SNP MP John Nicolson has been cleared by Parliament’s top Independent Expert Panel of bullying and harassing Nadine Dorries on Twitter.
Ms Dorries reported Mr Nicolson in October 2022, alleging the senior MP had bullied and harassed her during a 24-hour Twitter spree, in which he tweeted, liked or retweeted 168 posts about her, some of which referred to the then-culture secretary as “grotesque”, a “vacuous goon”, and as having been “rag-dolled” by him during Parliamentary exchanges.
While the initial complaints investigator initially concluded Mr Nicholson had not breached the MP code of conduct, the Commissioner disagreed and said the MP’s behaviour “in both instances amounts to both bullying and harassment” in breach of the MP code of conduct.
Today an appeals panel has reversed that decision and concluded Mr Nicholson broke no rules.
The appeals panel said the commissioner had failed on three counts in concluding Mr Nicholson was guilty.
READ MORE: Dorries shamed as shocking tweet branded ‘dangerous’ by Minister
Firstly he didn’t fully take into account that Parliamentary rules must not prevent vigorous opposition to the Government.
The panel says they don’t want to appear like they’re setting a precedent that MPs’ online attacks can proceed without limit, but the policy must protect “legitimate political activity”.
Secondly they argue that Ms Dorries’ own tweets undermine her argument that Mr Nicholson’s were bullying.
The report cites tweets from Ms Dorries’ account to prove she herself is not above strongly-worded attacks on social media.
“On one occasion she referred in a tweet to a journalist with whom she has had a sustained difficult relationship as ‘an apologist for Islamic atrocities’.”
In another row with a different journalist, she threatened she would “nail [the journalist’s] balls to the floor using [the journalist’s] own front teeth”.
Thirdly the commissioner failed to consider the sequencing of events leading up to the complaint.
The panel considered the chronology of events around the complaints, which related to tweets from November 2021, immediately following a testy battle between the pair at the Commons Culture Select Committee.
Ms Dorries didn’t make a complaint until October 2022, however.
The then-culture secretary also sparked a row with the committee in May 2022 while defending her plans to privatise Channel 4.
During the committee hearing, she claimed Channel 4 documentary participants were in fact actors, falsely presented as members of the public – something Channel 4 vigorously denied.
In July 2022 Mr Nicholson raised the row in the Commons chamber, questioning whether she sought to deliberately mislead the Committee.
Mr Nicholson also wrote to the House of Lords Appointment Committee in August 2022 to flag the allegation amid reports Nadine Dorries was seeking a peerage.
It was after this row, therefore, that Ms Dorries’ complaint about the ‘abusive’ tweets was lodged.
Thirdly the commissioner failed to consider the sequencing of events leading up to the complaint.
The panel considered the chronology of events around the complaints, which related to tweets from November 2021, immediately following a testy battle between the pair at the Commons Culture Select Committee.
Ms Dorries didn’t make a complaint until October 2022, however.
The then-culture secretary also sparked a row with the committee in May 2022 while defending her plans to privatise Channel 4.
During the committee hearing she claimed Channel 4 documentary participants were in fact actors, falsely presented as members of the public – something Channel 4 vigorously denied.
In July 2022 Mr Nicholson raised the row in the Commons chamber, questioning whether she sought to deliberately mislead the Committee.
Mr Nicholson also wrote to the House of Lords Appointment Committee in August 2022 amid reports Nadine Dorries was seeking a peerage.
It was after this row, therefore, that Ms Dorries’ complaint about the ‘abusive’ tweets was lodged.
While the committee overturned the Commissioner’s findings to judge Mr Nicholson innocent, they did agree that liking and retweeting tweets “are not neutral acts” and could “potentially lead to a breach of the Policy” in a future case.
They said in their view “it was unwise of this respondent to like or retweet some of the tweets in question, albeit this was a much less direct act than to tweet in such terms himself”.
“But we can conceive of tweets which would be so intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or insulting that to ‘like’ or retweet them would breach the policy”.
