People should feel free to speak plain English

Plain-speaking people like to 'call a spade a spade'. Well, they would like to, but all too often they are not allowed to. Why? Because whilst a 'spade' may be a garden tool, it is also a pejorative term for a black person; the etymology being 'as black as the ace of spades'. As a result, the use of this word is widely frowned upon. http://www.worldwidewords.org... But is this really likely to cause offence? Do we really have to refer to this implement as a 'shovel', even tough the aforementioned garden tool doesn't have the pointed blade required for digging? I mean, If you asked your neighbour if you could borrow a spade to dig a vegetable patch, unless he was an extreme right-wing plantation owner, he would be unlikely to offer you the use of one of his Negroid workers, would he? Another example of this over-sensitivity to linguistic terms relates to the mentally retarded and the euphemisms people are told to employ to refer to them. These cause great confusion, especially with children. For example, reproduced hereunder is the transcript of a conversation that I recently overheard. Father - Son, your mother and I have decided to put you in a children's home. We think it's for the best. Son - Why dad? Father - Because you've got 'special needs' and we can't look after you any more. Son - Well, I know I'm allergic to nuts, but surely... Father - No, no, boy, I mean it's because you have 'learning difficulties'. Son - Okay, I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and I do find it difficult to concentrate in class sometimes, but perhaps if you helped me with my homework instead of sitting in front of the TV drinking beer... Father - No, son, that's not it. You have to go and live in a specialist care home because you are what paediatric experts refer to as 'developmentally challenged'. Son - What's 'dev...', 'devo...'. What does that mean, dad? Father - It means you're a f***king moron, now go and pack your bags. A further notable example of this linguistic nonsense relates to military press releases. A few years ago in Iraq, thousands of American troops were ordered to 'pacify Fallujah'. Actually, they didn't 'pacify' it, otherwise they would have gone into town and handed out Greenpeace leaflets and rainbow flags. Instead, they went in and shot the place up. We were informed afterwards that, despite their best endeavours some 'private contractors had caused some collateral damage'. What does that mean? It means, in fact, that some trigger-happy mercenaries employed by the US Army had gone in and gunned down a large number of innocent women and children. Of course, the military command said that they weren't covering up the reality in that statement, no, they were just being 'economical with the truth'. Now, a celebrity's lawyer makes the following statement: "Upon leaving a public house in a tired and emotional state last night, my client was involved in an altercation with a gravitationally challenged gentleman and, as a consequence of their heated discussion, law enforcement representatives were called to attend the scene and they subsequently invited my client to accompany them back to a secure environment where he is now currently relaxing at Her Majesty's pleasure in a custody suite pending the payment of a ï¿½1 million gesture of goodwill." Or he could say: "Last night, my client got drunk in a pub and then got into a fight with a fat bloke outside. The police were called and they arrested my client and locked him up in a cell, which is where he'll stay until he pays the ï¿½1 million bail." They both say relate the same information, but I think you'll agree the latter account is far more succinct. All this gobbledygook is unnecessarily confusing. Moving on, as an animal lover you might be tempted to financially support a 'wildlife management project', believing it was a scheme to protect native species' natural habitats but not realising that in fact what they meant by 'managing wildlife' was supporting the landed gentry's 'birthright' to hunt down foxes using horse and hounds. http://www.mfha.org.uk... Finally, I'm sure you know that AIDS stands for - 'Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome". It hardly trips off the tongue, though, does it? But how many of you realised that prior to 1982 it was known as GRID which stands for "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency"? http://en.wikipedia.org... This is much easier to remember and pronounce and would, if it continued in use, have saved millions of lives by alerting the male homosexual community to their heightened risk of contracting the disease. But they didn't want to stigmatise gay men so millions of people lost their lives, simply as a consequence of our obsession with politically correct speech. In the light of these arguments, I urge you, dear voters, to join my campaign for plain English by voting Pro. Thank you.