It's really nice to have an evening to say 'well done' to people.

On a couple of occasions, there were a number of things which were irritiating  about the Tower Block of Commons programmes, however, rather than appear churlish,  I dealt with a couple of things and let the others slide.

Tim and I were both made aware sometime ago, that the Liberal Democrat, Mark Oaten, had been paid £1,800 in ‘filming fees’. This was a shock, however, it got worse and last night we discovered via a  journalist, that he had in fact been paid £3,600.

We believe that he asked for the initial £1,800 to take part and then another £1,800 for the day we spent filming in Westminster.

Tim and I would never have dreamt of asking for fees. The point of the programme was to get under the skin of our broken society and experience how others coped, to have asked for money would have been wholly inappropriate.

Taking part in the programme actually cost me personally £400, a cost I was not reimbursed for. As many know, I bought Christmas presents for the children, presents and flowers for my elderly lady, Ruthie, and I stocked the food cupboard of the boys I stayed with. I also had to incur ‘child care’ costs at home. As a single mum leaving my daughter for a period of time came at a cost and yet still, asking for money never crossed my mind.It was all part of the experience.

Tim and I wrote to the production company a few weeks ago and asked to be paid £1,800 each (what we thought Mark had been paid) and for the money to be divided half each to a charity in our constituencies and a charity on the estate we filmed on.

We will now be writing on Monday to ask for that amount to be upped to £3,600.

The second point was that we MPs never had to ‘live on benefits’. The ‘voice over’ stating that we did at the beginning of each programme was totally wrong, a point I raised with the Channel 4 lawyer. It was against OffCom guidelines to state the programme did something it didn’t and the voice over was dropped from programme 4.But that doesn’t really matter, the impression had already been created that we were attempting to live on benefits.

Even the Liberal Democrat who allegedly asked for £3,600 didn’t have to do that. Shame on him. He was paid almost £1,000 per episode to cry and emote whilst living in the home of someone who lived on £150 per week.

Having read on my Lib Dem opponents Twitter –‘ More confirmation fm anuva source that story is abt to break abt Nadine’,  yes, even when not confined to 140 Twitter characters she spells another, anuva! I was slightly concerned.

 If a story is about to break regarding an MP, we are usually given ample opportunity to comment and are aware what is about to happen.

Quite often the story is one thread of fact, padded out with an enormous amount of fiction.

However, having spent last night and this morning talking to three Sunday newspapers, I now do know what she is on about and I am afraid the words ‘own goal’ spring swiftly to mind!

A note to my Lib Dem opponent - Politics is a nasty business, however, it is a fact that the nastier you are the more it comes right back and bites you on the bum.

Today, someone pointed out to me the Twitter feed of the Lib Dem PPC for Mid Beds and I have to say, I was a just a little shocked. Foolishly, before I saw it for myself, I defended her.

Readers of my blog will know I am not the worlds best speller. My grammar is often found wanting and lack of time is always my worst enemy. It doesn’t help when you are writing your blog stood on the train balancing your lap top on someone else’s head, either.

However, all of that aside, I defended the Lib Dem PPC because the comments we have received are about how awful her writing/spelling is and how can it be that someone who writes so badly could aspire to be an MP?

“Hang on" said I, you only have 140 characters on Twitter, so give her a break, “she is probably just trying to get a lot of information into a restricted medium and using short cuts”.

How wrong was I? Her shorter Tweets are the most embarrassing. Frankly, much of it is hard to decipher at all.

An example of some of the words/abbreviations she has used - cudnt, brd, bin, wont b der, becoz, mng, showin, wen, shld av, wot.

“Maybe she’s trying to get down with the kids?”, said I.

 So we showed the Twitter feed to the kids.

I can’t repeat what they said on here. The least offensive comments focused on the sadness of people in ‘my generation’ trying to be cool when we just aren’t. Gulp, that even hurt me a little.

My position on this? Being able to at least try to get it right and maintain the educational standards we would like the ‘kids’ to aspire to is a minimum obligation for anyone who is, or is aspiring to be an MP.

The English language is beautiful. The use of words and language and the ability to express opinion and thought is a joy. It is not something anyone seeking office should denigrate or abuse.

I end this with the observation that I don’t want a deluge of emails pointing out what was spelt wrong in this blog! I'm balancing this on a very nice man's head!

Is this a good or a bad thing?

When Iain Dale wrote his daily dozen yesterday he referred to me as simply ‘Nadine’ and then listed Keith Simpson MP below me. I know Iain and I are mates; however, Iain and Keith are too. I love being known as just 'Nadine'. It's how I sign my letters, how the local press refer to me and how I am known to my constituents.

On my ballott paper at the General election 'Nadine' will be in the larger letters.

The Spectator, and others, have me on their blog role as Nadine Dorries, but every other MP has the initials MP after their name.

Following on from my blog yesterday and the subject matter of my 10 minute rule Bill,  I suppose I'm on a bit of a theme here at the moment, however,  is this a subtle ‘girl’ (hate the word gender) thing?

Are men less likely to use the initials MP after a woman than a man?

Do people refer to Ann Widdecombe MP, or just Ann Widdecombe?

Is it Theresa May MP and Harriett Harman MP, or just Harriett Harman and Theresa May?

Would it be Tom Harris MP and Kerry McCarthy, or Tom Harris MP and Kerry McCarthy MP?

Just askin', that’s all. I don’t care a jot if the initials MP are after my name or not, I prefer to be known as ‘Nadine’ and I like the fact that is how Iain refers to me. I just think it’s interesting how often the initials aren’t put after the names of women but always follow on from a man.

If you live or work in London you simply cannot help but be confronted by posters adorning the sides of all TFL buses depicting three beautiful teenage lingerie models. The poster is frankly OTT. Since when did it become acceptable to have larger than life posters of provocative and scantily clad women moving up and down every street in London? Where did the mystery go?

As it has become acceptable for such images to be viewed everywhere by everyone - whether you want to see them or not - so has it become acceptable to push back the boundaries of what is no longer acceptable. Today’s model on a bus means tomorrow’s porn becomes that much harder.

The increasing sexualisation and objectification of young girls and women in the media is becoming a huge issue and has become markedly worse over the last few years and it appears to be our teenagers who are the most concerned and confused.

We live in a culture whereby our visual and auditory senses are constantly bombarded with images and messages; downloaded into our brain with no filter for objective analysis or warning before the ‘message’ is received.

The breakdown of a strong family culture which was once prevalent within society and provided the moral home spun boundaries teenagers could bounce off, has for many disappeared.

Take a comment recently made to me by a sixteen year old boy;

“…the thing is you see girls everywhere with no clothes on- they are all over the telly and papers and the films, it’s just everywhere, so when you go out with a girl you feel confused about things because does she expect sex and stuff because all the girls you see on the telly and things do, how are we supposed to regard and treat girls when they just get them out all the time”.

OK, there is a huge amount of discussion to be had around his comment and this is an issue way too big for one blog, but I have my own point to make here.

At least 50% of journalists are women. Surely they can see how over the last three to four years things have escalated and how misogynistic the tone of the media has become?

Katie Price - I will admit courts the media - but so do many men. Was it acceptable for a newspaper to put a picture of Myra Hindley's head on a photograph of her body?

And do people really think it’s good to see a picture of a four year old little girl in Grazia magazine wearing high heels and Lipstick?

Female journalists and picture editors - what are you doing?

The answer is probably writing about women’s literature and female issues which don’t fundamentally address the way women are viewed and treated within society.

If the female journalists stopped writing about how awful it is that there are so few women at the top of business and instead focused on the fact that maybe, just maybe, it is the image that business has of women which is perpetrated by women in the media, and then wrote message after message to challenged those perceptions, then it may be possible things could begin to change.

I have applied for a ten minute rule Bill to highlight some of the issues I have raised in this blog.

And no, I haven’t turned into a feminist overnight - heaven forbid! This is not about wearing a feminist hair shirt. It’s about knowing the difference between what is right and wrong and trying to do something about it.

Bedfordshire is benefiting from the combination of an altruistic spirit combined with entrepreneurial flair.

Lance Haggarth came to see me last year with an idea. Lots of people do that, seek the support of the local MP, and I have to say that sadly, not many get to the point they had hoped to and, for various reasons, the best laid plans and optimistic schemes, fall on the way.
 
Not so with Lance. He is a father of sons  who knows how hard it is for some kids to get involved with sport, either at school or in teams, simply because they don't have access to expensive kit. There are boys who can't play football at school because of the prohibitive cost of new boots. As any parent knows, boots on growing boys or girls don't last very long as they grow so incredibly fast.
 
Lance had an idea to approach teams, suppliers and just about anyone involved with sport in order to assist him in setting up a used/charity store chain for sports clothes.
 
The photograph is of Lance and I at the Bedford store and I have to say, every single thing in the shop looked brand new, except for the price; boots for a fiver, football shirts for a few pounds and all manner of sports equipment, including golf clubs.

People now know where the shop is and take unwanted outgrown sports kit to be re-cycled and re-used or worn by children and adults who otherwise wouldn't have access to kit or equipment at all.
 
I was impressed that Everton FC had been helpful and supportive but disappointed that Manchester United and Liverpool FC just aren't getting involved. Shame on them.
 
Lance is looking to expand his chain of Sports Traider stores and I will continue to give him all the help and support I can. He has recently had talks with Westminster Council and the feedback from them was very positive. Well done Lance!
 

Tomorrow the DPP, Kier Starmer will publish a new guidance regarding policy on prosecuting assisted suicide cases.

The report follows a period of consultation, which was apparently nudged into action by the Debbie Purdy case.

The law regarding assisted suicide in unequivocal; It is illegal to assist anyone in the taking of their own life.

Prior to the consultation process, Kier Starmer said,

‘Assessing the public interest is not simply a matter of adding up the number of factors on each side and seeing which side of the scales has the greater number. Each case must be considered on its own facts and its own merits. Prosecutors must decide the importance of each public interest factor in the circumstances of each case and go on to make an overall assessment.

In that one paragraph, Kier Starmer has implied that the law is no longer relevant and if Parliament refuses to change the law, he will make it up himself.

The media love a sensational story. Anything which involves tears and tantrums, life or death, finds top billing in the ever increasing drive to sensationalise the news.

The BBC has possibly been one of the worst offenders in terms of pushing an agenda of ‘normalising' attitudes towards assisted suicide. No one can deny that, in the case of Debbi Purdy, it’s tough. Tough not to sympathise and even tougher to say no.

But we have to, because when we pass a law that makes it ok to help someone end their own life, whatever the qualifying criteria, we suddenly plunge millions of people into a position of vulnerability.
People for whom the State is ‘next of kin’. People who feel a burden on their families but know that they are secure and protected by the law. People who may feel depressed and low today but may cope well tomorrow.

None of these people make interesting news. None of the elderly sat in sheltered accommodation make good commentary on the lunch time news and no one sat in a hospital bed unable to articulate an opinion will find a Sunday news reporter beating a path to his bedside for comment.

The vocal minority will use the opinion of those who have been fed their plight via the media to campaign for change.

Whatever Kier Starmer states tomorrow, the law has not changed.

Whoops! I forgot it was on tonight.

Channel 4 at 9pm.

How much do you think it costs to make a meal for 12 people?