I interviewed @KateOsamor and she said all this headline-making stuff to me. Now she and Labour are trying to argue she was somehow misrepresented. (An attempt at a thread follows)
The problem is – she said all that stuff. Read the quotes and the full interview. All the context is explained and all the caveats she put in I made sure I included.
Asked about Assad she said: “He needs to be removed." It could not have been clearer. But she also questioned how that could be done and suggested it was up to the UN. I made that clear.
On saying the UN had not concluded that Assad had used chemical weapons before – that is what she said. I got the impression she genuinely thought it had not happened, not that she knew but was trying to deny it.
Asked about criticism of Corbyn for his foreign policy statements, she said: “He should just let his spokesperson speak because it seems that whatever he says is not good enough - it’s too strong or it’s not strong enough.”
She isn’t criticising him here – she’s saying critics are never satisfied. But she IS saying the way to combat that is not to speak. This is clear in the interview.
Asked about the BDS movement becoming Labour policy, she basically said (to paraphrase) ‘not now but…’ Read the quote.
Politicians who do this are trying to give a signal – and it comes across clearly here. Maybe she did not mean to give that signal. But a frontbencher should know how that would be interpreted.
Osamor says she only agreed to talk about the Commonwealth. I’ve never done an interview on only one topic where it wasn’t expected that other issues might come up.
And at no point did she say ‘hang on – I did not agree to be asked about any of this’.
What happened was this: she agreed to an *on the record* interview and then completely freewheeled for an hour – talking without a plan or any sense of what she *should* be saying and (on Assad) having almost a public debate with herself.
But she cannot deny she said those things. Notice how the @skwawkbox doesn’t add any of her quotes in their article condemning the interview. It’s because she said all that. I cannot be expected to avoid reporting what she said.
The funny thing is: before and after the interview we talked about journalists asking ‘provocative’ questions. She was saying they were allowed to do so at the rather controlled Labour press conferences.
But I made the point – defending my profession – that of course we ask provocative questions. But it’s up to the politicians how they answer. And their answers are what makes the story. And she agreed.
Here is her statement. 
Here is our news story - politicshome.com/news/uk/politi…
And here (again) is the full interview in @theHouse_mag - politicshome.com/news/uk/foreig…
Ends.
