User talk:206.189.233.249

User:Imzadi1979, you gotta take Wikipedia just a little bit less seriously—it's supposed to be voluntary as well as nonprofit, remember—and you gotta be a little bit less paranoid when other folks start arguments with you. Like, you can't automatically assume that these other folks want to discourage you from editing.

Here, perhaps this will make you loosen up a bit. It's the transcript from a quite funny moment on English TV.

Jeremy Paxman: Mr. Howard, have you ever lied in any public statement?

Michael Howard: Certainly not. I gave a very full account of the dismissal of Derek Lewis to the House of Commons select committee, and to the House of Commons itself, in a debate that took place—there can have been few decisions that have been subjected to more close and minute scrutiny in recent years than that decision, it was a decision that it was necessary for me to take after terrorists had escaped from Whitemoor, other dangerous prisoners had escaped from Parkhurst, and an independent report had found that there were serious weaknesses in the management of the prison service from top to bottom.

JP: Is there anything you would wish to change about your statement to the House of Commons, or any other public statement you made about this matter?

MH: No, nothing.

JP: Not a word?

MH: I gave a full account, uh, of what had happened in relation to my decision.

JP: Right. Uh, can you help us with this, then? You stated in your statement that, "The leader of the opposition had said that I"—that is, you—"personally told Mr. Lewis the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately, that when Mr. Lewis objected—as it was an operational matter—I threatened to instruct him to do it." Derek Lewis says, "Howard had certainly told me that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended and had threatened to overrule me." Are you saying Mr. Lewis is lying?

MH: I have given a full account of this, and the position is what I told the House of Commons, and let me tell you what the position is—

JP: So you *are* saying that Mr. Lewis lied?

MH: Let me tell you exactly what the position is. I was entitled to be consulted—

JP: Yes.

MH: —and I *was* consulted. I was entitled to express an opinion, I *did* express an opinion. I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis what to do, and I did *not* instruct him what to do.

JP: Well, his ver—

MH: And you will understand and recall that Mr. Marriott was *not* suspended. He was moved, and Derek Lewis told the select committee of the House of Commons that it was his opinion—Derek Lewis's opinion—that he should be moved immediately. That is what happened.

JP: Mr. Lewis says, "I"—that is, Mr. Lewis—"told him what we had decided about Marriott, and why. He"—that is, you—"exploded. Simply moving the governor was politically unpalatable. It sounded indecisive, it would be seen as a fudge. If I did not change my mind and suspend Marriott, he would have to consider overruling me."

MH: Mr. Marriott—

JP: You can't both be right.

MH: Mr. Marriott was not suspended. I was entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted.

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis, and I did not instruct him. And the truth of—

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: —but the truth of the matter is that Mr. Marriott was not suspended. I did not—

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: I did not overrule Derek Lewis.

JP: Did you *threaten* to overrule him?

MH: I took advice on what I could or could not do—

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him, Mr. Howard?

MH: —and I acted scrupulously in accordance with that advice. I did not overrule Derek Lewis.

JP: Did you *threaten* to overrule him?

MH: Mr. Marriott was not suspended.

JP: Did you *threaten* to overrule him?

MH: I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis—

JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: —in great detail before the House of Commons.

JP: I note you're not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.

MH: Well, the—the important aspect of this, which it's very clear to bear in mind, is this—

JP: I'm sorry, I'm gonna be frightfully rude, but—

MH: Yes, you can—

JP: But—I'm sorry—it's a quite straight yes or no question, it's a straight yes or no answer—

MH: You can put the question and I will give you an answer.

JP: —did you threaten to overrule him?

MH: (beat) I discussed this matter with Derek Lewis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language. But I did not instruct him, because I was not, uh, entitled to instruct him. I was entitled to express my opinion and that is what I did.

JP: With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.

MH: It's dealing with the relevant point, what is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do, and I have dealt with this in detail before the House of Commons and before the select committee.

JP: But with respect, you haven't answered the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.

MH: Well you see, the question is, what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do? I was not entitled to instruct him, and I did not do that.

JP: Right. Uh, we'll leave—we'll leave that aspect there, and move on to this question of your bid for the leadership of the party.

Quite funny, isn't it? And it should show you, when other folks start arguing with you, it's not worth taking it *that* seriously and getting *that* paranoid—and it might even be worth staying silent and not arguing back at all, even if you're clearly right and they're clearly wrong. :) :) 206.189.233.249 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)