Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Isabel oakeshott and Jacob Rees mogg both reveal a lack of preparation" video.
-
Correction: I double checked this, but Newman did NOT ask Oakshot, “how much,” she got paid. She merely mentioned that she had, “accepted a lot of money,” from Hancock, and seemed to be coming to the question; At what point did you decide to betray his trust? I think Oakshot sensed this difficult question was coming, and the potential for the timeline to show that she already knew Hancock’s darkest secrets and merely plotted to get more out of him until she felt she could get no more, rather than instantly responding in shock to terrible revelations which she felt the public should know? Her response was to very slyly throw up this red herring of getting indignant about a question she had not been asked and to fixate on it, thus (in her own distorted imagination) providing a context for which she could indignantly end the interview. It was a very Rees Mogg type of response in fact, attempting to draw the focus onto a none existent question.
Yes, Newman’s handling was somewhat inept, as I kept expecting her to simply say, “I didn’t ask you how much you were paid and I don’t care. The point is, you took a lot of money to do a job and then decided to betray your client’s trust; something for which you have a history,” or something along those lines. But the whole thing degenerated into a rather unedifying display in the end, which did nothing for either party’s reputation.
However, Newman was right to remind Oakshot that she was as much, “the story,” as Hancock. I think that prospect alarmed her more than anything? The idea that people will be constantly bringing up her history of betrayal and unsubstantiated rumour-mongering, rather than her getting to be the pundit who casts judgement upon the souls of others, probably reminds her that she will one day be sharing a waiting room in Hell with Matt Hancock.
3
-
2