Well, Of Course We Will, Emma…

...because judging each other is what social beings do.

...new research suggests different social classes have stopped using different words for the thing we sit on in front of the television. The non-U (U as in upper class) “settee” is dying out and we all mostly say “sofa”. Then there’s the other thing we all sit on: we call it the loo or toilet indiscriminately now, irrespective of where we went to school.

Truly, we live in an egalitarian society! But who on earth cares about such things these days, anyway? 

The giant pit of words that is the internet means we live radically less linguistically siloed lives, too. Perhaps this study will finally bury U and non-U. Of course, it won’t stop us judging each other based on how we talk; plenty of words and phrases make me clutch my pearls in horror. I have started compiling a list of my most irredeemable for 2024: Substack, sleepmaxxing, fridgescape, “passionate about content creation” and microbiome.

Over to you, Reader, what are your personal bugbears? 

News Manipulation

That was the headline for the story. So the casual viewer probably flicked past it without even noticing a crucial point - it should have said 'claimed', not 'revealed'. 

Those two words do not mean the same thing. As the article makes clear.

And yesterday, we had this:

Surely the word they were looking for there was 'murdered'? 

And it's not just the MSM, the locals are at it as well:

The 'victims' in this case were the thieves who stole the bike. Some might say that disqualified them from the status. 

DEI Takes To The Air...

The world’s largest airline pilot union suggested airmen and women stop using terms purportedly offensive to women and LGBTQ individuals, calling out terms like “cockpit” as non-inclusive.

My my, is it April 1st already? Time, like snowflake flight crew, really does fly! 

Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l, represents over 70,000 pilots worldwide and states that it collaborates with a United Nations agency on its policies.

Well, there's your first mistake!  

According to a diversity, equity and inclusion language guide released in 2021, the ALPA lists numerous terms and phrases to avoid — especially “masculine generalizations” — that it deemed to be non-inclusive.

Now you know why Virgin Air thought this advert might be a crowd pleaser!  

“Inclusive language in communications is essential to our union’s solidarity and collective strength and is an important factor in maintaining flight safety,” the guide states.

What about this contributes to 'flight safety'? 

“The purpose of this language guide is to offer examples of terms and phrases that promote inclusion and equity.”ALPA, for example, suggested replacing the word “cockpit” with “flight deck.” The purportedly offensive term “has been and may be used in a derogatory way to exclude women in the piloting profession,” the guide states. “Many women have heard a variation of ‘It is called a cockpit for a reason’ by a male pilot, suggesting that women do not belong in the piloting profession,” the guide said.

I like my equality messages in my stage shows, but can't say I care too much when actually getting on a plane... 

H/T: Melindi Scott via Twitter

Puzzling Headline Time...

I can't be the only one who misread that as 'biking', surely? 

But no, it's a pretty archaic term, yet it's correct. Clearly, 'NewburyToday' believes it has a very well-read readership... 

H/T: Ian J via email

These Self-Driving Cars Aren't Safe, Clearly...

*tuts* KITT has let himself go now the Hollywood allure has faded... 

A West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service crew from Billingshurst Fire Station were called to the scene and found the car had collided with a low wall, describing the driver as having had a “lucky escape”

Can't wait to see how they write these headlines in the future...

 

Control The Language, Advance The Agenda...

New guidelines have been created for reporting on road collisions...

Did we need them? 

...following in the footsteps of similar best practice on stories relating to suicide, domestic violence and refugees.

Oh, wait, I see where this is going... 

The draft guidelines, which have been put out for consultation in the hope of becoming an agreed industry standard, come after years of cyclists feeling frustrated by road deaths being painted as “unavoidable accidents” rather than “the result of very avoidable criminal behaviour”.

But not by them, of course. Oh no! 

The new suggested rules could ban the use of the word “accident” when describing collisions and crashes to meet higher standards of impartiality, especially when the facts of what happened are not yet known.

Well, that's actually quite logical, I'll grant you. 

They also want journalists to avoid mention of helmets, high-vis or any other protective equipment “except when demonstrably relevant” and call for human actors to always be mentioned in coverage of collisions – for example by saying a driver, not a car, hit a cyclist.

 And so's the latter. It's always been a personal peeve of mine. But the mention of lack of safety clothing is perverse...

Who is arguing for this, anyway?

The guidelines have been produced by the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy in collaboration with the National Union of Journalists’ ethics council, state-approved press regulator Impress, road safety charities and a range of policing, academic and expert figures.

Ah. The usual suspects. 

H/T: James via Twitter 

The PC PCs Strike Again....

The force said the man detained at the scene was taken to hospital after it is believed he suffered a medical emergency.

I always assumed that a 'medical emergency' was a heart attack, stroke, premature labour. Something of that ilk.

Never in a million years would I have dreamed it would one day mean 'nutcase on the loose with a knife'.

The dog only joined Staffordshire Police in early April, after passing the 13-week training course with handler PC Karl Mander. 

Chief Inspector Donna Harvey, from Staffordshire Police, said: 'Police dogs are our family, not property, and our thoughts are with the dog and his handler at this time.'

The dog showed a lot more courage and dedication to duty than the rest of the 'family'. At least it got stuck in!

New legislation also known as 'Finn's Law' came into force last month, which gives greater protection to all service animals.

The legislation introduced tougher penalties for those convicting of harming police dogs and horses.

Nutters, however, will get away with it...

Mind Your Language!

Hmmm, what's the derivation of that word, again?

I can't see that any of that is appropriate here.

The trainee nurse said the wall he fell from is often frequented by young people walking along it doing what is known as parkour but there has been no indication that this is what happened.

*skeptical face*

Lynda Hyde, councillor for Rottingdean Coastal ward covering the Brighton Marina, reacted with sadness to the news.

She said: “It is an absolute tragedy for a young man to lose his life, particularly in such a tragic manner.

“We don’t know the circumstances, but it is of great sadness that we have lost a young person

“It must be particularly tragic for family and friends.”

No doubt. But for society..?

Oh, The Angst!

Quite the funniest article in the ‘Guardian’ is often the anguished wrangling over language and policy that crops up from the editor:

Something of a theme has emerged in recent Open Door columns, which have looked at the way in which the Guardian describes minority groups, and furthermore what members of those groups think of that language.

Because no-one at the ‘Guardian’ can see any issues arising out of giving over control of language to the perpetually aggrieved…

One error that seems ever more important to correct in the light of the debate about the age at which state pensions are to be paid is the misuse of the word “elderly” .

Quite! 60 is the new 40, and all that.

As well as exercising caution around language, journalists increasingly have to be sensitive to the needs of readers who are affected by the issues being reported on or discussed.

On 3 February the Guardian published a story on its website with the headline “Man suspected of killing estranged wife had been jailed for assaulting her”. It gave some background to a tragic story about a man who was found dead after his wife and two children had been murdered. … It is now our standard practice when a story involves suicide to print contact details for the Samaritans in a footnote, as we did on this occasion.

Oh, your heart just melts at the bafflement that lurks unmentioned here, doesn’t it? Pity the poor ‘Guardian’ writer, following the guidelines faithfully, unaware of the lurking danger:

Several readers were puzzled by the decision: “I was surprised to see, at the end of your report on the identification of Geraldine Newman’s estranged husband as the murderer of her and her two children, a link to the Samaritans. I do understand there being an editorial policy in place that requires this to follow any article dealing with a suicide, but when reporting the case of a man previously convicted of assaulting his wife going on to kill her, their children and later himself, it seems misplaced. Perhaps a link to Women’s Aid and similar organisations internationally would have been more appropriate? It strikes me that the Guardian is recognising the wrong victim here.”

…

I am sure that no judgment was intended, but I understand the points made by these readers. I don’t think one set of contact details should be dropped for another, as there may well be people who would benefit from counselling or help in all of these circumstances. On this occasion two sets of contact details would be the answer – at least on the web where there is the space.

But it is an ethical consideration that even five years ago I am sure most journalists would not have expected to encounter.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! You sowed the wind, now reap that whirlwind!

Call It ‘Shangri-La’ If You Want, Harker…

…we still don’t want them in the UK:

Chances are, your image of a jungle dweller ranges from the savages and headshrinkers of the old Tarzan-era movies to – if you’re more 21st-century – the isolated peoples of the rainforest, living simple yet dignified lives. In either case, are they the kind of people you’d welcome as neighbours, and believe could fully integrate into modern Britain?

For several years now, the series of Calais refugee camps originally set up in 2002 have been referred to as “the Jungle”. The camp was christened by the migrants themselves, in ironic reference to the squalid conditions.

Hey. It’s their camp. If they want to call it that, who are we to complain? That’d probably be racist, or something…

But a decade on, and as the migrant crisis throughout Europe has escalated, it’s clear this term is becoming increasingly problematic.

Oh? Oh, it’s the name that’s problematic, is it? Not the existence of it, or the behaviour of the inmates?

Good to see the ‘Guardian’ focusing on the real issues, as always…

What started out as a simple in-joke among a small group of people has taken on a completely different meaning when taken up by the international media in the context of daily scare stories about people crossing borders. “War of the Jungle” and “Jungle warfare” were just two of the headlines splashed across tabloid front pages last week, as French authorities clashed with refugeesas they moved in to demolish their homes.

The imagery the headlines evoke is of primitive, uncontrolled brutes – of the barbarians at the gates, as they try to gain entry to the UK. Who could possibly want these kind of people tarnishing our green and pleasant land?

It seems the imagery does indeed, for once, match the reality. No wonder you are so upset!

It’s not just the rightwing tabloids that use the term: all parts of the media have adopted it – including the Independent, the BBC and the Guardian (although last week the Guardian issued new guidance to limit its usage, and ensure it always appears in quotation marks).

Yes, it’s most important that the correct language is used. Those quotation marks are vital!

Whether or not you believe the residents of the Calais refugee camp should be allowed into Britain, anyone who thinks these people are fully human, with hopes and aspirations like the rest of us, and lives just as valuable, should cease using language that denies them this humanity.

So to confirm their humanity, we must steadfastly refuse them the right to name their own camp?

For their own good?

I don’t think you’ve really thought this through…

Steven Poole Discusses Memes….

…and hilarity ensues:

So there I was, bashing out a hot take on my MacBook Air on a sunny terrace, when I took a sip of my takeaway coffee and my heart sank. The barista had put milk in it. That ruined my whole morning. What a terrible world. But I know, right? First world problem!

Wow! Finally, some self awareness in a ‘Guardian’ columnist…

But why do we speak of “first world problems”, exactly, and what might we unintentionally mean when we do?

Oh. I spoke too soon. The Royal We is being sprinkled around again:

For a start, the phrase is an anachronism, since we no longer talk about the “third world” .

‘We’ don’t? I can assure you we do. You might mean ‘we’ as the Guardianista watercooler crowd, but that’s not the whole world, thank heavens.

That implies there might be something smug in the modern usage, as well as a hint of enjoyable transgression in using language that is not “politically correct” .

I’m not sure that correcting someone attempting to control the language is ‘enjoyable’, so much as necessary…

Some may wish to retort that worrying about the political implications of the phrase “first world problem” when used by rich people is itself a first world problem. But repetition of language that implies an unspoken attitude to others will often help that attitude to harden within us. And that’s everyone’s problem.

Nope! It’s still your problem. Yours, and all the other SJWs.

I Think The York Press Editor Needs A Dictionary…

Ooo-er! So….they aren’t selling ice cream? What are they selling?

Licensing officials warn that unlicensed vans could be falling short of hygiene regulations, or be operated by people who have not undergone the necessary background checks.

They say have been made aware of several unlicensed ice cream vans operating near schools and busy beaches in East Yorkshire.

Ah! So, they aren’t really ‘bogus’, are they? They just aren't paying their tithe. That cannot be tolerated.

It’s Self-Flagellation Time At The ‘Guardian’!

Chris Elliot, ‘Guardian’ editor in full on ‘I’m so, so sorry! Please don’t hurt me!’ mode:

Language is constantly evolving, and words and usages that were entirely acceptable even five years ago are no longer seen as so, especially by those at the sharp end of changing opinion, ie those who have disabilities.

So they should be granted the ability to dictate to us all what words and expressions we use, along with their disability benefits and their blue parking permit..?

I asked Libby to come to the Guardian to discuss the issues with David Marsh, the editor of the style guide, and me. We all agreed that although the author of the Lancaster interview did not intend to offend, that wouldn't clear the hurdle of responsibility for how it might be received by a reader.

This – intentionalism - is a subject that Jeff Goldstein at ‘Protein Wisdom’ is continually highlighting and challenging. It’s nothing short of ludicrous that the receiver gets to decide what the meaning of a communication is, and yet, it’s something that’s been pushed and pushed and pushed by the usual suspects, until they have, inevitably, got their way.

Libby made the point during the discussion that one of the reasons he feels so strongly is that efforts to change language around the issues of disability have lagged behind those relating to race and gender.

Translation: “We want our share!”

I Guess They're No Longer 'Out Of Touch With Changing Social Norms'...?

...at least as far as language is concerned:

A crown court judge has thrown out the case against a campaigner accused of vandalising a masterpiece by the English romantic painter John Constable.

...

Judge McCreath told the court an expert had concluded the damage had simply brought forward the painting's planned restoration, and the damage was put at £3,436 rather than the £30,000 the prosecution had originally said.

It was the rather un-legal language in which the verdict was delivered that surprised:

He said: "I'm simply quashing the indictment. End of."

I guess these guys can disband. Their work is done...

H/T: Meissen Bison via email

This Is Utterly Outrageous!!!

Pupils could lose their place at a London high school if they talk (sic) their native language to staff.

Winston Churchill High School in Bethnal Green says if youngsters speak their native language twice they will be sent to deputy headteachers John Doe or Jane Doe.

If they don’t start using English, their parents will be called in to meet head Enoch Powell to “discuss their child’s future in an English school.” 

I…what?!? But….diversity! Multiculturalism!

And if they speak their native language three times in lessons, the youngsters lose their free time – and will be handed a language card to monitor their future use of English.

The school’s 800 pupils are also being told not to speak their native language in corridors between lessons, and during play-times.

OMG! How do these people justify themselves?

Deputy head Mr Doe, who is also a former pupil, said: “This isn’t anything new. We’ve always done this, it’s just making it formal. Winston Churchill High School is an English-speaking school. That is what it stands for. ... If the parents feel they don’t want to send their children here, they have a choice. Of course, we want them all to stay at our school.

“Parents make a choice to send their children to Winston Churchill High School. It’s nothing more, nothing less.”

That’s astonishing! This blatant disregard for our modern, vibrant, multicultural society is breathtaking!

Headteacher Enoch Powell insisted the system had the support of pupils. He added: “Fluency in English is an absolute requirement to enable our students to attain their full potential. In our efforts to increase the use of English in lessons and socially around the school, a system which monitors, congratulates and disciplines pupils is being implemented.

“The new system has been brought into place to ensure consistency throughout the school and to make parents aware of the steps the school will be taking.”

Surely the local councillors are up in arms about this?

School governor and London councillor Arthur Dent said: “It’s an English school so there is an expectation to speak to each other in English at all times.

"The whole ethos of the school is one of encouragement. They are doing this in a friendly way, not in a threatening way."

Oh. Well, maybe the unions..?

An UCAC teaching union spokeswoman said: “Winston Churchill High School is taking its duties to create well-educated English-speaking individuals seriously, and most parents will appreciate that.

“Presumably, one of the most important reasons in parents’ minds when choosing to send their children to the school is that the children will become fully English-speaking.”

Amazing. There’s hope for our country yet, is there?

Note: I might have made some minor amendments to the names and details in this report…

It’s The New ‘Mixed Race’!

A man was badly hurt in a racist assault in Leicester.

The 27-year-old was in Beaumont Walk when he was approached by two men who made racist comments towards him and then assaulted him.

Desciptions?

The suspects were 20 to 25 years-old and about 5ft 9in tall. One of them is of black or dual heritage appearance…

Eh?

The Naming Of Things...

If a newspaper publishes a style guide to ensure the accurate and consistent use of words and terms, the equal and opposite reaction that naturally follows is a series of requests for changes in those rules.

Translation: ‘Oh, god, we’ve created a monster!’

One such request came after a columnist writing about superinjunctions – a word that is often misused to mean all injunctions, including, very occasionally, in the Guardian – produced the following sentence: "Child porn on the net is censored, and its users prosecuted."

Who could possibly object to that? Other than Gary Glitter…

The reader had very strong objections to the phrase "child porn". He said: "Please can you not call it this in future articles of this nature – 'child porn' is both a very offensive and trivialising term to use, especially (but not exclusively) to people who have been abused and filmed." They have suffered an everlasting offence, he argues, being abused and exploited as children, and then knowing that this is online somewhere for ever. "These images or films are of children being sexually abused or exploited (quite literally crime-scene photos or films). Porn they could only be described as if the media is aiming their stories at paedophiles.

And where any other newspaper would roll their eyes, laugh about 'the green ink brigade' and then file this letter in the round file, the 'Guardian' immediately went into spasm:

'Indecent images' is a far more accurate and acceptable term." The more such images are described as porn, the more it suggests an element of consenting adults: "The more this legitimises this crime in the eyes of the offenders, and also (my own view), the more it 'normalises' it in society," he writes.

You know, I think most normal people would disagree with you, but hey, I don'r work at the 'Guardian', a place where getting the most PC-agreeable term of reference is probably the first thing on everyone's mind...

… the reader makes a strong point that he then reinforces by describing the attitude of child welfare organisations to the term.

For instance, the Internet Watch Foundation, which fights child abuse on the web, states: "The IWF uses the term child sexual abuse content to accurately reflect the gravity of the images we deal with. Please note that child pornography, child porn and kiddie porn are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records of children being sexually exploited and as such should be referred to as child sexual abuse images. If you see such content online please report it to the IWF."

Well, if the IWF is pro, the 'Guardian' could hardly be anti, could they?

The NSPCC only uses the term "child abuse images". The reader adds: "This is what the NSPCC have previously said to me: 'The NSPCC would agree with you that the expression "child porn" gives a misleading and potentially trivialising impression of what is a very serious crime. The NSPCC typically uses the term "child abuse images" as we consider this offers a more accurate indication of what these images portray'."

And so the 'Guardian' hurries to fall into line:

David Marsh, the editor of the Guardian's style guide, agrees, as do I, that this is a sensible change to the way the Guardian refers to images of child abuse. He intends to create a new entry in the guide and inform all staff of the new style.

'You VILL obey ze new rules...'

Of course, a new style guide entry doesn't stop the terrible abuse of children, but when we describe such images it will separate a despicable crime from a broader area of human sexual activity that washes back and forth across moral and legal boundaries that are harder to define.

Abused children everywhere will no doubt breath a sigh of relief that the 'Guardian' now knows what to describe them as...