I didn’t. I have never said that the final decision was the same as the first. I quoted the first. I only got the second result on Tuesday or maybe Wednesday and then I said they used the word ‚broken‘ this time instead of ‚stretched‘. The first ombudsman’s report said the law wasn’t broken and that is why Selmayr is still there. The final decision is stronger and recommended his resignation. I presume he will fight against this decision on the basis that the wording in the first report was different. But, I don’t know that and I am not a liar for suggesting that he sees it differently to yourself. The rules are that they could argue a case of urgency to by pass the usual procedure. They did, and that made it lawful, but stretched the law to the limit, according to the first inquiry. The final decision came to the conclusion that the case of urgency was contrived and therefore the law was broken. I am not a liar or denying anything. That is just how it panned out. Trying to listen to both sides and quoting the defence argument is not having „twisted views“. Claiming to be neutral, but not bothering to read the report, check the rules or listen to the other side of the story, is having a twisted view. Not exactly a neutral truth searching person as you claim to be.