You're getting me into political hot water here. It would have been on the televisions around the world, so you may be partly familiar with the story.
In short, the then foreign secretary came before the U.K. foreign affairs committee in the House of Commons and gave evidence on Iran. Among other things he was asked a question about Nazanin, to which he responded inaccurately, defending and saying that it's unfair that she's been in prison, because as far as he was aware, she was just training journalists. She wasn't. She was on holiday. It was picked up by the Iranian judiciary and announced as a justification: “This is why we've opened a second court case against her. Clearly, the foreign secretary has confirmed that she's guilty.”
Then it was on the Iranian state TV, and it was run day after day, and because he had got it wrong, because there was the potential of a second court case and it was going to add an extra sentence, it became a big, live issue in British domestic politics. I suddenly, for a brief period, became a very important person, so journalists were calling me the whole time and camping outside our front door to find out what was going on.
In reality, of course, they were playing a cynical game and were using his words to signal displeasure, because, as I said, there was this other issue running alongside.
It clearly would have been better if he had spoken better. We will see with the second court case whether it does get blamed in the courtroom.