View Single Post
Old 06-03-2008, 01:02 AM   #36 (permalink)
Britannist
Uber Member
 
Britannist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 22,896
Britannist has some supporters
Default Liar, House of Commons, House of Lords, Chambers, debate, Blair, written, verbal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist View Post
....we're not covering 'rudeness'. We're talking about directly accusing someone else of being a liar.
Exactly. Good point, Eurosceptic Atlanticist.

They don't allow usage of the word liar (or lying) in the House of Commons or House of Lords and nor do they allow it in debate within council Chambers.

I have noticed that if the word liar (or lying) is used at all - it is not used in a direct exchange between one person and another in a debate (unless - on very rare occasions - someone loses their temper and starts calling the other one a liar).

In other words, a politician may say that former Labour Prime Minister Blair is a liar but in a direct verbal or written exchange with him s/he would most certainly not accuse him directly to his face or in a written exchange with him of being a liar. They might say to him "I am afraid I cannot accept what you say as being correct" or "I find what you say very hard to believe". They might even tell him to his face "I think you are being economical with the truth" or write to him to inform him that they think he is being "untruthful" on a particular point. Terms such as "if it is true" or "you claim" are used in debates up and down the land every day - and are acceptable because they are not blatantly rude. Unlike the term liar when used in direct written or verbal exchange between two individuals.

Last edited by Britannist; 06-03-2008 at 01:05 AM.
Britannist is offline   Reply With Quote