3rd November 2022
Yesterday I attributed the following to the leader of the opposition:
“The Prime Minister promised integrity, professionalism and accountability in Government. His Home Secretary has leaked information, is overseeing chaos in the Home Office and has broken the law. What will she actually have to do to get the sack?”
The question was instead from Dame Meg Hillier, the chair of the public accounts committee.
I have corrected and amended the post accordingly.
I apologise for this error.
(It is never fun to correct such an error, but it should be done openly, as it goes to ensuring that readers can have confidence in the blog generally.)
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.
Reassuring to know you’re human too!!
Integrity is doing the right thing without telling anyone about it.
Disagree
If there is a significant mistake in a published text, then the correction should be given similar prominence
That is what maintains the “integrity” of any publication
Integrity is sometimes said to mean doing the right thing when no one is looking. But when someone is looking – for example, in publishing and journalism – integrity includes acknowledging mistakes openly.
For example, IMPRESS: https://www.impress.press/standards/
“1.2. Publishers must correct any significant inaccuracy with due prominence, which should normally be equal prominence, at the earliest opportunity.”
Everyone makes mistakes. How you catch them and deal with them matters.
Gracious, humble and rapid. Amending the record to make sure you are accurate is to be applauded.
It is absolutely in line with how you conduct the rest of your commentary.
Thank you for your continuing commitment to those high standards.
Very few, if any, may claim to have never made an error!
Perhaps, even the esteemed HS!
DAG’s swift, accountable and transparent apology in stark contrast to the Home Secretary and this Administration’s policy of obfuscation and expedience. That’s why we will continue to trust your blogs in comparison to anything coming from government which is frequently the very opposite of that stated.
And it was really only a question of mistaken attribution.
Well done, David.
Exactly the right thing to do.
Since you are in the mood to admit past mistakes, are you still saying you have “no objection in principle” to Brexit?
Or do you finally accept that there was no way that any Brexit would inevitably entail considerable costs?
No: see my post at https://davidallengreen.com/2022/11/brexit-revisited-and-a-non-apology/
Thank you for your honourable and public correction.
And for the extremely interesting blogs about Suella Braverman’s statements.
If the Home Secretary has ‘broken the law’ as quoted, are there any legal sanctions for her to face? Or is the ‘law’, as I have experienced it, just some wishy-washy documentary collection of nothing-really rules, which judges can cherry-pick, in accordance with personal preference (and often hidden, and corrupt) agendas)?