June 20, 2011

Is It Because I Is Thick?

Filed under: Uncategorized — madaxeman @ 8:29 pm

Well, it looks like Nadine Dorries MP has decided to cross swords with Tim Ireland once again. I know, I shouldn’t be surprised, but really – this is getting beyond a joke. Oh – and apparently the police are out for me and all the other misfits who haven’t yet subscribed to the Dorriestopian vision. Or something like that.

I refer of course to her latest contribution to her blog, which you’ll find here. Let’s pull at a few threads and see what unravels, shall we?

Posted Sunday, 19 June 2011 at 12:31

I am very disappointed with the judge’s finding following the three day trial

of a case brought to court for on line harassment.

I myself am in the position, as noted by Guido, of being subjected to a particularly nasty form of online harassment. Mainly due to the fact that I campaign against late term abortion and for a more responsible society which allows our children to enjoy a childhood free from the influence of an over sexualised culture and for a more responsible approach to sex and relationship counselling. As an MP, I am entitled to hold those views and voice them, just as is an MP who considers that abortion should be available up to birth and neither should face the harassment I am subjected to.

First of all, Nadine Dorries isn’t subjected to a “nasty form of online harrassment” – she’s subjected to scrutiny. She seems to be determined to claim repeatedly that a Mr. Tim Ireland is harrassing her, where as in truth all he has done is to question her performance as an MP. He’s looked into her expenses, he#s had a disagreement with her in a public meeting – all things that a chap is legally quite entitled to do with an MP.

Nadine Dorries seems to be claiming that things have gone a lot further than this – that Tim has made aggressive, threatening and abusive approaches, both by telephone and by email, to both Nadine Dorries herself and a number of her associates. So it seems reasonable then that she might have something in the way of evidence then that she might want to share us all? Erm – no.

In an effort to force the issue, Tim has used the Data Protection Act to try to get copies of any abusive emails that have apparently been sent in his name – only to find that Dorries will not provide the evidence. She is actually legally obliged to do this, it’s not something she has any sort of choice in, but she seems to want to just ignore the whole thing. Since I personally doubt any such evidence exists, I’m hardly surprised.

One key thing here though is that Dorries is convinced that her detractors are motivated solely by her beliefs, and the issues she expresses support for. This isn’t the case – she’s criticised because of how she conducts herself. Since I’m reliably informed later on that my communications are being monitored, maybe as she reads this she will begin to form and understanding of this.

My especially ‘poorly compulsive obsessive’ online stalker recently alarmed the Police enough for them to issue a verbal warning on tape at the completion of a five hour interview under caution. Following the warning, his tweets and blogs have remained monitored, as are those of people he communicates with on a regular basis.  Everything is compiled to be discussed with the Police at regular intervals. There is a very substantive reason for this periodic review.

Note that rather than deal with the requests Tim has made, she chooses to immediately brand him as a “poorly compulsive obsessive” online stalker. There’s no evidence for this, no professional as ever uttered “poorly compulsive obsessive” in Tim’s direction, and when recently interviewed as a consequence of a complaint Dorries made to the police, the police didn’t see how “stalker” really applied either. Tim was not found to have committed any offence. At all. Period.

As for the notion of the police monitoring our communications, well that’s just laughable. No doubt in the 1980’s the East German Secret Police were merrily engaged in monitoring opposition on behalf of their political masters, but this is Bedfordshire – not Berlin – and it wouldn’t be tolerated there any more either. Still, it made me laugh – so I decided to share the joke with Bedfordshire Police today. That was a very interesting conversation indeed.

Frankly, I remain blissfully unaffected. I don’t ever read his ranting and never come into contact with anyone else in the constituency who does. I believe that to read his unrelenting utterances, allows a sliver of nastiness into my day that I just don’t need. But it does affect my staff, children, family and friends and the activists and helpers who work with me and I just can’t get my silver surfer Mum, who sits on her computer a great deal and who gets very upset,to understand that he is in fact a Mr Nobody. She thinks anyone with their own web site must be important…..except me of course.

Well, Dorries wouldn’t come into contact with people who don’t support her view – I hardly find that surprising. My understanding is that she doesn’t communicate with people who do not support her own position – which if indeed true would be an, erm, interesting approach for an MP to take to their role of representing their electorate.

However, the most important thing to see here is that Tim is not sending her abuse – he’s merely calling attention to her conduct. Now, if his findings were so wide of the mark, and Dorries is actually the very model of a modern parliamentarian, she could exploit a major tactical error on the nasty Mr. Ireland’s part.

You see, like Dorries herself, Tim makes the vast majority of his observations regarding Dorries through the medium of his blog – his website if you will. Like Dorries’ blog, Tim has a large readership from the online community. However, rather unlike Dorries’ blog, Tim has left comments enabled – which means that if he says something which is demonstrably false, then Dorries and her chums can happily contest it. You know – show the evidence of why she’s right, or present the evidence of his alleged abuses etc – stuff like that.

They never have. Not once than I can see. Infer, dear reader, what you will.

This particular man also harasses anyone he comes across who has any contact with me by bombarding them with emails, freedom of information requests and repetitive telephone calls.  He even travelled across the country, by train, laden down with cameras, computers and lights, into my constituency to a local meeting, pretending to be a local in order to film me and lied to the meeting organisers and the audience about what he was doing, until a Labour supporter ‘outed’him. The fact that he lied to the organisers about why he was there, who he was and what he was doing was recently confirmed to the Police. Also confirmed at the beginning of a You Tube video in which the chairwoman introduces him as a local man filming for the benefit of the local organisation.

Tim hasn’t bombarded anyone with anything. What he has done, where necessary for the purposes of his research into Dorries’ conduct, is contact some of the people she has worked with – and I’m thinking of people like “Foresaken” – a group of individuals who campaign on the abortion issue. He didn’t lie to anyone about his presence at the Flitwick hustings either – as I understand he has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the police.

Let’s look at Dorries’ own use of language here though… “The fact he lied to the organisers about why he was there, who he was and what he was doing was recently confirmed to the police” – are we seriously supposed to believe he turned up laden down with cameras, computers and lighting, only to claim to have popped ’round to paint the ceiling? Lied about who he was? The chairperson of the meeting on the you tube video identifies him as Tim Ireland. Of course, the meeting was recorded for the benefit of the local organisation – but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t (as a public meeting) be disseminated wider.

Maybe I’m reaching – maybe Tim did mislead them – the truth is I’m not Tim and I don’t know – but everything I have seen so far in terms of Tim’s conduct tells me that he’s a straight down the line kind of guy – careful to check his facts and name his sources – so you can see which way I am leaning…

He lies on the internet and repeats the same lies over and over in order to undermine my campaigns and my credibility. He fails miserably, unless of course he happens across a lazy journalist who repeats his lies. Occasionally, he gathers traction, notably with the storm he kicked up regarding my own blog. He wrote, and used Twitter to amplify the statement that my blog is 70% fiction 30% true. What he didn’t have was the whole statement or the context of that remark and indeed, he used it to pretend that my blog was instrumental in my having been cleared by the Standards Commissioner with regard to my expenses enquiry.

Let’s deal with that then. First of all, you’ll note that she doesn’t actually cite any specific case of Tim lying on the internet. Personally, I feel this is because he hasn’t – and he’s also careful to attribute sources and check evidence. If she mentioned any specific claim, Tim would simply shoot her down with demonstrable fact, and I rather suspect she knows it.

As for the 70/30 blog stuff, well that’s just incredible. This stems from an investigation into Dorries’ parliamentary expenses, during which she was forced by the parliamentary standards commissioner to account her why her blog appeared to mislead her constituents. You can read the article at Sky News if you like. Form whatever view you will of a parliamentarian who deliberately sets out to mislead her constituents as to how much time she spends in the constituency.

The blog had nothing to do with the enquiry. I was totally exonerated and cleared following a malicious complaint (no prizes for guessing who that was) on the basis of a forensic analysis of my travel and expense receipts and via a deluge of witness statements.

The blog certainly was involved in the enquiry, as the Sky article makes abundantly clear to all. Whilst she was cleared in relation to her expenses, the parliamentary standards commissioner had quite a lot to say about her blog – including that it “gave information to its readers, including Ms Dorries’ constituents and party supporters, which provided a misleading impression of her arrangements as a Member of Parliament for the constituency”. Again, form your own conclusions….

He also lies that I claimed a foetus ‘punched’ its way out of the womb. I did not. He repeats this lie on a very regular basis and is the main focus of his obsessive interest in me.

Oh yeah? Read this. Now, it’s true that Dorries on that occasion used the term “thrust”, but I think the point is made…

If I mention on my blog where I am going or who I have been with, people can be inundated with emails or telephone calls from him which means I cannot be honest on my blog with regard to names, events and people because I have to protect the innocent from his harassment.  I was advised by the Met Police to obfuscate my blog because of this man, which then brought about the 70/30 blog statement problem which he exacerbated.

The Metropolitan Police have proven unable to find any record of having offered any such advice, and at the time these claims were made, Dorries herself was unable to provide a crime reference number. Why do you suppose that might be?

Again, none of these “innocents” are named now, preventing the impartial reader from verifying any of Dorries’ claims. How convenient.

The majority of his followers on Twitter either aren’t very bright, or they are as disturbed as he is and I often wonder if they realise that what he states on his blog and Twitter is only part of the story.  I have never been informed that he has written ‘I phoned someone Nadine Dorries mentioned on her blog 30 times today’, or, I have sent a string of aggressive emails to X after being mentioned on Dorries blog’.


As for the rest of us not being very bright, I would draw your attention to one Twitter user’s comment earlier this evening – “Yay! #dorries thinks I’m stupid and disturbed. I’m gonna wear that like a badge of honour.” I think that puts our views on the topic rather succinctly…

Therefore, I cannot mention on my blog where I am going, only where I have been and am very careful about photographing who I have seen or tagging or naming people on photographs. I don’t mention what people have said or who they work for.  I am careful about mentioning the names of anyone I am in contact with, where they live or where I am or what I am doing on any particular day, until the day is done.  I hardly mention anything, because I don’t want other people to be subjected to what Ed West, of the Daily Telegraph, describes as ‘deranged’ behaviour.

Oh – this would because of the harassment that she’s failed to provide any evidence of whatsoever, despite claiming that much of it takes the form of email? Also, like most right minded observers, I couldn’t give a toss what Ed West thinks.

This online obsessive certainly appears deranged as the other people he harasses in a less public way than me will testify. My local newspaper editors and journalists are well aware of him and describe him as a ‘menace’ and much, much worse.  We need extra staff in my office to deal with the string of complaints lodged with the Information Commissioner and a host of other public bodies, all of which cost the tax payer money to investigate..this man obviously doesn’t work.

Dorries’ local papers will no doubt find Tim to be a menace – I’d be a bit annoyed at Tim if they didn’t! He is sort of showing up what a lamentable job Dorries’ tamed alleged journalists are doing of scrutinising her themselves. The paper they produce, in my view, is only suitable to line the bottom of their cages!

As for employing extra staff to handle Tim’s enquiries, then again, as someone else pointed out on Twitter earlier, “Nadine love, if you need extra staff to answer all the FOI requests from @bloggerheads , why the fuck havent they answered any? #Dorries”. You have to admit, it’s a good question…

Dorries’ rightly draws attention to how much all this is costing though – and I share her concerns – so on Sunday morning I sent her my own Freedom of Information request so that we might learn how long they have spent involving themselves in her personal crusade against people who don’t agree with her, and how much it has all cost. I’ll get back to you when I have an answer.

Oh – and Tim does work. He’s self employed actually – which I would have thought Dorries would appreciate.

For the sake of the people who work for me (he has already forced one member of staff to resign) I am going to sit back as this man continues to hang himself and others that he encourages along with him, and wait for the day when I walk into my office and am greeted with a message that contains three little words… we have enough. Then, along with all the other people he has upset, disturbed, harassed, emailed and telephoned, I may just have my own day in court.


I also long for the day when Dorries and Tim gaze at each other from opposite sides of a Court. I don’t think it will be for the same reason Dorries seems to have in mind though.

Dorries is right though – online harrassment is a serious problem. If she could therefore refrain from indulging in it, and treat scrutiny as something to be welcomed in a free country rather than a death threat, then I think we’d all be happier.


  1. Oh, on Twitter, the editor of one (of 6) of the ‘local’ newspapers said that he’d never been in touch with Dorries nor had he heard of Tim Ireland and could people leave him alone as he didn’t want to get involved in something he knew nothing about. Doesn’t sound like he regards him as a ‘pest’ to me …

    Comment by PapasWorld — June 21, 2011 @ 6:36 am | Reply

  2. That’s given me an idea – I think I will write to the local newspapers and ask their editors directly whether they have described Tim to Nadine in these terms. The answers will be interesting, and it might help to highlight to them the antics of their local MP.

    Can you let me have the names of the papers please – you know how to contact me privately…


    Comment by madaxeman — June 21, 2011 @ 8:20 am | Reply

  3. “That was a very interesting conversation indeed.”

    Surely you’re not going to leave it at that?

    I note that she doesn’t actually state in terms that the monitoring is being carried out by the police. No doubt the wording was unintentionally misleading.

    Comment by Jimmy — June 22, 2011 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  4. Well no – you’re right, I shouldn’t.

    I had a very interesting conversation with them – the result of which being the formal statement from them that :

    ‘Bedfordshire Police are not monitoring the internet activity and communications of Mr Ireland.’

    I have asked them to expand on that a little, but it seems to be force policy to try to avoid getting involved in these kind of disputes. I’ve stressed that they are already involved, so we’ll have to see where that leads. Having spoken to them though, I am even more convinced of Tim’s position.

    The statement was provided to me in an email – a full copy of which I am happy to provide to anyone who wants it (with mail headers etc), but that is all it says…

    Comment by madaxeman — June 22, 2011 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

  5. So there we have it. She’s managing to monitor a site without ever actually reading it.

    What a remarkable woman.

    Comment by Jimmy — June 22, 2011 @ 3:51 pm | Reply

  6. I’m just referring to her claim never to read Tim’s site.

    Comment by Jimmy — June 22, 2011 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: