Support Nadine Dorries’ Freedom To Blog 30


It is now confirmed that Nadine Dorries blog has been taken down by her webhosts after threats by lawyers acting for the creepy and anti-democratic Barclay Brothers. I particularly dislike them because they destroyed the Scotsman, which was once a good newspaper.

Nadine Dorries had accused the Barclay Brothers of outing the sleaze about MPs in their Daily Telegraph as part of an anti-democratic plot. The same accusation was in this Independent piece at 2am yesterday. The Independent has edited it out. Annoyingly there is no sign of a google cache.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/nadine-dorries-this-is-a-witch-hunt-ndash-the-torture-must-end-1689753.html

Nadine has completely lost it, after being caught lying about the location of her main residence, in order to cash in on the second home allowance. Her sense of entitlement has been getting up people’s noses for the last 24 hours. I cannot better the writing of Mr Eugenides:

http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2009/05/good-night-and-good-luck.html

I have spent most of the past six years working against torture, and have met many victims, in some cases dead victims. So Nadine’s whinge that MPs were being tortured after being found out was extremely annoying to me.

But the bullying action by the Barclay Brothers against a blog is another example of the use of our absurd libel laws to silence freedom of speech. No court has ruled that Nadine was libellous. She did not have the chance to defend her views in court. She was simply and effectively silenced, and her entire blogging corpus taken down.

There are numerous ironies to this story. Here are a few:

– The Barclay Brothers have stopped Nadine when she was very effectively digging her own political grave.

– Nobody took seriously her argument that the sleaze revelations were an anti-democratic conspiracy by the Barclay Brothers. The Barclay Brothers will bring far more opprobrium on themselves by this action than was cast by the original accusation.

– If they go through with a libel action, the money Dorries stole from the taxpayer could end up with the even less deserving Barclay Brothers. Bloody Hell!

No doubt Nadine’s blog will still be back up and hosted somewhere safe. But this is a wearing process. When Usmanov did exactly the same to me, we had to change our main url from co.uk to org.uk. We lost ranking for three years worth of links: our technorati score tumbled overnight from 370 to 28, and still hasn’t fully recovered. Neither have our google or wikio rankings.

Bloggers can dispute heartily. We use our free speech sometimes to quarrel – I have been doing that too much lately.

But when free speech in the blogosphere is attacked, we have a tradition of standing together. I have benefited from that more than most. I will stand now by Nadine. If she wants her article republished, I will do so here..

UPDATE

You will find Nadine Dorries offending article in full in the comments section below. I do not agree with her, but I do agree with her right to say it. I know it is there and accept legal responsibility for it.


30 thoughts on “Support Nadine Dorries’ Freedom To Blog

  • Suhayl Saadi

    It does sound increasingly – and indeed some of the people who contribute to this site had already begun to suggest this – as though some elements of the security services (or their so-called ‘ex’-colleagues) may have been involved in this whole matter. The problem is, people are afraid of being labelled as ‘conspiracy theorists’, but of course, as Chomsky and others have pointed out, we all conspire everyday, one way or another, it’s not unusual. Why would power elites be any different? Quite the contrary. Very fishy and rather sinister.

  • Henry North London

    Winners or Losers?

    Posted Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 17:04

    Just park a couple of facts for a moment, which you may not agree with but are factual.

    The first is that MPs have always been encouraged, by whatever means possible, to draw down their ACA allowance in full. This is because it was upped in place of an appropriate pay rise.

    The rules surrounding the ACA were deliberately sloppy in order to maximise the opportunity that MPs had to draw.

    This was always felt to be the safest political method to remunerate MPs, rather than face the media backlash of a pay rise.

    Parliament is in chaos. The public are angry. The Telegraph has upped its circulation.

    There are 650 members of Parliament. In any walk of life, in whatever profession, you will find people who are dishonest. It will always be thus as long as we are all human!

    The Telegraph are uncovering a few cases of fraud, but not enough, so they are more than slightly embellishing some of the stories. I write as a case in point.

    Enter the Barclay brothers, the billionaire owners of The Daily Telegraph.

    Rumour is that they are fiercely Euro sceptic and do not feel that either of the main parties are Euro sceptic enough. They have set upon a deliberate course to destabilise Parliament, with the hope that the winners will be UKIP and BNP.

    A quick online check of the Barclay brothers and their antics on the Island of Sark is enough to give this part of the rumour credence.

    Another rumour is that the disc was never acquired and sold by an amateur, but it was in fact a long term undercover operation run by the Telegraph for some considerable time, carefully planned and executed; and that the stories of the naive disc nabber ringing the news desk in an attempt to sell the stolen information are entirely the work of gossip and fiction.

    These rumours do have some credibility given that this has all erupted during the European Election Campaign and turn out is expected to be high with protest votes, courtesy of the Daily Telegraph, or should I say the Barclay brothers.

    Now, if this is all a power game executed by the BBs, how would they do that?

    It is a fact that these men are no fools and are in fact self-made billionaires.

    I would imagine and believe that if any of this is true, they know the British psyche well enough to whip up a mood of public anger, hence the long running revelations in the DT.

    Where do I get this from? Well, at heart I am just a cheeky scouser. 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’ve made friends with one or two. One in particular I am very fond of. He is a mine of very astute information; and whilst in his office yesterday, we chunnered over the ‘what is this all about?’ question.

    He reckons this is all a power game. That the British public are being worked like puppets by two very powerful men. Whipped up into a frenzy to achieve exactly what they want.

    His very poignant words to me were a€?”if any of this conjecture is true, Parliament will become full of racists, fantasists, and has-been celebrities. We will be rendered impotent and may never again regain the authority to withstand the pressure, opinion and whims of the overtly wealthy.a€

    Scary stuff!

    http://blog.dorries.org/Blogs/2009/May/21#21

    You dont need to wait for her Just post it up

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Interesting. When one looks at the manner in which various regimes around the world have been destabilised – from the time of T. E. Lawrence in Afghanistan (he was a past-master of such tactics), through the time of Mossadegh in Iran to Chile 1972-3 to right now – one does begin to smell a rather large rat. This is not to deny that Berlusconi-esque corruption, esp. under New Labour, has not undermined any level of national democracy, it has, but this massaging of the public consciousness into a sort of mob mentality in which all the frustration and resentment consequent upon the City of London-led world financial chaos becomes channeled very conveniently into a concerted attack on Parliament, this is something different. I think we may be witnessing a rather British coup d’etat. And it’s not the fighters for freedom who will assume the reins of power, one can be certain of that.

  • Phil

    “The first is that MPs have always been encouraged, by whatever means possible, to draw down their ACA allowance in full. This is because it was upped in place of an appropriate pay rise.

    The rules surrounding the ACA were deliberately sloppy in order to maximise the opportunity that MPs had to draw.”

    That assertion needs to be vigorously challenged.

    From the Green Book ( http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/GreenBook.pdf ):

    “Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.

    Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.

    Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others.

    The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services ?” Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.”

    and a bit further on…

    “The following questions are designed to assist Members in coming to a decision about whether or not costs incurred are appropriate to be met from the allowances:

    Is this expense genuinely incurred by me in my role as a Member of Parliament as opposed to my personal capacity?

    Is this purchase supporting me in carrying out my parliamentary duties? Defining parliamentary duties is difficult but Members may wish to consider (i) the generally accepted parliamentary functions: the legislative role; the oversight and accountability role; and the representative role, including dealing with constituents’ problems and (ii) obligations they may have, for example as a small employer. Anything which is done for personal benefit or for electioneering or for the direct support of a political party will not be part of a Member’s parliamentary duties.

    Does the claim match the purpose of the allowance in question as set out later in the Green Book?

    Could the claim in any way damage the reputation of Parliament or its Members?

    How comfortable do I feel with the knowledge that my claim will be available to the public under Freedom of Information?”

    The oft-bleated excuse “the Fees Office made me do it” doesn’t hold water, sorry, Nadine.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Does anyone know anything about this ‘Mister John Wick’, ex-SAS man and ‘the head of of a corporate intelligence company’ and the frontman for the exposures? Where is his company registered and who is on the board? What’s his history? Sounds like a case for investigation by The Lobster (magazine)!

  • Paul Martin

    Totally agree craig.

    there is something ofthe night about the Barclay brothers as instanced by their disgraceful threates to the livelihood of people on Sark for having the effrontery to vote for candidates other than those supported by these wretched brother.

  • Tim Ireland

    We only have Phil Hendren’s assurance that Nadine has been silenced in the way he describes/portrays. I would appreciate knowing more about the circumtances/reasons behind the removal of the entire blog (as opposed to a single post or paragraph) before rushing to judgement.

  • Tim Ireland

    If Nadine is going to publish stuff like this, refuse to allow it to be challenged by self-serving censorship and then total withdrawal of comments, she has no place expecting to be defended as a blogger. Further, she should expect notices sent to her host if she herself will not answer to such challenges, engage in dialogue etc.

    In the Usmanov event, the main sticking point was their stepping past you to the ISP. As yet, we have no evidence/indication that this is what has happened here.

    Meanwhile, Iain Dale, another ‘blogger’ who often refuses to be challenged on what he claims and engages in self-serving censorship to this end is throwing lawyers at me, seeking to defend his ‘right’ to publish malicious claims that *he* can’t back with evidence either:

    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/05/open_letter_to_1.asp

    Happy to stand with Nadine if she’s been unfairly censored, but let’s establish the facts first.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    The major financial players in the City of London/ Wall Street – the best-known names – are basically money-laundering outfits for mafia wealth (and by ‘mafia’ I mean the combined, global organised crime syndicates, not just the Sicilian version). The political structures have become so complicit with this dynamic, it’s hardly surprising that they have become utterly corrupted. If you look at Italy from 1945 to now as a case-study, study it well, and then you’ll see what’s been happening to Britain and the rest of the EU. BCCI was merely the tip of an ice-world. What is NOT being discussed openly in the mass media in relation all of this financial hothouse of scandal; the global economic crisis and now the local parliamentary revelations; is this underlying rubric of organised, trans-national criminality. Indeed organised crime MADE the global economy in the form that we know it today. It’s not a few bad apples. It’s the entire system.

  • Craig

    Tim,

    Well, Phil Hendren (Dizzy) is pretty detailed that it was the Barclay’s lawyers acting by email last night. I think our first instinct should be to go into blogger defence mode. If it turns out Dizzy is lying, then we can tear him to shreds later. But I don’t see why I should presume he is lying as a starting point.

  • VamanosBandidos

    John Wick an ex SAS and currently busy running a company that specialises in hostage negotiations in war torn areas, as well as his sudden appearance, just after the Barclays are mentioned, ought to be sufficient grounds for suspicions with respect to the current outing of the expense scroungers, come Mps.

    The quick tempo of the events has caught the BBC on the hop, and as of the latest newscasts, BBC is busy pushing the narrative of; the security in the parliament ought to be reassessed, and the systems in place checked. Fact that any more security measures will require to convene the parliament in the undersea caverns with hunter killer submarines circling the newly constituted and secure parliament to torpedo anything bigger than a mackerel swimming by, somehow is not thought through in the narrative being broadcast.

    Telegraph carrying the interview with John Wicks goes on record;

    //Mr Wick, who is now the head of a corporate intelligence company which specialises in negotiating the release of hostages in foreign war zones, said: “We’ve all had concerns about the expenses and how they’ve managed it, purely because of how they’ve handled our requests for information.

    “We’ve reached a stage in society where they want to know everything about us ?” I think we’re entitled to know about them.” As a result of his actions, he said, the expenses system had been “exposed to its rotten core”. //

    http://tinyurl.com/qwup25

    Then the following innocuous paragraph is reached;

    //”Parliament will be a better place, society will be a better place,” he said. “Sometimes a marker has to be put down. The public’s put a marker down. It’s good.”//

    The fact that, Wick is a conservative, despite which he has adopted an independent posture to out both sides of the political spectrum for the corrupt deviants that they are, somehow is at odds with the BBC claim of “more stringent security measures”.

    Furthermore the manifest divergence from reality that is currently experienced by the whole of the political classes, whose idea of hungry plebeians can eat cake instead of bread, what is all this fuss about? Is coming through loud and clear.

    The anecdotal conversations with one or other MP about the Euro-sceptics, and or racists, and or has-been celebrity, are the signs that even the so called “brightest” of Mps are divorced from reality. Fact that given any choices the incumbent bunch of expensive scroungers, will spell out the claims of racists parading the hallowed halls of the parliament, and or ineffective morons will be taking the seats of power, is a natural reaction of any piggy that finds it’s bit of the trough under attack.

    Let us face it, our MPs are glorified social workers, whom have been afforded the chance of electing a prime-minister, as well as having the chance of being in line for a ministerial post. Fact is our parliament just does not cut mustard, hence the enemies abound from within, and from without to keep the plebeians on side. These efforts resulting in a constant drip feed of anti Muslim, anti Immigrant poison, in the media, all in the way of stopping the racists gaining the upper hand by becoming as racists as possible in the process. These policies of racial hatred are the elegant consequence of the huge representation of the Zionists in the cabinet, and on the floor of the house, which finds all the roads lead to “security”, which then has been resulting in fifteen thousand anti “we the people” laws, including getting a permit for dumping your household rubbish in the local rubbish tip, for without any hatreds, and divisions and scape goating, plebeians may have noticed the shaft that they have been apportioned.

    Hence to hear warnings of the racists take over, would be comical if it were not for the serious nature of the disasters besetting us all. Furthermore, judging by the effectiveness of the current batch of MPs in opposing the ruling elite. Noting the fact the MPs are told when to vote, and how to vote, clearly endangering the luxuries of the ruling elite whose chore will include chasing after, and getting the independent lot to see the world from their viewpoint would be; somewhat more of a task. Hence the dangers to democracy!

    Finally as far as Euro Scepticism goes, considering the possibility of downgrade of the UK credit ratings, and judging by the introduction of the colourful and Euro like denominations, the Sceptic are hung onto to keep roughshod riding over any and all conventions, and then blaming the Brussels for it. Fact that Europe will absorb UK is an inevitable ending, regardless of the bleating of the little Englanders. Lest we forget the most popular book and a best seller (runing into millions) in China; “China ought to be the leader of the world and not the West”, it seems that our little island in these days of globalisation has just been taken over by the bigger, and rival corporates, only we the employees don’t know about it, until the redundancies are handed out. Judging by the latest batch of retirements (voluntary redundancies) of the upper management, the middle management ought to start worrying now, these should be afraid, very afraid.

    Well so much for the Adam Smith school of economics, and the elegant consequences of reading only the first few pages of the Wealth of the Nations, which then concludes in a nurse standing for the conservative party and winning a seat in the Parliament, whilst complaining about torturers, who are out to force suicide upon the honourable members, whose inflated opinions about themselves, their positions, their jobs, has resulted in their dissonant expectations of huge pay-off, just because these were too dumb to stop the civil servants from plundering the coffers to begin with, hence if you cannot beat them join them ringing true.

    As for the rest of the little flap in the mill-house, it is worth projecting into the future and discerning, what is it which is worrying the dickens out of conservatives?

  • dreoilin

    I saw Sky News Mark Longhurst introducing a clip of John Wick and describing him as “ex-Sandhurst and ex SAS, currently running his own company” — without any reference to hostages or war zones. He then remarked, “So, impeccable credentials”.

    I looked goggle-eyed at the TV. Since when does ex-Sandhurst and ex-SAS give anyone “impeccable credentials”?

    He was later described either on Sky or elsewhere as a paid-up member of the Conservatives. But really … “impeccable credentials” for what?

  • Fred

    Thanks for this, Craig. Liberty and freedom apply to the whole spectrum, even to idiots like Nadine.

  • Martin Budden

    Thanks for supporting Nadine Dorries’ freedom of speech.

    As you say, her Barclays brothers conspiracy theory is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as our libel laws.

  • Anonymous

    I rather agree with Tim on the “support Nadine’s right to free speech” issue. She censors posts that disagree with her views – why, then, should she expect help when she is censored?

  • Roger Pearse

    I don’t see why her thoughts about the Barclays are necessarily wrong. It could be so. They do control the Telegraph; the way in which the story is emerging is definitely under their control. They really did abuse the people of Sark.

    Indeed considering the action taken against her — on what was not a libel, as far as I can see — surely she may have a point? (I take it that everyone feels that we need to get rid of this libel law, and introduce a Freedom of Speech law?)

    And… just how is it that a pair of offshore tax exiles can do something like this anyway? What precisely do they contribute to this country? They certainly are not paying PAYE, NI and Ers on every penny they earn, are they?!

    None of this affects the fact that I do think that the public interest is very much served by kicking the stuffing out of the current Commons. The rise of parties like UKIP and even the BNP is a good thing, if it breaks the strangehold on politics of the liberal establishment over the last 20 years. I also think Nadine’s “defence” is disgusting; that was OUR money, bitch. But none of that means that she wasn’t right about HOW this scandal is being run. She may be. That she has been silenced — an MP! — should terrify us all. I hope she gets up in the Commons and trashes the Barclays.

  • Craig

    “She censors posts that disagree with her views – why, then, should she expect help when she is censored?”

    Because we are better than her.

    On the wider issue, I quite accept the Barclays are shits. But Dorries’ wants to use that to exculpate the appalling behaviour of MPs, which is very wrong.

  • Suhayl saadi

    Emphatically I do not agree that the rise of the BNP is a good thing!!! No. Absolutely not!

    And although Mr Pearse makes some excellent points with which I do heartily agree, he rather shoots himself in the foot with the statement about the BNP and also by referring to Ms Dorries in the manner that he does. Calling someone a “bitch” tends to detract from the force of any criticism one might have of them. This is not me being ridiculously PC, it’s simply about the art of rhetoric – rhetoric is a somewhat debased term these days conflated incorrectly with ‘insincerity’ and inaction, but actually of course an art all its own.

  • Wasp_Box

    “She censors posts that disagree with her views – why, then, should she expect help when she is censored?

    Because we are better than her.”

    I agree with you but expect no thanks for your support.

  • lwtc247

    Of course it has entered the mind of the great and the good that Dorries and the yukky Barclays are faking it.

    Come in boat ‘Damien Green’, your time is up!

  • tony_opmoc

    Before today, I had no idea who Nadine Dorries was. Because her website was closed down – I read it – well a cached version of it.

    The only thing I found really objectionable was her support for Trident and her views on Terrorists – but I put that down to her being a bit simple.

    As regards to her being personally attacked by some rich cunts who control the Telegraph – and having her website closed down – That is completely Outrageous.

    I have never heard her speak – but she does admit to being a Scouser – so she can’t be all that bad.

    And she posts from her heart on her blog – it might all be largely nonsense – but in no way is she evil.

    She has merely joined the trough with the rest of the pigs – and conformed to the rules presented to her.

    And now I am going to have a go at Craig Murray.

    Yesterday – you ran a jump thread – which really was totally Out of order – even though I did participate by posting a video of Van Halen.

    I also recall a passage from your book – when you lost your job – and was quoting your salary + expenses that you had lost. You made it completely obvious that your expenses composed a large part of your income.

    I worked for 2 large UK Companies – and I did claim expenses – for costs that I had incurred as part of my job. I never made any money out of my expenses – it was never part of my income.

    So I level the charge of hypocrisy at Craig Murray.

    The fact that the System of Democracy needs completely overhauling – so that it become democratic – and that this current issue may have an overall positive outcome is completely seperate to personal attacks on individual MPs.

    Sure a clean out is called for – and maybe some of the pigs need roasting – but roasting Nadine is not called for.

    Apart from everything else – she looks really nice.

    You should host your website on my Son’s Servers. He guarantees 99% availability – and achieves it.

    Tony

  • Clive

    The scenario was that the Telegraph instructed Withers to ask Nadine to remove certain “defamatory” posts and statements. This mail was CC’d to Coreix who are the upstream service providers for Nadine’s hosts, a company called Acidity. Coreix passed the legal request on to Acidity. Acidity couldn’t get hold of Nadine temporarily dropped one file, Blog.aspx that provided the front end to Nadine’s blog. All the content is safe and sound, and the blog should be back at some point.

    The fundamental difference between this and the Usmanov situation is that Withers contacted Nadine directly, whereas Schillings avoided direct contact with Craig. I suspect Nadine deliberately timed her posts in the hope that they’d sit there for the entire Bank Holiday weekend before anyone took any action. As it was, Nadine buggered off leaving Acidity between a rock and a hard-place.

    Now Nadine’s theories do seem to fall into the tinfoil hat wearing arena, and the easy option would be to point and laugh. And were she just some Joe Blogger then I’m sure the Telegraph would have done nothing. But she’s an MP so in all likelihood letting the allegations go unchallenged would weaken the DT’s position.

    Once again it comes back to Godfrey vs Demon, Brunswick and the crap that are the UK libel laws. If ISPs and hosts were treated as carriers rather than publishers, then Coreix and Acidity could have sat back all cool and detached and waited for a court ruling before being forced to act. Unfortunately our libel laws don’t allow such a course of action.

  • Craig

    Tony,

    As a diplomat you get a basic salary. That is absolutely all you get when you work in London. When you work overseas, you get extra allowances for doing that, including a hardship allowance if you are outside the first world.

    In the half of my career I worked in London, I didn’t get a penny in allowances.

    I did not say there was anything objectionable about the woman’s blog. Thre is something objectionable about her allowances claims – as explained all over the media and all over the internet.

  • Polo

    I would like to support the remarks made aobut the Barclay brothers abominable behaviour in relation to Sark.

    There is much in Sark that needs improving regarding a modern functioning democracy but this is not advanced one whit by the commercial neocolonial attempted coup by these people.

    I still believe in the social market economy, where the market is allowed to operate withing socially defined parameters.

    This is the opposite of the crude “money buys people” attitude of some of our/your major capitalist self serving ideologues.

    Forgive the rant. I hope the sentiments are clear.

  • suraci

    MP’s have been expoliting the expenses for decades, but it really took off with scum bag Tony Blair, who was basically a crook in the pay of dangerus groups.

    You don’t have to be a conspiracy type to realise that MP’s were not outed by the Telegraph, but by those who own the Telegraph.

    The question is why? I have my own view, but others like Nadine have theirs.

    The one truth from all of this is that wealthy people and groups have far too much power in our “democracy”. Young men and women are dead and dieing because of this fact, and jet engines are being warmed up ready for the next step, just as soon as our parliament is remade as they wish it.

Comments are closed.