Read on Twitter
*lawyer and ex-civil servant hat on*
This third paragraph is curiously and painfully worded
And you do not get paragraphs this curiously and painfully worded by accident
Something is up here https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1252679936768344070">https://twitter.com/TomTugend...
This third paragraph is curiously and painfully worded
And you do not get paragraphs this curiously and painfully worded by accident
Something is up here https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1252679936768344070">https://twitter.com/TomTugend...
There is something either falling in the gaps between the sentences or being cloaked by the definitions (eg Scheme) used, but that is not the natural way for a civil servant to make such a "clarification"
That wording has been negotiated to the point of strangulation
That wording has been negotiated to the point of strangulation
Each sentence of that letter may well be strictly correct, though some phrases seem vague
There is something falling through the gaps
That letter savours of evasion and misdirection
The supposed "clarification" has made things far more unclear
There is something falling through the gaps
That letter savours of evasion and misdirection
The supposed "clarification" has made things far more unclear
To take one example
Why write
"Ministers were not briefed by our mission in Brussels about the scheme"
Instead of
"Ministers were not briefed about the scheme"
Or even
"Ministers were not aware of the scheme"
Longer sentences do not happen by accident in such formal documents
Why write
"Ministers were not briefed by our mission in Brussels about the scheme"
Instead of
"Ministers were not briefed about the scheme"
Or even
"Ministers were not aware of the scheme"
Longer sentences do not happen by accident in such formal documents
A similar approach can be employed for almost every proposition in the letter
And that is odd: for a skilled wordsmith like a senior civil servant would usually make such a forensic approach difficult
Something is up here
It& #39;s like a coded cry for help from someone kidnapped
And that is odd: for a skilled wordsmith like a senior civil servant would usually make such a forensic approach difficult
Something is up here
It& #39;s like a coded cry for help from someone kidnapped
And why in paragraph 2 does he go for scheme (singular) but switch to the four schemes (plural) for the comms excuse in paragraph 3
In casual writing, it would not matter
But here, it means para 2 and para 3 are about slightly different things
A Derren Brown-like misdirection
In casual writing, it would not matter
But here, it means para 2 and para 3 are about slightly different things
A Derren Brown-like misdirection
I could go on - but I should not be able to do so
The point of formal writing is that it considered and structured, with each paragraph, sentence and word doing its job
It is what lawyers and senior civil servants *do*
Oh well, let& #39;s see what happens
Good night all
The point of formal writing is that it considered and structured, with each paragraph, sentence and word doing its job
It is what lawyers and senior civil servants *do*
Oh well, let& #39;s see what happens
Good night all
Come this morning, that letter is odder than it was last night
(Usually my threads drop like a stone among lawyer and ex-senior official types who probably - and sensibly - have this account on mute anyway...
...but am heartened by quality of those who concur with that thread from last night - this is not fanciful - something is up here)
...but am heartened by quality of those who concur with that thread from last night - this is not fanciful - something is up here)
This would be a good question for someone to ask
Was that "clarification" letter voluntary, or did McDonald insist on a "ministerial direction" so he would have to write it?
And, if so, which minister?
("Ministerial directions" are powerful self-protective tools for officials) https://twitter.com/Bopgun1971/status/1252833856412987393">https://twitter.com/Bopgun197...
Was that "clarification" letter voluntary, or did McDonald insist on a "ministerial direction" so he would have to write it?
And, if so, which minister?
("Ministerial directions" are powerful self-protective tools for officials) https://twitter.com/Bopgun1971/status/1252833856412987393">https://twitter.com/Bopgun197...
And, what someone please explain, is a "political decision" as opposed to a "decision"?
And please note the letter - even the title of the letter in bold and in caps - is re the ventilator scheme
Not the PPE or other procurement rounds
He also calls the wider JPA a "scheme" too
This is what makes the switch in the letter from "scheme" to "schemes" confusing
Not the PPE or other procurement rounds
He also calls the wider JPA a "scheme" too
This is what makes the switch in the letter from "scheme" to "schemes" confusing
Those in the media citing the "clarification" letter re the PPE scheme are missing that the letter is explicitly titled re the separate ventilator scheme
But is then worded so that it looks like it covers all the schemes
But is then worded so that it looks like it covers all the schemes
And the "going forward" in the letter
Really?
Really?
Anyway, sorry for spamming your TLs with these thoughts
I am now going to write this up for my blog
I am now going to write this up for my blog
