Has Nadine Dorries misled the Standards Committee?

I’m not going to comment directly on the Sunday Mirror’s exclusive story of strange things going on in the heart of Mid Bedfordshire…

Mystery of Nadine Dorries MP, her millionaire landlord and the internet glamour model

Controversial Tory MP Nadine Dorries shares her landlord with a Romanian glamour model who seeks out sex on the internet.

The maverick politician and I’m A Celebrity star lives in a house owned by Conservative bigwig Andy Rayment, her millionaire business partner.

Former local party chairman Mr Rayment, 68, also owns a house occupied by single mum Ramona Ladin, who talks on casual sex website Fling.com about her interest in “experimenting”.

Ramona, 26, speaking to the Sunday Mirror yesterday, described Nadine as her “best friend”.

And she called their mutual landlord and business partner Mr Rayment “a man with a very good heart”.

The MP insisted in a statement last night that she could not recall meeting anyone of the same name as the Romanian.

… other than to note that the paper has been rather coy in its description of Ms Ladin’s Fling.com profile, which actually lists her “interests” as “Fetish, Groupsex, Sexual relations, Online flirting, Other” under her user name “sefavoastra21” – and according to Google Translate “sefa voastra” translates into English from Romanian as “Your Boss”.

What is, however, of rather more interest given her recent appearance before the House of Commons’ Standards Committee, is what Dorries has to say about her own relationship with Andy Rayment in a statement given to the newspaper:

The MP said in a statement last night: “Andy and Ann Rayment are two of my closest friends. They own a large number of properties in Bedfordshire which they let out. I do not believe I have ever met anyone called Ramona Ladin.

“I do not believe that someone I have no recollection of having met has told you she is my best friend.

“I have forwarded your email on to my lawyer. Nadine.”

Now that is interesting, and a little strange, because when she was questioned about Averbrook Ltd by the Standards Committee, Dorries had this to say about her relationship with co-director, Andy Rayment:

Q2 Chair: I will open up the questioning and then other members may want to join in. Was Averbrook Ltd a way of concealing earnings from media appearances and articles?

Nadine Dorries: Absolutely not. In fact, that is probably evidenced by the fact that on the very day that Averbrook existed, the first thing that I did was ring the Registrar to say that I wanted the company to be registered. My business partners, who have nothing to do with me personally—he is just a business partner, with his wife—were very clear that, in going into business, they did not want to be brought into the public domain via my political position.

So which is it…???

Does Andy Rayment have nothing to do with Nadine Dorries personally or is he one of her closest friends, and if it is the latter why is that not reflected in her evidence to the Standards Committee?

Mmmm… I wonder if the committee might be minded to recall Dorries in order to clear up this obvious confusion.

5 thoughts on “Has Nadine Dorries misled the Standards Committee?

  1. The committee could usefully trawl through #all the addresses she has had, her mysterious main homes (disclosure of which should not now be any kind of problem), her repossessed properties (in South Africa at least), and just for fun her pre-election property and director dealings and those of her so-called husband would be of huge public interest.

    Even Nadine’s early domiciles seem subject of deflection and sleight of hand. Did she mind the cars of football crowds for money? At all? When she was just three and four years old?

    Back to now – didn’t she claim to have #bought her current main home? Is that right? And did the Mum-p’s youngest daughter drop out of Uni to do a couple of weeks twittering about IMACGMOOH?

  2. ” they did not want to be brought into the public domain via my political position.” Well, that worked out well.

  3. No newspapers picked up on this. Probably because it is a non-story. Why don’t you crusties concentrate on defending Unite? Beats the boredom between dole payments, eh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.