Plain English

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of rubbish that passes these days for the spoken word and which sadly ends up in print.
That we use it is because we as a profession have become lazy. Yes, lazy. You heard me, lazy. That's exactly what I said and I make no apologies for saying so. Journalists are no longer doing what they are paid to do in filtering out the rubbish that people often tell us.
We accept without thinking quotes and statements and then like lambs heading to the slaughter cut and paste the tosh and make it pass as quotes, or use it to justify what spokesmen or spokeswomen say.
Please don't dare take me to task for not using the politically correct phrase of spokesperson. A Defra spokesperson said, A Scottish Government spokesperson said, etc. For goodness sake do we no longer have men and women who speak on behalf of organisations, or are they all devoid of their various bodily bits (neutered possibly) that make them just a person?
And why do we repeatedly say people commented rather than said it? Commented seems to be an expression appearing in an ever increasing number of PR statements. Have PRs been got at by the PC Police, or is it because their clients are forcing it through and consultants no longer have the balls to tell those instructing them that they are making themselves look like eejits (that's an expression used by Terry Wogan)?
Would these also be the same clients who try to ensure their releases are filled with meaningless business-speak? He who pays the piper does indeed call the tune, but surely the piper should be hitting back and telling clients that using the latest meaningless phrase is often the quickest sure-fire way of ensuring their release ends up in the bucket.
The reason for my rant comes in response to various pieces of information that have passed my way in recent months, notably from Government it has to be said. The civil service has become a hotbed for political correctness and meaningless waffle spouted in ever increasing volumes by the communications departments and ministers.
I asked the Scottish Government recently if it had adjusted the rules under its Scottish rural development programme so that the taxpayer was being asked once more to dig into their pockets to shift fence posts surrounding water courses that they had already paid by the public purse. The reason for you and me having to fund them for a second time was because some civil servant somewhere along the line appears to think it is a good idea to waste yet more taxpayer pounds.
The answer proved illuminating. It's such a nonsense answer filled with waffle that I've copied it below.
"The spreading of fertilisers close to water courses entails a significant risk of pollution of the water. The concentrations of nitrates from agricultural sources in surface waters and groundwaters have required certain parts of Scotland, especially in the East, to be designated under the Nitrates Directive. In the existing NVZ Action Programme the spreading of manure and slurry within 10 metres of a watercourse is prohibited.
"The Scottish Executive consulted in November 2006 on proposals to amend the Scottish Action Programme, as the rules were in certain respects inadequate to protect Scotland's water environment. Prohibiting manufactured fertilisers within 2 metres of a watercourse is a proposal for the amendment of the Action Programme. The proposal was issued 18 months ago, not "in the last two weeks".
"????? is referring to rules in the new Rural Priorities, under which farmers may be paid some £286 per hectare per year for the Creation and management of water margins and enhanced riparian buffer areas (measure 35) or £267/ha/yr for the Management of buffer areas for fens and lowland raised bogs (measure 37). He notes that under sub-section (2) the area for which these payments may be made in an NVZ must start after the 2m margin/buffer on which no fertiliser will be permitted in the revised Action Programme.
"It is a basic principle of the SRDP, as of other environmental schemes, that payment to operators is not to be made for something which is a legal requirement. Exceptions may be made; for instance in the SRDP we expect to fund up to 40% of the cost of slurry storage, even in NVZs where a minimum slurry storage capacity will be specified in regulations. But the general rule is clear and generally accepted.
"The payment of £286 (or £267)/ha/year under measure is thus targeted to those farmers who are willing to take action to protect Scotland's water environment, over and above what they are (or will be) required to do under basic environmental protection legislation. We don’t feel the Scottish Government should be paying farmers for action to comply with the law."

Wonderful! If you understand it I suspect you have a civil service background. Plain English in Government communications went out the window years ago. Further, considerable, probing ensured the answer was finally confirmed that taxpayers were being asked – for a second time – to pay for and relocate fence posts and wire.
European civil servants are even more proficient. Look at this response after I asked the European Commission in July 2006 to explain why it was changing processing rules on mince.
“Annex III, Section V, Chapter III, point 2 (B) to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 requires that when prepared from chilled meat, minced meat must be prepared (ii) in the case of animal other than poultry, within no more than six days of their slaughter or (iii) within no more than 15 days from the slaughter of the animals in the case of boned, vacuum-packed beef and veal.
“It may be that to take account of particular habits of consumption, the United Kingdom may have authorised, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 94/65/EC, the production and placing on the market of minced meat to be sold in their territory only provided it did not bear a Community health mark. But we have no details on this.”
Now has that cleared up the issue for you? It certainly didn't for me.
What makes my blood boil even more though is that we as a profession are accepting this nonsense.
I used the EC response in full to show readers that Sir Humphrey (Yes Minister) is still alive and well.
Such a shame that Sir Humphrey appears to be winning the battle in a publishing sense and that we as a profession are allowing Plain English to disappear.
Would love to hear your views.