| "It was not a truthful statement and I apologise for that. I can't remember the motivations behind it." |
This was in regard to his earlier protestations before a House of Commons sub-committee that he had been unaware of a change in Railtrack's status being discussed before 25 July 2001. The barrister acting on behalf of the [small] shareholders of Railtrack challenged this version of events and, for good measure, presented documentary evidence to the court that this was no more than a pack of lies - which is why Byers, finally, admitted what many had long suspected. The likelihood of him ever admitting the truth had he not been forced into it by being faced with incontrovertible proof is 'probably' [as they say about a certain beer being the best in the world!] negligible. As for his second comment about not being able to "remember the motivations behind it [i.e. the lie]", well this weasily obfuscation ain't foolin' no-one Mr Byers!
One thing is clear though; the question I posed in an earlier post about whether Byers is an honest politician has been answered. The answer is "No".
0 comments:
Post a Comment