So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[GHT]

The public affairs departments go to great lengths to train out anything they think may be controversial language and give very specific speaking points. I've even been handed a card at a media event and told that regardless of what question i'm asked, I can only give one of these 12 odd responses. If it can't be answered by those responses, don't answer it.

So is affirmative is preferred to yes, and negative instead of no?

 

[LizzieMaine]

AFF-IR-MA-TIVE.

 

[Fading Fast]

Yes, actually.
Military and Police have to be very careful when speaking to the general public and are trained to specifically avoid using certain words due to the connotations that those words can imply.

"capture" sounds rather harsh. You capture a wild animal that has been attacking livestock. It doesn't look good to the public to refer to a person that way, especially since "innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to the position.

The public affairs departments go to great lengths to train out anything they think may be controversial language and give very specific speaking points. I've even been handed a card at a media event and told that regardless of what question i'm asked, I can only give one of these 12odd responses. If it can't be answered by those responses, don't answer it.

It's the same logic in my industry - finance - that drives much of what we can say / how we're told to talk with the public.

It's easy to get snarky about it (God knows I do), but it is all reverse engineered from past lawsuits.

It's also easy to blame the lawyers (God knows I do), but as one lawyer explained it to me, it all comes down to what someone is willing to sue over, yes, with the help of a lawyer.

But since someone will sue a company over coffee being too hot or, in my industry, a stock price going down, then every word has to be carefully thought out as - and this I've seen in my many meetings with regulators and lawyers (in windowless rooms, in imposing gov't office buildings, with a stenographer and several opposing government lawyers firing questions at you) - every single word used before an event will be parsed in the worst possible light.

As that lawyer said to me, don't blame the lawyers, blame the people - the lawyers are brought in by them.

 

[GHT]

As that lawyer said to me, don't blame the lawyers, blame the people - the lawyers are brought in by them.

With a comment like that I just had to look up the most ridiculous law suits.
https://www.uschamber.com/article/it-s-time-the-2018-top-10-most-ridiculous-lawsuits
my favourite had to be:
A lonely 69-year old Dutch man claims his age makes him less desirable on Tinder. He’s suing to legally change his age to 49. This will make him more attractive to younger women.

And it just struck me that Loungers could sue The Fedora Lounge. By copying the spelling from Lounger's postings, someone's CV/Resume would have mis-spelt words, as in: favourite/favorite. I didn't get the job Fedora Lounge, it's your fault.

 

[Harp]

And it just struck me that Loungers could sue The Fedora Lounge. By copying the spelling from Lounger's postings, someone's CV/Resume would have mis-spelt words, as in: favourite/favorite. I didn't get the job Fedora Lounge, it's your fault.

Judgement no culpability, toss out.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Regarding “individual”: I encountered the very same practice (minus the sunglasses), and I had the very same thoughts about it. A person was left wondering if there was a course at the academy in finding the words with the most syllables.

Even more amusing was the occasional reference to a suspect as a “gentleman.” The fellow is suspected of disemboweling the entire family in the house next door and sodomizing their Shih Tzu before stealing their lawn mower, but, you know, he’s a gentleman.

Well, in point of fact, until proven guilty he is presumed innocent.

Some refer to any male adult as a "gentleman," as in, "That gentleman was here first," so, there ya go.

 

[GHT]

Well, in point of fact, until proven guilty he is presumed innocent.

Some refer to any male adult as a "gentleman," as in, "That gentleman was here first," so, there ya go.

And unless you are trained in martial art to an Olympic standard, it's best to let some 'gentlemen' go first.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Which brings up the point of police/military jargon in general. When I used to interview cops it bugged me ferociously when they'd say something "We apprehended the individual." And they usually kept their sunglasses on when they said it. There's a reason you can't say "We captured the suspect?"

Cop Speak. We joke about this all the time at continuing legal ed seminars for those who practice criminal law.

"I observed the individual exit the vehicle.."
"Yes, officer. You saw the man get out of the car. And..?"
"I then observed him as he proceeded down the adjoining sidewalk in a westerly direction.."
"Yes, officer. You saw him walk toward the house. And?"

Look, I respect good cops more than anyone. And I know that it's a tough job. But you have to admit: it was criminal defense lawyers that forced law enforcement to become more professional, and therefore, entitled police officers to more respectable salaries. Gone are the days when any Irishman just off the boat could put on a badge simply because Uncle Mike happened to be a local ward committeeman for the party in power.

 

[tonyb]

Well, in point of fact, until proven guilty he is presumed innocent.

Some refer to any male adult as a "gentleman," as in, "That gentleman was here first," so, there ya go.

Referring to a person investigated and charged in suspicion of a criminal act as a “suspect” doesn’t diminish the presumption of innocence.

As to “gentleman” ...

What if the apparent adult male identifies as something other than that? Can’t be too careful these days.

I often rely on the corny old stunt of looking around for who might be being addressed when I am called “sir” or “this gentleman.”

Surely the speaker has no idea who I am.

 

[GHT]

I often rely on the corny old stunt of looking around for who might be being addressed when I am called “sir” or “this gentleman.”

Surely the speaker has no idea who I am.

Back in my student days it didn't pay to be witty with police officers. When asked if I had a name, my reply that did he think my parents were too stupid to give me one, nearly earned me a night in the cells. In the 1960's the only PC that we knew was Police Constable.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^
Or, “May I ask you a question?”

Well, didn’t you do just that?

Or, “Is it possible to have another donut.”

Yes, that’s possible. Might you possibly wish another donut?

 

[Harp]

Gone are the days when any Irishman just off the boat could put on a badge simply because Uncle Mike happened to be a local ward committeeman for the party in power.

Ah, sure enough begone lad those days. And Uncle Mike (Madigan)-like Eddie Burke-is a leprechaun on a fed leash now.

 

[tonyb]

..: Gone are the days when any Irishman just off the boat could put on a badge simply because Uncle Mike happened to be a local ward committeeman for the party in power.

My buddy Dennis Francis McGuire shuffled off a couple Januarys back, at age 68. He was the third son of Patrick and Sheila McGuire.

So yeah, Irish-American as they come, right down to Patrick’s employment as a police officer.

The local PD was corrupt pretty much top-to-bottom when my friend’s father was a young cop, in ways small and not so small. Restaurants routinely didn’t charge cops for meals, for instance. But those sorts of practices came to a halt a good half century or more ago. These days the cops know to just leave the money on the table should a restaurateur offer to waive the cost of the meal. And the restaurant personnel now know better (mostly) than to even try to so ingratiate themselves to the police officers.

So I was quite taken aback a few months ago when, in another city, I witnessed a uniformed police officer not charged for a meal in a restaurant. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that we no longer tolerate police corruption, even the relatively petty practice of availing themselves of a free lunch.

I overheard a waitress inform a new-on-the-job coworker that the proprietor doesn’t charge cops and that most of the officers leave behind more than enough to cover the cost of the meal and a decent tip anyway. So it seemed the waitstaff was benefiting from the practice as well.

No such thing as a free lunch, right? The restaurant operator hopes to benefit from this practice, in one way or another.

I stopped patronizing the place.

 

[Edward]

If you refer to a suspect with any negative wording prior to a conviction, you run the risk of causing issues with granting a fair trial due to skewed public perception, and even run the risk of a lawsuit being brought against the department.

Even moreso here in the UK, where we have very strict criminal laws relating to pretrial prejudice.

As that lawyer said to me, don't blame the lawyers, blame the people - the lawyers are brought in by them.

Absolutely; it's a classic 'shoot the messenger' straight from 'the legal system for the hard of thinking'.

Gone are the days when any Irishman just off the boat could put on a badge simply because Uncle Mike happened to be a local ward committeeman for the party in power.

Shame in a way. That as a rather more palatable stereotype than we garnered in England....

Referring to a person investigated and charged in suspicion of a criminal act as a “suspect” doesn’t diminish the presumption of innocence.

You'd be surprised. One of the single biggest problems a lawyer will ever face is the popular notion that the police by and large know what they're donig when they arrest an individual for a specific crime. I blame a steady diet of detective shows in which the big finish moment when justice is done is "you're nicked", not "you have been found guilty...." Drives me up the wall.

No such thing as a free lunch, right? The restaurant operator hopes to benefit from this practice, in one way or another.

I stopped patronizing the place.

Is it not possible he simply wanted to support the police? Granted, an extreme discount, but I've seen the same treatment done for serving military without question. I totally understand why the police can't be seen to benefit from such treatment, but it's ashame that the world has come to a point where a restauranteur couldn't choose to show support for the police in case it gets assumed to be corruption. Totally see how that could be abused on both sides, though. In my academic practice in the UK, I am obliged to declare any gift with a value of £50 or over from a student even after they leave; Chinese bribery law, which affects the work I do out there, means we must refuse even so much as a cup of coffee from a student, and we are no longer permitted as staff to go for a nice dinner after the graduation ceremony with our partners out there. I totally understand the reasons behind this crackdown, but it nonetheless seems yet another case of us all being punished for the sake of the few who abused it.

 

[tonyb]

... iPhone charger cords.

 

[3fingers]

I totally understand the reasons behind this crackdown, but it nonetheless seems yet another case of us all being punished for the sake of the few who abused it.

We've been under an "ethics code" for some years now. Like you, I completely understand the reasons for it but I was soured on the whole mess by a former director who was ridiculously rigid on the thing. Our vendors would bring in chocolate or summer sausage and things like caps and magnetic refrigerator clips and the like at Christmas time. It was all stacked on a table in the office and everyone was welcome to take what they wanted. The actual decision makers took little or nothing. This director pitched an absolute hissy over this horrible violation of the code. We later found out that multiple firms were paying for trips and hunting expeditions for him. Pfft.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Calling anyone who inconveniences you a "Nazi."

We had a customer yesterday who flew into a fit because the box-office person asked to see his member ID card in order to give him the fifty-cent member discount. Said customer stormed inside and excoriated us as Nazis for enforcing such a policy. Since we do not, in fact, enforce ticketing policies on the basis of "blood and soil" racial nationalism, and at a time when actual, genuine Nazis are recrudescing around the world, such a comment is hardly the appropriate response.

 

[3fingers]

Calling anyone who inconveniences you a "Nazi."

This is a perfect example of one of the elements in the discussion in your fragmentation of history thread. Good Lord, really? Just get out.
A local convenience store was busted after selling cigarettes to a 17 year old with a full beard. Regardless of what I think of that form of enforcement, the store instituted a policy of everyone gets asked for a state identification regardless of apparent age. If you're 90 you gotta show the card to buy your Camels. The reactions I have witnessed are ridiculous. Screaming, name calling, etc. The clerks have told me they have been threatened with being beaten. People that behave in such a way deserve to be tasered by the minimum wage clerk who just wants to go home.

 

[Edward]

Calling anyone who inconveniences you a "Nazi."

We had a customer yesterday who flew into a fit because the box-office person asked to see his member ID card in order to give him the fifty-cent member discount. Said customer stormed inside and excoriated us as Nazis for enforcing such a policy. Since we do not, in fact, enforce ticketing policies on the basis of "blood and soil" racial nationalism, and at a time when actual, genuine Nazis are recrudescing around the world, such a comment is hardly the appropriate response.

JInkies, I self-parody my own frustration privately sometimes by mocking this approach, but I'd never dream of donig it in front of anyone lest it be taken seriously.

This is a perfect example of one of the elements in the discussion in your fragmentation of history thread. Good Lord, really? Just get out.
A local convenience store was busted after selling cigarettes to a 17 year old with a full beard. Regardless of what I think of that form of enforcement, the store instituted a policy of everyone gets asked for a state identification regardless of apparent age. If you're 90 you gotta show the card to buy your Camels. The reactions I have witnessed are ridiculous. Screaming, name calling, etc. The clerks have told me they have been threatened with being beaten. People that behave in such a way deserve to be tasered by the minimum wage clerk who just wants to go home.

It's amaing how entitled some people can be, and think that the rules just don't apply to them. The irony is, of course, if that store didn't card everyone, they'd inevitably face the same levle of screaming abuse accusing them of all sorts by those who were carded.

I was twenty-six when I was carded trying ot buy a beer in Vegas. I was delightedc I looked young enough.... til they carded the guy behind me, who was seventy if he was a day, and I realised they did it everyone....

 

[LizzieMaine]

This guy made such a scene that the customer in line behind him gave him fifty cents and told him to JSTFU.

I'd love to say that this kind of thing isn't common or typical, but it's in fact both. Anyone who's ever worked in customer service can give a dozen examples off the top of their head. And it bugs the spit out of me when I see stuff on here from time to time where people brag about how they put some hapless clerk or waitress or other minor functionary in their place. You might think you are, but you ain't.