Did he swear?

The fact that this is coming from rumours on Twitter of all places should be enough evidence that he didn't swear, but why should it matter if he swore anyway?

Let's get them all swearing. It'll get the kids involved in political debates.
 
Jegethy said:
The fact that this is coming from rumours on Twitter of all places should be enough evidence that he didn't swear, but why should it matter if he swore anyway?

Let's get them all swearing. It'll get the kids involved in political debates.
Click to expand...

Because he's the prime-minister and should set an example? If I can get arrested for swearing in public I don't see why the PM should be any different.
 
Jason2 said:
Because he's the prime-minister and should set an example? If I can get arrested for swearing in public I don't see why the PM should be any different.
Click to expand...

Parliamentary protections allow them in theory - but also in practice in lesser examples - to say what they like (breaking civil/criminal law) without scrutiny or repercussion.
 
Doesn't need a poll, it's perfectly clear he didn't swear...

Nice video title though "A baying unionist mob in Westminster reacts in terror to Electoral Commission..." /sigh

I thought Cameron actually gave a good, firm answer, and am particularly fond of the how the SNP are now desperately scrambling to "warmly welcome" the frankly embarrassing conclusion delivered by the electoral commission that the SNPs favoured wording for the referendum was blatantly biased.

Surely Scottish Nationalists wouldn't try to create a bit of drama to cover their embarrassment at a significant set back??? Would they? ;)
 
I converted it to WAV, cut it up in Sound Forge, Normalised it and I can quite clearly hear him saying "What you afraid of".
To test this I played the WAV to my daughter and she repeated it without knowing what it was about.
 
Athanor said:
Doesn't need a poll, it's perfectly clear he didn't swear...

Nice video title though "A baying unionist mob in Westminster reacts in terror to Electoral Commission..." /sigh
Click to expand...

The EC's recommendations are at contrast with the Coalitions refusal to discuss terms before the vote, after saying it would endorse the recommendations wholeheartedly - the reference to 'reacts in terror' I guess.

Not particularly baying in that clip, but Hansard has recorded some pretty derogatory slurs recently. I guess that's got someone's emotions a bit high.

Athanor said:
I thought Cameron actually gave a good, firm answer, and am particularly fond of the how the SNP are now desperately scrambling to "warmly welcome" the frankly embarrassing conclusion delivered by the electoral commission that the SNPs favoured wording for the referendum was blatantly biased.
Click to expand...

That's not what the report said. Strangely, the Conservatives said the previous question - now rejected - was clear concise and fair.

Athanor said:
Surely Scottish Nationalists wouldn't try to create a bit of drama to cover their embarrassment at a significant set back??? Would they? ;)
Click to expand...

I think it's Michael Moore & Co with some egg on their face with the amount of faux capital pressed on trying to get the SG to pre-agree any EC recommendations.. reminding us that Westminster has never rejected them.. to go on and reject one.

/shrugs

All depends on your PoV.
 
Biohazard said:
That's not what the report said.
Click to expand...

They didn't say 'blatently biased' no but they did say...

The language in the proposed question is clear, simple and easy to understand, but the words ‘Do you agree’ potentially encouraged people to vote ‘yes’ and should be replaced by more neutral wording."
Click to expand...

That's basically saying it's a loaded (or biased) question.

Biohazard said:
Strangely, the Conservatives said the previous question - now rejected - was clear concise and fair.
Click to expand...

Source?

All I can find is the Better Together campaign (of which the tories are a part of) claiming it was “skewed” on the grounds it invites consent from people.
 
estebanrey said:
They didn't say 'blatently biased' no but they did say....
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know, I'm sure Bio knows I was giving him a gentle prod. ;) I'm surprised anyone thought the original question would get through, might as well have asked "Do you agree that Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom". Leading question is leading...
 
So what if he did swear, he is only human. Are we all going to sit around the table and point fingers to eachother? Can anyone seriously to this day look someone in the eyes and say in complete honesty that they have never sworn in their lives before?
My moto, dont judge. If you point your finger, make sure your hands are clean.
 
He didn't swear, as someone else stated it would have made no sense given the context of his sentence.

Just the lefties twitter brigade being knobs as usual and causing a huge PR storm which will probably get far too much time on this evenings 6pm news. The joys of Social Media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom