The Blog of
Nadine Dorries
The Daily Telegraph
Posted Friday, 15 May 2009 at 16:02

Here is my letter from the Telegraph and my reply.

 

There is one thing I know about me better than anyone else. I never do anything I know to be wrong and I have common sense by the bucketful.

 

 

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Nadine Dorries,

The Daily Telegraph is investigating the expense claims made by MPs under the Parliamentary additional costs allowance system since the 2004/05 financial year.

We are considering publishing an article in tomorrow’s newspaper (16th May 2009) which will contain details of your expense claims.

We are aware of the provisions of the statutory instrument passed by Parliament last July and will therefore not be publishing members’ addresses or any other details which could compromise security.

However, as a matter of legitimate public interest and concern, we intend to publish the following details about your expense claims under the Additional Costs Allowance. We would invite you to respond to the following points.

1. In 2006 you claimed for the cost of a hotel stay on New Year's Eve and another just a few days before Christmas, when the House was not sitting. Please can you explain why you felt this was an appropriate use of public funds.

 

I have never spent a New Years Eve away from my daughters and I have never spent it in a hotel, ever. In fact, New Years Eve 2006 is when I held a party and cooked a 12 bird roast and I blogged the entire evening. Anyone reading this can check it out.

 

The Telegraph has an invoice charged to MR N Dorries, which was submitted, but never paid. I don’t actually submit the invoices,  my PA does, and that one may have been submitted in error, In error - because I never stayed at any hotel on New Years Eve ever if it had ever been paid it would have been refunded IMMEDIATLEY. What may have happened is that someone who is not a member of the Carlton Club may have booked a room in my name, friends do, however; my other point is that I am not even sure the Carlton Club is open over Xmas and New Year?

 

The fact is though that an invoice was submitted from my office, for a room I didn’t stay in, which is obviously an error and no money was paid to me for that invoice.

 

2. You also put in several hotel bills that included minibar drinks. Please can you explain why you felt this was an appropriate use of public funds.

 

Oh that the Carlton Club had mini bars in the rooms, it does not. If I ever bought a drink in the Carlton I paid cash. For some reason they are still listed on the invoice, however, they were not paid. I have not, to my knowledge ever received public funds to buy alcohol for either myself or visiting guests and constituents and do not think it would be an appropriate use of public funds. If that is the case and I am very happy to be proved wrong then I will not hesitate to refund. To think that that you could accuse me of behaving like a journalist shocks me.

3. When you moved out of your flat in Westminster, the fees office demanded repeatedly that you repay the £2,190 deposit but you did not and eventually they docked your rent claims in order to recoup the money. Please explain why you did not repay the deposit when asked.

 

Because the landlord was seriously dodgy and refused to pay back any of the deposit. The flat was left in an immaculate and pristine condition. Despite my threats of legal action which would have cost even more, I eventually gave up. I lost the £2,190 as a result of renting a flat in order to carry out my job. a months salary. The fees office should not have taken the money from me they should have chased the landlord for it. In fact, I want that money back! I will also ask my PA to post first thing on Monday morning the correspondence between myself and said dodgy landlord who doesn’t return deposits at the end of tenure.

 

4. Your file shows that you twice demanded that the fees office make "urgent" payments of several thousand pounds to your bank account and when one did not arrive immediately, a member of your staff rang and told them to "sort it out". Please explain why you felt this was appropriate.

5. Your file also complains of a "lack of co-operation" in completing the ACA forms correctly and complying with their requests for information about your addresses. Please explain why you did not co-operate with the fees office.

 

Answer to both above questions I am afraid result as a total lack of frustration towards a department which is frequently overworked and understaffed. The fees office continuously loses invoices, leases and payments. Sometimes I am thousands of pounds out whilst waiting to be paid. When I am told I can’t be paid because they have yet again, lost the invoice, I sometimes lose my rag. I’m sorry. I know I shouldn’t, it’s just that I have other more important things to do and few hours to do them in.

 

I emailed the fees office with my change of house details at the same time as I told them to my whip in 2008.

6. Land Registry records show that your former family home in *************was sold in 2007. You have announced publicly that you have separated from your husband. Since then the only address on any of your files is your rented house in Bedford, on which you are claiming ACA. On this basis, we have reason to believe that you only live in one home and are therefore ineligible to claim an allowance for running a second home. While you have our assurance that we will not print your address, please state exactly where you consider your main home to be and in what way you are eligible to claim the second home allowance.

 

I have no intention of exposing every detail of my private existence, what little I have, on this blog. However, needs must. I rent a house/office/ surgery in my constituency. This house is used in connection with my duties as an MP. For example – this weekend I have had meetings all day Friday. I am presenting to a patients group in Barton-Le-Clay surgery on changes in the NHS tonight. I am canvassing Saturday and attending a church service on Sunday and then after the church service writing a speech for the Police and Crime Bill to be delivered next week.

On the weekends I have free, and during the recess, I go somewhere else. I am not publishing the address. I gave it to my whip and emailed it to the fees office in 2008. I spend most of the holidays abroad, all of which can be confirmed. My children stay with me when I am in the constituency, where I go my girls go, however, one also lives in London and one is at Uni. This has not always been the case. I now spend my late nights in London. At my own expense.

I keep the dogs at the constituency address as I am often there on my own and it confuses them being moved around. When I am not in the constituency, especially during the long summer break, we have a house sitter, at my expense. Again, this can be confirmed.

During term time I spend the majority of weekends in the constituency as my job tends to be seven days a week, as detailed above. My youngest daughter has attended a school in Bedford since last September. Up until September she attended a school ‘somewhere else’. My eldest daughter had a term time job during the last year in the constituency before commencing work in London in a PR firm.

My doctor, dentist and recent hospital treatment have all recently been undertaken ‘somewhere else’.

 

We do not presently see the justification for all of these claims under the rules or spirit of the rules set out in the Parliamentary Green Book. These stipulate that enhancing property is not allowed and that purchases which are "extravagant or luxurious" should be avoided.

What on earth are you talking about? Enhancing property?? Extravagant luxurious expenditure???

 

Please could we receive your comments by 5pm today so that they can be given due weight in our inquiries and properly reflected in any article we decide to publish. Please could you also inform us if you do not wish to comment.

 

You have my comments now. I will refute any accusations you wish to make against me, myself. Given that we all know the so called ‘chandelier; was in fact a paper lamp shade with glass beads hanging from the bottom you will excuse my not trusting you to give me a fair shout.

 

Many thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you shortly. I can be contacted on ******or ***********@telegraph.co.uk

Yours sincerely,

 

You are very welcome, anytime.

 
 
 
Sally said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Well done Nadine, I'm getting a bit sick of the Telegraph. I used to buy it because I thought it was the Torygraph, being a Tory and all that.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
well I believe you, I think this telegraph thing has pretty much run its course now and they are smearing everybody by association. I hope they publish your side of it. One tip though don't do a Malik and get irate on breakfast television it wont help
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Good for you. About time someone stood up to the bully boys.
 
 
Tom said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Have the Telegraph ever heard of diminishing returns? If they are doing this because they are in severe financial trouble, they may just be about to lose the plot.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nice one. But please - your welcome? You are welcom? Sorry for nitpicking :(
 
 
Stephen said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
The Telegraph has been less than helpful to the taxpayer by releasing it's information in such a piecemeal fashion, releasing inaccurate information (as it plans to do in your case and failing to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable claims, two months before everything was going to become public anyway. At the same time, anything and everything else goes on unnoticed. What is their agenda?
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
The Telegraph is going down the pan. It wont even be here in a few months.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Guido said you were a Lioness! s**t he was right. Go girl!!
 
 
Henry said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Lots of your points are good and i am sure you are not going to get in too much trouble. However, do you really feel that the under-staffed fees office should spend time chasing landlords for deposits? You picked the landlord, your responsibility!
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I meant 'go Nadine' in a positive 'you go girl' sort of a way - not a go away sort of away. I think I'll just shut up now before i make things worse!!
 
 
Crossfire said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Support you 100% but reckon you might have a problem with an accusation that you are asking the taxpayer to indemnify you against renting a house with a dodgy landlord. Not saying it was your fault but people may say it was not the taxpayers fault
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Good Luck, I hope they listen to you more than they listened to Andrew George and Alan Reid! I'm not holding my breath...
 
 
Dilishnik Darak said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
"We do not presently see the justification for all of these claims under the rules or spirit of the rules set out in the Parliamentary Green Book. These stipulate that enhancing property is not allowed and that purchases which are "extravagant or luxurious" should be avoided." That looks like a cut and paste job!
 
 
Plato-Says said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Grr, go get 'em. I'm happy that the ****graph are exposing the real piggies but even if you had a couple of minitures from the mini-bar - really who cares? You could be smashed every night in the HoC bar FFS.
 
 
Dave A said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Regarding anonymous saying that the Telegraph is going down the pan and will not be here in a few months well neither will most of the MPs in the present parliament because of the disgrace they have put themselves in,how come most of these MPs seem to be all saying the same thing " It was in the rules and i made a mistake about claiming for things i will pay it back Hazel blears seemed to gloat in giving her replies, the MPs were torn to pieces on BBC question time thank goodness for the telegraph for exposing the bad lot, lets wait until 2005, 2006, expenses are scrutinised. Westminster is rotten to the core
 
 
David Logan said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I can see you are upset and can even see why but if you are to claim an ACA for a second home you must have a first one. Also morally since it is for additional expense if you are staying with someone you don't want to disclose (and why should you) at no cost why should the taxpayer pay your costs for your constituency residence? Is that not what an MP's salary is for? No one sane would suggest that you or most of the others are in this for the money but it is taxpayers money and the current regime seems to have operated on the basis that it was an allowance which you could spend how you liked. I genuinely wish you well.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Balls of steel indeed. I love you.
 
 
mark said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Why justify yourself to a newspaper full of journalists that are hardly paragons of virtue? Their questions seem almost judicial in tone. I am glad that the corruption is being uncovered, but really, it seems they are squeezing the pips out of their 'scoop'. Such a shame though, that some MP's are defending the indefensible by saying they were within the rules. Technically correct in some cases, but hardly credible. Their arrogance knows no bounds, and yes, the public want justice. Nothing less will suffice, in a land where the rule makers have made our lives so bound by petty rules and mistrust of the common man, nothing less than poetic justice will appease the so called baying mob, unfortunately. GB has been lamentable, whereas our true PM has assumed the mantle of his future destiny. At least we hope so anyway.
 
 
mark said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I think also, that people are getting a little tired of the Telegraph dragging this out, and I fully relate to your replies to them. Who the heck are they to ask the questions anyway? Cheeky bleeders..
 
 
Jono said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Great job. I hope you get your cash back from that landlord, too (I know how that feels).
 
 
Martyn said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Agree that we are getting a bit sick of all this drip drip. They are destroying the whole house not just the bad apples. This is a disservice to democracy. You stick it to them Nadine.
 
 
Richard said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Hope this comes out well for you. Telegraph has done some good work, but has done littel to distinguish between out-and-out banditry (mostly on Labour's part), claims that were poor judgement and claims like yours that were justified.
 
 
Amanda said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, outside my house a neighbour's car sits wheel clamped. The crime of this honest working man? He was a week overdue with his tax disc. Any search of the DVLA database would have established that my neighbour has paid his road tax for many years. So did he recieve a polite reminder - NO he was WHEEL CLAMPED. This is the way we the public are treated, we are increasingly spied on and taxed to high heaven. OUR data is misused by Government departments like the DVLA and our DNA taken even if we are innocent. Not once in these blogs of yours have I seen any evidence you understand just WHY the public are so angry at MP's. If you all did a good job, and helped create a better place to live, cleaners, lighting, and garden plants would have meant little. Fraud and tax evasion is another matter. The Telegraph has done us all a service - they may be right or wrong in your case. But I'd rather see a polite reply from you and some understanding of how it is seen, than the foot stamping paddy I have just read. My family have been Tories in Mid-Beds for centuries - we expect our representative to be honest and decent, and polite. They, after all, represent us!!
 
 
John said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
The Telegraph clearly picked the wrong target with you! Overall the Telegraph have IMHO done the public a service over MPs expenses (although you probably won't agree wholeheartedly with that) but I do wonder whether they have the resources to do the detailed research needed. They obviously haven't done their homework on you... Maybe someone other than Private Eye should now turn their attention to media owners' and journalists' finances. The BBC are very assiduous in keeping secret the expenses of their journalists and managers. The dead tree press clearly have an agreement not to s*** in each others' nests for fear of reprisals, but the rest of us don't have that constraint...
 
 
said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
The Telegraph will suffer from this in the long run - this hysteria and mob rule mentality aimed at the plebs. Andrew Porter is a complete c~~t.
 
 
Ian R said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine You can understand why people will now find it difficult to believe anyone without proof. You do seem to have a sound and reasonable case so: - keep calm - keep it simple - and you will win through Good luck Ian
 
 
Graham said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I wouldn't even do a tv interview, the news prenters are all acting like barristers ( or should I say Trying to ) let Davids enquiry run its course and in the end I believe all will be sorted out and the bad eggs got rid off, keep your head up girl.
 
 
Adam said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Well said Nadine, quite right. I believe you. I have a flat to let in SW11 and I have an entirely equitable policy when it comes to deposits. Do Email if you you're interested. (You can't blame me for trying :D )
 
 
skids said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Just heard you on R5L. Well done for standing up for yourself. You came across really well and kept your cool in a difficult interview. I've no time for those who have been screwing the system but from what I've heard you are not one of them.
 
 
Tom Hunt said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I love it Nadine - you're my kind of politician. Onwards and upwards.
 
 
College tutor said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Interesting to see the back story, but best not TO SHOUT. I would be interested to here how the residents of Sark are faring, after the Canadian Barclay brothers closed down Sark. I'm amazed that they were allowed to get away so lightly with their blatent electoral intimidation.
 
 
The Morningstar said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I have to say that if you are claiming ACA for a second home when you do not appear to have a first home it does look decidedly dodgy as your main residence appears to be the rented constituency home. You may get upset by the Telegraph asking these questions, but the tax payer deserves an answer.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, Was Andrew Porter a friend of Damian McBride or Derek Draper?
 
 
ManicBeancounter said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Fantastic blog Nadine. Just heard you on Radio 5 Live where you sounded impressive. I hope that the Telegraph admits to its error quickly and apologises. Firstly for you own reputation, but secondly for the reputation of other MPs. As you have written, all MPs being tarred with the same brush. If the Telegraph does not get it right it will do irreperable damage to our political system. Your blog of yesterday had the right attitude - forgive the repentent, minor offenders (the majority).
 
 
Tory Blair said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine - I like you. I like your style. If you could just unhitch yourself from the Trident issue (who ARE we going to bomb with that?). I hope to see you in the Cabinet in a year. Please understand the public's outrage is not so much against the money being taken but against the 'one rule for us - one rule for them". I'm a director of a small company. If I so much as think about using my company credit card for a personal meal I know I can expect questions from HMRC. If I fail to disclose a single benefit (ie medical insurance) I know HMRC will penalise me. If I fiddle my VAT I know the response "It was a mistake, I'll pay the money back" will have HMRC in hysterical laughter as they issue the court summons. Every Budget day we listen to the Chancellor of the day talk about closing tax avoidance loopholes. And all the while our rulers are up to their eyes in the very trough they are trying to keep us out of. The hypocrisy numbs the brain.
 
 
Rachel said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine - do you own or rent the property you stay at that is located "somewhere else"? Please respond - this is the second time of asking.
 
 
Anoneumouse said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Live by the party syatem, Die by the party syatem.
 
 
Emma said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Andrew Porter is a good friend of Damian McBrides - I think this is "pay-back" time, although they have not done a very good job.....well done Nadine, excellent blog
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Fantastic Nadine!!!Stand up for yourself, more need to follow suit. It was a complete massacre until this afternoon and your blog - congratulations!
 
 
Sarah said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, As others have pointed out, a second home allowance is only appropriate if you have a first home, therefore the question is legitimate and your answer, in my opinion, is inadequate. Your tone in describing your attitude to the fees office is tellingly offensive, (and somewhat incoherent), and it is little wonder they are overworked if they are to be responsible for chasing-up your withheld deposit.
 
 
Keith said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, over the last few days I've given you some stick. I hope beyond all hope that you are in the right. If you are, then fight for what is right and I'll back you 100% against anyone. Just don't be wrong.
 
 
Anthony said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, I'm not a supporter of yours politiczlly but I must say I admire the way you have responded to this outrageous behaviour by the Telegraph. The Telegraph's campaign has done a lot of good, but they are in danger of losing credibility with this scattergun approach . There is something McCarthyite about that email.
 
 
UK Voter said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Great response. Detailed, measured and forthright. If more MP's were to be similarly disposed, I feel sure, they would be listened to.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
John said [roughly] "The Telegraph is doing a good job. Unless it is when they are picking on Tories." Er, yeeeess, as Paxo might say.
 
 
Anthony said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, I'm not a supporter of yours politiczlly but I must say I admire the way you have responded to this outrageous behaviour by the Telegraph. The Telegraph's campaign has done a lot of good, but they are in danger of losing credibility with this scattergun approach . There is something McCarthyite about that email.
 
 
Bedd Gelert said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Sorry, but I don't quite understand what the fuss is here. If you have a 'primary residence' in London, which you would if you were a minister, then why is there a problem ? This is what Stephen Crabb of Preseli Pembrokeshire has done, on the advice of the 'Fees Office' so if that is what he does, why is your arrangement any different ?
 
 
Simon said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
What pompous twerps!
 
 
Mike H said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Oh dear. That was absolutely horrible. It felt like I was personally invading your privacy by just reading it. I'm so sorry, Nadine. Receiving that from The Telegraph must have been awful. I have every faith in your honesty and personal integrity. Don't worry about this - it will go away eventually. It's right that the guilty should be exposed, but this is getting ridiculous. I hope they accept what you've said and decide that they don't have anything to publish. That would be the only just outcome.
 
 
Ron Hughes said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Again, I ask: "Why should Taxpayers pay out £2,190 because YOUR landlord doesn't refund a deposit?" Saddening you daren't publish this comment here. It has not gone unnoticed on the Blogosphere that you've started to become sel ective. But as it's your Blog, it is your right.
 
 
Jack Roob said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Your response to the letter from the D Tel looks like it was composed in haste and anger. It is poorly written and my advice to you would be to take a deep breath and re-write it. Get a trusted friend to read it thoroughly before you post it. If you genuinely believe that the UK taxpayer should take the credit risk on a landlord's deposit on a lease which you negotiated then I fear you are misreading the atmosphere about the expense issue. Best wishes, Jack
 
 
said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Thank you for this blog. Do you know, despite the complete cynicism I feel about all politicians now, I think you might actually have legitimate explanations for the Telegraph's questions. I applaud your publishing your response to the Telegraph. I do not applaud your memberships of a parliament that whether by commission or omission of responsibility, has used taxpayer's money as their own personal property.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Hmmm. Highly sel ective moderation. Not really much different from NuLab.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, surely you have not sent this response to the Daily Telegraph? It is badly written, sounds petulant and defensive, and you do not explain yourself with regard to the issue of where your main home is. It is being published on the Daily Telegraph website and no doubt being picked up on others - for the sake of your career, remove it and write something more eloquent and measured. I would not want my boss reading this - do you? I am a supporter - please, do a rewrite, and make it sound professional, instead of a badly punctuated, ineloquent rant.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Go Nadine, go!
 
 
Adrian G said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, I am usually extremely impressed by you, and feel sure an outstanding political future awaits. I suspect you have the potential to rise to the very top (you heard it here first...) and THAT would shake up a few things for the first time in more than a generation. You would have my vote. BUT I'd feel a lot happier if you could demonstrate rather more unequivocally that you DO have a "First" home. The whole point about "second homes" was surely that they are supposed to be in London, so MPs can carry out their weekday parliamentary responsibilities? Or in the constituency, if the MP is shown to be London-based? Please help me to retain my faith Nadine?
 
 
Ralph said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Nadine, I hope you get a chance to present your side, and that the Telegraph investigate it properly. It seems that a couple of hundred grand didn't buy them enough actual corruption and they're onto guilt by insinuation.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Why are you deleting comments?
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
PLEASE STOP DELETING/MODERATING COMMENTS ON YOUR OWN WEBSITE NADINE. A CROOK WITH RECEIPTS... A CROOK WITH COMMENTS, TOO?
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
The problem with MPs is that we can't vote them all out at the same time. We can just replace one lot of lying scum bags with another lot of lying scum bags. I hope the dodgy MPs end up in jail - where they belong. I read just now that one has claimed for a mortgage that never existed - Dave Chator or something. What is more likely ? an honest MP exists ? or UK wins Eurovision song contest tomorrow ??? 0% chance of either :-)
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Why are you editing out reasonable but critical comments?
 
 
CJT said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I believe you Nadine. Your answers are open, in so far as anyone has the right to know them. While there is much legitimate concern, indeed anger, over the matter of expenses, the whole thing has taken on the character of a 'feeding frenzy' on the part of the press. I am reminded of the hysteria around Diana's death 12 years ago. It's getting like that again. The Telegraph should not have spun this out like this.
 
 
Charly said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Isn't it about time this MP's expenses witch-hunt was stopped? The country is in a terrible state and what is needed is our best people, no matter what political party to work together to help us through this recession. We must have a government of national unity NOW. The expenses situation should be looked at - but this is not the time.It is a side-show that corrupt newspaper editors and journalists are using for their own ends. I would be very interested to read about journalists' expenses because if politicians are lying scum - journalists are twenty times worse.
 
 
Akimov said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Just to clear something up. Do you have a second home or not?
 
 
Sim-O said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Charlie, the difference is, Newspapers do not spend public money on expenses. I do not care if a journo claims £48 on a bottle of wine, takes it home and then claims it on his expenses because I wasn't forced to contribute to it. Now Nadine, about this second home, do you or do you not have a second home? Is this 'somewhere else' yours or someone elses? If it is yours, then no problem. If it isn't then I think you may be in a sticky position.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Hmm.. I can't help thinking you would have done better getting legal advice BEFORE posting this response. This posting has now raised further questions and I'm worried that you are digging yourself in deeper. For heaven's sake, get some proper legal representation before putting your foot in your mouth.
 
 
CB said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
You tell 'em, Nadine. I am so glad to see someone giving the other side of the story so clearly. Keep it up, but I won't be surprised if they publish their claims anyway without bothering to include your comments.
 
 
Thats News said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
As I point out in my most recent post at http@thatsnews.blogspot.com "As I have said before, I hope the Daily Telegraph are 100% certain of their facts)"
 
 
Christian said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I've been reading your blog for years. I had always assumed, reading it, that you lived in your constituency. You have a house sitter when away, you go away for holidays and weekends - as people do. You may well have a complicated private life, many of us do, and it's unsurprising you don't wish to share it with the public. But if you take public money you should be held to account. The mess this country is in is far too serious to have a possible Tory victory compromised by MP's who are careless in their responsibilities to the public's trust. I have a lot of respect for you and your campaigns - but you are going to have to defend yourself to Dave's new panel, and rightly so.
 
 
JD. said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
Let's see how the Telegraph responds to your response. At least they gave you your say before publishing.
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Friday, 15 May 2009
I pleased that you have published your side of things. I think this is now gone too far. Good on you
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
Interested to see my earlier comment was never posted. Given you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear? Dave's scrutiny panel will let you by. So stop worrying!
 
 
Chris said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
Quite a detailed reposte. But I still can't understand why I and other tax payers should pick up the tab for a lost deposit from a "dodgy" landlord. That's your responsibility not mine. Its also odd that you think that one of your friends would use your name when booking a hotel room without telling you. They can't be very good friends. And lastly, try as I might, I'm still left with the impression that you don't have a second residence. I'm sure all these concerns will turn out to be unfounded.
 
 
Chris said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
Quite a detailed reposte. But I still can't see why I and other tax payers should pick up the tab for your lost deposit from a dodgy landlord. Nor can I understand why friends of yours might be booking hotel rooms in your name without telling you. They can't be very good friends. But mainly, despite your lengthy comments, I'm still completely baffled over whether you have a second residence or not.
 
 
Faye Kinnitt said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
Keep going Nadine. I am sick and tired of this Telegraph interference in the lives of politicians. This country needs more forthright MPs and fewer tiresome journalists.
 
 
Robin Usblind said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
I to am pleased that you have published your side of things. Hopefully the Telegraph wills top this soon. You have may full support.
 
 
Michael said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
Just a thought for anyone on this epic list of comments with a point on the 'dodgy landlord didnt pay the deposit' issue, but I would have thought it was perfectly clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the issue is that Ms Dorries was owed a deposit by the landlord, and was awaiting the remuneration from said landlord before forwarding said deposit to the fees office - it doesnt seem to be in any way an expectation of the public to pay off the deposit, merely a delay in money transfer. This is a perfect example of how this whole expenses saga is now totally beyond reason, in that entirely legitimate, mundane and everyday actions are being utterly misrepresented. Initially I thought the Telegraph was doing a public service, however I feel that service ended days ago. Once the issue of MPs expenses was exposed as being in need of reform the job was done, from that point on the Telegraph has being doing nothing more than needlessly causing further damage to democracy in this country. Given that the story on the Telegraph website is based on Nadine's explanation of where she spends her time (main home / second home) it suggests that their initial accusations proved hollow and that they are now simply slinging whatever mud they can get their hands on. This is no longer investigative journalism, it is gratuitous McCarthyism at its worst.
 
 
Michaela said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
So can you explain again why your constituency home isn't your main home? Maybe you could do it without SHOUTING this time.
 
 
D P Dance said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
How about taking moderation off your comments, only then will your message have credibility
 
 
KW said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
I agree with all those that say that you Nadine are moderating posts to serve your argument. I posted twice last night and both were not posted. If you invite comment, and believe you are right, then why not allow people to put questions to you from all perspectives? You appear to be deceptive in moderating posts that ask the difficult questions. As with the expenses fiasco, transparency is everything and you are deliberately avoiding anything but what is on your own agenda?
 
 
Anonymous said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
I have now read the telegraph story and your explanation. If you think you have done nothing wrong then you are a disgrace. There is no doubt in my mind that you are a fraudster and a thief. No better than a benefits cheat. Resign in disgrace!
 
 
Phil said:
Responded: Saturday, 16 May 2009
Particularly pusillanimous of those most heavily critical, or being abusive, to choose anonymity, don’t you think? Makes one wonder whether they are just members of the real nasty party (or one of their ex special advisors, say) being petty and vindictive as comes so naturally to them?
 
 
 
Contact Nadine
Nadine Dorries MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
via e-mail at: nadine.dorries.mp@parliament.uk
or Telephone on 020 7219 5928

 
My Recent Posts
Posted Thursday, 16 March 2017 at 05:48
 
Posted Friday, 3 March 2017 at 13:03
 
Posted Wednesday, 18 January 2017 at 11:21
 
Posted Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 13:10
 
Posted Monday, 21 November 2016 at 12:23
 
Posted Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 14:17
 
Posted Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 08:47
 
Posted Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 15:59
 
Blog Roll
Conservative Home

Dizzy Thinks

Guido Fawkes

Cranmer

Iain Dale

Spectator Coffee House

Political Betting

Politics Home

John Redwood

Dan Hannan

Douglas Carswell

 

Blog Archive