13-05-2022, 05:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqU77I40...CNewsnight
Well, whenever he *has* properly answered the question, he has always said no, he did not threaten to overrule Lewis. (Though in 2017 he argued that because he did not overrule Lewis in the first place, whether or not he threatened to do so was rather beside the point.)
He actually answered the question only five days later, when he appeared on On The Record. Almost no-one remembers, though (how, indeed, could one remember if they only tuned in to OTR for the croc and the theme tune?).
John Humphrys: "But did you - this was the big question - did you threaten to overrule him?"
Howard: "No I did not. I always stayed on the right side of the line. I knew where my responsibilities ended, where his [Lewis's] responsibilities started. The decision was one for him, I did not tell him what he should do."
Humphrys: "Well that's clear enough. But what's intrigued some people is that when Jeremy Paxman asked you that very question on Tuesday night you declined to answer it. He asked you the question fourteen times and the interview has been replayed on various other forms since then and you wouldn't answer it now..."
Howard: "I wanted to be scrupulously accurate in answering that question. I'd been thinking of lots of other things that day. I wanted to check the documents, I did not want there to be any question at all of my giving an answer that wasn't entirely true and accurate. The next day I checked the records, I gave the answer, I did not threaten to overrule Derek Lewis."
Humphrys: "But surely the only reason you could have had for wanting to check the documents, the minutes or whatever they were, was that you yourself weren't sure whether you had threatened to overrule him or not."
Howard: "This was a meeting that took place two and a half years ago and before answering a question to which I knew importance would be attached, I wanted to make absolutely sure that I got the right, honest and accurate answer and that's what I did."
Humphrys: "But there must have been some doubt in your mind therefore."
Howard: "No, I just wanted to check absolutely that there was no question of my giving an answer that wasn't entirely accurate."
He later admitted that he probably should have told Paxo that he wanted to be perfectly accurate in answering the question.
Full transcript: https://www.bbc.co.uk/otr/intext/Howard18.5.97.html
(I should probably point out here - lest anyone get any ideas - that I lean left, but do have some respect for a number of right-leaning people and establishments. Not all of them, of course.)
Well, whenever he *has* properly answered the question, he has always said no, he did not threaten to overrule Lewis. (Though in 2017 he argued that because he did not overrule Lewis in the first place, whether or not he threatened to do so was rather beside the point.)
He actually answered the question only five days later, when he appeared on On The Record. Almost no-one remembers, though (how, indeed, could one remember if they only tuned in to OTR for the croc and the theme tune?).
John Humphrys: "But did you - this was the big question - did you threaten to overrule him?"
Howard: "No I did not. I always stayed on the right side of the line. I knew where my responsibilities ended, where his [Lewis's] responsibilities started. The decision was one for him, I did not tell him what he should do."
Humphrys: "Well that's clear enough. But what's intrigued some people is that when Jeremy Paxman asked you that very question on Tuesday night you declined to answer it. He asked you the question fourteen times and the interview has been replayed on various other forms since then and you wouldn't answer it now..."
Howard: "I wanted to be scrupulously accurate in answering that question. I'd been thinking of lots of other things that day. I wanted to check the documents, I did not want there to be any question at all of my giving an answer that wasn't entirely true and accurate. The next day I checked the records, I gave the answer, I did not threaten to overrule Derek Lewis."
Humphrys: "But surely the only reason you could have had for wanting to check the documents, the minutes or whatever they were, was that you yourself weren't sure whether you had threatened to overrule him or not."
Howard: "This was a meeting that took place two and a half years ago and before answering a question to which I knew importance would be attached, I wanted to make absolutely sure that I got the right, honest and accurate answer and that's what I did."
Humphrys: "But there must have been some doubt in your mind therefore."
Howard: "No, I just wanted to check absolutely that there was no question of my giving an answer that wasn't entirely accurate."
He later admitted that he probably should have told Paxo that he wanted to be perfectly accurate in answering the question.
Full transcript: https://www.bbc.co.uk/otr/intext/Howard18.5.97.html
(I should probably point out here - lest anyone get any ideas - that I lean left, but do have some respect for a number of right-leaning people and establishments. Not all of them, of course.)
"And we've had five races so far this year - Brazil, Argentina, Imola, Schumacher and Monaco!" -- Murray Walker, 1995
