Lesson to Trump team from UK PM just don't answer the question.

I have many objections to the deployment of Trident  but it seems I can now add that the bloody thing does not work

A test firing of an unarmed British nuclear Trident missile from a submarine malfunctioned last June, the Sunday Times reported, prompting questions about why Prime Minister Theresa May did not tell parliament ahead of a vote on renewing the submarines.

The paper quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying the missile may have veered off in the wrong direction towards the American mainland when it was fired off the coast of Florida.

It was the only test firing of a British nuclear missile in four years and came shortly before May became prime minister in the wake of Britain's vote last June to leave the European Union,

It said May had omitted any mention of the failed test when she persuaded parliament to spend 40 billion pounds ($49.5 billion) on new Trident submarines in her first major speech to parliament as prime minister last July.

Asked four times during a BBC television interview on Sunday whether she knew about the misfire before she made that speech, May repeatedly declined to answer directly.

"I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles. When I made that speech in the House of Commons what we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our Trident, whether or not we should have Trident missiles," 

I am reminded of Yes Prime minister which was first broadcast 1986-7)

Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."
Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
Jim Hacker: "They probably do."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."

Later 

Bernard Woolley: "That is why that torpedo landed on Sandwich Golf Course."
Jim Hacker: "Sandwich Golf Course? I didn't read that in the paper."
Bernard Woolley: "No, of course not: there was a cover-up. The members just found a new bunker on the 7th fairway the next day."

3o years on we are having exactly the same argument from the government and apparently the same coverus 
Meanwhile  the new Trump administration  believe they can answer questions bt redefining a lie

In a scenario reminiscent of Orwell 1984 Kellyanne Conway, counsellor to the president, told NBC's Meet the Press that the flap over crowd sizes at the inauguration symbolise what she called negative coverage of the new president.

While aerial photos showed that Trump drew a smaller crowd to his inaugural address than President Obama did, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Saturday: "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe."

When Meet the Press host Chuck Todd described that claim as a "falsehood," Conway said: "You're saying it's a falsehood and Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that."

Todd shot back, however: "Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods."

our Prime Minister simply refuses to answer the Question.

So is blatantly lying but redefining the lie  worse than not answering the question?

Well maybe when it applies to journalist intent on tripping a politician , but Mrs May will probably evade the question when answering questions from opposition members.

It is time particularly in our legislatures than Ministers patriotically in Prime Minister or First Ministers answered the question , rather than waffle or attack the opposition polices wholesale.