No, SHE writes fiction…

Hello Twitter, Humph calling..

I have been quiet on this whilst seeking advice and am now in the position to put a few things straight.  Various unfounded allegations were made against me on Sunday 10/10/2010 by Ms Nadine Dorries MP for Mid Bedfordshire (Source) 

I am not going to go into each allegation line by line at this time, many of them can be answered by using a little common sense, ie Statutory Sick Pay, Protection of Vulnerable Adults Act etc.

However, there are some allegations that I would like to clear up for myself, now. One of these is the implication that I put graphic photographs of myself on Word Ejaculation which is completely untrue, this is the photograph I displayed there:


**  And I added this Roaaar photo to my “Milfs” post:

Although there are graphic images and stories on Word Ejaculation, my tales were accompanied by non-graphic images and the content was less descriptive than the writings of  Jilly Cooper and Jackie Collins.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a selected candidate or organiser for the Labour party. Nor have I ever been inside the Houses of Commons, although I would love to go!

I DO consider myself disabled under the “Definition of ‘disability’ under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)”  (as do my doctors!) I am not now, nor have I ever been in receipt of any health related nor unemployment benefits.

I am awaiting two operations on my feet for arthritis. I have been waiting since March 2010 for the operation on my right foot and since August for my left foot.  At no time have I ever said nor suggested that these will be at the same time, although I have heard from several people who have had such treatment.

Thanks for your continued support, I lubs you all muchly x

 *        *       *      *       *        *        *       *      *       *         *        *      
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes..  Mark Twain 

Twitter gets the stories first, Twitter gets the stories right…  Ms Cushion


  ** Updated 13th October 2020


  1. […] the year I raised awareness for many different causes.  I got myself into a LOT of trouble with my local MP who “outed” my real name, much to my dismay. I really like […]

  2. @carl: bless your cotters! A good provactive blog although I’m never sure if irony/sarcasm works in writing and there’s a risk that some of your wry comments on the locals might not be fully understood despite the self-depreciation. It helps to have an imaginary reader in mind, I reckon – some local person representative of the readership. On the NYT they always said reporters were writing an open letter to ‘a bright 12 year old girl from upstate New York’, although I can’t imagine that was really representative of their readers. In your case, you can probably dismiss ‘young men look as gormless as a hillbilly born of a drooling moron and a badger that’s had a stroke’ but you might be read by their mums and dads. Just a thought.
    Very brave to tell a room full of potential sources they’re ‘the filth’ BTW. wouldn’t be my approach, but whatever works dude.
    My view on this thing is that Dorries is a bit of a wild card but has stumbled face first into a hornet nest of obsessives who quite often go *way* over the top. It is actually quite difficult for an MP to defend themselves. They generally do not have time to analyse and respond to every tweet. When they do every word is picked over. And it is a brave or stupid elected official who sues for libel. Just as it is an incredibly brave or stupid journalist who does (or seeks a super-injunction, just as an example).
    Now I don’t know about the details of MHC’s illness, but I do think that lots of people soldier on with incredible disabilties. JFK, for instance. Nor do I know the truth of how much of a stalker Tim Ireland is – it is impossible to unpick from what’s on the web. I do think MHC & Tim Ireland obssess about Dorries and it is hardly surpising she hits back.
    Never heat a furnace for your enemy so hot you burn yourself.
    As for libel, I try and steer clear of writing stuff I can’t stand up – the only real defence is justification of truth. You can stuff the Reynolds defence because you never know how a judge will direct and a jury respond. The public f*cking hate hacks, you know:

    • OK, Im calling this “debate” now..

      All you or anyone needs to know about Ms Dorries is on this blog: Can I draw your particular attention to the page entitled : Personal Attacks..

      As for my illness.. what has that got to do with anything? As I have repeatedly stated, I recieve SSP so its none of your damned business what I can or cant do work-wise is it?

      All further comments on this thread will be erased. If you want to debate another topic on another of my posts that is fine but this is not a forum for point scoring.


  3. tompaine… bless you for hunting me down. No, it doesn’t sound stalky.
    I was certainly aiming my ire at godalming… or was it at travers… they seem so similar. I wish they’d stop changing their bleedin’ names, it’s giving me a headache.

    For the last bloody time (for godalming and co) – this here is NOT MY NEWSPAPER… thus I don’t have to be neutral. I am allowed an opinion here. Is that crystal clear to everyone… *cooeeee, helloooo… is anyone there?* When I write for my paper, I abide by the strict rules. Just because I’m a reporter doesn’t mean I’m not allowed an opinion elsewhere.
    Otherwise that’s like saying that any MP isn’t allowed to lie, except on their blog when they can fib like crazy… uh oh, wait a minute… isn’t this where we all came in?

    Saying I’m not impressed at what Dorries has done won’t cause the castle to crumble further down the line. There are some Tory MPs I quite like… I liked Teddy Taylor, MP for Southend. He was a lovely man and had very firm and fair beliefs. I remember doing a wonderful interview with Anne Widdecombe at my old paper. She was incredibly charming and very sensible on a lot of ideas about the police. There’s an MP called John Barron (think he’s billericay MP) who I also admired because of his stance on the war.
    There are some Labour MPs I thought were bloody marvellous and a few I considered abject tossers (met Prescott… god what an arrogant rude arse he was).

    The point tompaine is I have no malice towards Dorries… I just feel that she has defamed MSH, using what little experience I have of libel law, which though little, still appears to be more experience than godalming or travers, who haven’t revealed what their professional knowledge is.

    Hopefully, no-one will have the malice and aforethought to do the dirty and go “ooooh, that carl bitch is writing nasty rude [but legally accurate] stuff on someone’s blogsite… sack the cow now or I’ll start a Mail campaign”, but hey, this is all about politics, so anything can happen.

    Needless to say, if it does happen and I do end up on the jobseeker allowance with a missus and three week bairns to feed, I’ll feel like a plonker. But be that as it may [not a phrase you hear much anymore] I interjected after people made spurious claims about what was or was not libel. I had the book, had the training, had the experience, so I chucked in my tuppence-worth. To be told I’m talking balderdash by some godawful/travers who won’t admit their ignorance is a bit disconcerting.

    Anyways… what did you think of my paltry blog then?

  4. @carl: Never been sure whether the Fisk/Pilger approach to investigative journalism is right. Objectivity remains important otherwise everything you write gets undermined by (possibly unfair) attacks. Punch your name into google along with NUJ award (mentioned in your post) and everyone is on your work blog. If that feels stalky to you, given that I am anonymous, I won’t do it again. No, I would never contact your boss or anything similar. I respect your right to have a view but I do caution that everything you write on the internet stays there forever. You may change your mind one day about things you are comfortable about sharing now. Please don’t mis-interpret that remark. I just believe that it is a good idea to protect your won privacy. I reckon journalists shouldn’t put themselves in a position where their beliefs can be used to knock down a true story. If you know anything about libel, you’ll know about how the word ‘malice’ can affect the whole deal. Think about it – one day you might find yourself writing a big f*ck off story about a political figure and your previous history *will* get called into court and used against you by the big law firms.

    What’s in it for me? Just interested. I step into to situations where people are being unpleasant to others on public transport too. Probably not a very good idea, but I have this sense of justice and truth.I happen to think that the really nasty blogger is neither Mshumphreycushion or Dorries. I do think that this idea that because dorries is an mp, anything she says on her blog is ‘bullying’ is wrong.
    I sort of understand why she doesn’t allow comments on her blog although I sort of disagree.

    Kontinuing kudos to MHC for allowing the debate to continue.

  5. Y’know Godalming… I’ve just noticed. I never said I was from Plymouth until you did…

    So, did you do a little bit of light googling as I suggested travers do… or did you have prior knowledge.

    Y’see, only a few bloggers already know I’m operating from Plymouth… Tim, being one and (hmmm, very interesting) Iain Dale being another…

    I guess I’m seeing an interesting development here. Care to reveal yourself – did you Google me or not. And how far do you intend to take this? Will you be calling up my boss out of a vindictive and bitter desire to win your argument?

    Remind me again of who’s the nasty blogger here…

  6. Godalming you haven’t really explained why you would defend Dorries, what’s in it for you ?

  7. Dear Godalming… or travers.. depending on who you think you are today.

    As a hack in Plymouth or a pirate in Penzance, it shouldn’t matter. I could equally retort “what’s it got to do with you?” as well. But that’s an idiot question… She is a representative of the people and should behave accordingly.

    Next – you’re soooooo right. I’m not a libel lawyer. But I AM qualified in an aspect of the law, which includes libel. So unless you wish to be open and honest and admit you’re own specialism in the field, I think I win the top trumps game over you, Tim Ireland, MHC and Nadine. I certainly top trumps over Iain Dale, because one of his “stories” got a right thrashing in the libel stakes because he didn’t check his story out properly. (You’d expect better from a publisher, but then, he’s never been qualified in any aspect of journalism… just learned as he went along in business.)

    “Journalists shouldn’t buy into anyone’s arguements if they want to remain neutral.”
    Oh very good. Well done. I’m remind John Pilger or Nick Davies or John Sweeney or Fergal Keane when I next see them.
    I’m writing about the law of libel m’laddie, I have experience because I’m a reporter. I’m “allowed” (thank you very much) to have an opinion on anything I bloody well like. Whether you like it or not. If I’m writing for my paper, THEN I’m neutral. Here, I’m a free agent, so don’t tell me what I can or can’t do here.

    McNae’s IS a law book. You’ll find it in the law section of any library or shop. It’s not as weighty or as detailed as Robinsons, but every reporter uses it. So nyah, you’re still wrong. (I take it you’ve read it or are you just winging it?)

    Anonymity is only a defence if there’s serious risk of you getting hurt. Emotionallly, perhaps, but what’s the likelihood of anyone coming to your door to give you a bashing. I’ve been up front. It’s a shame you can’t do the same. Says more about you than me, methinks. Oh, by the way, I use my real name on every comment I ever put on a blog, but that’s just me, a bit of a radical. I even use it on my own blog.

    “So Carl Eve isn’t that much of an expert on anything except the sound of his own voice shouting the odds so future employers can make their mind up about whether a hack who can’t keep his opinions to himself isn’t a bit of a risk…..”

    ooooh, well get YOU princess! So much for your “i’m not insulting anyone” line! That’s a hissy fit worthy of Mr Dale you know. You do recognise how much of hypocrite you may now appear for complaining that everyone who criticises Ms Dorries is “nasty” then you yourself make a pretty good stab at being nasty yourself? I know, how about you go the whole hog, phone up my boss and try and get me the sack… go on, do the decent thing. Think “what would Jesus do?” and live a little.

    From what I remember, this is still the UK, I can have opinions, I can voice them. I can also be honest about my experience and knowledge in the realms of both journalism and libel law. Like it or lump it. And if you have to lump it, accept with good grace when you’re clearly wrong, coming from an arena of little or no experience of what you’re talking about and don’t be nasty. It doesn’t become you Godalming, or travers, (whichever voice in your head you heard calling you this morning)

  8. 1. Dorries has been cleared of charges levelled by a BNP member and whole-heartedly echoed and cheered by Ms Humphrey Cushion, Tim Ireland and his mates and the attack siites set up about Dorries. That’s the plain fact.

    2, Being given an award by the NUJ doesn’t make you a libel lawyer Carl. Firstly you have to be identified to be defamed. It wasn’t Dorries that outed ms humphrey cdushion. What’s it got to do with a local hack in Plymouth anyway? Journalists shouldn’t buy into anyone’s arguements if they want to remain neutral. One day, you might find yourself writing about politics, be accused of bias and have these comments thrown in your face as evidence of malice.

    3. Macnaes isn’t ‘the’ law book. It is a primer. The only law book is the law itself and precedent.

    4.As far as I can see Dorries only mentioned the author of this blog after the fact. I think she’ll have a pretty good justification of truth and/or Reynolds defence. Pretty much this is up to Ms Humphrey Cushion: sue or don’t. don’t moan about what’s been said.

    5. Thanks Tim – way to back your friend up by shouting random abuse. You had to start mere common abuse, didn’t you? Why? I haven’t insulted anyone here. I may be mistaken, plain wrong or not have all the facts but that’s possibly because you and Humphrey Cushion are laying the details out badly or even in a misleading way. Can’t you keep this to a debate without resorting to vipituration? why not post the video. It ain’t sub judice. It can’t affect the outcome of any legal action. Show us. Let us make up our own minds instead of listening to your views of the difference between ‘stroll’ and ‘storm’. Weasel words.

    6. Anonymity is simple self-defence.I don’t have a big gang of psycho-bloggers behind me and would never like to expose myself to the aggression which some posters and bloggers have been subjected to. I keep my comments polite and try to engage in an enlightened debate. You just turn round and say ‘You’re an idiot’. No, Tim, I’m not. I just disagree with you. I think I am due an apology. Really, keep it polite.

    7. When does the 28 weeks ssp run out? Whatr employment agency pays ssp? I thought the whole point of agencies was that you are *not* an employee. So Carl Eve isn’t that much of an expert on anything except the sound of his own voice shouting the odds so future employers can make their mind up about whether a hack who can’t keep his opinions to himself isn’t a bit of a risk…..

  9. Travers your defending Dorries who has admitted that her blog (passed off as fact) is an out and lie. She’s lied to her constituents she has no doubt lied to you as you are stating her blog as fact when she has admitted it is all a lie. I suggest you find another target as your batting on a very sticky wicket here.

  10. In no particular order:
    1. Nadine Dorrie s has been cleared of accusations raised by fascists against her. These accusations were exploited by fellow travellers of the BNP to attack her on multiple websites includeing this one and others you were involved with. Please outline you relationship with the BNP? What form of apology will you publish on this blog and other sites ackonledging that Dorries has breached no rules over expenses and the accusations were malicious? Will you communicate with the moderators and m,aintainers of such websites (including Tim Ireland) and ask that the record regading Nadine Dorries be corrected? If not, why not?
    2. Dorries didn’t single anyone out. HumphreyCushion and TimIreland self-identified.
    3. Carl Eve, you’re not even wrong about libel. That’s because you don’t know the first thing and rely on an out of date primer for junior hacks. What do you know about it? Really?
    4. You aren’t going to sue her. Because you can’t. Even in the world of CFA libel actions it won;t work.
    5. The NHS and Police are not ‘agencies’ . They both may employ staff sourced from agencies but that ain’t the same. And yes, I do know what ssp is. It is £80 a week and lasts 28 weeks. But like I said there is no agency (think Blue Arrow or Reed, there are probably specialistsfor health care) that keeps people on their books as emplopyees except in admin capacity. If Humphreycushion is a carer who works through an agency she is *not* an employee and not entitled to ssp unless there is some major undisclosed fact. over to you humphreycushion
    6. You’re lucky to get the benefit of a reasonable, skeptical and yet un-hositle or antognistic commenter. And more comments than you’ve ever had. You shouldn’t let anyone put you off from allowing you own partisans from seeing the opposition – even if they do disagree.

    • Firstly, I am not on trial here and have answered all the questions regarding my employment already.

      Secondly, Ms Dorries was not cleared of ALL charges against her, check the file properly.

      I have NEVER contributed to nor spoken to anybody to the best of my knowlege who runs a BNP blog. The BNP stand for everything I hate and I am deeply offended that you have likened me to them.

      Ms Dorries identified me BY NAME to the press and in her blog. I did not.

      Why are you using an “anonymiser” to hide your identity?
      I shall certainly make no apology for anything to Ms Dorries as I have not made any accusation that I cannot and have not backed up with facts. Ms Dorries has been semi-cleared of allegations made against her in regard to her second home allowance only.

    • Travers.
      A bit of light googling in future may make you appear less of a pillock.

      I’m a crime reporter with about 12 years in so far. Whcih means I’ve had to pass professional qualifications in it, at post graduade level, covering every aspect of media law such as contempt, defamation, copyright etc. I’ve even helped train other journalists.

      As an aside, I won this years’ NUJ Regional Specialist Reporter of the Year – which covers the entire country. I also got this years’ EDF South West reporter of the year – which, like the NUJ award is both peer and professionally judged. I’m not boasting, I’m just pointing out that according to other people I’m not bad at my job.

      I’ve worked in regional papers (not tabloid nationals) for about 10 years and the BBC for 18 months, working on TV and Radio (Radio 4 and Radio 5 if you must know). This is to point out that they’re pretty stringent in regards to the law and what they can or can’t say.

      The law of defamation hasn’t changed much since the 18th edition of McNaes (out in 2005 and there’s only been about two editions out since), so the lines from it still hold today, for every reporter in the land. It’s not “a primer” – it’s THE law book for all reporters who have to take the NCTJ and NCE exams in journalism, which pretty much every regional editor in the country insist upon you having before starting with them.

      So as for your “you’re not even wrong about libel” line, you’re right… I’m not wrong… at all.

      I’ve been up front, been open, transparent, clear in answer to your question of “what do you know about it? Really?”.

      How about you grow a pair and do the same…

    • In no partiocular order:

      – You’re an idiot
      – You’ve been lied to
      – You can’t even be bothered to look into the detail and be correct in the accusations and claims you make to excuse Dorries’ behaviour
      – You’re an anonymous coward
      – Goodbye

  11. Holdsworth..Also Elected representatives SHOULD NOT single out single constituents for comment..thats undemocratic in my book..Anyone whose read the rantings of Dorries in her blog will see why she has not and will never get a front bench seat. Your support of her is admirable but very misplaced, she brings nothing but ridicule to herself, parliament and her constituancy.

  12. Holdsworth please provide a list of all the jobs and employers available. I think you’ll find its a myth, Filming public meetings isn’t democracy? so what is it’s” public” theres nothing off the record! And lets face it some constituency’s will elect a monkey with a blue rosette, as proved by Dorries.

  13. Rotterdam (Timbo, chjdsl, triptrap), with regards to “answer the questions” Ms Cushion has answered all the questions, several times! If you took any time to read the various blogs on the subject, they have all been answered and the points Dorries raised have all been rebuffed. Again Dorries allows NO discussion of her bizarre thoughts & views (ie foetus reaching out of womb, dismissed by surgeon). The people supporting Dorries should look at their conscience, stop their online bullying and do something useful with their time, like campaign for disabled rights or more access to their MP’s..

    • errm, and you think what timmy and humphreycushion are doing is not bullying? Setting up multiple websites, storming around meetings with video cameras? That isn’t democracy in action it’s…sad…or…..weird
      and aren’t we discuissing dorries here? For that matter timmmmmy doesn’t let anonymous post on his little blog.
      the difference is Dorries has been *elected* and humphrey cushion is just gobsh*te.
      None of the points dorries raised have been rebuffed at all – except in a superficial way. There just is no agency on earth which pays staff to be on long term sick leave. none. not one. That’s the whole point of agencies and why the left despises the model. you aren’t an employee – you are just ‘on their books’ and they get a fee when you are contracted out. So what Humphrey cushion is saying is if not impossible at least wildly wildly unlikely.
      and I agree with dorries: if you’re well enough to blog and tweet, you could be working – not every job requires physical healty and not all jobs even require attendance at a place of work.
      plus I’d like to see timmy’s video of humphreycushion at the dorries meeting: he’s keeping that to himself, for some odd reason.

      • Storming? Nope.. slow walk in April, hobbling on a stick now. Tim hasnt released all the footage yet as I have asked him not to as there may be a legal case pending.

        You might want to check out SSP rules? You obviously are as ill informed as Ms Dorries.

        p.s : Dorries doesnt allow comments on her blog AT ALL!!!

      • The Chair of that meeting has a copy of all hi-res footage, the only person who stormed anywhere was Dorries, and Nads herself has praised campaign websites targeting others MPs. Oh, and you’re lucky to get the consideration of these answers in response to your anonymous hostility, so you can go whistle for anything further.

      • Regional TV reporters film MPs and prospective parliamentary candidates at hustings on a regular basis. So that’s not in any way unusual.
        As for agency which pays for logn term sick leave… I think you’ll find the police do, the NHS does and, on occasion, the Army does – though probably not as much as it should – so that’s two for two.
        It is not coincidence is it Holdsworth, that the moment MHC made an official complaint, backing Tim Ireland, that a) Dorries decided to forgoe the usual whining about “MPs will kill themselves if we keep being attacked for this unfair expenses lark” and suddenly got very interested in the disabled benefits system.
        And then, gosh, wow, how coincidental… Guido Staines (good friend of Iain Dale, who’s awfully good friends with Nadine) suddenly takes on the idea of also championing the “dodgy benefits claimants” chant and ho-ho-ho suddenly had names and dates and a whole load of other information.
        Like feck.
        And that, holdsworth, is how some MPs, who don’t deserve to hold the position, operate. And that’s why your cry of “oooh, MHC is a nasty, nasty bully” won’t wash with anyone with a scintilla of decency.
        And if you really want, I’ll give you a lesson in defamation.
        Libel is anything printed for other people to see which TENDS to – key bloody word sunshine – tends to expose them to hatred, ridicule or contempt; cause them to be shunned or avoided; lowers them in the estimate of right-thinking members of society generally; or disparages them in their trade, business, office or profession.
        “Notice the words ‘tends to’, which are important. The person suiing does not have to show that the words actually did expose him to hatred or whatever.” McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, 18 Edition by Tom Wlsh, Walter Greenwood and David Banks.
        And before you screech “oohh, Nadine didn’t name her”, there’s a bit of law in that there.
        The claimant must prove three things… a) it’s defamatory, b) ti may be reasonably understood to refer to him/her and c) it has been publicshed to a third person.
        so – a) that could be argued as possible
        b) that could certainly be argued as possible
        c) that’s easy peasy to argue.

        Anyone else want a lesson in libel? Ah, Iain, so good to see you again…

      • Just a quick point to add.. Ms Dorries DID name me in her vile “She writes fiction” blog post.. AND she named my village and repeately called me a con artist. All this whilst knowing I have 3 young children who would be affected by her smears.

      • Ah, sorry MHC… not doing my research.
        So… then that’s a definite on b) “it may be reasonably understood to refer to him/her” as well as c).

        Hah, if only you had the money she’d be so stuffed.

  14. For those out there who wish to harrangue Ms Cushion, please read the posts referred to in her blog first. Surely you want to comment from a basis in fact? If you read the posts then you will see that her blogpost is factual…..

  15. Well done to Ms Humphrey Cushion for standing up to this co-ordinated bullying smear campaign, which has quite obviously been set in train by Nadine Dorries MP, who is desperately flailing about to try to salvage something from her widely-discredited political career.
    Ms Dorries has previous form for rounding up her adoring right-wing blogger mates to attack her most vocal and coherent critcs, so the attacks on Ms Cushion are nothing if not unexpected.
    Dorries is a powerful figure from the elite of the political class, she is well-resourced, at the expense of all of us as taxpayers, and abuses her position of influence to attack and smear a private citizen, who happens to be her constituent.
    Whichever candidate wins a Parliamentary seat, surely their primary duty should be to represent all the citizens of that seat. I find it disturbing, unbelievable almost, that a sitting MP should spend her time, paid for by us, spreading scurrilous rubbish about a powerless individual.
    Dorries, you’re a disgrace;and your fawning acolytes (published above) should hang their heads in shame.

  16. Rotterdam its coordinated thats bullying in my book, you’re obviously sat watching this blog for comments and replying as they occur.

  17. it’s all the same person. I’m not a tory. I don’t know Dorries, or any of your other usual suspects. How can it be bullying to respond to a public post Just asking questions – is that bullying? Does not compue, Neill.
    But I won’t hand over my real details . There is too much debris on the internet which shows what some among the Time Ireland/MHC clique do to those foolish enough to allow them into their lives: accusations of staling to the police etc etc.
    And BTW MHC, answer the questions.

    • Its not all the same person, I can see the I.P addresses.

      I have answered all the questions quite eloquently in my comments and blog posts. End of discussion.

  18. Timbo, chjdsl, triptrap.. Mmh nice coordinated effort there, I think all your comments on behalf of Dorries can be summed as as campaign of online bullying. really the woman knows no shame, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Typical Tory nastiness, and bullying. Humphrey Cushion has done a fantastic job answering each of your points, now maybe its time to pick on a new target, tax avoiders maybe. It shows the calibre of a lady who allows your comments and answers them, as against the calibre of a woman who allows no such discussion.

  19. not posting my comment? lightwieght.

  20. I think Dorries would say that to the best of her knowledge she has never told a lie about you.
    But as an interested specator, I’d just bet you have got things wrongs about her. And i bet your published thoughts were designed to demean her in the eyes of others.
    Point is, being wrong doesn’t make something a libel. It becomes a libel if it defames the subject of the statement *and* it is untrue.
    Quote one deliberate untrue statement about you (which identifies you) published by Dorries. Go on, do it – state – with example – that she has deliberatley lied about you in order to demean or defame you.
    BTW where does your money come from? Do you claim benefit? If so why? Are you seeking work? If so, how? You didn’t answer any of those questions did you?
    If you are disabled and failing to do your best to earn your crust, then you betray those worse off than yourself. Please explain your circumstances, just as Dorries has had to do.

    • Ok, lets give you a few examples shall we.. Dorries states that I am claiming disability benefits and “is absolutely not disabled”.. I am NOT now and never have been in receipt of health related benefits and I AM disabled.

      I am not now and have NEVER been a “Labour organiser”.

      I have NEVER set foot in the HOC, let alone attended meetings there. Nor have I EVER been employed by the Labour party.

      As I have explained repeatedly, I am employed, awaiting two operations on my feet and receive SSP from my employer.

      Now, if you have any further questions, I suggest you read my blog properly!

      • She didn’t state you were claiming benefits. But just to be clear: are you in receipt of any state benefits?
        It isn’t libel to say you set foot in the Commons. How odd, if you are a prospective Labour candidate.
        She didn’t say you were a Labour party employer. Even if you are, do you really consider that a statement which defames you? How odd, if you are a prospective Labour candidate.
        Who is you emplyer? You state in the BoS article that it is an agency – it seems really unlikely that an agency would pay. In fact most employers put you on sick pay – but an agency isn’t an emplyer and you did say you worked through an agency. Clarify your position.

      • I am not prepared to say who my employer is, it is an agency with a Social Services contract. I think you will find that most employers offer standard terms and conditions to employment?

        As for the “libel” aspect, as I have previously stated, that is for the lawyers to decide on, not you!
        However, I suggest you re-read Ms Dorries’ blog.. check out the “con” count..

  21. […] Ms Cushion comments: …I am awaiting two operations on my feet for arthritis. I have been waiting since March 2010 […]

  22. 1. She didn’t say photographs of *you*. She said explicit photographs.
    2. You *wanted* to be a candidate though, didn’t you?
    3. You and tim ireland have set up several sites dedicated purely to persecuting Nadine Dorries. I am not a member of any political party and I do not know Dorries, but any reasonable person looking at the vitriol poured on her by you and your friends would agree that it steps over the boundaries of what is part of the rough and tumble of political debate and into the realms of the strange and cruel. Of course she hits back.
    4. Dorries feels that anyone who can tweet 35,000 in a few months, follow her round a hustings meeting and engage in banter like the above is *not* housebound disabled, should be out at work and brings into disrepute the seriously ill who are unable to work. If you are disabled, why aren’t you receiving the benfits you serve?Are you really receiving long term sick pay from a care agency?
    5. You haven’t nailed her.She’s nailed you.
    6. Good.

    • It is sexually graphic in terms of images, even containing a photograph of Sue Cullen herself.

      This leads the reader to assume there is a graphic photograph of me, perhaps you should re-read the post?

      And yes, I was a nominated candidate but Ms Dorries stated:

      Interesting comments by Sue Cullen, the candidate the local Labour party has selected for the forthcoming local elections.

      I have not “set up sites persecuting” Ms Dorries! How ridiculous. I have blogged about her to raise awareness of issues that are important, as have MANY others.

      I do not need to receive disability allowances as I am still employed, on sick leave.

      There is video evidence which proves I did not follow Ms Dorries around.

      She has not “nailed” me at all, she has libelled me, big difference.

      • Well actually, she hasn’t libelled you. Unless you think it brings you into disrepute to be described as a prospective Labour cadidate, an alleged visitor to the House of Commons or someone who claims to be disabled.
        She may have got facts wrong, or she may not. But that still doesn’t make it libel. It has to bring you into disrepute. NOt seeing that so far.
        In particular, her article didn’t originally identify you – you did that for her. Which will rather put you on the back foot as far as libel is concerned.
        I am a bit mystified about this bit from the BOS article:
        “It’s an outrageous thing to say and I think it shows Ms Dorries’ true colours.” Because she is unfit to work as a carer, Ms Cullen receives longterm sick pay from the agency she is employed by, but says she doesn’t get any ‘health related benefits’.
        That is not what you say above. Clear that one up, please.
        As far as web sites go, your blog would be one.
        And the Nadine Dorries Project would be another – which is especially vicious and accuses Dorries : “Truth is, Nadine Dorries is the type of person who knowingly publishes and publicises malicious, damaging lies about people she perceives to be her political enemies.” (that’s what I call a libel).
        And the Peoples Pamphlet doesn’t seem to have got much beyond slagging off Dorries. By-lined Sue Cullen. I might throw in the constant cross-posting between you, Tim Ireland and others.

      • I’m sure that the libel lawyers will advise me as to whether her post is libellous or not, I would suggest they are better qualified to answer that question than you are.

        Regarding blogs, I am an authorised contributor to the Nadine Dorries Project but have not made a single post there.
        The People’s Pamphlet though, yes.. I made some suggestions, thanks for the reminder, now would be a good time to revive the pamphlet and have it distributed methinks.

        To the best of my knowlege, I have never told a lie about Ms Dorries, on Twitter, in a blog or in real life. She, however cannot say the same about me and is a far more powerful person than I. An elected member of Parlliament should not abuse her position to libel, cause harassment to nor should she disclose confidential information about a consitutent. End of.

    • tripcrap..So disabled can’t engage in banter..what do you suggest, they sit mumbling in the corner.. THINK about what you actually say !!

  23. I don’t want to add to your woes by saying something actionable on your blog so I’ll just say that you have my support, Humph and keep my peace on everything else.

    Lots of snogs. 🙂

  24. What, you mean every single word written by gorgeous, pouting Nadine isn’t gospel, well researched truth? Well I’ll go to the foot of our stairs. Stone the crows. There was me thinking that a serving member of the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ would act with complete probity and integrity at all times.. Perhaps I was a little naive.
    Good luck Humph, you have many friends, and we’ve got your back on this one. x

  25. Glad you cleared that up hun. For a while on sunday i thought this had all just been a pissing contest between two politicians, but i can see now that it’s definately that nasty bitch showing her true colours. And what particularly shitty colours they are…

    • You have NO idea how frustrated I was on Sunday, not being able to refute that! So glad Twitter stayed with me though, now we’ll get it cleared up once and for all x

  26. A grown-up response, lovely Humph. I applaud you for this and for your ability to keep going through all of this. I know this was very stressful as well as hurtful…..


  27. take her to the cleaners ,humphrey . i don’t normally feel this strongly ( my anger) but, when a civil ,ha!, servant uses their psition like this , well

  28. How it has gone on this long without anything being done about her is astounding. You have my full support.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier 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 )

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

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 57 other subscribers
  • My PNB