The Blog of
Nadine Dorries
Sorry? What was that?
Posted Monday, 13 April 2009 at 16:56

Just when I thought it was time for a sleep...

have just finished PM. The bids are rolling in, but I'm not really sure I sound coherent anymore!

Gordon Brown is sending a letter of apology. He has also written to Gus McDonnel instructing him to revise the code of conduct.

Of course, by saying the code needs to be revised and was faulty in the first place means the Prime Minister has a reason/excuse to apologise. The existing code of conduct is un-ambiguous and fine. it needs to be ahered to, that's all.

Im waiting for the letter. Is there a difference between 'deep regret' and 'sorry'?

Just done C4 down the line. ITN on the way to the constituency. More later..

Chris Knight said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
"A matter for regret", even "I regret" is a world away from "I am sorry and would like to apologise"!
Frank said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
Exactly the right line to take; it is the unvarnished truth, with no attempt to spin. Keep it up.
Andy said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
Thugs and bullies don’t apologise. They can only justify their actions. Gordon Brown’s thugs and their divisive politics operate everywhere in this country; they are omnipresent. They even operate in places like Oxfam’s head office in Oxford where you have to show off your Labour credentials to be noticed and taken seriously. Shriti Vadera, a quintessential Brown thug, bullied Oxfam frequently when she was his special adviser at the Treasury and later a junior minister with DFID, so much so that draft Oxfam press releases on international aid or African debt, would be sent to her for her approval before they were released to the public. Another Brown thug is an ex-Oxfam manager and the current 10 Downing St communications manager, Justin Forsyth, who I am told frequently phones Oxfam’s CEO, Barbara Stocking and others, to tell them what sorts of events Oxfam should arrange to bolster the Government’s image (for which Stocking was appointed a DBE recently). Many of the ideas for Oxfam climate change and make trade fair campaigns activities originate in Downing Street, not in Oxfam. Yet another Brown thug, Labour Councillor and blogger, Antonia Bance, runs Oxfam’s UK Poverty Programme and uses Oxfam for her own personal ends with teh agreement of her bosses. Stephen Doughty, a Labour ideologue and till recently head of Oxfam’s “Government Targets” Team in Oxford has just been recruited by Douglas Alexander to be DFID Special Adviser….The list is long….I am sorry to say but the Labour government has corrupted many institutions in this country by its over-bearing behaviour, and even sorrier to say that many of these institutions have willingly become corrupted, as their spineless managers and senior personnel are angling for jobs with the Labour Government. It is an awful state of affairs and requires urgent redressal.
Tony said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
Saw this superb post on political Quote I hadn’t noticed the “unsubstantiated”. That is disastrous. He is clearly implying that there may be something to the smears, they just haven’t been “substantiated” yet. Maybe that’s why he isn’t apologising; he thinks the rumours are all true. What a mewling little stoat of a man. The Tories should jump on that “unsubstantiated” - if they jump on it vigorously enough, Brown will be forced to retract. And apologise again. Superb entertainment. Go for this one Nadine
Cato said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
'A matter for regret' doesn't cut it, Nadine. Don't you dare let this dro p!
Tracy said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
Gosh, Nadine, you have been so busy. I don't know how you cope with all the attention. Still, you've obviously got loads of fans. When the Conservative's win the next election, I don't see how David Cameron will be able to avoid bringing you into his cabinet, where he can make the best use of your talents. You keep on at Brown until you get a proper apology. Regret is not the same. We've seen your courage and high moral standing. Go for it!
sean malone said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
Regret does not indicate any empathy with the victims whereas sorry does (genuine or otherwise). Regret may also just refer to how the consequences of an action effect the party expressing regret. So surpise surprise Gordon just does n't get it. Also are you happy that he describes the smears as 'unsubstantiated' rather than false or lies? Again showing what a creep he is. Finally at no point does he deny knowledge of the red rag website or the conspiracy to smear. He has clearly tried to lie low to avoid saying something that can later prove to be a lie and the letters of regret are the bare minimum he thinks he has to do. All this shows how rattled he is. Keep the pressure on and as more info is revealed this may well be his end and the country's new beginning.
Nicolas Bellord said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
There is not much difference between "regret" and "sorry" and whether you use one or the other does not much matter although "sorry" probably is more genuine. Both words have several meanings and you can only get at the meaning by looking at the context and seeing whether it is a genuine apology e.g. "I am very sorry to hear of the death of your mother" is NOT an apology but an expression of sympathy (unless of course you killed her!). "I am very sorry that I hit you" is an apology. You could substitute "regret" for "sorry" in both cases. Whether the letter to you is an expression of sympathy or an apology is going to depend upon the exact wording which I have not seen.
sean malone said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
Brown’s letter to Sir Gus O’Donnell is classic evasion. Here’s a response: “Dear Gus I am writing about the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, and the proposals I want to make to tighten this up.” He wants to “tighten this up” Why? So, because of the reprehensible and disgusting actions of his appointee Brown wishes to stop others from doing likewise? Why? Does he suspect that other appointed Political Advisers are doing the same thing? Does he assume they all have the same standards and morality as this McBride? ”I am assured that no Minister and no political adviser other than the person involved had any knowledge of or involvement in these private emails that are the subject of current discussion,” Note ‘private’, and just whom has ‘assured’ Brown? “and I have already taken responsibility for acting on this - first by accepting Mr McBride’s resignation and by making it clear to all concerned that such actions have no part to play in the public life of our country.” What does he mean, “accepted” McBride’s resignation? Why was McBride not sacked immediately – assuming that Brown has only just come to understand what his people have been doing in his name? “I have also written personally to all those who were subject to these unsubstantiated claims.” These are not “claims” they are calumnies, outrageous slurs and lies. “Mr McBride has apologised and done so unreservedly.” To whom? McBride, far from being apologetic has sought to blame those who have revealed his cess-pit morality. “But it is also important to make sure such behaviour does not happen again.” Nonsense. Why does Brown believe that others will stoop so low? Does he not understand how appalling his minion’s behaviour has been in the eyes of the world? “Any activity such as this that affects the reputation of our politics is a matter of great regret to me and I am ready to take whatever action is necessary to improve our political system.” Good grief! So it’s a matter of “great regret” that the reputation of politics has been affected? So what about those defenceless souls whose personal reputations are mired by his people’s action? It’s the usual nonsense about ‘the system’ being at fault. It’s nothing to do with ‘the system’ and everything to do with the loathsome culture adopted and encouraged by Brown himself. “I would therefore now like a more explicit assurance included in the special advisers Code of Conduct that not only are the highest standards expected of political advisers but that the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks have no part to play in the job of being a special adviser, just as it has no part to play in the conduct of all our public life.” Why does this buffoon believe that such assurances – even if it were possible to give them, will make the slightest difference to the behaviour of his henchmen? “I also think it right to make it a part of the special advisers contract by asking our political advisers to sign such an assurance and to recognise that if they are ever found to be preparing and disseminating inappropriate material they will automatically lose their jobs.” And that is why he has ‘accepted’ the ‘resignation’ of McBride? Note the weasel ‘if they are found’, and how does he think things will happen ‘automatically’. Clearly he’s unaware of the myriad employment protection laws. “I think you will agree that all of us in public life have a responsibility to ensure that those we employ and who are in involved in our parties observe the highest standards.” Motherhood and apple pie. Who could possibly disagree? But that’s not the point. The question is why, under his regime and control, such standards have disappeared from public life. “Like the overwhelming majority of figures in public life across the political spectrum, I entered politics because of a sense of public duty and to improve the lives and opportunities of those less fortunate than me.” This is an admission of abject failure. What he entered politics to achieve has eluded him entirely. “My undivided focus as Prime Minister is on acting to make Britain a fairer, safer and more prosperous nation and, in particular, on guiding the country through the current economic difficulties.” That is as it should be. However it is not “fairer, safer and more prosperous”. In fact it is quite the opposite in all three respects. This merely emphasises his own incompetence and mendacity. “The public would expect no less and would also expect the highest possible standards from all their politicians and all those who work for them.” Indeed they do. Just when does he propose to start exhibiting them? hat-tip - guido comments
Brodders said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
I suppose if you decide to sue there would be the entertaining prospect of the son of the manse having to swear on a bible in court - he might then be sorry or not but he would certainly regret the ignominy of being in the public gaze - in the court of public opinion! Perhaps he could get Harperson & Harperson to defend him?
TrevorsDen said:
Responded: Monday, 13 April 2009
Gus McDonell --- I love it. oh and he is not a minister. But i am on your side. I would send Browns letter to a handwriting expert.
Contact Nadine
Nadine Dorries MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
via e-mail at:
or Telephone on 020 7219 5928

My Recent Posts
Posted Friday, 28 August 2020 at 01:58
Posted Tuesday, 10 September 2019 at 09:47
Posted Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 19:05
Posted Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 10:39
Posted Thursday, 4 July 2019 at 09:54
Posted Wednesday, 3 July 2019 at 14:22
Posted Thursday, 16 May 2019 at 06:27
Posted Wednesday, 3 April 2019 at 12:40
Blog Roll

Blog Archive