Jeremy Paxman Interviews Michael Howard | BBC 

cx1735 when?

Oliver Payne His refusal to say yes caused him to say alot of things, which shows alot about him. To my understanding.

ivo alex I’m fucking howling!!!! 😂😂😂

More relevant than most politician answers.

Did you threaten to overrule him?

@@Eclipse2582 Bring u closer to the Jury.. in a hot enviroment..

+Gwasgray i'm not sure if he threatened to overrule him. has he threatened to overrule him?

No peeple bit is better.

.

Did he tho?

That was maybe the last time anyone purporting to be in authority looked tested by anyone who worked for the nazibbc They are now obscene absurd merciless toxic feminine, femnazi as nd passive atrocious. Maybe much worse than direct atrocious. .weak and ultra morally ambivalent... Shameless with sell outs...

Hahaha I think so!

But did he threaten to overrule him?

I didn't get that feeling at all?

I don't know why, but I think you can't spell 'threatened' - oh wait, I _do_ know why.

Hmm, really? Lol 😆.

A H this comment makes zero sense

@@jamiengo2343 its a reference to dominic cummings and michael gove who both blantantly broke lockdown rules in the uk, and I think it was gove who used the excuse "I was testing my eyesight"

@@burnt_lamp yes I understand the context, I don’t understand how the question “Did you threaten to overrule him” is related to the Barnard Castle situation, in any way. I mean who is overruling or threatening to overruling who

@@jamiengo2343 I think it just refers to the sleazy nature of both of these situations

Hahaha

+NullG7 you like sargon too, eh?

+Social Justice Snippets I listen to his content

+NullG7 Same here. C: #AkkadNation

too bad they interview like Americans now

I am here because dat boi potholer54

He and Andrew Neil are brilliant 👏

I think he was entitled to express an opinion and he threatened to overrule him because he was expressing an opinion that he was entitled to, which was merely an opinion that was about threatening to overrule him.

20 years later Michael Howard said "I do not recall threatening to overrule him." Thank god that's now cleared up.

@@peterd440 LOL, that's almost too bad to be false!

This is a distinct possibility 🤔

"I was not entitled to shag his dog, and his dog was not shagged."

The dog was shaggy already !

ITILII So you're saying that this is a shaggy dog story? Sounds about right

"I sought advice on whether or not I could shag his dog, and I did not shag his dog."

"I have, an esteemed reputation among the canine community, and the dog will affirm that I did not shag him or any other dogs in question"

I heard he said he didn't?

never gonna happen

Ethan Nino The problem with a lot of interviewers in the US on networks such as CNN and FOX is that they ask questions and then shout "NO NO NO YOU'RE WRONG!" the entire time that the person is trying to answer. Paxman asks a question and only interrupts when they try and get off topic, which is how it should be done.

+Ethan Paxman has been demolished by ann coulter.. he got demolished by tommy robinson, by george galloway, by conrad black. All paxman did here was got to a key question the guy wouldn't answer, and he did it well.. but it's not like american interviewers don't ask questions that politicians refuse to answer

Ethan Nino Ted Koppel comes to mind......

boliussa other way around

+Tony Hall Did you threaten to overrule my decision to watch the first four minutes and nine seconds first?

Did you threaten me to skip to 4:10?

@@eclectica1 With respect, the real question is not did he threaten to overrule you, the real matter is whether he gave you, in strong language, the choice of having cabbage or cauliflower with your Sunday roast.

His integrity was completely shattered and he was shown to be a typical lying politician!

That was maybe the last time anyone purporting to be in authority looked tested by anyone who worked for the nazibbc They are now obscene absurd merciless toxic feminine, femnazi as nd passive atrocious. Maybe much worse than direct atrocious. .weak and ultra morally ambivalent... Shameless with sell outs...

As do many evil masterminds...

Poor Derrick Lewis forever being linked to this train wreck

je me demande lmaaaaoooo! omg I'm crying at this comment.

Didn’t watch to the end. What happened? Did he threaten to overrule him?

@@TomMarrJohnson maybe he just threatened to threaten to overrule him...

you guys so retarded look at 4:03 look at it at 0.25 speed he quietly says it

I did not overrule him

2019: Confirmed

Journalists & Politicians: One kills everything it touches, the other kills everybody it touches. Give me a lunatic with an AK47 anytime, the end result is the same but at least he's not trying to be your friend while he does it.

A leader of a major party, not just any old MP

That day is now.

You’re all ignoring Andrew Neil a little bit here, Gents.

Frank Schrodinger haha!!!!!

Lol oh dear

She’s said she is a virgin and having seen her I can believe it.

Frank I'm in two minds about this. If we don't look in the box then Michael both threatened to overrule him and didn't threaten to overrule him in a Copenhagen kinda way. But as soon as you try to extract information about the trajectory or velocity of Michael's threats, then Howard's probability wave function must collapse and he becomes decoherent.

She'd destroy Michael Howard.

I hope u asked him the burning question of whether he threatened to overrule him?

Creepier than the real thing, if you can possibly imagine that.

That was maybe the last time anyone purporting to be in authority looked tested by anyone who worked for the nazibbc They are now obscene absurd merciless toxic feminine, femnazi as nd passive atrocious. Maybe much worse than direct atrocious. .weak and ultra morally ambivalent... Shameless with sell outs...

;bluhhhh 😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒

13 times? I counted 'only' 12. Damn, I have to watch it again now. :)

@@ajpizzy1 Sorry, you are right. I "gave him" an extra one.

@@milly5678899 , it's good that you admitted your mistake. Now I don't have to threaten to overrule you. :...)

That's all he had to say. We all know he did.

Do you think he did?

97channel I'm guessing that he did, yes.

Did he THREATEN to overrule him?

97channel Depends what your definition of 'is' is.

I note you're not answering the question of whether he threatened to overrule him.

He certainly did not overrule him, nor was he entitled to do that...

lblythe01 The relevant point is what he was and wasn't entitled to do. He wasn't entitled to instruct Mr. Lewis, and he did not.

 but you didn't answer the question. Did he THREATEN to overule him?

AeProjects4u He said he wasn't entitled to instruct, which implies he couldn't have threatened to overrule.

armand011 The question was not whteher he 'IMPLIED' or not, Did He Threaten To Overule? Yes/No?

I already forgot what everything was about again..

Oh how times have changed...

You mean because interviews like this don't happen any more?

I think you're dreaming slightly there old chap. Paxman consistently went soft on Blair in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

bunter chup He should have? Toppling a dictator who gassed Kurds, I would stay quiet too and choose my fights.

Perhaps you would! However, many wouldn't and the BBC are meant to be impartial, unbiased. and balanced.

bunter chup At the time, the facts were being sourced by a supposed informant, who was saying there was some very big WMD projects in Iraq, and that was the pretext of the war.. Why on earth would the BBC or whoever object to that and be foolish enough to be "impartial", "unbiased" or "balanced" when at the time this was believed to be true?? Specially from a dictator who had no trouble gassing thousands of Kurds.. Only a fool who is truly delusional in thinking that this isn't something to be concerned or think twice or three times about would grill a PM who is taking steps to ensure even remotely that doesn't happen (his job role)... Later on this wasn't the case and it turned out to be false, because the informant was a bullshitter and was just talking crap to be treated nicely by the Americans.. Whether they knew that and it was just an excuse is a different matter of discussion, because that's not what you are talking about. Rather if it turned out to be true, then what.

The slippery Paxman admitted in 2009 that he'd been “hoodwinked’” by Bush and Blair's lies and deceptions leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Also, I think the word “facts” in this context deserves quotation marks, seen as there weren't any WMD wouldn't you agree? Do you suppose the BBC would have given as much air time to some unnamed, anonymous source who claimed that WMD didn’t exist? As for - “Believed to be true” By whom are you referring to here exactly? Not by the majority of the British public, nor by Hans Blix or Scott Ritter, the chief UN arms inspectors in Iraq it wasn’t. They said that Iraq had been 'fundamentally disarmed' by 1998 and its nuclear capability 100% destroyed. And that the limited shelf-lives for any residual Iraqi chemical weapons meant they would have already turned into harmless sludge.. Why didn't Paxman raise these points to Blair? The BBC went ludicrously soft on those Government mouthpieces spinning these lies. Yet Paxman has the nerve to say now he was 'hoodwinked' this is an insult. The war on Iraq was about oil and geostrategic power, and has exacerbated the terrorist threat against the West. Have you heard that notion repeated on the BBC lately?

No, he did not overrule him.

Mr Marriott was not suspended.

EdwardHowton although compared to the shite British politics has been through in the last 10-15 years - and in the last months - the topic being discussed here compares to kids stealing a handful of candies from a jar...

Why are you attempting to analyse the interview if you know nothing about the context?

@@quintiniusverginix7827 Rain is a phenomenon where water falls from the sky. I don't need to have a PhD in the physics of the water cycle to make a general statement of fact, do I? Same deal here, you insipid twit.

Paxman vs Johnson and Corbyn would be great.

Howard became Tory leader just after the Tory government of 17 years' standing was defeated. Landslide 240 seat majority for Labour. It doesn't say much about Howard really.

Raj Singh hardly....more like he couldn't give a fuck

I must have missed that part ....

He did, and that is why he never deviated from his statement. It is, in a way, a win for both for both of them. Paxman for making Howard look like a fool, and Howard for never explicitly admitting that he had lied, nor did he accused the shadow chancellor of slander. He stonewalled him until Paxman dropped the matter.

Jeadeen He became party leader in 2003, but resigned in 2005

Edward mulholland but did he threaten to overrule him?

Lol

Can we go back to discussing flowers Jeremy?

@@rw8733 And things like that?