Thank you for replying Mr. Ambassador...but your claim is in contradiction with what state media, the company and even three officials involved with the deal (Andargie Bekele, Mulugeta Seid Samuel Urkato) have said. Firstly...

1) This pic published in the Daily Mail showing debris left after terrorist attack on US Capitol seems relatively unremarkable. But a man in Sweden noticed something: the red scarf at the top with the name of the northern Swedish city of Skellefteå. Then it got interesting.

2) The man contacted his local paper, pointing out the fact that there was a scarf from a northern Swedish city of just 70,000 in the debris of the attack. The paper published the story, with the headline: "What's a Skellefteå scarf doing inside of Congress?"

3) It turns out that, in 2017, the scarf had been offered as a Christmas gift from the city of Skellefteå to people who had moved away from the area. They were told go to a website and order one. A total of 934 people did so, and had received the scarf.

4) Now, natl Swedish media picked up story, wondering if a Swede had participated in the terrorist attack in Washington. Doing a search, the paper Dagens Nyheter found pictures of the man who was wearing the scarf. The first showed him trying to force his way into the Capitol.

5) After breaking through the barriers, the scarf man was later seen toward the front of the mob, waiving an American flag, and no longer wearing his baseball hat...but an official police helmet and visor. Skellefteå scarf still on.

The mainstream is now admitting Hitler was at least partially Jewish.

https://t.co/FepOy8OI0E

So why do I trust them when they tell me this. I will tell you why. It isn't because I trust them on this question.

Spectator thread: Among the Scottish parliament’s many crucial roles, there is none more important than its ability to scrutinise government and hold it to account. The same is true of a free press. Both are at their best when they hold power to account on behalf of the public.

But neither can do this essential duty when crucial documents are withheld during important inquiries. The Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish Gov’s handling of the Alex Salmond affair decided last week that it would not publish crucial submissions, including Mr Salmond’s ....

... apparently because it would contravene reporting restrictions rightly introduced to protect the identity of complainants.
We have published a duly redacted version of Alex Salmond’s account on our website.

We felt that an overly-cautious interpretation of the court order by the committee was frustrating the due process of parliamentary inquiry — and the freedom of the press to publish matters of public interest and importance.

We were aware that the court never intended to obstruct parliamentary or public scrutiny; but because of how the committee had interpreted the issue, we today sought clarification from the High Court in Edinburgh.