I was shocked to hear that ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, recommending that any man accused of domestic violence, on more than two occasions, should have his details recorded on a national register. 

 I am completely opposed to this recommendation.

Don’t get me wrong, I abhor all violence, particularly in the home and especially where there are children involved, however, the obvious faults and manholes in such a recommendation are glaringly obvious.

Where is the recommendation to make the reporting of incidents of domestic violence against women easier? Or the call for more DVU (Domestic Violence Units) in densely populated areas, or even greater availability of key workers - to work with women who don’t have the confidence or wherewithal to report attacks and abuse. Encouraging and enabling them to take the bold step into the unknown of pursuing an arrest and conviction. A step that would be much easier to embark upon with guaranteed support and sympathetic expertise.

Is a register really what is needed?

The room for error, both genuine and vindictive, is huge and in this age of equality, if 40% of all domestic attacks are perpetrated by women against men, will there also be a register for women?

What is really behind this recommendation is pure politics. It’s a good leftie sounding proposal, one the Westminster Ministers will warm to and like; a very ‘Blair Babe’ topic and therefore ‘right on’ with the Government.

Personally, I’d like to see ACPO recommending a crack down on drug pushing on the streets. That every school gate pusher serves a full jail sentence on first time charge once found guilty. Or is that too populist? Too much a policy that will appeal to the people rather than the politicians? And, let’s not forget, one that involves a degree of work and effort.

ACPO have proven beyond doubt their own politicisation by putting forward this recommendation. Maybe next time a Chief Constable thinks of protesting at the proposal to elect Police Commissioners, he or she should think on this.    

I will be appearing on the Jeremy Vine show at around 1.10pm to discuss the new nursing degree. Let’s hope The Spectator keep my dinner warm for me!

According to the air waves and Sky News, who have just called, I'm supposed to have apologised to Jim Devine - If the following is an apology, then I hold up my hands.

I think the underlying issue here is that the Labour party are trying to 'do over' Kerry McCarthy MP and have whipped this up in order to assist.

It is no secret that many Labour MPs, some very senior, are totally furious with what Kerry Twittered last week regarding Sir Nick and have called to have her 'shut down'. 

I will admit, Kerry Twitters so incessantly, often every couple of minutes, that she may have lost perspective.

The 'who needs the Sun when you have Twitter' comment may have been the first sign.

Anyway, here's what I sent to Jim. An e-mail that I thought would be private and one I hoped would help him to understand why I 'shopped' him.  Any Hack who wants to pop into my office and check the system is welcome to do so.

"Jim,

We both know that what you said was said sometime ago, in jest and obviously after a very good lunch. It doesn’t make it less offensive; however, I had no intention of ever repeating what you had said to me ever, until I read what Kerry McCarthy had written about Sir Nick – someone I have known for a very long time. He may have many faults but being a predator is not one of them.

I am afraid that having commented to my colleagues, the situation may have got out of hand and I certainly never said some of the things I read in the Sunday press.

I remember at the time sharing what you had said to me with a female MP, who I think may have been, somewhat ironically, Natascha.

I am not happy that in anger, I stooped to Kerry’s level and I have learnt a lesson for the future.

I have always felt we got on well and I am sorry that my revelation to colleagues may have caused you embarrassment. I am sure it is a taste of what the next few months may hold.

Best Wishes,

Nadine"

The row concerning the sacking of professor Nutt continues with steady momentum as one advisor after another resigns at key moments, providing the story with the turbo thrust it needed to propel it from Friday night PM to the Monday morning Today.

The juxtaposition of morals versus statistics will always provide flash points in the world of politics, but it appears, never more so than when it is linked to drug classification.

Professor Nutt was very probably right; the number of young people killed as a result of horse riding is probably higher than those who die outright from the swallowing of a single tablet or the inhalation of a substance, but as far as I know, riding a horse has never put families through years of agony. It cannot be blamed for the number of young people sleeping rough or homeless. You don't see our jails full of people incarcerated for horse riding related crimes and I've never heard horse riding described as 'Gateway' sport.

Riding a horse doesn't lead to a life of dependency and, as far as I'm aware, it's quite easy to quit. Saying 'NO' doesn't really present a huge dilemma, and really, when was the last time you saw someone  in riding chaps hanging around school gates trying  to tempt young people with a quick canter?

Professor Nutt may appear to play the wounded scientist, the man of knowledge who has reached the edge of reason, but is he really just a closet Liberal Democrat?

Regardless of the statistics, politicians have to make the much bigger decision regarding drug classification and policy. If they get it wrong, the voters can go to the polls and vote us out. That's the reason why advisers advise and ministers decide: it’s called democracy.

Professor Nutt appears to have a well managed agenda. He's playing the news cycle like a fiddle; he knows exactly what he is doing.

I am sure today, unless he has exhausted his resources, he will provide us with a fresh news lift and there will be more to hear and read about the resignation of the nutty professor.

He has done the role of the advisor no end of harm in his pursuit to push his own questionable agenda, which could never have been in the long term interest of young people or the society within which we live.

This morning's Daily Telegraph carries a story reporting the results of a study carried out by Joan Morris, professor of medical statistics, at Queen Mary’s Hospital.

Not so long ago there was an assumption that advanced medical screening and access to abortion could all but eliminate the birth of the Down’s baby, as though this genetic cleansing was a good thing. The assumption also being, who would want a Down’s child?

It is a fact that because women are waiting until their 30’s and 40’s to become pregnant that the number of pregnancies being diagnosed as Down’s is increasing.

Professor Morris is quoted in this morning’s article as saying:

"We are getting more pregnancies with Down's syndrome because women are having their babies older and because we are screening more accurately and screening more women, there are more terminations”.

Women who have been screened for Down’s will happily tell you that, when the screening takes place, the assumption is very much weighted towards the reason being ‘pre-abortion ’screen, as opposed to 'pre-counseling'.

Everyone must respect the feelings and wishes of any parent who may find themselves in the position of hearing a Down’s diagnosis. However, we must also question the process and why a positive attitude to the diagnosis does not take equal precedence to a negative approach? Why is the assumption that a parent will automatically abort not tempered with the fact that if a parent encounters the diagnosis in a positive way, with compassionate non judgmental information about rearing a Down’s child, they may be able to move their thought process from “we can’t do this” to “lets think, can we?”

Does the new life, which by the time the diagnosis is made may be very well developed, not deserve at least this?

Frank Buckley, Chief Executive of Down’s Syndrome Education International said: "People with Down’s syndrome are living longer and achieving more than ever before and it is reassuring to know that they will be continuing to make valued contributions to our communities for years to come.

"These figures should be a wake-up call to policy-makers to focus more effort on improving education, healthcare and adult support for the rapidly growing population of citizens who have Down syndrome."

Peter Elliott, Chairman of The Down’s Syndrome Research Foundation, who has a 24-year-old son David with Down’s Syndrome, said: "Why are the abortions at such a high rate unless they have been given the impression the situation was terrible and it warranted an abortion?"

The question I ask myself when considering this is based on my ability to love, could I love a Down’s child?  Yes, I could and I know three sets of parents who do. I am going to change her name, in case her parents are reading this, however Anita is loved by many in the small Cotswold town in which she lives.

She has very strong likes and dislikes in terms of which music and TV programs she likes and she is very inquisitive and funny. Whilst I am writing this I realise how long it is since I had one of her totally loving cuddles.

I know of another Down’s couple who fell in love and now live together.

It is estimated that there are approximately 60,000 people with Down's syndrome currently living in the UK. Many of them happily and heartily and contributing to the community in which they live.

Today’s report in the Telegraph makes depressing reading. Many babies aborted with Downs are aborted late into the pregnancy. They are not children of a lesser God; they just have a different contribution to make than. If we really are striving to live in an equal society, at the very least, do they not have a right for their life to be considered?

We had a great response to the Any Questions programme.

Jacqui Smith was incredibly nasty to me when, as a new MP, I sat on my first Bill committee. I remember thinking to myself at the time, 'one day lady, one day'. As the Mail on Sunday pointed out, my day arrived.

Jacqui Smith forgot a crucial fact during the programme.

The days of untruths, spin and treating people like fools are well and truly over.

What made me furious was her assertion that the postal workers strike had nothing to do with the Prime Minister pulling the Bill to part privatise the Royal Mail.

That was an astounding attempt at a lie.

When the weak and un-elected Gordon Brown pulled the Bill he created a policy void that the CWU dived into, announcing strikes almost immediately.

For Jacqui Smith to have asserted that there was no connection was astounding and it set the tone for the remainder of the programme.

Today, in between everything else, I am preparing for Any Questions which is taking place in Sussex this week. 

Thanks to Amanda Platell for quoting me extensively, from my article on yesterday’s ConservativeHome, in her article in today’s Daily Mail. Just my luck that the AWS row kicks off as I’m about to do a programme like that!

If I have time today I want to write about Kier Starmer, the DPP, and his latest outburst. I have the title for the blog in my head – Just who do you think you are? I just can’t get the song out of my head right now.

Had no idea until I was told last night that a quote from Monday’s blog about X-Factor, was the BBC network quote of the day on Tuesday, still don’t know which quote it was.

A female PPC and I have just been having a chat about her weekend. We discussed faith and the fact that we had both been to church on Sunday. Here is what she said to me, “You know, I really struggle with my faith, between needing it and knowing I couldn’t live without it, and wanting to kill someone”. Oh, what dilemmas faith presents us with?

More on superstar Starmer later.

I have written for ConservativeHome  today about all-women shortlists.

And so our Saturday nights across the nation have become the time for X – Factor or Strictly Come Dancing. 

I confess to being one of the millions who would rather stay in on a Saturday night and cosy up with a bottle of red wine, a nice supper and feast on my weekly diet of trash TV. 

The irony of the X Factor show hit me quite suddenly this Sunday evening.

A programme which provides young talent from any street in the UK, regardless of background, colour, or creed, with the pathway to stardom inadvertently highlighted exactly where that path could lead.

Last Sunday was the night for Robbie Williams, a true pop idol in the eyes of many of the millions of young people who watched his mentoring of young hopefuls on the programme and then expected to enjoy his performance.

Many questions were asked the following morning  regarding Robbie’s wild-eyed, decidedly odd appearance and performance. 

Last night was the turn of Whitney. No one can detract from the amazing career this woman has had and all that she has contributed to the world of music, however, her performance last night, her dazed and vacant behaviour, was cringe worthy and the same questions will be asked in the press tomorrow after her late night performance. 

So, what are we saying to the young wannabes taking part in this show? Win X-Factor and one day you will be so desperately sad and troubled, so lacking in confidence, your soul will be so tortured that you too one day will be like this? 

The programme, which holds the dreams of a dozen or so young people in the palm of its hands, may in fact be shining a light down the road to misery, loneliness and ruin. 

Cheryl Cole is a strong and successful woman, and thank God for her performance last night which gave out the message ‘it doesn’t need to be like that’. Danni appears to hold her career together well and Simon Cowell is a role model for all young men. However, Robbie and Whitney may once have been that strong and well put together.  

Last night’s programme appeared to present a huge juxtaposition between a world of success, fame, and wealth and happy ever after with loneliness, sadness, dependency and loss. 

I am sure the show’s producers loved the glazed performance from Whitney as it will guarantee a few more column inches somewhere and even more publicity for the show. I do hope they can balance that out.  

With success comes responsibility, not only for an individual but in this case for the show at large. Get a grip X-Factor. It’s a fantastic show, but keep your message clean and positive. The eyes of millions of children and teenagers are watching you. Do not mix the image of success and wealth with one of desperation and dependency because you know that’s just plain wrong.

Ashley Green was my association chairman on the night I was selected for Mid Beds. When the two of us are together, we always talk about that night as we both enjoyed it so much.

Today, whilst he was leaflet delivering in Bedford, Ahley had his hand badly bitten by a dog. It was a dash to the A+E in Stevenage, where they have a hand specialist and it doesn't look like he will be delivering any leaflets for a little while to come.

Lots of love Ashley. I have tried to call but I can't get through due to the thousands of other well wishers obviously doing the same! x