UK: Meddling with the English language again

I find this notion of "meddling" with the English language a puzzling one - I mean, isn't "meddling" unauthorised interference in the affairs or property of another? I don't believe that the English language is owned by anybody in particular. To assert that it is would be to venture onto some very unsafe ground indeed.

Thanks Mindy and yes.. keep it on topic and not personal.  That goes for the cheese too.

why make things worse by using language that could be confusing or could offend someone? Which is more important, trying to calm down an agitated person or using a non-PC word in order to defend your right to free speech?

Please explain how saying "child" if you mean child, "youngster" if you mean youngster, or "homosexual" if you mean homosexual, is supposed to be either confusing or offensive to anybody.

I've just looked again and there's actually no mention of 'man hole cover'. 

But there is mention of:

The same guide also warns against the phrases 'manning the phones', 'layman's terms' and 'the tax man', for 'making women invisible'.

 

Please explain how saying "child" if you mean child, "youngster" if you mean youngster, or "homosexual" if you mean homosexual, is supposed to be either confusing or offensive to anybody.

Anyone who's taken an intro-level communications course (generally a requirement in U.S. universities, and many high schools as well) has been taught that communication is a two-way street.  I can say exactly what I mean, it's not over until the person I'm speaking to receives and de-codes that message. 

Stepping away from the whole 'PC' issue, surely everyone has been in a situation, at least once in life, where they thought they were expressing themselves as clearly as possible, and yet the other person(s) completely misunderstood what was said?  It happens to everybody, and it happens even more often to people who frequently work with the public, or who are in the position of having to tell others things they might not want to hear.

Communication in any language relies not only on the standard dictionary definitions of words, but on layers of nuance, inference and general cultural baggage that the words pick up.  Anyone going from one culture to another is going to misunderstand/misinterpret things on occasion. 

Someone's already pointed out the confusion that even Americans, who are (mainly) native English speakers, can feel when dealing with unfamiliar accents and colloquialisms.  It's even more difficult for immigrants who aren't native speakers.  Even if they speak English well, the English they speak is quite often textbook-English.  It covers definitions, but not meanings. 

The reality is that, living in a multi-cultural (and yes, I'm aware that this word is likely to enrage the anti-PC crowd.  See what I mean about cultural baggage? ) society, everyone who works with the public, and particularly those who do so in an official, authoritative capacity, needs to be aware of what they're saying, how they're saying it, and how it could be (mis)interpreted.  Anyone who doubts this, or thinks it's some sort of Liberal plot to destroy civilization, should pull their head out of the sand, hop in their time-machine, and head back to 1955.

Anyone who's taken an intro-level communications course ....

Good post!

it's not over until the person I'm speaking to receives and de-codes that message. 

...and transmits an acknowledgement back (eye contact, facial expression etc) to the sender that the message was understood.

I'm surprised more companies don't run courses like this for their employees.

Please explain how saying "child" if you mean child, "youngster" if you mean youngster, or "homosexual" if you mean homosexual, is supposed to be either confusing or offensive to anybody.
 

Certainly with the case of "youngster" though, that could easily be interpreted differently. Just what is a "youngster"? To some it would be teenager or younger, to others it may mean under-25, to others under-30. So seems fair enough in official circles not to use the term.
Similarly "child", under 10? school age? What exactly?
"homosexual" - depends on the context it's being used....why is it relevent?

The thing is that it's really important for people when in a position of power or authority to not embarrass or belittle people.  Now you or I might consider teenagers to be called children (youngster is fairly outdated and not a term I've even heard in years) but to teenagers that would sound like you're not taking them seriously or are treating them like children.  It would be embarrassing to them.
Now, I fully appreciate that you feel that you have a right to use whatever terminology you want and that's fine.  But the police are out there working for us.  And like what was already said if they're dealing with people isn't it best to do so in a way that causes the least upset and therefore does the job better.

Let's put aside 'child' and 'homosexual' since those are your own personal sticking points and lets use for example old people.  So, let's imagine it's your Mum or your elderly next door neighbour who's fallen or been robbed.  Do you think that the police should go in there and call her an 'old biddy' or an 'old bag'?  They're both ways to refer to old women?  Is it crazy to to say to a policeman that he shouldn't use that terminology because it causes offence? Do you now support his right to use whatever language he wants?   

Old biddy or old bag are both derogatory terms and always have been. Isn't this a case of taking seemingly innocuous terms and insinuating they're derogatory?

What about simply 'old woman' or 'old man'? I know quite a few people who have been on this planet longer than I have who would object to being described or labelled as such.

What about little lady? boy? Negro? these are just words too and were commonly used at one time. Would it be acceptable to call a female police officer a policeman because that's traditional?

I think an important point is that how we address friends, relatives and people we know is quite different from how we speak to people who we don't know so well, who we're less intimate with, at work for example, or how we speak to strangers.

Public speech, how public figures, especially those in authority roles, speak and interact with members of the public matters and any guide, and it's just a guide, that will help people understand each better or help them treat each other more decently seems like a good idea to me.

Old biddy or old bag are both derogatory terms and always have been. Isn't this a case of taking seemingly innocuous terms and insinuating they're derogatory?

Well how about "dearie" or "sweety" or anything else that sounds nice when your grandmother says it but would sound unprofessional coming out of the mouth of a police officer?  When dealing with the public you should speak in a professional manner, especially if you're speaking from a position of authority.  {x-posted with jayvee, who put it better than I did.}

I agree that the stuff about "evening all" and "manning the phones" is stupid.

Well how about "dearie" or "sweety" or anything else that sounds nice when your grandmother says it but would sound unprofessional coming out of the mouth of a police officer?  When dealing with the public you should speak in a professional manner, especially if you're speaking from a position of authority.  {x-posted with jayvee, who put it better than I did.}

That's more like it. Those kinds of things are more to the point. I think they're intended to be calming or whatever, but can end up being annoying. I've never had a copper call me "dearie" though LOL

Is it right to be annoyed about being called "madam"? I don't know why but it's always grated on me. Someone else, though, would probably prefer it to "miss". Sometimes, I think these poor people just can't win.

Sometimes, I think these poor people just can't win.

So true.

Sometimes, I think these poor people just can't win.

I think you're right. 

Old biddy or old bag are both derogatory terms and always have been. Isn't this a case of taking seemingly innocuous terms and insinuating they're derogatory?

But whose definition are you going by that they're innocuous?  Lots of terms were accepted in the past and they're not now.  Things change. Language changes.