| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 41:11:49 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,724 |
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjknmmF5oq8U5@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 08:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjgortFfv6fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/09/2025 10:41 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net..."JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty.
It could be so regarded, in the witness box in a Court of Law.
quote:
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence >>>>> I shall give shall be the truth,
* the whole truth *
The "whole truth" about what? Where does it end (or start)?
It means fully answering the question.
Prior to "Spycatcher" nobody had ever heard of Peter Wright;
and even after publication there was no real confirmation
of who he actually was; until Thatcher decided to stick
her oar in
Imagined exchange
Turnbull: Can you please tell the Court what was Peter Wright's job ?
Armstrong: Peter Wright was a Civil Servant
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: If you insist; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for
the Home Office
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: I've just explained; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for
the Home Office
( Which to most people could mean a humble pen pusher working in the
Passport Office or somewhere )
What Armstrong couldn't and wouldn't say in the witness box was thet
Peter Wright's actual job having starting as a technical assistant, had
been in a trusted position within MI5; heading a committee searching for >>> moles.
Because had Armstring done so, this wouldn't only have been a breach
of security, but equally important and what Thatcher clearly hadn't
anticipated, but Armstrong must have realised, it would have simply
given Offficial Endoresment to his book as having been written by
a real former member of MI5
So Armstrong was being economical with the truth.
Wright's job had indeed been as a Civil Serb=vant working for the Home
Office, MI5 being answerable to the Home Secretary, but it had been
much more.
Its not always the case (unlike here) that Counsel know the whole truth
when examining witnesses (the ideal); so its always possible they wouldn't >>> ask any necessary supplemataries, so as to bring out the "whole" truth.
And?
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
On 25 Sep 2025 at 14:13:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 25/09/2025 13:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjknmmF5oq8U5@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 08:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjgortFfv6fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/09/2025 10:41 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net..."JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
And?Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty.
It could be so regarded, in the witness box in a Court of Law.
quote:
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence
I shall give shall be the truth,
* the whole truth *
The "whole truth" about what? Where does it end (or start)?
It means fully answering the question.
Prior to "Spycatcher" nobody had ever heard of Peter Wright;
and even after publication there was no real confirmation
of who he actually was; until Thatcher decided to stick
her oar in
Imagined exchange
Turnbull: Can you please tell the Court what was Peter Wright's job ? >>>>>
Armstrong: Peter Wright was a Civil Servant
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: If you insist; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for >>>>> the Home Office
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: I've just explained; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for
the Home Office
( Which to most people could mean a humble pen pusher working in the >>>>> Passport Office or somewhere )
What Armstrong couldn't and wouldn't say in the witness box was thet >>>>> Peter Wright's actual job having starting as a technical assistant, had >>>>> been in a trusted position within MI5; heading a committee searching for >>>>> moles.
Because had Armstring done so, this wouldn't only have been a breach >>>>> of security, but equally important and what Thatcher clearly hadn't
anticipated, but Armstrong must have realised, it would have simply
given Offficial Endoresment to his book as having been written by
a real former member of MI5
So Armstrong was being economical with the truth.
Wright's job had indeed been as a Civil Serb=vant working for the Home >>>>> Office, MI5 being answerable to the Home Secretary, but it had been
much more.
Its not always the case (unlike here) that Counsel know the whole truth >>>>> when examining witnesses (the ideal); so its always possible they wouldn't
ask any necessary supplemataries, so as to bring out the "whole" truth. >>>>
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that >>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
On the one hand you can discuss the meaning of the phrase "economical
with the truth" and on the other hand you can discuss whether an answer
given in court is dishonest or deliberately misleading.
Those are separate issues.
In court, a witness will usually be encouraged only to answer the
specific question put to him, and not to go beyond that. In fact, I
recall a youtube video of an American case where the witness tried to
explain why she gave the answer she had just given, and was angrily
reproached by the judge who threatened to hold her in contempt. I doubt
if that would happen in a UK court, but if a witness was to say, for
example, "and the reason I suspect Mr Bloggs is that he had past form
and past convictions" it could be absolutely honest and yet totally
derail the trial.
If there are dictionaries or online articles that tell us that being
economical with the truth is dishonest, then they perpetuate a
misconception and should not be relied upon as accurate definitions.
Imagined exchange:
Anne Sacoolas, can you tell us who employs you and what your job is?
Witness: The United States government. I work at RAF Croughton.
Mrs Sacoolas, can you tell this court the precise nature and scope of
your job?
Witness: No, I am not permitted by my government to give any further
information and anyway it is irrelevant - I accept that I drove negligently.
With respect, although you are entirely correct, and the concept of "the whole
truth" is very much limited to what is relevant to the proceedings, how "economical with the truth" was used re the Spycatcher trial was as a rather arch way of expressing that the testimony was deliberately misleading in that case. Hence how the expression is often used as an ironical synonym for lying in modern colloquial speech.
On 25/09/2025 13:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjknmmF5oq8U5@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 08:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjgortFfv6fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/09/2025 10:41 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net..."JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
And?Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty.
It could be so regarded, in the witness box in a Court of Law.
quote:
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the
evidence
I shall give shall be the truth,
* the whole truth *
The "whole truth" about what? Where does it end (or start)?
It means fully answering the question.
Prior to "Spycatcher" nobody had ever heard of Peter Wright;
and even after publication there was no real confirmation
of who he actually was; until Thatcher decided to stick
her oar in
Imagined exchange
Turnbull: Can you please tell the Court what was Peter Wright's job ?
Armstrong: Peter Wright was a Civil Servant
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: If you insist; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for >>>> the Home Office
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: I've just explained; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant
working for
the Home Office
( Which to most people could mean a humble pen pusher working in the
Passport Office or somewhere )
What Armstrong couldn't and wouldn't say in the witness box was thet
Peter Wright's actual job having starting as a technical assistant, had >>>> been in a trusted position within MI5; heading a committee searching
for
moles.
Because had Armstring done so, this wouldn't only have been a breach
of security, but equally important and what Thatcher clearly hadn't
anticipated, but Armstrong must have realised, it would have simply
given Offficial Endoresment to his book as having been written by
a real former member of MI5
So Armstrong was being economical with the truth.
Wright's job had indeed been as a Civil Serb=vant working for the Home >>>> Office, MI5 being answerable to the Home Secretary, but it had been
much more.
Its not always the case (unlike here) that Counsel know the whole truth >>>> when examining witnesses (the ideal); so its always possible they
wouldn't
ask any necessary supplemataries, so as to bring out the "whole" truth. >>>
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
On the one hand you can discuss the meaning of the phrase "economical
with the truth" and on the other hand you can discuss whether an answer
given in court is dishonest or deliberately misleading.
Those are separate issues.
In court, a witness will usually be encouraged only to answer the
specific question put to him, and not to go beyond that. In fact, I
recall a youtube video of an American case where the witness tried to
explain why she gave the answer she had just given, and was angrily reproached by the judge who threatened to hold her in contempt. I doubt
if that would happen in a UK court, but if a witness was to say, for
example, "and the reason I suspect Mr Bloggs is that he had past form
and past convictions" it could be absolutely honest and yet totally
derail the trial.
If there are dictionaries or online articles that tell us that being economical with the truth is dishonest, then they perpetuate a
misconception and should not be relied upon as accurate definitions.
Imagined exchange:
Anne Sacoolas, can you tell us who employs you and what your job is?
Witness: The United States government. I work at RAF Croughton.
Mrs Sacoolas, can you tell this court the precise nature and scope of
your job?
Witness: No, I am not permitted by my government to give any further information and anyway it is irrelevant - I accept that I drove
negligently.
On 25/09/2025 02:25 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Sep 2025 at 14:13:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 25/09/2025 13:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjknmmF5oq8U5@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 08:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjgortFfv6fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/09/2025 10:41 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net..."JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
And?Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty.
It could be so regarded, in the witness box in a Court of Law. >>>>>>>>
quote:
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence
I shall give shall be the truth,
* the whole truth *
The "whole truth" about what? Where does it end (or start)?
It means fully answering the question.
Prior to "Spycatcher" nobody had ever heard of Peter Wright;
and even after publication there was no real confirmation
of who he actually was; until Thatcher decided to stick
her oar in
Imagined exchange
Turnbull: Can you please tell the Court what was Peter Wright's job ? >>>>>>
Armstrong: Peter Wright was a Civil Servant
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: If you insist; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for >>>>>> the Home Office
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: I've just explained; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for
the Home Office
( Which to most people could mean a humble pen pusher working in the >>>>>> Passport Office or somewhere )
What Armstrong couldn't and wouldn't say in the witness box was thet >>>>>> Peter Wright's actual job having starting as a technical assistant, had >>>>>> been in a trusted position within MI5; heading a committee searching for >>>>>> moles.
Because had Armstring done so, this wouldn't only have been a breach >>>>>> of security, but equally important and what Thatcher clearly hadn't >>>>>> anticipated, but Armstrong must have realised, it would have simply >>>>>> given Offficial Endoresment to his book as having been written by
a real former member of MI5
So Armstrong was being economical with the truth.
Wright's job had indeed been as a Civil Serb=vant working for the Home >>>>>> Office, MI5 being answerable to the Home Secretary, but it had been >>>>>> much more.
Its not always the case (unlike here) that Counsel know the whole truth >>>>>> when examining witnesses (the ideal); so its always possible they wouldn't
ask any necessary supplemataries, so as to bring out the "whole" truth. >>>>>
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that >>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
On the one hand you can discuss the meaning of the phrase "economical
with the truth" and on the other hand you can discuss whether an answer
given in court is dishonest or deliberately misleading.
Those are separate issues.
In court, a witness will usually be encouraged only to answer the
specific question put to him, and not to go beyond that. In fact, I
recall a youtube video of an American case where the witness tried to
explain why she gave the answer she had just given, and was angrily
reproached by the judge who threatened to hold her in contempt. I doubt
if that would happen in a UK court, but if a witness was to say, for
example, "and the reason I suspect Mr Bloggs is that he had past form
and past convictions" it could be absolutely honest and yet totally
derail the trial.
If there are dictionaries or online articles that tell us that being
economical with the truth is dishonest, then they perpetuate a
misconception and should not be relied upon as accurate definitions.
Imagined exchange:
Anne Sacoolas, can you tell us who employs you and what your job is?
Witness: The United States government. I work at RAF Croughton.
Mrs Sacoolas, can you tell this court the precise nature and scope of
your job?
Witness: No, I am not permitted by my government to give any further
information and anyway it is irrelevant - I accept that I drove negligently.
With respect, although you are entirely correct, and the concept of "the whole
truth" is very much limited to what is relevant to the proceedings, how
"economical with the truth" was used re the Spycatcher trial was as a rather >> arch way of expressing that the testimony was deliberately misleading in that
case. Hence how the expression is often used as an ironical synonym for lying
in modern colloquial speech.
Your final sentence is missing the word "wrongly", just before "used".
On 25/09/2025 10:25, The Todal wrote:
On 22/09/2025 11:54, Brian wrote:
The source of the fire and why it wasnAt put outa before it spread.
You should read the reports more thoroughly. It was a Hotpoint
refrigerator with a defective crimp connection.a The tenant Mr. Kebede
is not to blame; he made the first 999 call, alerted neighbours, and
turned off his flat's electricity before leaving.
And nobody in the position of any tenant would have expected that the
fire could spread through the window to the exterior cladding.
But the people who put that cladding onto the outside of the building >*should* have known and they falsified fire tests. Why are there still
no prosecutions of the people who knowingly allowed it to happen?
On 26 Sep 2025 at 01:01:03 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/09/2025 02:25 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Sep 2025 at 14:13:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 25/09/2025 13:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjknmmF5oq8U5@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 08:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjgortFfv6fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/09/2025 10:41 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net..."JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
And?Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty.
It could be so regarded, in the witness box in a Court of Law. >>>>>>>>>
quote:
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence
I shall give shall be the truth,
* the whole truth *
The "whole truth" about what? Where does it end (or start)?
It means fully answering the question.
Prior to "Spycatcher" nobody had ever heard of Peter Wright;
and even after publication there was no real confirmation
of who he actually was; until Thatcher decided to stick
her oar in
Imagined exchange
Turnbull: Can you please tell the Court what was Peter Wright's job ? >>>>>>>
Armstrong: Peter Wright was a Civil Servant
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: If you insist; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for >>>>>>> the Home Office
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: I've just explained; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for
the Home Office
( Which to most people could mean a humble pen pusher working in the >>>>>>> Passport Office or somewhere )
What Armstrong couldn't and wouldn't say in the witness box was thet >>>>>>> Peter Wright's actual job having starting as a technical assistant, had >>>>>>> been in a trusted position within MI5; heading a committee searching for
moles.
Because had Armstring done so, this wouldn't only have been a breach >>>>>>> of security, but equally important and what Thatcher clearly hadn't >>>>>>> anticipated, but Armstrong must have realised, it would have simply >>>>>>> given Offficial Endoresment to his book as having been written by >>>>>>> a real former member of MI5
So Armstrong was being economical with the truth.
Wright's job had indeed been as a Civil Serb=vant working for the Home >>>>>>> Office, MI5 being answerable to the Home Secretary, but it had been >>>>>>> much more.
Its not always the case (unlike here) that Counsel know the whole truth >>>>>>> when examining witnesses (the ideal); so its always possible they wouldn't
ask any necessary supplemataries, so as to bring out the "whole" truth. >>>>>>
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that >>>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
On the one hand you can discuss the meaning of the phrase "economical
with the truth" and on the other hand you can discuss whether an answer >>>> given in court is dishonest or deliberately misleading.
Those are separate issues.
In court, a witness will usually be encouraged only to answer the
specific question put to him, and not to go beyond that. In fact, I
recall a youtube video of an American case where the witness tried to
explain why she gave the answer she had just given, and was angrily
reproached by the judge who threatened to hold her in contempt. I doubt >>>> if that would happen in a UK court, but if a witness was to say, for
example, "and the reason I suspect Mr Bloggs is that he had past form
and past convictions" it could be absolutely honest and yet totally
derail the trial.
If there are dictionaries or online articles that tell us that being
economical with the truth is dishonest, then they perpetuate a
misconception and should not be relied upon as accurate definitions.
Imagined exchange:
Anne Sacoolas, can you tell us who employs you and what your job is?
Witness: The United States government. I work at RAF Croughton.
Mrs Sacoolas, can you tell this court the precise nature and scope of
your job?
Witness: No, I am not permitted by my government to give any further
information and anyway it is irrelevant - I accept that I drove negligently.
With respect, although you are entirely correct, and the concept of "the whole
truth" is very much limited to what is relevant to the proceedings, how
"economical with the truth" was used re the Spycatcher trial was as a rather
arch way of expressing that the testimony was deliberately misleading in that
case. Hence how the expression is often used as an ironical synonym for lying
in modern colloquial speech.
Your final sentence is missing the word "wrongly", just before "used".
Usage, if widespread, cannot be "wrong". Language is what it is.
On 25/09/2025 01:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
You missed a "not" out of that statement.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
If the cross examiner doesn't know his job, that's not the witness's fault.
On 26/09/2025 11:30 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Sep 2025 at 01:01:03 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/09/2025 02:25 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Sep 2025 at 14:13:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 25/09/2025 13:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjknmmF5oq8U5@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 08:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjgortFfv6fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/09/2025 10:41 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net..."JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty.
It could be so regarded, in the witness box in a Court of Law. >>>>>>>>>>
quote:
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence
I shall give shall be the truth,
* the whole truth *
The "whole truth" about what? Where does it end (or start)?
It means fully answering the question.
Prior to "Spycatcher" nobody had ever heard of Peter Wright;
and even after publication there was no real confirmation
of who he actually was; until Thatcher decided to stick
her oar in
Imagined exchange
Turnbull: Can you please tell the Court what was Peter Wright's job ? >>>>>>>>
Armstrong: Peter Wright was a Civil Servant
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: If you insist; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for >>>>>>>> the Home Office
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: I've just explained; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for
the Home Office
( Which to most people could mean a humble pen pusher working in the >>>>>>>> Passport Office or somewhere )
What Armstrong couldn't and wouldn't say in the witness box was thet >>>>>>>> Peter Wright's actual job having starting as a technical assistant, had
been in a trusted position within MI5; heading a committee searching for
moles.
Because had Armstring done so, this wouldn't only have been a breach >>>>>>>> of security, but equally important and what Thatcher clearly hadn't >>>>>>>> anticipated, but Armstrong must have realised, it would have simply >>>>>>>> given Offficial Endoresment to his book as having been written by >>>>>>>> a real former member of MI5
So Armstrong was being economical with the truth.
Wright's job had indeed been as a Civil Serb=vant working for the Home >>>>>>>> Office, MI5 being answerable to the Home Secretary, but it had been >>>>>>>> much more.
Its not always the case (unlike here) that Counsel know the whole truth
when examining witnesses (the ideal); so its always possible they wouldn't
ask any necessary supplemataries, so as to bring out the "whole" truth.
And?
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that >>>>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
On the one hand you can discuss the meaning of the phrase "economical >>>>> with the truth" and on the other hand you can discuss whether an answer >>>>> given in court is dishonest or deliberately misleading.
Those are separate issues.
In court, a witness will usually be encouraged only to answer the
specific question put to him, and not to go beyond that. In fact, I
recall a youtube video of an American case where the witness tried to >>>>> explain why she gave the answer she had just given, and was angrily
reproached by the judge who threatened to hold her in contempt. I doubt >>>>> if that would happen in a UK court, but if a witness was to say, for >>>>> example, "and the reason I suspect Mr Bloggs is that he had past form >>>>> and past convictions" it could be absolutely honest and yet totally
derail the trial.
If there are dictionaries or online articles that tell us that being >>>>> economical with the truth is dishonest, then they perpetuate a
misconception and should not be relied upon as accurate definitions. >>>>>
Imagined exchange:
Anne Sacoolas, can you tell us who employs you and what your job is? >>>>>
Witness: The United States government. I work at RAF Croughton.
Mrs Sacoolas, can you tell this court the precise nature and scope of >>>>> your job?
Witness: No, I am not permitted by my government to give any further >>>>> information and anyway it is irrelevant - I accept that I drove negligently.
With respect, although you are entirely correct, and the concept of "the whole
truth" is very much limited to what is relevant to the proceedings, how >>>> "economical with the truth" was used re the Spycatcher trial was as a rather
arch way of expressing that the testimony was deliberately misleading in that
case. Hence how the expression is often used as an ironical synonym for lying
in modern colloquial speech.
Your final sentence is missing the word "wrongly", just before "used".
Usage, if widespread, cannot be "wrong". Language is what it is.
It cannot change *facts*.
Except in a primnary school playground, perhaps, and that only temporarily.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjm3afFcs8dU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 01:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that >>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
You missed a "not" out of that statement.
No I didn't.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
If the cross examiner doesn't know his job, that's not the witness's fault.
What has the competence or otherwise of the questioner got to do
with the undoubted *fact* that "being economical with the truth"
is clearly dishonest ?
As it clearly is not providing *the whole truth*. Regardless of the competence or
otherwise of the questioner.
An honest person has duty to tell *the whole truth*, in respect of the matter in hand.
Otherwise using your line of "reasoning", neither is shoplifting dishonest.
As if shopkeepers are foolish enough to allow people to walk out of their shops with goods without paying, then that's their look out.
They're more or less inviting people to help themselves.
Have you actually tried that one, yet ?
On 26/09/2025 01:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjm3afFcs8dU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 01:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that >>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
You missed a "not" out of that statement.
No I didn't.
What has the competence or otherwise of the questioner got to do
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
If the cross examiner doesn't know his job, that's not the witness's fault. >>
with the undoubted *fact* that "being economical with the truth"
is clearly dishonest ?
You DO realise that the whole phenomenon arose out of a case where a witness was being
cross-examined? Yes?
You'd have to actually have to produce evidence that the witness said anything that was
not true.
See previous posts by others and by me.
As it clearly is not providing *the whole truth*. Regardless of the competence or
otherwise of the questioner.
The "whole truth", as a phrase, is meaningless.
Asking a question of a witness is not an invitation for the witness to start reciting
their personal history and everything they know.
An honest person has duty to tell *the whole truth*, in respect of the matter
in hand.
Already addressed, by others and by me.
On 26 Sep 2025 at 13:03:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/09/2025 11:30 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Sep 2025 at 01:01:03 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/09/2025 02:25 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Sep 2025 at 14:13:55 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 25/09/2025 13:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjknmmF5oq8U5@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 08:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjgortFfv6fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/09/2025 10:41 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net..."JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
It means fully answering the question.Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty.
It could be so regarded, in the witness box in a Court of Law. >>>>>>>>>>>
quote:
"I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence
I shall give shall be the truth,
* the whole truth *
The "whole truth" about what? Where does it end (or start)? >>>>>>>>>
Prior to "Spycatcher" nobody had ever heard of Peter Wright; >>>>>>>>> and even after publication there was no real confirmation
of who he actually was; until Thatcher decided to stick
her oar in
Imagined exchange
Turnbull: Can you please tell the Court what was Peter Wright's job ? >>>>>>>>>
Armstrong: Peter Wright was a Civil Servant
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: If you insist; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for
the Home Office
Turnbull: Can you be more specific ?
Armstrong: I've just explained; Peter Wright was a Civil Servant working for
the Home Office
( Which to most people could mean a humble pen pusher working in the >>>>>>>>> Passport Office or somewhere )
What Armstrong couldn't and wouldn't say in the witness box was thet >>>>>>>>> Peter Wright's actual job having starting as a technical assistant, had
been in a trusted position within MI5; heading a committee searching for
moles.
Because had Armstring done so, this wouldn't only have been a breach >>>>>>>>> of security, but equally important and what Thatcher clearly hadn't >>>>>>>>> anticipated, but Armstrong must have realised, it would have simply >>>>>>>>> given Offficial Endoresment to his book as having been written by >>>>>>>>> a real former member of MI5
So Armstrong was being economical with the truth.
Wright's job had indeed been as a Civil Serb=vant working for the Home
Office, MI5 being answerable to the Home Secretary, but it had been >>>>>>>>> much more.
Its not always the case (unlike here) that Counsel know the whole truth
when examining witnesses (the ideal); so its always possible they wouldn't
ask any necessary supplemataries, so as to bring out the "whole" truth.
And?
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
On the one hand you can discuss the meaning of the phrase "economical >>>>>> with the truth" and on the other hand you can discuss whether an answer >>>>>> given in court is dishonest or deliberately misleading.
Those are separate issues.
In court, a witness will usually be encouraged only to answer the
specific question put to him, and not to go beyond that. In fact, I >>>>>> recall a youtube video of an American case where the witness tried to >>>>>> explain why she gave the answer she had just given, and was angrily >>>>>> reproached by the judge who threatened to hold her in contempt. I doubt >>>>>> if that would happen in a UK court, but if a witness was to say, for >>>>>> example, "and the reason I suspect Mr Bloggs is that he had past form >>>>>> and past convictions" it could be absolutely honest and yet totally >>>>>> derail the trial.
If there are dictionaries or online articles that tell us that being >>>>>> economical with the truth is dishonest, then they perpetuate a
misconception and should not be relied upon as accurate definitions. >>>>>>
Imagined exchange:
Anne Sacoolas, can you tell us who employs you and what your job is? >>>>>>
Witness: The United States government. I work at RAF Croughton.
Mrs Sacoolas, can you tell this court the precise nature and scope of >>>>>> your job?
Witness: No, I am not permitted by my government to give any further >>>>>> information and anyway it is irrelevant - I accept that I drove negligently.
With respect, although you are entirely correct, and the concept of "the whole
truth" is very much limited to what is relevant to the proceedings, how >>>>> "economical with the truth" was used re the Spycatcher trial was as a rather
arch way of expressing that the testimony was deliberately misleading in that
case. Hence how the expression is often used as an ironical synonym for lying
in modern colloquial speech.
Your final sentence is missing the word "wrongly", just before "used".
Usage, if widespread, cannot be "wrong". Language is what it is.
It cannot change *facts*.
Except in a primnary school playground, perhaps, and that only temporarily.
Language has nothing to do with facts.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjnr3rFlqihU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/09/2025 01:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjm3afFcs8dU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 01:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that >>>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
You missed a "not" out of that statement.
No I didn't.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
If the cross examiner doesn't know his job, that's not the witness's fault.
What has the competence or otherwise of the questioner got to do
with the undoubted *fact* that "being economical with the truth"
is clearly dishonest ?
You DO realise that the whole phenomenon arose out of a case where a witness was being
cross-examined? Yes?
You'd have to actually have to produce evidence that the witness said anything that was
not true.
No you wouldn't.
You would only need to produce evidence that the witness didn't say
something which was both true, and relevant to the case in hand, in
answer to almost any open question at all.
As it clearly is not providing *the whole truth*. Regardless of the competence orSee previous posts by others and by me.
otherwise of the questioner.
The "whole truth", as a phrase, is meaningless.
Asking a question of a witness is not an invitation for the witness to start reciting
their personal history and everything they know.
All testimony has to be relevant to the case in hand. The Courts know that. And you know that.
An honest person has duty to tell *the whole truth*, in respect of the matter
in hand.
Already addressed, by others and by me.
It hasn't been addressed at all.
Except for your claim above, that the Oath administered to witnesses in all UK Courts of Law includes a meaningless phrase.
Oh and guess what it's included in the Oath in most, if not all US jurisdictions, as well !
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:25:13 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 25/09/2025 10:25, The Todal wrote:
And nobody in the position of any tenant would have expected that the
fire could spread through the window to the exterior cladding.
But the people who put that cladding onto the outside of the building
*should* have known and they falsified fire tests. Why are there still
no prosecutions of the people who knowingly allowed it to happen?
The criminal investigations took place alongside, and were partly dependent on, the public inquiry. In particular, had the inquiry found that the fire could not reasonably have been prevented, then the prospect of a successful prosecution would be negligible. But, as it happens, the inquiry did
conclude that the fire was preventable and, further, was at least partly caused by negligence.
Following that, the police and CPS started the process of reviewing the evidence (of which there is a very considerable amount, all of which needs
to be considered carefully) before making any charging decisions. The CPS have stated that they expect to be in a position to make those decisions
next year (2026).
That's actually quite quick, for a complex case of this nature. Even a
simple case can take a year or more to get to court, and this is by no means a simple case.
On 26/09/2025 12:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
The criminal investigations took place alongside, and were partly dependent >> on, the public inquiry. In particular, had the inquiry found that the fire >> could not reasonably have been prevented, then the prospect of a successful >> prosecution would be negligible. But, as it happens, the inquiry did
conclude that the fire was preventable and, further, was at least partly
caused by negligence.
Arguably it was entirely caused by negligence. It was blindingly obvious >from the outset that strapping napalm onto the outside of intrinsically
safe by design inert concrete buildings would end in disaster.
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 13:54:59 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/09/2025 12:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
The criminal investigations took place alongside, and were partly dependent >>> on, the public inquiry. In particular, had the inquiry found that the fire >>> could not reasonably have been prevented, then the prospect of a successful >>> prosecution would be negligible. But, as it happens, the inquiry did
conclude that the fire was preventable and, further, was at least partly >>> caused by negligence.
Arguably it was entirely caused by negligence. It was blindingly obvious
from the outset that strapping napalm onto the outside of intrinsically
safe by design inert concrete buildings would end in disaster.
But it wasn't napalm, and it wasn't anything like napalm, and even using napalm as a metaphor in this context is such obviously excessive hyperbole that it makes rational discussion almost impossible.
Mark
On 26/09/2025 06:04 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjnr3rFlqihU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/09/2025 01:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjm3afFcs8dU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 01:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that >>>>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
You missed a "not" out of that statement.
No I didn't.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
If the cross examiner doesn't know his job, that's not the witness's fault.
What has the competence or otherwise of the questioner got to do
with the undoubted *fact* that "being economical with the truth"
is clearly dishonest ?
You DO realise that the whole phenomenon arose out of a case where a witness was
being
cross-examined? Yes?
You'd have to actually have to produce evidence that the witness said anything that
was
not true.
No you wouldn't.
You would only need to produce evidence that the witness didn't say
something which was both true, and relevant to the case in hand, in
answer to almost any open question at all.
How that differs from what I said is one of life's mysteries. You know the answer, but
you're keeping it to yourself, eh?
As it clearly is not providing *the whole truth*. Regardless of the competence orSee previous posts by others and by me.
otherwise of the questioner.
The "whole truth", as a phrase, is meaningless.
Asking a question of a witness is not an invitation for the witness to start reciting
their personal history and everything they know.
All testimony has to be relevant to the case in hand. The Courts know that. >> And you know that.
The colour of the socks of a person observed by the witness? What he'd had for
breakfast? How he trevalled to the scene?
An honest person has duty to tell *the whole truth*, in respect of the matter
in hand.
Already addressed, by others and by me.
It hasn't been addressed at all.
Read The Todal.
Except for your claim above, that the Oath administered to witnesses in all >> UK Courts of Law includes a meaningless phrase.
Oh and guess what it's included in the Oath 000in most, if not all US
jurisdictions, as well !
It doesn't mean what you think it means. It siomply means that the witness must answer
as many questions as are fired at him.
It's the cross-examiner's job to get the information he wants.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjon9kFqbulU1@mid.individual.net...
Read The Todal.
I'm not interrupted in what "that other boy said". I'm interested
in what "you said" !
There's no point in you copying other boys, and then, when you're found out, trying to put all the blame on them.
Was that what you were like at school ?
A tell tale ?
Except for your claim above, that the Oath administered to witnesses in all >>> UK Courts of Law includes a meaningless phrase.
Oh and guess what it's included in the Oath 000in most, if not all US
jurisdictions, as well !
It doesn't mean what you think it means. It siomply means that the witness must answer
as many questions as are fired at him.
Oh right. So he's only "telling the truth" if he answers say four or five questions.
Whereas if he answers say, six of more questions, then he's telling the "whole truth".
It's the cross-examiner's job to get the information he wants.
No. The job of all counsel, whether cross examaining or conducting their examination
in chief, is as with the Courts themselves, to arrive at the "truth, the whole,
truth and nothing but the truth" based on the evidence given by the witnesses.
You have been at pains to point out, more than once, that an effective counsel
* should, ideally never ask a question to which they don't already know the answer.*
Without it would seem, ever asking yourself the question, as to why not.
Surely the only possible reason, is that the witness might say something which is detrimental to their client's case ?
In other words, they might reveal "the whole truth !*
So rather than "the whole truth" being a figment of everyone's imagination, except yours, what in fact you're suggesting' is that by only asking questions
to which they already know the answer, its somehow the job of counsel
to prevent "the whole truth" from coming out.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjon9kFqbulU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/09/2025 06:04 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjnr3rFlqihU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/09/2025 01:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjm3afFcs8dU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 01:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
It was you who stated, quite categorically and unambiguously above, that
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjfo9pFalt2U1@mid.individual.net...
" Being "economical with the truth" is not dishonesty."
When it quite obviously, it is totally dishonest.
You missed a "not" out of that statement.
No I didn't.
As in the possibly fictional example, I cited.
Given that its only possible purpose, is to mislead.
If the cross examiner doesn't know his job, that's not the witness's fault.
What has the competence or otherwise of the questioner got to do
with the undoubted *fact* that "being economical with the truth"
is clearly dishonest ?
You DO realise that the whole phenomenon arose out of a case where a witness was
being
cross-examined? Yes?
You'd have to actually have to produce evidence that the witness said anything that
was
not true.
No you wouldn't.
You would only need to produce evidence that the witness didn't say
something which was both true, and relevant to the case in hand, in
answer to almost any open question at all.
How that differs from what I said is one of life's mysteries. You know the answer, but
you're keeping it to yourself, eh?
As it clearly is not providing *the whole truth*. Regardless of the competence orSee previous posts by others and by me.
otherwise of the questioner.
The "whole truth", as a phrase, is meaningless.
Asking a question of a witness is not an invitation for the witness to start reciting
their personal history and everything they know.
All testimony has to be relevant to the case in hand. The Courts know that. >>> And you know that.
The colour of the socks of a person observed by the witness? What he'd had for
breakfast? How he trevalled to the scene?
All of which "could be relevant", yes.
An honest person has duty to tell *the whole truth*, in respect of the matter
in hand.
Already addressed, by others and by me.
It hasn't been addressed at all.
Read The Todal.
I'm not interrupted in what "that other boy said". I'm interested
in what "you said" !
There's no point in you copying other boys, and then, when you're found out, trying to put all the blame on them.
Was that what you were like at school ?
A tell tale ?
Except for your claim above, that the Oath administered to witnesses in all >>> UK Courts of Law includes a meaningless phrase.
Oh and guess what it's included in the Oath 000in most, if not all US
jurisdictions, as well !
It doesn't mean what you think it means. It siomply means that the witness must answer
as many questions as are fired at him.
Oh right. So he's only "telling the truth" if he answers say four or five questions.
Whereas if he answers say, six of more questions, then he's telling the "whole truth".
*It's the cross-examiner's job to get the information he wants*.
No. The job of all counsel, whether cross examaining or conducting their examination
in chief, is as with the Courts themselves, to arrive at the "truth, the whole,
truth and nothing but the truth" based on the evidence given by the witnesses.
You have been at pains to point out, more than once, that an effective counsel
* should, ideally never ask a question to which they don't already know the answer.*
Without it would seem, ever asking yourself the question, as to why not.
Surely the only possible reason, is that the witness might say something which is detrimental to their client's case ?
In other words, they might reveal "the whole truth !*
So rather than "the whole truth" being a figment of everyone's imagination, except yours, what in fact you're suggesting' is that by only asking questionsHave you ever been present during legal proceedings?
to which they already know the answer, its somehow the job of counsel
to prevent "the whole truth" from coming out.
On 29/09/2025 10:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjon9kFqbulU1@mid.individual.net...
It's the cross-examiner's job to get the information he wants.
No. The job of all counsel, whether cross examaining or conducting their examination
in chief, is as with the Courts themselves, to arrive at the "truth, the whole,
truth and nothing but the truth" based on the evidence given by the witnesses.
No, the job of counsel is to present their client's case whether they represent the
prosecution or the defence.
The job of the judge is to ensure that irrelevant or misleading evidence is not put
before the jury.
You have been at pains to point out, more than once, that an effective counsel
* should, ideally never ask a question to which they don't already know the answer.*
Without it would seem, ever asking yourself the question, as to why not.
Surely the only possible reason, is that the witness might say something
which is detrimental to their client's case ?
I bet you have never, ever, sat through a criminal trial or any other sort of trial.
What the witness says might be detrimental but it might also conflict with evidence
given by other witnesses
and be unreliable, and open up the need to recall earlier witnesses and prove to the
current witness that actually he has remembered wrongly
Counsel are not permitted to knowingly mislead the court by presenting a case which
they know is contrary to the facts.
They will often remind the jury of facts which hinder their client's case, to make sure that all the evidence is fairly presented.
The notion that counsel might prevent the whole truth from coming out
the fantasy of an addict of fictional whodunnits and fictional trials.