Law0 min ago
Children's Lives
https:/
Gavin Williamson apparently swore on his children's lives that he did not leak information.
Irrespective of whether leaked or did or not, is this an appropriate way for a government minister to speak?
Gavin Williamson apparently swore on his children's lives that he did not leak information.
Irrespective of whether leaked or did or not, is this an appropriate way for a government minister to speak?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by JF85. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
calico you get very emotional very quickly. You take everything as a back hand. You should try to take my words for how they are, and try not to read too much into them. Look where we are now. You moan about my comment derailing the thread, but you took that opportunity and you're running as far as you can with it. If you actually care about that, you wouldn't keep going down this rabbit hole.. Just stop replying on this level of discussion and discuss my comment in relation ot the thread?
Is Gavin religious? If not, why does he care about the powers that may or may not be? Not everyone looks at swearing on a grave or life like that. It's a turn of phrase.
Is Gavin religious? If not, why does he care about the powers that may or may not be? Not everyone looks at swearing on a grave or life like that. It's a turn of phrase.
To clarify I said that specifically because you said this was news therefore the spiritual bit of the phrase was not to be discussed here - but the OP is about the phrase itself and whether it was appropriate. For a laugh I could say I swear on spath's life that...and it wouldn't matter that I'm lying because it's meaningless.
I don't get 'very emotional very quickly' at all, you're just irritating as sin with your constant telling people off stupidity.
//You should try to take my words for how they are, and try not to read too much into them. Look where we are now. You moan about my comment derailing the thread, but you took that opportunity and you're running as far as you can with it. If you actually care about that, you wouldn't keep going down this rabbit hole.. Just stop replying on this level of discussion and discuss my comment in relation ot the thread? //
You're STILL trying to tell us what we ought and ought not to do, it's just quite frankly weird and it wrecks virtually every thread you involve yourself in.
//You should try to take my words for how they are, and try not to read too much into them. Look where we are now. You moan about my comment derailing the thread, but you took that opportunity and you're running as far as you can with it. If you actually care about that, you wouldn't keep going down this rabbit hole.. Just stop replying on this level of discussion and discuss my comment in relation ot the thread? //
You're STILL trying to tell us what we ought and ought not to do, it's just quite frankly weird and it wrecks virtually every thread you involve yourself in.
Good if you do that there will be no flaming problems!
To get back to the OP- huge over statements like this smack of John Gummer when he forced his 4 year old daughter to eat that burger during the BSE crisis- did him no good at all, everyone just felt him morally dubious because there WAS an issue and he must have known about it then.
To get back to the OP- huge over statements like this smack of John Gummer when he forced his 4 year old daughter to eat that burger during the BSE crisis- did him no good at all, everyone just felt him morally dubious because there WAS an issue and he must have known about it then.
I was aware that there had already been some discussion of the leak on another thread, but wanted to restrict my question to the oath, disregarding the context entirely. Even after asking similar questions on that thread, I see repeat requests for detail s about the leak to be the antithesis of what I asked, so my thanks to Calicogirl and others for retaining perspective.
To suggest that swearing on one's children's lives is 'just something you say' is an insult. Many people put a few quid on the Grand National or the national lottery because they don't mind losing. If you consider your children on a par, perhaps you should never have procreated.
As a commissioned officer in the Royal Naval Reserve, Williamson is considered a leader of fighting folk. How would our military be if every soldier, sailor or Air Force person took the attitude that it is fine to sacrifice colleagues as long as you yourself stay safe?
If our own leaders use language as falsely and insidiously as this, how can we criticise perceived standards in schools or on Jeremy Kyle. Edward Leigh, MP, recently spoke in the Commons of "piscine off" voters. John Major had 'bastands' in his cabinet. Do we have any right to complain about anti-social behaviour on the streets when this is the example set.
If Williamson is found to have lied, I would not expect him to hand over his children for the nation to decide their fate, although it raises questions of his suitability as a parent and the children's mother's judgment in choosing a mate. To comply would be a sign of honour, whereas to have lied would already have ruled it out.
To suggest that swearing on one's children's lives is 'just something you say' is an insult. Many people put a few quid on the Grand National or the national lottery because they don't mind losing. If you consider your children on a par, perhaps you should never have procreated.
As a commissioned officer in the Royal Naval Reserve, Williamson is considered a leader of fighting folk. How would our military be if every soldier, sailor or Air Force person took the attitude that it is fine to sacrifice colleagues as long as you yourself stay safe?
If our own leaders use language as falsely and insidiously as this, how can we criticise perceived standards in schools or on Jeremy Kyle. Edward Leigh, MP, recently spoke in the Commons of "piscine off" voters. John Major had 'bastands' in his cabinet. Do we have any right to complain about anti-social behaviour on the streets when this is the example set.
If Williamson is found to have lied, I would not expect him to hand over his children for the nation to decide their fate, although it raises questions of his suitability as a parent and the children's mother's judgment in choosing a mate. To comply would be a sign of honour, whereas to have lied would already have ruled it out.
It's like people saying "i swear on me nans grave"
It's promising on something you hold closely to your heart. It's a compliment and is suppose to indicate 'look, this is how serious i'm being' attitude. If i'm wiling to risk these serious things surely you can believe me. I think people who do this could be lying but probably aren't. I do however find it very immature.
It all depends what we're referring to, which is why i initially wanted to understand exactly what was leaked. What was leaked? Apparently huawei has a insecure 5G deal. Big woop. Anyone could of shared that, i can't see only one man being responsible.
It's promising on something you hold closely to your heart. It's a compliment and is suppose to indicate 'look, this is how serious i'm being' attitude. If i'm wiling to risk these serious things surely you can believe me. I think people who do this could be lying but probably aren't. I do however find it very immature.
It all depends what we're referring to, which is why i initially wanted to understand exactly what was leaked. What was leaked? Apparently huawei has a insecure 5G deal. Big woop. Anyone could of shared that, i can't see only one man being responsible.
The point isn’t really so much “what” was leaked (although there is no doubt that the fact the PM appeared to overrule other administers and advisers is contentious enough).
The decision in any case is not final AIUI.
It’s the point that these meetings are supposed to be secret: if there is the risk or even the suggestion of the risk that you cannot trust every member of that council not to leak stuff, even if it’s just the colour of the PM’s shoes, then it undermines the whole process.
It seems that Williamson was the lobbyist’s dream: falling over himself to brief journalists on this that and the other. He was also by all accounts exceptionally condescending - a trait that would not endear him to the PM. So he may well be copping it as much for past sins as anything.
Can the PM’s judgment be called in question for appointing such a person in the first place? (And there was Boris at the FCO as well of course)?
Probably
The decision in any case is not final AIUI.
It’s the point that these meetings are supposed to be secret: if there is the risk or even the suggestion of the risk that you cannot trust every member of that council not to leak stuff, even if it’s just the colour of the PM’s shoes, then it undermines the whole process.
It seems that Williamson was the lobbyist’s dream: falling over himself to brief journalists on this that and the other. He was also by all accounts exceptionally condescending - a trait that would not endear him to the PM. So he may well be copping it as much for past sins as anything.
Can the PM’s judgment be called in question for appointing such a person in the first place? (And there was Boris at the FCO as well of course)?
Probably
Is their solid evidence i.e radio or TV footage that shows Gavin Williamson actually swearing on his children's lives? As far as I can surmise the only evidence is Alistair Bunkall's Tweet stating Mr. Williamson said it to him. IF he did say it, it was childish and inappropriate ,and I would guess said 'off the record'.
My apologies, xenoblast, I thought I heard on the radio he had said it to Sky News, so I assumed there would be a recording. Perhaps it has still to emerge.
My belief remains that it was an inane and offensive comment, insulting to every right-thinking citizen. Wasn't it this same person who made some threats to cause trouble if he didn't get the budget he wanted?
As ichkeria said, Williamson and Johnson could cast doubt on May's character judgment, but to her credit she has tried to maintain a balance within the cabinet of pro- and anti-Brexit politicians. I see why she has done this but it has clearly not contributed to strong and stable government at a time when we really need it.
My thanks to all who have shared their views, including those with whom I have disagreed. I think we have covered it now, at least from the narrow confines of my question.
My belief remains that it was an inane and offensive comment, insulting to every right-thinking citizen. Wasn't it this same person who made some threats to cause trouble if he didn't get the budget he wanted?
As ichkeria said, Williamson and Johnson could cast doubt on May's character judgment, but to her credit she has tried to maintain a balance within the cabinet of pro- and anti-Brexit politicians. I see why she has done this but it has clearly not contributed to strong and stable government at a time when we really need it.
My thanks to all who have shared their views, including those with whom I have disagreed. I think we have covered it now, at least from the narrow confines of my question.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
