As I understand it…
His written stuff refers to him as a Trainee Solicitor.
He worked in a Solicitor’s Office whilst a trainee.
He said in Parliament that he went to work in Manchester as a Solicitor.
So, yes what he said was inaccurate.
He should apologise for it ASAP.
Is it a hanging offence? IMHO, no.
No one has employed him as a Solicitor, nor given him advantage for a false claim?
But others may disagree.
And once again you cherry pick franglais.
But yet in a pandemic a group of people who had spent the entre day working in close proximity, continued that day in the SAME environment and proximity, and who were rewarded with a few sandwiches, assorted confectionery, and a few bottles of wine were demonised… and according to YOU it was a ‘hanging offence’ …
Oh yeah but they were Tories eh, not Labour.
Funny innit, all the claims made by these Liebour politicians regarding their previous employments always enhance their experience due to “errors”.
Ryan Batty Archives – Guido Fawkes
Surely not?
Not true at all.
10 Downing St is not one big open plan office with everyone sat in each others laps. It is an old building with lots of smaller rooms etc. The workers were not all in close proximity.
Even Johnson never said was the case did he?
Those guilty of breaking any laws were fined…not suspended by the neck.
And to head off further bollox:
Johnson was not sacked for any parties. He resigned as an MP rather than be suspended. The suspension would have been for lying to Parliament, not for having a booze up.
He then chickened out of offering himself for re-election.
What is the problem. She is not the whip nor is she responsible for party nor Parliamentary discipline.
When asked about a non-expert subject she attempts an answer but when pulled up admits her ignorance.
Another crock of 5 hit from franglais, do you honestly believe that the agenda for the content of the interview is not set prior to the interview? It’s all pre planned and obviously by Johnson’s face she hadn’t done her homework. Another Barrister… huh.
Some politicians will demand that questions are cleared before an interview. Most reputable news outlets will not agree to that. The Johnson Gov refused to send Ministers onto the BBCR4 Today programme a lot of the time.
Since you point out the Minister seemed surprised and as we agree did not know th detail of a case that was not in her purview, than you show it is likely she did not know the question in advance.
In fact you have indeed proved your suggestion is a [quote=“truckpro, post:4659, topic:236118”]
crock of 5 hit
[/quote]
No of course it aint .
To be as pedantic as you…was the party not held in the garden anyway?
(btw I suspect you know every minute detail…but shhhh 
… nobody really cares.)
Anyhoo at least it’s nice to see by the tone and theme of your post, that you aint bitter about it anymore, and that you have let it go.
Still does not alter the fact and the point of my post…your glaring double standards.
Oh it’s “likely” is it? Oh right, likely is subjective. She was interviewed on live TV as I have been for a pre planned interview. I can tell you 100% that an agenda is laid down prior to the interview, that is how it is, period.
Says the person bringing the topic up!
…
I was about to post the irony meter again…but you just broke it !
Of course I brought it up… I know how much it annoys you when I remind you of the times you make a complete fool of yourself on here.
Keep your irony meter for the many f.ups and faux pas you show on here yourself mate…your need for it is far greater than mine .
Yes an agenda can be suggested and agreed before an interview.
Is that agenda always adhered to? Certainly not.
Many times interviewers say along the lines “You are here to talk about X but first can you comment on Y”
What happened on your interview does not translate to all interviews with all politicians at all times.
And saying “period” is similar to writing FACT in capital letters.
It means nowt.
Finally franglais you understand the difference between questions and an agenda. So just for you franglais, on a pre planned live TV interview the agenda is set out beforehand. The agenda sets out what is to be discussed and the interviewee acknowledges that, any conduct, inappropriate language and potential libel issues are discussed. Took me 1 minute this morning to find the clip of Reynolds saying he was previously a Solicitor in Manchester. So once again Dianne Johnson showed she didn’t know half of the FACTS but was prepared to defend him on his written “errors”.
Why so short a time? Because you already knew it was there.
How long does it take to look through all speeches and interviews, written and video etc to find out whether or not evidence of wrong doing is out there?
But you fail to address the point I made that the agenda is not always adhered to. Different subjects are introduced live on air.
Yes. She defended him, on what she knew about, but did not defend him on what she did not know about.
Subjective once again and no.
LOL coming from you of all people.
Really, which part of the agenda wasn’t adhered to in this instance? Subjective once again.
So she went into the interview half cocked.
That is not subjective at all. That is nonsense.
It is quick to find something you know exists. Because you know it is there you can put good search criteria.
How long does it take to find something that may or may not exist?
Possibly Forever!
This particular case is not relevant at this time. I do not know the agenda of this interview. If you do then please share it with us so we can look at it further.
Failing that it is part of a general case which you have misrepresented.
Agendas are set, but are not always followed exactly.
And here is the interview in full.
And Richard Maidley says
“let’s talk about something which you’re
very much here to talk about this
morning and which has broadly speaking
been been welcomed generally this
morning uh your new anti- knife measures”
Which takes up the bulk of the interview.
Wrong end of the stick again old franglais.