Yes, that stood out and by that glaring omission alone and the slant it took, diminished every other word upon that page - as doubt was raised. But that's how we trust sources, once we see them make such mistakes, we question and doubt all from that source.
But then anything political is always going to be full of such bias wordcrafting slants, however `neutral` a source appears due to multiple inputs and volume of input that such things can and as in this instance, do happen.
Fact is yes, the article and statement is true, but as always the context as you say - he was the Prime Minister of the UK, more than explains that and it's omission gives that observation without that context a major slant.
But then anything political is always going to be full of such bias wordcrafting slants, however `neutral` a source appears due to multiple inputs and volume of input that such things can and as in this instance, do happen.
Fact is yes, the article and statement is true, but as always the context as you say - he was the Prime Minister of the UK, more than explains that and it's omission gives that observation without that context a major slant.