Longrider

The two kittens are approaching 4 weeks old. They are now starting to move about, much to the consternation of Ahmose who chases them about trying to chirrup them back to the cupboard.

In the short time that she has has been blogging, Kaz has created a vigorous debate over politically correct language. I’ve no wish to revisit the ground covered in her discussion, rather, I’d like to take a different approach. I want to concentrate on what political correctness does to the language and its natural flow.

The example used in the discussion is that of blindness, so let’s run with that. The politically correct approach designed to avoid causing offense is that we put the person first. This means that “a blind person” now becomes “a person who is blind”. The logic being the person comes first, the disability comes second - it does not detract from the person. Okay, fine. I can see that. I also see that it is condescending, but we’ll leave that as it has already been discussed elsewhere.

Now let’s apply George Orwell’s writing tips. “A person who is blind” is a clumsy verbose statement. “A blind person” is less verbose. Let’s go one further - why are we mentioning the blindness at all? Is it relevant? Our erstwhile Home Secretary, David Blunkett is blind. Does this disability affect his role as a government minister? No. Do we refer to him as David Blunkett who is blind? Of course not. We refer to him by his title - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or his name. His blindness is irrelevant so the words become unnecessary. Using the Orwell rule number 3 we can cut out unnecessary words from our “blind person” statement. It becomes; “A person.” Nuff said, I think.

Patrick Crozier’s blog entry today reminded me of a lesson I first learned thirty years ago. I was studying English literature for my A levels. One of the books we studied for critical analysis was the George Orwell essays. A fascinating read drawn from the author’s experiences, they also had much to say about how to write - not least because they were excellent examples in their own right. I’ll repeat the rules George Orwell lists (and that Patrick repeats) because they are a cornerstone for good writing:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I endeavour to follow these rules in my writing. A blog entry will often take me an hour or two to complete. The initial brain dump will be incoherent because it contains random thoughts in no particular order. Punctuation will often be illogical as my brain is racing ahead of my typing fingers and words will be jumbled and misspelled - for the same reason. Then comes the proof reading. I have always tried wherever possible to seek my own metaphors - certainly if I see a cliché in my text I decide whether a metaphor or simile is necessary. If so, I will try to come up with something original. If not, I apply rule 3. As far as rule 2 is concerned, I try to use words that convey my meaning as accurately as possible regardless of length - however, I will then make a decision about whether that meaning may be conveyed more simply. My writing on the whole is categorised by short, sharp sentences - unless unavoidable.

In the same vein as this discussion, there was a piece on the BBC news this morning about email correspondence. Many forget that this form of communication is as legally binding on them as any other form of written word; the laws of libel still apply and they can get people into deep trouble. I treat email correspondence in exactly the same way as I do a formal paper letter and follow the same process outlined above using the Orwell six rule system. Sometimes, despite my best endeavours, people misinterpret my words, but I have at least tried to make my meaning clear.

I think the final rule is invaluable. My writing is occasionally contentious. My subjects often controversial - look at the recent discussion on free speech, for example. However, I always value reasoned debate that is civilised and adult. I agree with Orwell, and will never knowingly write anything that is "outright barbarous".

George Orwell is one of our modern classic writers, I cannot recommend his essays enough.

Yesterday morning my sister emailed me to tell me that one of my mother’s cats, Peter, had been run over on the road. This cat is our Ahmose’s brother. He’s a delightful ginger and white tom with a tendency to be somewhat accident prone. At that time, he had been in the veterinary surgeons overnight and the prognosis was vague. I called my mother and she was naturally distraught. Apparently my father found the cat while out walking the dog. He was lying in the road having been left for dead by whoever ran him over. The accident had probably only just happened. They rushed him to the vets where he was examined and put on a drip for overnight observations. I assured my mother that this was good news - if the situation was hopeless, they would have recommended euthanasia immediately instead of carrying out further tests in the morning and talking about wiring up his jaw.

The following day, they spent most of the morning exploring his injuries and wiring up his jaw. At lunchtime he was “stable”. At about 4 in the afternoon, he was in “discomfort” and if things didn’t improve, they might have to opt for euthanasia to avoid further suffering. At this stage, my mother was suffering. She didn’t know what to make of the situation. I and my sister assured her that having come this far, Peter’s prognosis would be improving every hour that he survived. Having spent all that effort, euthanasia would be defeating the object.

Today, Peter was sitting up and eating. His jaw looked normal. He suffered a cracked pelvis which will require rest to heal. The vet is worried that he has not emptied his bladder but as it isn’t yet full, immediate worry is not justified - also cats can hold it in for extended periods and having suffered a pelvic injury is probably uncomfortable passing urine. Time will tell. However, when an animal starts to eat following illness or injury, it means they are fighting back and the will to live is strong - compounded by the vet using terms such as “when he goes home” rather than “if he goes home”.

Peter is still seriously ill and is not out of the woods yet, but the signs are looking better than they were 36 hours ago. The question on my mind is this:

What possesses someone who, having hit a domestic animal with their car, can leave it for dead in the road without stopping or trying to identify the animal’s owners?

Dr Who reached its finale last Saturday. A 13 week series that took the Dr Who character into the 21st Century was one I (like many fans of formers doctors) was waiting for with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation. How would Christopher Eccleston follow in the footsteps of doctors played by such icons as Tom Baker, who for me was the epitome of the Dr Who character?

I needn’t have worried. Eccleston proved to be a lively, manic doctor and the programme rattled along in company with an underlying satirical humour. Some have criticised it for Political bias. I can’t say that I agree with this criticism. The politics that did intrude struck me as part of the dual layer of the programme designed to appeal to adults as well as children. While children will be concentrating on the main action, the politcal comment found in the Slitheen’s "45 second" speech for example raises a smile because it is so crass and so obvious that it is a dig at current affairs. Rather than a crude attempt by the BBC to instil its cultural bias, I picked up light satire, nothing more.

This weekend’s finale returned us to the arch enemy; the Daleks. Those wonderfully nasty metal robots with a bad attitude and something sinister living inside have been subject to updating and computer imaging to give us an army of them sweeping though space to invade Earth. This time, they really are menacing. And, in the final moments, Eccleston bows out to be regenerated into his successor, David Tennant.

Given that Eccleston didn’t want to be typecast, he decided to leave the show after one series. Tennant, I believe, will make an excellent replacement. I’m looking forward to the Christmas special and series two.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has been wading into the media. In a speech given yesterday at Lambeth Palace he attacks the modern media; accusing it of being “lethally damaging” and contributing to “an embarrassingly low level of trust”. He has a point. Indeed, for the most part while reading the transcript, I found myself nodding in agreement.

“We need to deflate some of the rhetoric about the media as guardians and nurturers of democracy simply by virtue of the constant exposure of ‘information’ and we need to be cautious about a use of ‘public interest’ language that ignores the complexity and, often, artificiality of our ideas of ‘the public’. “

A fair comment. So, too is this about web publishing:

“Ian Hargreaves, in his excellent Journalism: Truth or Dare, gives a sharp account of the difference made by these developments; surely this is the context in which genuinely unpalatable truths can still be told, ‘unsullied by the preoccupations of the mainstream media’ (p.259)?

Yes and no. Unwelcome truth and necessary and prompt rebuttal are characteristic of the web-based media. So are paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry. The atmosphere is close to that of unpoliced conversation…”

Except…

Except that unpoliced conversation is exactly what it is and rightly so. You can’t have “unwelcome truth and necessary and prompt rebuttal” without the unpalatable flipside of “paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry”. Free speech encompasses both.

Certainly some of the blogs I’ve looked at fall into the latter category. But and it’s a huge in-your-face-ignore-it-at-your-peril but, this is what free speech is all about. Doubtless there are those who consider my open criticism of religion as dangerous bigotry - it is, after all, a matter of perception. There are those who will look at my essays decrying ID cards and accuse me of paranoia (it’s already happened). Again, perception colours our take on the words we read. But (there it is again) that is what free speech is all about; the right to speak freely even if it is bigoted, paranoid fantasy.

A the risk of over quoting Voltaire’s Candide:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”

Sometimes, you just have to keep saying it. Rowan Williams may have some well founded criticism of the fourth estate - and I am inclined to agree with much of that criticism. However, if his comments are a veiled attack on the freedom of speech, then we part company.

I’ve been blogging for a relatively short period of time. It’s been an interesting experience - not least because it provides an outlet for the muse that invariably strikes when I see an item in the news or something occurs in my daily life. I write because I need to. It is ultimately a selfish activity - a vain one too, if truth be told. That people may wish to read my scribblings is a bonus. Of course, the ego is boosted by a readership - I can’t deny that.

However, when people take my writing seriously enough to comment, then I am flattered. It is an endorsement that I take seriously and appreciate. When people take my writing seriously enough to challenge me - well, then I really feel validated. A little vigorous debate just adds grist to the mill.

So, to my readers and commentors;

Thankyou.

The commenter who asked why the British people have a problem with identity cards is like many who ask the question; missing the point. We should be asking why we need them. Simply put; we don’t. There is nothing in our daily lives that would be made simpler or more secure by having them. That other countries do is not a sufficient argument. Other countries do as the Home Office is trying to do; create an artificial need.

However, it goes much deeper than that. Whenever ID cards are mentioned, the usual “reasons” are trotted out by those with a one-stop-shop solution to a thousand problems. Repeating them here may seem a bit tedious, but because the usual arguments in their favour are dusted off and repeated with regularity, rebuttal has to be carried out likewise.

• Terrorism - I’ll start with this one because it always comes up and it is always nonsense. Let’s be clear here identity cards have no effect on terrorism whatsoever. I repeat, no effect whatsoever. Spain has a much touted ID card system; a hangover from the totalitarian Franco government. It didn’t stop the Madrid bombers. The new breed of terrorist wants to be identified. They make videos to be shown after their death glorifying in their activities. Even David Blunkett had to admit that terrorism would not be affected by ID cards. So please, let’s put this one to bed.
• Security - we will be more secure from identity thieves. Oh, please, spare me from this one… Having everything accessed via the National Identity Register will create a single point of failure. Access this, and you have everything necessary to compromise an individual’s identity. A the moment if you want to create a false identity or clone someone else’s, you need a series of low level documents. It isn’t particularly difficult, but takes time and effort. A one-stop-shop will make it as simple as hacking the system (oh yes they will) or bribing someone who has access (oh, yes they will).
• Crime - criminals will see a whole new money making opportunity with this. Fakes will flood the market. Biometrics are not the panacea that ministers claim and in doing so, they merely highlight their own ignorance. Biometrics have two areas of failure. Firstly, the technology is relatively new and immature, so there will be enough false positives and negatives to make some form of backup system necessary (added cost and effort). Also, readers will be expensive. Outlets will not necessarily have them and will rely on a visual check - how will they know the card before them is fake? They won’t.
• Freedom and privacy - these appear to be dirty words in todays society. A society that is unable to recall recent history, it seems. ID cards and population databases are beloved tools of totalitarian dictatorships. A free, liberal, common law democracy has no need of such tools. In order to be effective at what is claimed for them, the ID cards and the database will need checking when carrying out relevant transactions. This will create a massive audit trail. Currently, little bits of our lives are recorded on disparate systems. Put it all together and routine snooping becomes a possibility. For most people, this will not be an overt problem. For those who are deemed to be a nuisance, subtle interference with the database will see them locked out of crucial services. Will it happen? Who can be sure? What matters is that the possibility will be that much more likely and simpler to execute. We have no way of knowing what governments will be elected in the future and how benign they will be with such a tool at their disposal. Again, hackers could do untold damage - and none of this even touches on the problems that incompetence will cause. The government’s track record in IT is hardly confidence inspiring.
• Cost - We have seen the potential cost rise from around £75 to £93 and if the LSE estimate is right, £300. Whatever the final cost, it is more than we are currently paying; nothing if we don’t drive or travel abroad. What is worse, not only is this a tax, a licence to exist at the discretion of the government, but they are going to charge VAT on the tax.

I was born a free man in a common law democracy. I am under no obligation to prove my identity to anyone. For the most part, those with whom I carry out transactions know only what I choose to share with them. Enough and no more. This is how it should be. If I so choose, I could use different names and addresses when dealing with different organisations as I have two perfectly legitimate addresses. This is my right. For the most part, organisations do not need to know who I am - or at least they only need that information sufficient to do business with them and no more.

I do not belong to the state - it is my servant and I pay its minions’ wages. That is how it should be. A free society exists where the government is open to scrutiny, and the electorate, should they so wish, remain anonymous.