Splitting Hairs

Beware this "giver of untruths"

Ex-Transport Secretary Stephen Byers has been cleared of lying to MPs about Railtrack but told to apologise for telling an "untruth".

As much as the world of politics sparks my interest, it is scenarios like the one above that has my inner anarchist screaming to be released so that it can nuke every polititian on the planet. Purely because they think that we, the voting public are gullible.

Byers claims that he did not lie but told an "untruth". The "untruth" in question was that he made a statement claiming he was unaware of any Government plan to push railtrack into administration prior to 25 July 2001. He made this statement despite the fact that this very subject had been discussed in the ministry for a full two months before that date.

His defence was "due to an inadvertent error I gave factually inaccurate evidence".

It is fairly obvious he did know. That accounts for the "factually inaccurate evidence" part of his statement. So what exactly was the "inadvertant error" that caused him to lie tell such an untruth? Did he forget he knew? Did he develop sudden temporary dyslexia when he was reading his statement? Did somebody fart and put him off?

Answers on a postcard please.

Filed under: Politics, New Labour Spin