Here's an interesting scenario.
In Parliament, an MP incorrectly says that a Council leader "wanted nothing to do" with a home-coming reception for troops.
It turns out that the Conservative MP in question based that false accusation on an internal council email which he had been sent by the Mayor (a Conservative councillor), without checking the meaning with the sender (the Mayor). Indeed, the Mayor confirmed that the Council leader had said nothing of the sort.
You would have thought that the MP in question would have withdrawn his accusation and apologised, wouldn't you ?
You would have also thought that the MP in question would have attended the reception in question, wouldn't you ?
The MP in question was nowhere to be seen at the reception on March 4th. He was busy in parliament (Hansard) voting on this motion, amongst others:
Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 2, line 39, leave out
“may not vote in favour of or otherwise support”
“shall vote against or otherwise reject”.
You would have thought that, bearing in mind that the Mayor who set up the reception is in the MP's own party and went out of his way to keep the MP informed via email of the event, it would not have been difficult to arrange it on a day when parliament wasn't sitting, wouldn't you ?
You would have thought that the Conservative leader of the council in question would have ensured he was able to attend anyway wouldn't you ?
The Conservative leader of the council is also a member of the area's Unitary Authority. The reception was arranged for the most important evening of that Unitary Authority's calendar - the night of the vote on the budget.