Reinstate the Nadine Dorries Blog.

I had never heard of Nadine Dorries. That is probably because she is a Conservative MP and I pay little attention to MPs these days. Everyone knows why, I consider most of them [ especially mine] to be a waste of space and largely ineffective. I may be indifferent to Nadine, nevertheless news in the blogsphere is that she has been shut down or silenced.

On May 22nd 2009 Nadine Dorries called the expenses scandal, a Witch hunt. Well, she ought to ask her party how much actual assistance they have ever given whistleblowers then she would know what a witch hunt really was. Nadine also wrote various comments on her blog. Apparently, the Telegraph have ensured that no blog exists. That is curious for heavy weight lawyers since they forgot the cache.

No one approved of Nadine's remarks but we live in a democracy - supposedly and she is entitled to say whatever she wishes without interference from the powers that be. NHS Blog Doc makes a few rufflings. His boy pals stick around in a clique protecting free speech. Only when it applies to them I suspect. The rest of us are branded " outspoken". And NHS Blog doc should remember that when his own colleague was taken down by the GMC due to a "LINK" he failed to support or feature it. I always think we need some reality check here for the boys and their Spartacus Syndrome. How far do they go to protect free speech. Actually, not that far.

Dizzy has the best summary on this subject.

I certainly know that while many of us support Dorries' Article 10 HRA rights, if any of us were smited down by the great gods of the planet UK, Dorries would have done nothing about it. We know that because she is an MP. MPs do nothing about anyone. In general, I believe they don't consider bloggers to be " real writers".

Anyway, this is good case law for the fat lawyers.

"REDMOND-BATE Appellant - and -DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent Case No: CO/188/99

The quote is

"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers’ Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear. From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas. A central purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights has been to set close limits to any such assumed power. We in this country continue to owe a debt to the jury which in 1670 refused to convict the Quakers William Penn and William Mead for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy"

As for the Telegraph, I have had many blogs on My Telegraph related to Ward 87 matters removed by the moderators.

A quote on My Telegraph "Rita Pal's blogs were deleted in minutes for far less offensive content "

Well, I wasn't willing to cope with the dysfunctional Telegraph moderators hence I left.