Thanks for the questions guys. There were certainly some useful ones which I was able to add to the mix.
Unfortunately today's interview wasn't able to take place in the manner originally planned.
It was to be a Skype call which would be recorded and published as near verbatim as possible .
Andrew was concerned that in addressing some of the actions of certain others he might inadvertently slander/libel them, or at least be at risk of that.
I offered to remove or redact any parts of an answer which might be libelous or slanderous (not sure which if the words are published as a recording and as text - probably both?) as I don't want to be liable either, but Andrew wanted to see the questions in advance so he could work out what he would/could say.
That was not something I could agree to. I wanted to hear his immediate reaction and not some carefully considered response. I also wanted to be able to jump in and pick him up on any points which seemed incorrect, inconsistent or unclear.
In addition, Andrew wanted the final say over whether the interview could be published or not, depending on how it went. Again, this was not a point I would cede.
So, as a compromise, I have sent him all my initial questions (there are a lot) for his *written* answers and will then pick up on any points also by e-mail. I will sub-down anything irrelevant or any grandstanding, and won't seek any 'approval' before publishing.
You might ask what the difference is between this and just sending him the questions in advance of the Skype interview. The key point is that I don't want anyone thinking the Skype call was the intended version and not know Andrew already knew all the questions which were coming. That would totally change the dynamic of the interview and not be an honest interview in my opinion.
So, it's not the interview I wanted, but I know there is a lot more to this whole story and I want to get at as much of it as possible.
And rest assured there are no soft-ball questions.