Unparliamentary Language?

[The Red Baron]

(Do not watch if easily offended or under 18).

https://order-order.com/2019/05/01/snps-joanna-cherry-shut-fk-c/

And then MPs wonder why the general public hold them in such contempt. If I used language like that in my workplace, even to illustrate a point, I'd be in hot water. She doesn't even have the grace to apologise to the poor woman sitting next to her.

Personally I'd love to go down to Westminster and give them all their P45s.

[RobTheRover]

It's an extreme example, but it's worthy of exploration in the point she's trying to make. The point is what is acceptable and what isn't and where should social media companies' responsibility to act lie. Seems perfectly fine to me once you get past the shock value of the language.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

I entirely disagree with you.

That is a very important issue that Joanna Cherry is raising. She's not doing that for shock value. She's doing to make a key point.

If Twitter are prepared to allow people to be abused on their service, they need to answer for it. And we need MPs prepared to grill them hard over it.

I've been involved in disciplinary processes at work where people have used threatening language and obscenities to bully people. In those processes, when we discussed the language used, we didn't say, "A said to B, "Umm off, you umming ummer." We used the actual words used.

There's a lot to be upset about in politicians' behaviour. This is not one of those things.

[The Red Baron]

If it was a private hearing, like the disciplinary proceedings you mention, I'd agree that the words actually used should be said. Similarly in court proceedings, although I would expect Counsel or the Judge to warn about what was to be said. This is in a public hearing in Parliament.

I might have found it more acceptable if she had said  "I am going to use words that some people may find offensive." How do we know her colleague, or the witness she was grilling, weren't offended?

It also begs the question about how far she would go to make her point. Would she use the n-word to illustrate online racism?

I'm pretty broad-minded and hear worse things every match day, but I thought it was out of order. You can hold people to account without using foul language.

[wilts rover]

Interesting point TRB - so I thought I would check.

The word 'nigger' has been used in parliament 3 times in recent years. Once in the commons by Diane Abbott in a debate on the abuse that MP's receive and twice in the Lords, in a debate on abuse during the referendum campaign and in a debate on religious intolerance.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/search?searchTerm=nigger&partial=False

So yes, it appears when they are discussing offensive subjects they will use offensive words.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And so they f**king should.

[NickDRFC]

I’m not a fan of swearing - don’t do it much myself and don’t like hearing it at work - but I don’t see the issue here. TRB - you say she doesn’t apologise to the woman next to her, but she does say “forgive me” before swearing for the first time - that’s enough for me. You also say “you can hold people to account without using foul language” - but the language isn’t being used to hold someone to account, or directed at anyone, it’s a discussion of whether that language would be deemed acceptable.