I haven’t been following the Richard Burgon spat, but I spotted this Twitter thread. At first glance, it seems that what we have here is an example of a post-truth definition of “to lie”.
It works like so. You deny saying something you are later clearly shown to have said, but claim you said it so long ago that you had forgotten saying it. (“I didn’t lie!” ) Ergo, your denial was ‘true’, because in the moment of your denial you sincerely believed yourself. (In the zone.)
Actually, there is a fraction of an element of logic in there; but ‘pan out’, and the bigger picture tells us that your general attitude strongly suggests that it’s the kind of thing you very likely would have said, and you really should have hesitated before making such an unequivocal denial, and more fool you.
As Barnett said, “I could remember it if it was my view”.
Another significant aspect of this Twitter thread is the tactics of certain Burgonistas. In a desperate attempt to discredit her they attack Emma Barnett’s parents. (convicted criminals) That’s pretty mean. Might I ever do something as mean as that, if the boot was on the other foot? I can’t deny that. Or can I?
Burgon is a nasty piece of work, as the saying goes, and Emma Barnett has secured one or two victories over her interviewees, most notably the one in which Corbyn the magic grandpa had an acute Diane Abbott-cum-Natalie Bennett brain fade over some costings.
My late parents were as honest as the day is long since you ask.
“Those are not my views… I didn’t lie” – Richard Burgon, shadow justice secretary, when asked about his previous remarks on Zionism being the "enemy of the peace"@RichardBurgon | #newsnight pic.twitter.com/ccVYDTu24k— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) May 9, 2019
