year old should have her mother / father forcefully taken out of their lives at the behest of the state like this? The child / spouse has done nothing wrong – should we not consider their feelings in this debate to? How do we justify that action, and in the case of terrorists, does this lessen or strenghen the likelihood of that child supporting their parent’s view when themselves grow up?

 

I can hear the legions of Daily Mail commentards making a torch and pitchfork laden beeline for my door as I type this. “You’re a loony lefty liberal…” or similar will be the chant.

That’s fine. Wallow in your ignorance if you must – but I at least a “loony lefty liberal” who stopped for a moment to give the issue some serious thought, which I suspect is a claim that cannot be made of many of you.

 

 

Sometimes it’s right to be wrong…

Maybe Twitter is helping to open my eyes, but more and more I find myself questioning the “justice” provided by our Courts. Don’t get me wrong, I think the vast majority of decisions that come from the Courts reflect justice, are well reasoned and considered, but every once in a while a decision comes along that I find I cannot accept…

A good example of this would be the #DaleFarm fiasco. I expect people to abide by the laws of this land, and having been denied planning permission to build more pitches on the site, then on the face of it the travellers should not have done so. That is a pretty black and white issue really – we can’t have people openly flouting the law like this, can we?

However, there is an argument that the #DaleFarm situation has arisen as a direct result of the council failing to provide sufficient pitches in the first place, as indeed they are required to by law. But can the travellers’ reaction to this be justified? Not entirely sure I can answer that one to be honest. The facts of course is that there has been wrongdoing on both sides, and we’re now going to need a judge to sort it all out. That judge is going to have to consider a lengthy, complex case history, have mind for the fact that many of the families the council wants to evict will have children in local schools… It’s a minefield. I hope they make the right decision.

Of course, whatever conclusion they come to, one party or another is going to feel aggrieved, and will be able to point to the decision and say “this is wrong, because…”. Does that mean that they don’t respect the law? I would say not.

In November this year, I will be going to the High Court to watch Paul Chambers attempt to clear his name by showing that Doncaster Crown Court (Yes, our Courts are every bit as crap as our football team…) misapplied the law in the #TwitterJokeTrial. Either we or the Crown Court are going to come away from that hearing triumphant, and there’s a respectable view that says at this point that should the Crown Court win the day, we campaigners should accept the decision and live with it. Personally, should the worse happen, I will have no moral issues at all with saying “The Court is wrong.” I believe what I believe, and the judge is unlikely to change my mind…

But, if I am prepared to to take that stance myself, then can I criticise the travellers at #DaleFarm for continuing their own fight? I don’t believe I can.

Sometimes, as the title for this post suggests, it is absolutely right to be wrong. Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi – all of these people were wrong. Wrong people make things right all the time…

Troy Davis

I do not condone capital punishment, and it is high time that a country that claims to be a paragon of western values moved beyond this barbaric practice. It is, in all circumstances, wrong.

The truth is, it’s one of those issues that a lot of us overlook – we know it happens in the world, but it doesn’t involve us, and therefore although we might not approve, we don’t give the issue the attention it deserves. I certainly haven’t…

Yet, in my own case, I started off so well…

When I attended the English equivalent of high school, I met an English / Drama teacher called Jan Sergeant. She was a wonderful teacher – one of those annoyingly good ones in fact of whom you only really become aware of their real worth after you lose them… She somehow managed to trigger a vague tolerance of literature in me (no mean feat – and if you ever read this Miss, I don’t read Dr. Who books anymore…), but one of her most memorable exploits concerned an exercise in the importance of interpretation.

To help get her point over, she had us all study the Christopher Craig & Derek Bentley case, and the issues surrounding the cry of “Let Him Have It Chris!”. What Jan Sergeant doesn’t know is that, when I was eighteen, I wrote to the Home Office for more information. The more I read, the more I became personally convinced that there were serious questions to be raised about Derek Bentley’s words, and therefore the uncomfortable possibility that my own state, Britain, had potentially executed an innocent man.

Troubling stuff, and I was dutifully troubled for a while, before moving onto other things, and the issue fell to the back of my mind again… Ever since those experiences in Jan Sergeants classroom I can honestly say I have not approved of the death penalty, but I never really did anything about it. After all, these were the days before the internet…

Then came Twitter – something I never really saw the point of until I actually joined it, and got involved in a separate campaign on a topic that for those who know me will need no introduction… Twitter is a really good way to learn about stuff, and, less than a week ago, the case of Troy Davis popped up on my Twitter radar…

Davis had been convicted of killing an off duty police officer in the United States, and sentenced to death. He had already had three appeals against his conviction denied, and we were approaching the date when he would be executed. Imagine my surprise then to learn that this man had some very, very influential backers – namely former president Jimmy Carter and a former director of the FBI. Their involvement in the case piqued my interest, so I looked at it a little more closely…

Amongst a number of issues giving rise to concerns as to the safety of his conviction, we have :

• Of the nine individuals who acted as witnesses, seven have now recanted their testimony.
• Witnesses have alleged police intimidation aimed at having them identify Davis.
• One witness alleged he had no idea who shot the officer, and being illiterate, couldn’t read the statement he was made to sign.
• Other witnesses have since confessed to providing false testimony.
• Another man is reported to have bragged that he commited the crime.
• No physical evidence, whatsoever, links Davis with the crime.
• The courts involved in the appeals have found that he “failed to prove his innocence”, where as in fact it was their duty to establish his guilt.

So, on balance, I have to say that I was with Mr. Carter – plenty of scope here for reasonable doubt. Naturally then, all of these concerns were put before the court. they realised the mistake, and re-opened the investigation in an attempt to discover the truth…

Oh – sorry – my mistake. This is America. They killed the guy anyway. I’m sure that fact that he was tried in Georgia (in the south) and happened to be black didn’t come into it at all. If you detect a note of sarcasm in my voice there it’s because you’ve just been bathed in the stuff – I seriously doubt had Mr. Davis been a white doctor, lawyer, or even crossing warden, he would be dead now.

America has executed a man of whom there is every chance was actually innocent of the crime he was convicted of. That’s huge. It was an international news story for a few hours, and then it died away… You won’t be hearing it on the news again now – it’s back to good old Twitter again…

The sad fact is that it’s now too late to do anything about it – Davis is already dead. All that can be done now is to investigate the case, and try to find out one way or the other what actually happened. We owe that to Davis, and we owe it to ourselves.

We also need to campaign to end the death penalty in supposedly civilised societies. It’s simply not acceptable, and even if it were, we’ve just seen proof that the authorities can’t be trusted with the power.

I’m now going to pour myself a wine, and reflect on the sad loss of a police officer who tried to help someone in need, and a man who, when he was alive yesterday, was also in need. If we simply let the record show that Davis killed the officer without actually establishing that beyond reasonable doubt, we have failed both the officer and Davis.

Enough.

 

Nadine Dorries vs Tim Ireland – soon to feature a knock down punch (metaphorically).

Nadine Dorries has published yet another series of amazing claims against Tim Ireland.

Let us remind ourselves that this is the man she considers poses a threat to her. Yes – that man – the one she’s spent the past couple of years repeatedly poking with a stick. Him. You might think such provocation is something that, in her shoes, you might have looked to avoid – but you just don’t understand you see – She’s Nadine! She’s right! All hail the great leadress!

Of course, and I don’t mean to be controversial here, it could just be that her claims are bullshit. I know – she’s an MP, and we ought to be able to expect a better standard etc. etc… But really, which is more likely?

If you happen to be me, it’s no longer a question of degrees – because I got off my backside and actually did some research myself. Tim Ireland has not accepted, and nor was he offered a caution. Nadine knows this to be the case. She’s a Member of Parliament, and not nearly so ignorant of the facts as she might choose to pretend. She also knows, as she always has known, that Tim was never warned by Police not to enter Bedfordshire. If she continues to maintain, or even continues to imply that either of these happened then I’m afraid we must consider her to be either ill, dishonest, or both. Whatever the truth, one wonders if Mid Bedfordshire are really getting value for money from this MP…

Researching this matter wasn’t very difficult either – just a matter of phoning the Bedfordshire Police and talking to them about it. This is all very odd really – because if I, just some interested bloke on the internet can do that, then you might be forgiven for expecting this not to be beyond the wit of the Conservative Party themselves, nor indeed that of certain members of the press… You would think that they might take a position on a Member of Parliament who seems to be throwing ridiculous slurs around in a seemingly desperate effort to throw off political scrutiny, wouldn’t you… But that’s not how politics is done in Britain any more…

Well, to her post again…

Some time ago, Tim Ireland, who hosts a number of objectionable websites, was questioned for five hours by Bedfordshire Police. Under caution and on tape, he was given a warning as to how his actions could be construed in relation to Section 2 of the Harassment Act.

I wasn’t there, so can’t comment as to exactly what happened – but I can say this for certain… Being interviewed under caution implies absolutely nothing in terms of whether the police believe, or any evidence suggests, that you are guilty of an offence. It merely ensures that the individual concerned has been advised of his / her rights, that the conversation will be admissible in court, and therefore is routinely used by the police whenever they question anyone whom might possibly be subjected to charges later. At the time, with an allegation having been made, it is perfectly right, indeed also proper, that the police would interview Tim under caution.

This is however very different to “having accepted a caution” – which refers to a suspect admitting guilt in a matter and having the matter recorded on his / her criminal record, but not going to court or facing any other punitive measure. Nadine is not an idiot (did I really type that?) – she knows this. If she didn’t, and she has a vote in the House of Commons, then both the House and the public at large need to be asking some seriously searching questions.

I also think it’s interesting to note that Nadine fails to describe this warning as a “formal warning”. Maybe I’m being pedantic, but I don’t think I am…

Before and after that interview I had a number of meetings with the Police at which notes were taken.

So what? I’ve had a meeting with clients today and then went out for a sandwich… My lunchtime indulgences cannot be said to lend any particular import or credence to the business transacted in that meeting… Similarly, by extension, I really don’t care if Nadine Dorries entered a police station armed with a notepad.

Weeks ago, Tim Ireland applied for and was sent the redacted notes using the FOI act. I assume he will publish them.

Oh I’m sure Nadine won’t be disappointed in that regard in the fullness of time, but since Tim is supposed to be the enbodiment of evil, how come he hasn’t published them already? Surely, this is what we would expect “a particularly obsessive” gentleman “bombarding her office” to do, is it not?

The truth is that at the moment, Tim is being careful not to prejudice a criminal trial – because the courts are currently engaged of someone who has made threats against Tim, and the Dorries stuff is involved in the trial. Tim appreciates that this is a serious matter, and knows that it means, for now, that he can’t publish everything this evening – as I’m sure he would like to do. However, Tim is a patient man, and each new dawn takes us one day closer.

I have had access to these documents, have studied them, and therefore know what they say. But it’s Tim’s right, when he is able, to break that story – not mine. I can’t possibly tell you what’s in those documents – but I will say this :

You really, REALLY want to know!

My lawyer’s details were on the notes and Tim Ireland has begun his usual tirade of repetitively contacting anyone whose name or details he obtains who has even the remotest connection to me.  My lawyers will not be responding to his requests.

I’m not falling for that one either…

I myself, having made a single solitary Freedom Of Information request in an attempt to learn how much time Nadine’s staff had spent monitoring the internet activity of Tim, myself, and other non-supportive individuals (that would be “None”, by the way…) only to have it thrown in my face that it would be interesting to see how much I cost the taxpayer. Nadine / her staff seem to play fast and loose with this sort of thing…

Of course, Carter Ruck are a well established law firm. Interesting that they haven’t made this allegation themselves then, or even supported it at all, isn’t it?

In the mean time Nadine, you’ve claimed time and time again that Tim has bombarded your office etc with emails, yet oddly when you have been asked (using the Data Protection Act) to provide copies, you’ve failed to do so… If these emails really do exist, publish them – complete with mail headers please. Or STFU. Your choice…

People who follow him on Twitter only see what he writes about me, they are not aware of the phone calls he makes or the emails he sends to third parties. This includes people to whom I may make a general reference on the blog who may not even have a connection to me or be even remotely political, which is both distressing for them and embarrassing for me.

Well, that’s probably because you never publish the evidence to allow us to judge it for ourselves? Let’s take the example of Forsaken shall we? Tim Ireland claims that the only messages he sent Forsaken prior to your claims that he was bombarding them were :

On 03 November 2010 at 15:26 bloggerheads.com [AT] gmail.com wrote:

]  Hi,
]
] You just received a message via the contact form of your website.
] The message was sent from http://www.forsaken-taunton.org.uk/contact/.
] You can change the e-mail address form messages are sent to. Just log in
] to your website, click on the form and change the e-mail address in the
] text box “Send message to the following e-mail address”.
] Your message:
] ————————————-
] Name: Tim Ireland
]
] E_mail: bloggerheads.com [AT] gmail.com
]
] Phone:
]
] Question: Nadine Dorries described you in the House of Commons as a
] charity. You are not registered with the Charity Commission. Was Dorries
] mistaken, perhaps? Would be grateful if you could clear this up for me.
] Cheers.

AND

from Tim Ireland
to “info [AT] forsaken-taunton.org.uk”
date Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM
subject Re: Message via www.forsaken-taunton.org.uk

Nadine Dorries spoke of you in the House of Commons as if you were an established institution. How long have you been operating? Is this your first financial year?

Tim

Please Nadine, explain to us how this counts? Or of course produce the silver bullet of evidence that Tim is hiding from us all – probably stashed down the back of the sock drawer over at his hollowed out volcano secret lair no doubt…

But if you can’t, then as I have asked above, please STFU.

He targets others too, Including Iain Dale and Guido amongst many, just with not quite the same ferocity. Which leads me and others to think that maybe his special hatred is reserved for women.

Just an idea, but maybe he’s just someone who thinks that people who enter parliament should expect, indeed welcome scrutiny – and gets a little bit annoyed when they libel him on multiple occasions in a pathetic attempt to avoid that same scrutiny. Maybe he doesn’t like being threatened…

Maybe this is a special, burning, passionate loathing he reserves just for Nadine. With all she has done to provoke him, I rather doubt any of us would hold it against him.

Answer The *@£&ing Question!!!

As some readers will know, I have recently changed jobs. No more playing with train timetables for me – I’m now writing software for keeping tabs on what “Pole-Tappers” get up to. Don’t ask – just be reassured that there’s someone like me writing code that keeps an eye on their activities… One consequence of the change in job however has been that I now work in a different city, on a different railway line – and so not meeting all the regulars on the morning train, I find myself listening to the radio more and more.

My mother has much to answer for, but one of the cruelist tricks she has ever played on me was to get me used to the comforting tones of BBC Radio Four’s “Today” programme from an early age. I was young and impressionable – I didn’t know any better lol. Joking aside, the Today programme has always been a valuable source of information to those of us who, like myself, take an interest in the world around them and what’s happening in it. For as long as I can remember they have specialised in interesting, rigorous interviews with the various politicians of the day…

There is, however, a problem. It’s been getting bigger, and it needs to be addressed. The good news is that it’s not insurmountable – all we need do is pay a little more attention to the conduct of our politicians – and maybe arm John Humphrys .

Politicians are, more and more, engaging in what I like to call the “Tactical” interview. Now you might say that this is only to be expected from people who specialise in public speaking and waxing lyrical from a particular standpoint, but they’ve been getting more and more blatant about it lately.

One of the most annoying tactics seems to be deliberately talking over the interviewer – totally ignoring that they are being asked a question, and just spouting out whatever they came on the programme minded to say regardless. Now – when I was a nipper, had I tried to speak over the top of someone else in a conversation like this, my mother would END ME. Thanks Mum! She felt, rightly, that courtesy and respect are important and not to be overlooked just so as I might shout out my own petulent, misguided view…

 

It is, as I say, a matter of respect. It is therefore utterly shameful that politicians should behave in such a manner, particularly as the function of the interview is to represent the wider public. The interviewer / presenter presumably has the ability to fade out the interviewee’s microphone – and I think we’re at the point where this needs to be given serious consideration. Politicians – if you don’t want to be treated like children, don’t behave like spoilt brats.

Next, let’s discuss the other tactic our political overlords greatly enthused about – that of not asking the question you were asked, but instead asking the one you wish you had been asked. That’s not on either. The message here is “well, the people don’t really want to know about that…” That is not a decision for the politician to make. Personally, I find that such “question avoidance” stands out like a sore thumb in most interviews, and it reveals a hell of a lot about the person avoiding the question.

How refreshing would be, every once in a while, to have a politician say “Yes, well, I used to think that, but it turns out I was mistaken…”? “Yes, well, not my finest hour…”? I actually think a politician prepared to admit to their mistakes would actually be APPRECIATED by the public. We all make mistakes, and a willingness to recognise them is a desirable quality for those that would mean to rule over us. Similarly, the lack of such ability is a major concern in any politician.

Politicians are not very popular at the moment, what with their moat cleaning and duck housing activities of recent years – but in my opinion a lot of the contempt that the public have for politicians is actually born of the contempt that the politicians themselves show us. We need to deal with this – and the first part of that is for those interviewing our politicians to become very much more robust in how they do so. If a politician won’t answer a question, let’s call them out on it. If it keeps happening, let’s keep calling them out on it – and give said politicians a well deserved reputation for being evasive little … – well, you get the idea…

So please Mr. Humphrys – cometh the hour, cometh the man. It’s kick ass time.

Dorries, the BBC, and caring what others might think…

Nadine Dorries seems somewhat agitated here with the BBC’s apparent fondness for using Twitter.

She doesn’t seem to be aware that 48 hours might not be enough time for the Today Programme to organise a serious study, but then that’s hardly a surprise. Nadine Dorries and serious studies always seem to have such a turbulent relationionship, but that’s ok – it seems custody of the credibility always seems to end up in the right place in the end.

A few interesting points to note here would be that :

• The Today team drew the listeners attention to the fact that this was not a scientific survey.
• They were perfectly open about their methods.
• They presented evidence supportive of both viewpoints.
• They didn’t try to claim any grand conclusions on the back of their shakey research.

So no, I’m not surprised that she didn’t appreciate their efforts.

They also went out of their way to find out what the people thought, rather than blindly promoting their own personal views. I dare say that didn’t go down too well either.

The prosection of the nurse at Stepping Hill Hospital.

There is currently a huge investigation under way at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport, into how saline solution came to be contaminated with insulin. The contamination is thought to have led to four deaths, and the police are now also considering potentially forty victims, although it should be stressed that not all of those people died. Still, this is of course an incredibly serious matter, and it is absolutely essential that the cause of this contamination is found and dealt with – particularly if it is the result of deliberate tampering.

Early in the investigation a staff nurse at the hospital, Rebecca Leighton, was arrested and then eventually charged with :

• Three counts of criminal damage intending to endanger life, and
• Three counts of of criminal damage being reckless as to whether life would be endangered.

She has spent the past six weeks in prison, but yesterday was dramatically released when the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop all charges against her. In fact, Sky News even have a statement from the CPS prosecutor, so let’s have a read of that shall we?

CPS prosecutor Nazir Afzal said: “We have conducted a review of the case with senior police officers and sought the advice of leading counsel on whether it would be right to keep Rebecca Leighton in custody while investigations are continuing.

“The advice we have received is that on the evidence currently available there is not a case in law which could proceed and that the charges should be discontinued.

“As this is very much a complex investigation with lines of inquiry still being followed, there is the prospect that further evidence might emerge which the CPS would then consider alongside the evidence gathered so far.”

Radio Four have reported that the charges were made out under the “Threshold Test”, the CPS guidelines for which can be viewed here. In a nutshell, the idea is that if someone presents a substantial bail risk, and not all the evidence is available at the point in time where the suspect would have to be released from custody by law, then a charge can be made, allowing the suspect to be held in custody.

Now, whether the Threshold Test has been applied correctly is something I am not in a position to assess, being neither legally trained nor privy to the details of the investigation. The guidelines make it clear however that this test cannot be used unless “there are continuing substantial grounds to object to bail in accordance with the Bail Act 1976 and in all the circumstances of the case an application to withhold bail may properly be made.” That being the case, were I in Miss Leighton’s position, I would be seeking justification of the perceived flight risk here. After all, bail is a right, and there have to be identified reasons behind a decision to deny it. Certainly there have been no details published that would lead me to consider Miss Leighton a flight risk…

Something else that must be considered is that the Threshold Test cannot be used simply in the vain hope that further evidence might turn up – the prosecutor must have in his/her mind identifiable further evidence, and not merely speculative. So, at some point (after the investigation concludes), I think Miss Leighton needs to be challenging just what this identifiable evidence might have been. After all, she has spent six weeks in custody as a result of it.

Another troubling aspect of the case is the numbers. There have been six charges, relating one presumes to six separate acts given the specific charges (the two types of charge would contradict each other where they applied to a common event). The investigation can’t apparently get ANY of these charges to the point where they have a case in law.

What the hell has happened to the presumption of innocence in this country, and how can the criminal justice system be saved?

Like most impartial observers, I always presumed that the criminal justice system would be professional, rigorous, and hold itself to the highest possible standards as it goes about it’s buisness. After all, we’re talking about people’s lives. However, on the two occasions that my interest in a case has resulted in my actually attending it, I have been horrified by the conduct of both prosecutions.

We have to presume, in the absence of further evidence, Miss Leighton to be innocent. How is Miss Leighton supposed to resume her career now? Well, I suspect the truth is that this is not something we’ll have to face immediately, as the NHS will doubtless want to conduct their own investigations, as of course is entirely proper under the circumstances. But, assuming that she is cleared (and let’s remember here that the CPS have admitted that the “evidence” is such that they do not even have a case in law, still less one with a realistic prospect of a conviction), what then? Will her managers really trust her? Will her colleagues? her patients?

Justice. Really?

Threats against Nadine Dorries

In her latest blog post here, Nadine Dorries complains of receiving death threats. I don’t believe her – but we’ll come to that in a moment.

First though, let’s assume for a moment that she is telling the truth, and some arsehole actually is threatening her… Whoever you are, you’re a tosser – and that’s coming from someone who definitely isn’t in the Dorries camp. I’m all for people opposing her – in fact I’m happy to encourage it, because we need to see a lot more of it, but there’s no place for physical attacks, threatened or otherwise.

She’s a muppet, and she can be easily defeatded by simple debate.

But, as I say, I don’t believe her.

The reason I don’t believe her is that I know that the many allegations of stalking she has made against Tim Ireland are false. I know that not just from talking to Tim himself, but also through talking to the police themselves. If she can lie once, she can lie again – and indeed in the very article she links to she talks about a man having to accept a police caution. The man question is undoubtedly Tim Ireland, and he neither accepted, nor was offered, a police caution.

For a while I was prepared to think that maybe she got confused by his having an interview under caution, but no – she’s an MP and she knows better.

Oh, and I find it very unlikely that the police would contact her to ask if they should prosecute.

First of all, if someone is making a threat to kill, the police have a duty to act if they can substantiate the charge.

Secondly, the decision to actually prosecute is taken by the CPS, and not the police.

Oh, and finally, if the dreaming of her being killed in a car bomb message (as portrayed in the article in the mail) is true, then it’s a crying shame that the police haven’t brought a prosecution under section 127 1a of the Communications Act 2003. It would be nice if we could see it deployed against it’s intended targets rather than people joking about airports…

She’s at it again…

Nadine Dorries MP (oh, how that irks me…) has published an article on her blog here , commenting on an article in the Daily Telegraph that can be found here.

Let us get one thing straight – Dorries is not trying to make counselling with one of her “alternate” counsellors mandatory for a woman. Many people seem to have ran away with the idea that this might be the case, but it doesn’t seem to be so, and we should recognise that. No – instead she is trying to make it mandatory that women should be offered counselling from an “independent” counsellor, and also that organisations who financially benefit from the provisions of terminations should not be able to provide counselling.

Now, as soon as someone starts saying effectively “In the interests of independence, only those people I support will be able to provide service X…”, I sit up and take notice – it leads to the nagging suspicion that they might be talking bollocks. Since this is Nadine we’re dealing with, I’m hardly reassured… However, on this occasion, perhaps she might have a point…

Of course, one thing we need to get straight is what this “independence” should look like. It’s not hard at first glance to imagine how a body that is paid to provide terminations might come to act improperly when it comes to counselling women who are trying to decide, at an extremely traumatic time, whether they should have one. On the other side of the fence though, these counsellors are regulated, both by their own professional body and also by HM Government, so it seems that any impropriety should be easy enough to identify. The fact that there has yet to be a case where either have found BPAS or Marie Stopes to have acted in such a manner is of course relevant here as well. We either have a system that is working fine, or we have a failure of regulation – in part by HM Government.

If the regulators are failing, then, in the first instance, that is what should be corrected. Even if you move counselling services out to other “financially independent” groups, you would still be left with a regulator that is not fit for purpose.

Unless, of course, there isn’t a problem with the regulation of these people, in which case why are we even having this discussion?

It’s an important question. Whilst the Pro-Life movement might well be able to offer services, possibly very good services. I think they are even less independent than BPAS. They are, after all, committed on principal to stamping out terminations – which makes them just about the last people you would want anywhere near the counselling of vulnerable women. At least BPAS are not ideologically opposed to people NOT having terminations – as evidenced by the many, many women who through their counselling decide that termination is not for them…

So I’m sorry Nadine, but I just don’t believe you. I think you’re playing with this counselling issue to try to further your other aims. You are, by your own admission, a Christian who is opposed to abortion. Even if your bill made sense, and I do not believe that it does, you actually harm it by your own involvement.

But anyway – back to Nadine’s post…

The comment by Ann Furedi, CEO of BPAS, that ‘if her organisation was prevented from advising women about terminations it could be impossible to gain informed consent, as the independent counselling was not compulsory’ is frankly, breathtaking.

It’s not breathtaking at all – it’s a bloody good point. Before carrying out any sort of procedure, a clinician is required, by law, to establish “informed consent”. What this means is that the patient should understand what action is proposed, together with the possible outcomes of such action, along with any risks that such actions might present. No responsible clinician, from BPAS or anywhere else, will be sure of the counselling that has been provided by another party they are not connected with. They perhaps could try to remedy this by providing their own counselling at the time, but no – Nadine’s bill would prohibit that. If a clinician cannot be sure he/she has informed consent, there is no way that they undertake a termination. This is not an example of BPAS threatening or intimidating anyone – and more a matter of their simply exercising proper care and governance. Oh – and let’s remember both that Nadine feels they aren’t capable of this because all they see is pounds and pence, and also that Nadine and the rest of the pro-life folks didn’t even consider this an issue.

Up until now we have had the pro-choicers creating the false impression that what we are proposing is compulsory. Outed as being outrageously deceitful, they now spin a reason why not being compulsory and a matter of choice is a bad thing. Not only that, they throw in a scare tactic in the form of a lie with an implied threat, ie, if a woman dares to take up the offer of being counselled by someone who has no financial interest in her ultimate decision, Bpas may not be able to carry out the abortion because they wont have informed consent.

I take issue with the suggestion that people have deliberately moved to misrepresent what the bill sets out to do, but I agree that it has not been very well understood – hence my clarification at the top of this post. That’s only a minor point though compared to what I think about the rest of that passage…

How dare Nadine Dorries claim there is an implied threat here? BPAS couldn’t care which band of sky-pixie worshippers you might take advice from as a pregnant woman considering a termination. It’s a free country, and you’re free to talk with whoever you like (until the bill passes of course). All they ask, as I explained above, is that they can establish informed consent before carrying out a termination. That’s not so unreasonable, is it? Or does Mrs. Dorries expect clinicians to merely take it on trust?

Once we see exactly who Mrs. Dorries has in mind for providing these counselling services, we’ll all be in a better place to decide as to their suitability. That’s one of the problems here – these new providers haven’t been identified, and as such are a bit of an unknown quantity. Far from implying or threatening anything at all, BPAS are merely trying to sound a well intentioned note of caution.

That one comment and tactic by Ann Furedi, CEO of BPAS demonstrates how utterly reprehensible and money grabbing her organisation is, as the fear of losing revenue makes her resort to despicable measures, which includes issuing veiled threats to vulnerable women .

No it doesn’t – see above. However, your attempt to portray her comments as some sort of threat actually reveals quite a lot about your own rather lacking standards in this debate. Yet again Mrs. Dorries, you engage in the smear tactic. You tried this with Tim Ireland, and lost. You tried to suggest that those of us who communicate with Tim are having our communications monitored, and lost.

You might be as nutty as a squirrel’s wet dream Nadine, but speaking more myself, my own opposition to you is based more in how you act than in the actual policies you promote. While ever you continue with this kind of playground politics, you will continually be outed as the laughing stock you are. Deservedly so.

If that comment weren’t enough, you will hear a quote on one day that 20% of women who approach Bpas, decide not to abort and then at the next interview,15%, depending upon which figure suits.

Ha ha ha! Really Nadine? YOU – Nadine Dorries – are seriously accusing someone else of making up evidence to support their view? Can someone send me a new irony meter please – the needle on this one is well and truly buried in the side wall lol!

I almost feel guilty for picking her up on that point. Debating with Nadine is often much like shooting fish in a barrel – but these particular fish seem to be glued to the bottom of the barrel, and already dead…

Ann Furedi will also trip of her tongue the fact that BPAS are the largest independent providers of abortion in the UK, whereas MSI, state that this is in fact incorrect and that they are.

See above.

All this, from a woman who takes a financial package, including pension, car, expenses etc, paid for by the tax payer, circa £200,000 and yet refuses to be transparent and declare exactly how much tax payers money, our money, she is paid.

Ann Furedi works for a private organisation that works in the public sector, and does not hold public office. Her salary is therefore a private matter. I wish this were not so – and personally I would support leglislation requiring full disclosures of all salaries EVERYWHERE in excess of £150K per annum, but that’s another argument. Ann Furedi, under the current laws of our country, is entitled to her privacy.

Excuse me while I change to green text to make a relevant point here…

Nadine Dorries on the other hand DOES hold public office (MP for Mid Bedfordshire), and is therefore accountable under law. When I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to ascertain how much time and public resources had been expended in efforts to monitor the communications of non-supportive individuals such as Tim Ireland and I, I thought it a relatively simple matter. I sent off the request, and quietly waited for the response. None was forthcoming in the time allotted by law, so I contacted Nadine again to ask what was happening with the request, as she was legally obliged to have contacted me by this point…

It’s at this point that I received an email from Phillipa, Nadine’s office manager, come political researched, come daughter, the entire text of which read :

Dear Sir,

Only to correctly drafted FOI requests, which are in accordance with act. This was not, and therefore we are under no liability.

Regards, 

Philippa Dorries

That’s Nadine’s attitude toward openness and accountability right there for all to see…

Since I happened to have read the law, I responded quoting sections which made it explicitly clear that my request was valid, and that furthermore if there was a problem, Nadine was legally obliged to assist me.  I eventually received a response that no time at all had been spent on such activities, which when combined with the Bedfordshire Police statement that they hadn’t been monitoring us either does seem to suggest that someone was lying…

Oh, and Nadine (and Phillipa), I had decided that I wasn’t going to bother publicising that exchange. I only changed my mind following your own actions in this article…

Back to Nadine’s post again…

Ann, if you are reading this, instead of bombarding my office with solicitors letters, paid for by the tax payer in your desperate attempt to silence me and prevent me from doing the job I am elected to do, why don’t you just print on your web site a breakdown of your financial package?

Well, she made the same allegations of bombarding her office against Tim Ireland. I’m convinced he is innocent, and therefore suspect Anne Furedi is as well – and that if any solicitors letters have been sent they will be found to be a perfectly reasonable attempt to bring a measure of civility into these matters.

As for disclosing her package, if Anne Furedi is so minded, I would encourage her to do so on the condition that Nadine reveal who is supporting the Right To Know campaign first. After all Nadine, you’re the one in public office – and it’s all about transparency, isn’t it?

I suppose we should all be grateful. Ann Furedi, wife of Frank Furedi, humanist and founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party in her own way  endorses the reason why no woman in a crisis situation who needs to access unbiased advice, should be allowed anywhere near Bpas.

That doesn’t actually make sense Nadine – not that I should be surprised I guess. Oh, and your supposed link to Revolutionary Communist Party a) Doesn’t work, and b) Points to content on your own site, and therefore likely biased.

Anyway – a least he’s not a Conservative – so there’s hope for his soul yet…

As for the Revolutionary Communist Party, I don’t really care what her husband does – or more accurately did – that particular party actually having been disbanded in 1997. It’s beside the point. If you can’t criticise Anne Furedi’s actions (sorry – I meant to say if you can’t truthfully  criticise her actions), then you should shut up.