Andrew Farthing wrote:
I stand by my earlier statement and the accuracy of the published timeline. If people such as Roger choose to believe that my earlier statement was misleading, so be it. I have taken great pains to publish an account of events which is factually correct, and I have similarly never sought to mislead anyone in my posts on this subject.
These casual sideswipes at my integrity are a feature of the forum which I shall not miss when I walk away from it on 13 October.
I believe that Roger is simply trying to find out what has really happened. I am very grateful to you on this forum that you do come and talk to us and I hope that you do decide to stay on, in your post. I do not wish for you to leave nor feel that your integrity is under question.
When you hold a post like the one that you do, you have to accept that when things like this happen, that there will be questions and people will have concerns. Whilst I accept that you have never sought to purposefully mislead anyone, I do believe that you have not always told us 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
For example, when asked about the costs for the White and Case memorandum, you stated over and over that there
"was no cost to the ECF"
Whilst this was 'true' it was not the whole truth because in fact, somebody (who we still do not know) else was paying for this on the behalf of the ECF an amount which remains undisclosed.
In the end, you did say that of course 'yes' there was 'a cost' associated to the Memorandum, just not one that was 'relevant' because the ECF was not paying for it.
Why not just say so in the first place?
The problem with all of this, is that if you keep on giving us only part of the truth in dribs and drabs, then the questions will keep on flowing.