THERE can be few words in the English language to which more violence is done than “literally”.
So it is no surprise that the recent inglorious Foot in Mouth Award for baffling quotes were given by the Plain English Campaign to Jamie Redknapp, the television sports commentator and pundit. The former English international soccer player can hardly open his mouth without misusing the word. A few examples: These balls now – they literally explode off your feet . . . Alonso and Sissoko have been picked to literally sit in front of the back four . . . He’s literally left Ben Haim for dead there. Some of the other gaffes which helped him to lift the award: Peter Schmeichel will be like a father figure to Kasper Schmeichel (his son) . . . Steven Gerrard makes runs into the box better than anyone. So does Frank Lampard.
The Foot in Mouth award along with its annual Golden Bull awards for gobbledygook in official documents highlight the campaign’s endeavour to promote the clear and concise use of English in public communication.
Topping the list of Golden Bull winners this time is Boris Johnson, the mayor of London. He issued a press release which lauded the capital’s bike hire scheme and looked forward to “a cyclised city of pioneers”. Then from what was once plain-speaking Belfast there is this instruction from the Northern Ireland Civil Service about applying for a half-day’s leave: “If the annual leave request that you are entering is less than a full day on the First Day or the Last Day, then please select Hours from the drop down list of values in the Part Day Unit of Measure field. Then select the amount of hours absent on the first day in the Fraction of Start Date field or the last day in the Fraction of End Date field”.
Another Golden Bull went to Lord Jackson who conducted a review of Civil Litigation Costs. “Personal injuries litigation is the paradigm instance of litigation in which the parties are in an asymmetric relationship”. (The campaign suggests the learned Lord could have said “Personal injuries cases are the examples of court cases between different parties”.)
A woman in Fife sent a request to the council for an additional wheelie bin on medical grounds.
She got a reply. “With reference to your request for additional waste capacity, The Environmental Protection Act 1990 authorises Fife Council in making requirements with regard to receptacles for household waste and allows making provision with respect to size construction and maintenance of the receptacles . . . To qualify for additional waste capacity Fife Council do require proof of evidence that information given against the criteria is correct. Under the Data Protection Act we do not keep copies or record any of your personal details but failure to provide evidence may result in your application being refused. Please complete and return the attached request form within 21 days. On receipt of the form we may follow up with a visit to verify the information given before we are able to advise you whether your request will be granted”.
The Scots are unusually verbose this year. In a document about reports on infection rates the National Health Service in Lanarkshire says, “These are cascaded to senior staff across the organisation through to frontline staff via a structured mechanism to facilitate ownership of data”.
Surrey County Council follows the long-established local government tradition of using five words where one will do. It had before it recently an agenda with a QA section. Q. Why is Charlton Lane the most suitable site for the Eco Park?
A. Charlton Lane Shepperton is located in location that is proximate to the majority of the population of Surrey. (Could it not have said most people live close to Charlton Lane?)
In Canada a man was attacked and lost part of his ear. The Emergency Medical Service spokesman commented on the case. “He was missing a body part to the side of his head due to the assault. Luckily he was in a stable and non-life-threatening condition”. High up in the jargon stakes, if not in public esteem, are our old friends the bankers. A company in Britain wanted to deposit money with a financial institution. It got a letter back, not exactly one of gratitude. “. . . We may at any time and without further notice to you, set off any liability of you to us against any liability of us to you, including any liability to pay to you funds you have deposited in the Account, whether any such liability is present or future, liquidated or unliquidated under the Terms of Business or not and irrespective of the currency of its denomination. If the liabilities to be set off are expressed in different currencies we may convert any liability at a market rate of exchange for the purpose of set-off. Any exercise by us of our rights under this letter shall be without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to us . . .” All of that seems to be a long-winded way of saying your money is our money.
The letter could well have been written by a graduate of the Australian Business School which touted a new course in fanciful terms. “This new program reflects the need for a more holistic perspective on risk as well as specialisation in discrete areas of risk management. It views organisations as complex structures interacting with one another and with the wider system and with people being a component of both. Its core courses address concepts of globalisation of risks . . . and resilience as a mechanism to enhance a systems ability to manage unknown risks”. The same graduate would probably succeed in a competition for a job as a “reputation manager” advertised by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The job requires “maintenance and development of job narrative around FCO and its value proposition, using insights from research and evaluation as well as knowledge of the evolving FCO strategy to inform resonant messaging”.