Thursday, November 20, 2008

Fibber!


Dear Mr Humphrys

Re. your interview with Boris Johnson - a reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. No matter how many times you frustratedly assert that it IS a cut, it don't make it so.

A cut is a reduction in expenditure, NOT a reduction in the rate of increase. Google can help with definitions if your political bias leads you to misunderstand basic English.

Please don't attempt to mislead your listeners, or I shall be forced firstly to find an alternative radio station, and secondly to set you on fire.

kthxbai.

Dungeekin

4 comments:

  1. I vote for set him on fire

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:51 pm

    Er, I'm not so sure you're right there. "Cut" has umpteen definitions of all sorts. "Cut the rate of increase" seems totally valid to me - perhaps to add the interjective "back" as in "cut back" since this is now the fashionable phrase of the year.

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+cut

    btw: John Humphrys irritates me beyond the possibility to describe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Punctuation:

    I'd definitely agree with you - if Mr Humphrys had said 'cut the rate of interest' then I'd be ranting a hell of a lot less!

    But he didn't - he just used the word 'cut', which implies simply a reduction in budget. And that I find wrong.

    Thanks for reading

    D

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:17 pm

    If the increase is below inflation then it is effectively a cut.

    IMHO There is far too much twiddling by the various govts with the budgets and taxes. It'd be simpler to index them , let public servants implement the goals , and then let the Politicians act as a board of review as well firing incompetents.

    ReplyDelete