The Voice of Reason Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Didn't Ashford produce this "letter" at a press conference (before conveniently "shredding" it)? It was he who brought "the letter" into play not Dr. Glover. And? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 Just now, Sheldon said: A Scots lass at work says it all the time, but it's perhaps not as common as I'd thought. No it’s not as common as you think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 Just now, The Voice of Reason said: And? See my post above. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 1 minute ago, Gladys said: See my post above. Nope still don’t get it. I’m afraid you’re going to have to help me out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachomics Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 28 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: All else apart in all this Dr Glover acknowledges in lettergate there was such a letter. Whether Minister Ashford was wise in disclosing its contents is another matter. But it seems to put to bed the accusation that it never existed. I have no idea whether it existed as I never saw it and am only aware of it's content from the briefing where it was read out. But the error in judgement lies completely with the Minister in deciding to use it to discredit me. It completely showed his true character, in my opinion. 19 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 1 minute ago, rachomics said: It completely showed his true character, in my opinion. If not also the character of some of those "behind" him...? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 Just now, The Voice of Reason said: Nope still don’t get it. I’m afraid you’re going to have to help me out. DA waved a piece of paper around at a press briefing that he said had been delivered to his home. He then appeared to read its content. Now, we can agree there was a piece of paper. What we can't agree is the content, who it was from or the mode of delivery because it was then shredded having "served its purpose". 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 Just now, The Voice of Reason said: All else apart in all this Dr Glover acknowledges in lettergate there was such a letter. Whether Minter Ashford was wise in disclosing its contents is another matter. But it seems to put to bed the accusation that it never existed. She acknowledged the suggestion of a letter not the actual physical existence, and she only has the word of Ashford, so what that means by now is anyone's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, rachomics said: I have no idea whether it existed as I never saw it and am only aware of it's content from the briefing where it was read out. But the error in judgement lies completely with the Minister in deciding to use it to discredit me. It completely showed his true character, in my opinion. Well from Gefs summary of the PAC meeting you do not deny there was such a letter and there seems to be acceptance that it did exist. How could the Minister decide to use it as you say if it did not exist? Maybe he was unwise to use it on that occasion but sometimes we all do something unwise when we feel we have been attacked for no good reason. Maybe he had just had enough? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 6 minutes ago, rachomics said: I have no idea whether it existed as I never saw it and am only aware of it's content from the briefing where it was read out. But the error in judgement lies completely with the Minister in deciding to use it to discredit me. It completely showed his true character, in my opinion. Indeed, and it was unequivocally an attempt to discredit you. But as soon as there’s a hint of it backfiring, oh...it’s shredded. Deceit AND cowardice. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, quilp said: She acknowledged the suggestion of a letter not the actual physical existence, and she only has the word of Ashford, so what that means by now is anyone's guess. No she talks about the letter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachomics Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said: Well from Gefs summary of the PAC meeting you do not deny there was such a letter and there seems to be acceptance that it did exist. How could the Minister decide to use it as you say if it did not exist? Maybe he was unwise to use it on that occasion but sometimes we all do something unwise when we feel we have been attacked for no good reason. Maybe he had just had enough? How about you listen to the actual evidence on record rather than Gef's summary (i.e. their interpretation of what I said) 7 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, Gladys said: DA waved a piece of paper around at a press briefing that he said had been delivered to his home. He then appeared to read its content. Now, we can agree there was a piece of paper. What we can't agree is the content, who it was from or the mode of delivery because it was then shredded having "served its purpose". On the one hand, you can argue that this episode showed that DA wasn't fit to be a Minister. On the other hand, putting the evidence beyond all reach perhaps showed that he has exactly the right bare-faced credentials to go far in politics. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 1 minute ago, rachomics said: How about you listen to the actual evidence on record rather than Gef's summary (i.e. their interpretation of what I said) Fair point. Will do. Do you refute Gefs interpretation of events though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 Just now, The Voice of Reason said: Well from Gefs summary of the PAC meeting you do not deny there was such a letter and there seems to be acceptance that it did exist. How could the Minister decide to use it as you say if it did not exist? Maybe he was unwise to use it on that occasion but sometimes we all do something unwise when we feel we have been attacked for no good reason. Maybe he had just had enough? As I have said, no one denies the existence of a piece of paper, but whether it was in fact what it was purported to be will never be established because it no longer exists. So, we don't know if it was all it was said to be, or if DA was the victim of a fabrication or if someone else was. The point is, its use was a trigger point in the deterioration of relations. I am not sure DA was attacked over DrGlover's status, but his ire should have been directed at HR who had apparently misinformed him. In the grown up world, it was foolish and unforgiveable. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.