David Warburton: Are his family shocked?
David Warburton: Are his family shocked?
A quick look...
The brother-in-law of MP David Warburton, Jonathan Baker-Bates, has spoken about the news that David has been suspended from his parliamentary party following sexual harassment allegations.
Is it a staunch defence? People will go to lengths to avoid being dishonest, it’s not something we want to do. Is there any evidence in the words used to show that principle in action?
Let’s break it down.
Absolutely, they're standing by each other at the moment ... They've always been a very happy couple for as long as I've known them. Harriet is obviously affected herself ... I think she is obviously finding it hard.
“Absolutely” is one of the words that makes me look at what else is being said. When someone uses it, it doesn’t mean they are being deceptive, but you’ll often find that the surrounding words are hiding something.
READ MORE: Absolutely and the other words that indicate deception
Here, Jonathan is keen to persuade us that the MP and his wife are a happy couple. Instead of the straightforward way of saying it “they are a happy couple” he adds other persuaders to bolster that image: “always” and “very”.
However, is the truth leaking out with a couple of other touches in the sentence? It’s in the past tense, not the present. It’s “they’ve always been” happy, not “they ARE a happy couple” and he qualifies it with “as long as I’ve known them”.
The “as long as I’ve known them” could be designed to give Jonathan some wriggle room if it transpires they haven’t “always been a very happy couple”. He can truthfully say, “I didn’t know them properly”.
I got a call from my sister last night. That's the first time I've heard of it. She seems to be surprised by it as much as anyone else. Her line is as his – he's not done anything wrong and these things have explanations.
Here, Johnathan uses distancing language to refer to the allegation Warburton faces as “it” rather than being specific.
It’s very odd that he refers to “her line”. That is PR speak, and I’d be more convinced if this was stated in a more personal way that spoke about her feelings or her thoughts. “Her line” suggests a strategy for dealing with events rather than a personal viewpoint.
David's a nice guy. It came as a shock to all of us. I would imagine he has good reasons for why he is saying he is denying it.
Here, Jonathan is careful not to give full backing to his brother-in-law. He doesn’t say “I know he has not done this”. He only says he “would imagine” he has “good reasons” for “why he is saying” he is “denying it”. Those qualifiers add a lot of distance to the subject at hand.
Jonathan wants to offer up a defence of his brother-in-law here, but the fact it is not stronger is telling.
As far as I know, that behaviour is out of character and the wider allegations appear out of character.
He was always very conscious that he is an MP so it is surprising in that context
These last two lines may appear robust, but they contain more qualifying language. The allegations aren’t out of character, they “APPEAR out of character”. The allegations aren’t surprising, they are surprising in the context of him being an MP.
Conclusion
Jonathan is protecting his family, at the same time he won’t be dishonest. His words are qualified and suggest that there isn’t complete shock that this has happened.
