Rayner’s Alli-day
Angela Rayner was quizzed on Sunday over reports that she and her then partner, ex-Labour MP Sam Tarry, stayed for 5 nights over the New Year in Lord Alli’s ￡2m New York apartment. Addressing the stay, Rayner told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme: "I don't believe I broke any rules”.
This is a weak denial, as it allows for others to believe differently. If she knew the rules, she would know if she had broken them or not. Anyone certain of their position would have said something like “I know the rules and I didn’t break them” or better still “I did not break the rules”. It allows the original allegation of 'breaking the rules', 'it not being on parliamentary business or in connection with parliamentary duties' to stand. There is no avoidance of doubt.
?
"I had the use of the apartment and I disclosed that I had the use of the apartment”
Rayner seeks to distance herself from the stay and reduce its significance with the words “the use of” as one might refer to having access to a printer or photocopier.?Additionally, the 'I?had the use of' reflects minimisation, as they both had use of it.
?
"In fact, I think I was overly transparent because I think it was important despite it being a personal holiday because that person, as a friend, had already donated to me in the past for my deputy leadership."
With this lengthy, convoluted sentence, Rayner again attempts to reduce its significance by introducing historical precedent. It is a clumsy attempt to link other donations (possibly monetary) to this - in other words a donation is a donation regardless of its nature. The ?unnecessary words “as a friend” is an attempt to normalise the gesture and downplay the act as something relatively trivial.
?
Rayner said she did not believe she had broken any rules by not declaring Tarry stayed in the flat. "It says if you’re on parliamentary business or if it’s in connection with your parliamentary duties," she said.?
"That’s how I understood it. It was a private holiday."
This is another weak assertion as it allows others to understand differently. If she was so convinced that her actions were legitimate we would have anticipated a much stronger rebuttal. “That’s how I understood it”, allows wiggle room- it was a misunderstanding and, therefore, much less serious.
?
Rayner added she did not go to New York with Tarry but she met up with him there.?Asked if Lord Alli had received anything from her in exchange for his donations, Rayner said: "I promised nothing and gave him nothing in return."
领英推荐
How does one 'promise nothing?' This leaves the possibility that she may have done something and said, 'I'll try...' She may not have given him anything but it is not to say that she didn't do something for him i.e. a favour in return. Again, she allows the possibility for this to stand. In all instances she allows for wiggle room. This latter one might be a truthful statement whilst omitting sensitive information. She doesn't say, 'I didn't do anything for him...' or words to that effect.
?
Ultimately, Angela Rayner is economical with the truth, is mindful and aware. Angela knows what she's about and is aware of the audience.
?
?
References
‘Angela Rayner defends using donor's New York flat for holiday - BBC News’
?
About Truth Unlocked
Truth Unlocked analyse spoken and written words using forensic linguistic techniques to understand what they really mean. We follow an industry-standard methodology that is applied manually using a ‘4-eyes’ approach by highly experienced senior analysts. We do not use AI and facts and hearsay are not considered during our analysis.
We only look at words.
#ForensicLinguiticAnalysis #DueDiligence #Truth