Franglais, I think you might be needing this. 
1 Like
In what way?
Repeating a nonsense does not make it true.
Yep, had it been Boris Johnson who had been caught lying in the exact same scenario and situation you know he’d have been all over it like a tramp at a clothes bank!
So implying the agenda in live TV interviews may change then some proof here would be greatly appreciated otherwise it is just a nothing set of words.
You have made the misrepresentation by implying the agenda could have been changed.
And?
Keep shaking that agenda why don’t you LOL
So do you maintain that the agenda is never changed in an interview?
That another subject to the principle one is never introduced?
And, a subject, the one the interviewee is there for, is introduced.
You find that irrelevant? OK.
I have made absolutely no comment on those, you have.
This again.
Erm where exactly did I say irrelevant?
What on earth are you on about now?
This verifies the existence of an agenda.
Start of interview nothing to do with knife crime, end of interview nothing to do with knife crime. Approximately 6 minutes out of an approximate 10 minute interview spent discussing her departments actions regarding knife crime and approximately 4 minutes of the interview, at the beginning and then at the end spent discussing the economy, trust, (or lack of trust) in the government regarding false cv’s and false claims of previous employments by her Liebour colleagues.
Diana Johnson is a qualified Barrister she attempted to defend Reynolds with a half cocked answer and clearly knew nothing of his claim in the HOC (of all places) of his non existent Solicitor employment. Class.
Agreed she knew nothing of this.
His claim to be a Solicitor? Ok.
He said he he was “working as a Solicitor…etc” He was not a Solicitor, he was a Trainee Solicitor.
Johnson as you point out did not know about that statement and did not defend it.
Hoorah a win win.
Top marks on 2 counts.
Boosting defence and cutting costs on crap like aid to ‘The fund for disabled non binarys in Guatamala’ or such equally as mad assed lefty schemes…although the bleaters won’t be happy on that one.
.
Next move on ‘defence’ ?..secure our own borders from unlnown potential terrorists pretending to be refugees?
1 Like
err yes he did. however the meeting rooms in durum were also separate and most of the people were outside but hey thats labour starmer got his pals to not prosecute.
last i checked its the cabinet office not cabinet offices. and even if they are separated people more round and chat with one another
Was that really worth posting?
Nothing to see in your post, move on.
Just like this is The Home Office, not the Home Offices.
When in Durham there were different rules in place.
You do not get fined for going over 30mph in a 70mph limit, so you not get fined for breaking the one set of lockdown rules, when a different set are in force.
This was at time when the rules said only essential workers should attend work.
“Moving around for a chat” was also against the rules, when Johnson had a party. So, summat else he wasn’t on top of.
Classic.
Did you write all of…‘The Rules’ down in case you forgot em or what?
Seems like you haven’t anyway eh?
My post was about the issue under discussion.
You chose to respond to it in a way that advanced the discussion by…zero.
If my irony meter hadn’t been broken already, I would have used that here.
■■■■ me you better arrest me to i was driving all over london going to hospitals and universities. oh wait that was in the rules. of course they were aloud to move around dont be so daft
Hmmm careful mate…
This guy is a ‘rules’ expert and a serial conformist…you could be out on a limb on that one.
well i had a letter signed by the head bod of imperial college and counter signed by the who so…i was itching to shove it under some coppers nose but i never got stopped in the truck
So post something that hasn’t already been done to death and seemingly agreed upon.
I will assume as you appear to struggle with simple words and their meanings that “His claim to be a solicitor?” is indeed a question and not an agenda.
Elaborate please.