Banner

By Kenneth Roy

Although I have been out of Scotland this week, the main news from the land of the restless natives has continued to reach me intermittently. It seems that the natives of Islay have been more restless than most. BBC Scotland's website reported the event under the headline:

Islay shook by earthquake

Next time James Bond orders a martini, he must remember to add that he would like it shook but not stirred. Perhaps there should be a new cocktail called the Ken MacQuarrie, named in honour of the BBC Scotland controller who is personally supervising the revision of English grammar and syntax at a cost to the licence-payer of only £200,000 a year.

Here is a sentence from the same website for which Mr MacQuarrie cannot be held responsible – except indirectly for publishing it without a translation:

The reports were going out to managers, they were going out to be actioned but what we didn't have was a proper closure in the system back to evidence that the actions and the learning had been taken from these reports, and that's not right – we needed to have that.

This is a quote from John Burns, chief executive of NHS Ayrshire and Arran. It is his attempt to explain the concealment of more than 50 'critical incident and adverse event' reports, which are compiled when something goes seriously wrong at a hospital or clinic.

When a member of staff asked for a copy of one of these reports, concerning an incident in which he had been involved, the management told him that he was not entitled to read the report and advised him to file a freedom of information request. He did. The management again refused his request on the grounds of patient confidentiality. At every turn he was obstructed.

Kevin Dunion, Scotland's information commissioner, has described the catalogue of failings at NHS Ayrshire and Arran as the most serious breach of FOI laws he has ever dealt with. Claims made to the member of staff turned out to be 'wrong'. Assurances given to Mr Dunion and his colleagues turned out to be 'unjustified'. Records of serious incidents turned out to be 'missing'. This is a damning indictment of a public body which comes close to accusing it of lying.


The appalling use of language in the paragraph quoted is an important symptom of what George Orwell called 'a bad atmosphere' in public life. Orwell believed that, when the atmosphere was bad, language suffered. It is suffering here.


There is no sign of heads rolling at NHS Ayrshire and Arran. Indeed it would be difficult for the bigger heads to roll. Mr Burns is being described as the chief executive although he does not officially take over until 1 April; his predecessor seems to have left rather earlier than anticipated with a substantial public pension. Conveniently, there is also a new chairman. With this clear-out at the top, we might have expected a new atmosphere of candour. Not a bit of it. Faced with Kevin Dunion's unprecedented condemnation, and an assurance by the first minister that lessons will be learned, the board's new chief executive goes on insisting that there was no deliberate policy of concealment.

The appalling use of language in the paragraph quoted is an important symptom of what George Orwell called 'a bad atmosphere' in public life. Orwell believed that, when the atmosphere was bad, language suffered. It is suffering here.

'Islay shook by earthquake' is shockingly bad; it is almost beyond belief that it should have come from a publicly funded broadcaster of the BBC's former high reputation. But at least 'Islay shook by earthquake' conveys a certain meaning. We learn from it that there was an earthquake and that it happened on Islay. What is the meaning of the statement in Mr Burns's name? Does it mean anything at all to the patients of NHS Ayrshire and Arran, of whom I happen to be one?

'Out to be actioned'...'a proper closure in the system'...'the actions and the learning'...Does Mr Burns speak in this extraordinary way in ordinary conversation? Does anyone?

Orwell wrote that the first responsibility of the public official is to get meaning as clear as it can be. He recommended trying to write official reports in the language of everyday speech and gave as an example a couple of lines from a poet, T S Eliot, who was often accused of writing only for the few:

And nobody came, and nobody went
But he took in the milk and he paid the rent

Most public officials do not write with this clarity. There are honourable exceptions in Scotland; another Burns – Sir Harry, the chief medical officer – is one of them. But most official language consists of euphemism and vagueness which are designed to conceal the truth as ruthlessly as those reports were concealed. Clean, popular language – the language of most intelligent people – is avoided in favour of prefabricated verbiage – 'lumps of verbal refuse' as Orwell called them.

The purpose of such language, said Orwell, is largely the defence of the indefensible. Nothing has changed. The statement from NHS Ayrshire and Arran is yet another defence of the indefensible: there is not a word of apology to its own staff; or to the families of the patients who died in some of the 'critical incidents' or 'adverse events', the reports of which then mysteriously went 'missing'; or to the people of Ayrshire and Arran as a whole.

So with the death of language we see also the erosion of public trust. The two are closely connected.

 

Courtesy of Kenneth Roy - read Kenneth Roy in the Scottish Review

Comments  

 
# GerrySNP 2012-02-25 04:08
The previous comment is neither readable nor understandable.
It is, I fear, rubbish - and to what point?
 
 
# Ron Preedy 2012-02-25 10:52
Irony not your thing, Gerry?
 
 
# Briggs 2012-02-25 13:24
Whooooooooooooo sh!

I'm sure something whistled over my head just then?

Not stirred or shook.

LOL
 
 
# Electric Hermit 2012-02-25 17:03
I am delighted to find myself able to agree wholeheartedly with Mr Roy.I profoundly detest the obfuscatory jargonese that is so prevalent in both the public and private sectors. The guilty might do well to learn that there is an even more effective way to achieve their goal of avoiding communication. They could simply STFU.
 
 
# Shug MacTamson 2012-02-25 21:22
It works for Johann.
Well OK, she thinks it works for her.
 
 
# Exile 2012-02-25 21:19
Good article on the whole.

But "'Islay shook by earthquake' is shockingly bad; it is almost beyond belief that it should have come from a publicly funded broadcaster of the BBC's former high reputation." How so, Mr Roy? It seems to me it's merely Scottish idiom. What's so shocking about that?
 
 
# Briggs 2012-02-25 23:29
The BBC at one time used the English language in the way it should be 'spoke'

Sadly their standards have slipped and a steady bastardization has occurred.

'Scottish idiom' is really no defence for this.

It fair makes you wonder why we all attended school in the first place?
 
 
# InfrequentAllele 2012-02-26 00:31
I think Mr Roy is conflating two distinct issues in this piece. There's the matter of obfuscatory language "managementspeak ", which I agree with him about. I deplore it. It's ugly and apparently consists of saying nothing in as many 10 dollar words as possible. It's language as non-communication.

But I'm not going to lose any sleep over "Islay shook by earthquake." The past participle is redundant in English grammar, most verbs don't distinguish past tense from past participle. The distinction is not productive or regular in modern English grammar.

When grammatical categories cease to be productive in a language, they usually tend to be lost. This is normal linguistic change. Middle English had many more distinct past participles than modern English. Old English had more than Middle English. This kind of linguistic change is not a symptom of "language death", it's a sign that the language is alive and vibrant.
 
 
# Jiggsbro 2012-02-26 12:46
Language - living language - grows and adapts to reflect the changing world and changing usage. There are no 'rules' to language - feel free to boldly split infinitives - there is only purpose. The purpose is usually to communicate an idea: if you communicate your idea, your use of language is good; if you fail to communicate, your use of language is bad.

'Shook' is neither bad nor wrong. A simple test here is that if you know what the 'correct' word should have been, then the word used was already correct because it communicated the idea. If it hadn't communicated the idea, you would have been unable to 'correct' the communication.

Where management-speak often fails is not in creating new words or phrases but in failing to clearly communicate the idea behind them. Of course, it's possible that in some management-speak the actual purpose is to obfuscate, in which case it succeeds by failing to communicate.
 
 
# Briggs 2012-02-27 13:22
A language that doesn't have set rules descends into 'pigeon english' for want of a better description.

Poorly written language is an affront to the eye and torture to read.

Anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner
Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Latest Comments