Debate the LGA's 'banned words' list

Your comments

• This is nonsense; if people don't understand any of the above words, they're simply daft.

  Aaron Singh on 11 Mar 2010

• I am just wondering if some of these words shouldn't be used, for example. client, customer or service user, what are you meant to use instead????

  LA on 11 Mar 2010

• Bear in mind that the list is about how councils communicate with the public, not about how they communicate internally or with each other.

  Paul Ireland on 11 Mar 2010

• The original concept was a perfectly valid and reasonable one. Too many officers do indeed hide behind jargon
  
  However the LGA have now spread the net far too widely. The list has become a mirror image of the caricatures of "political correctness" which section s of the media are so fond of.

  Colin Hall on 11 Mar 2010

• I would give a cautious welcome to this proactive intitiative!

  Keith Mason on 11 Mar 2010

• Some of the phrases are just silly and some don't mean anything to me, but others are useful eg 'stakeholders.' 'sustainable' and 'dialogue.' Perhaps it would be more useful to separate out the incomprehensible from the over-used. I would suggest prioritising but I see that nobody is supposed to recognise a priority now...

  Janet E Davis on 11 Mar 2010

• There are a lot of perfectly good words on the list from a rich english language - so use them, but use them meaningfully and correctly. Don't invent words that can be misunderstood or are just plain silly. However, neither should we assume the public don't understand plain english terminology used in its correct context - it makes an ass out of you and me - to coin an old but useful phrase!

  Kate Keenan on 11 Mar 2010

• If people do not understand the intended meaning of written English they should seek clarification from its source. There is a world of difference between plain English and dumbed down English. Maybe the restriction of use of certain words or phrases should be driven by how many requests for clarification are received regarding its use (or abuse).

  PWE on 12 Mar 2010

• I fully understand and agree with the reasoning behing this initiative. However, many of the words are entirely appropriate and common to people's everyday work based language/situations. It would, therefore, be helpful if the LGA went a step further and produced a list of altenatives for people to use when speaking to the public - in order to develop an alternative common language for such situations.

  ML on 12 Mar 2010

• LGA must think the public are absolute idiots not to understand some of the simpler terms e.g. 'holistic', 'guidelines' and so on. The production of a non-word list will impact the reputation of local government more than the scattered use of jargon-ese.

  James on 12 Mar 2010

• The concept of reducing jargon is a good one but this list seems to also include perfectly correct English words. What is wrong with 'informatics' or 'taxonomy'? Some terms might be uncommon but they're used for a reason, so it's not only unwise to ban them but it's dangerous as they're more precise descriptions of the concepts involved, without which errors in comprehension can be made. They might as well ban all words over three syllabels.

  Ben Saunders on 12 Mar 2010

• This is totally ridiculous and lacks basic common sense. How much have the council paid some twerp to sit in an office and come up with this? Could we not spend the money on better resources that would be more beneficial to staff and the community? What constitutes as offensive to one person is amusing to another, so I cannot see how this would be effective, therefore to all? Could we have access to the phsychological data and analysis that has led to this conclusion?

  HIGHLY AMUSED on 12 Mar 2010

• I'm all for eliminating jargon. It would be helpful to know the context that these words should not be used in. For example, the word 'challenge' isn't jargon in my mind. But when used in the wrong context maybe it could be. I'd like to know why these words were included and how I can avoid using them in the wrong way.

  Helen Pineo on 12 Mar 2010

• It's missing "best-of-breed" - a favourite of public sector managers intent on squandering public money on IT projects they don't understand...
  
  

  Pat Lang on 12 Mar 2010

• The issue is not so much the individual words - there's nothing wrong with scoping for example - it's the way they're used. We post tenders for consultancy services from across the UK and every day we come across examples where all the words individually make sense - but it's still really hard to understand what's being asked for.
  
  Rather like Eric Morecambe - all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.

  Gill Hunt on 12 Mar 2010

• If these words are to be avoided what are the alternative words?

  Abrehe Zemichael on 12 Mar 2010

• I may have read 1984 too recently, but adjusting language in this way is a very powerful tool that can make text more understandable by a targeted group (eg Dr Seuss's limited vocabulary), but it can also potentially make sure that certain things cannot be said easily and that a certain way of thinking is enforced.
  
  I am particularly dismayed at the removal of words that imply an obligation on the part of the council to provide services ("customer", "client", "priority", etc) or words which suggest working with the community ("collaboration", "partnerships", "participatory", etc)
  
  I am overjoyed that 'webinar' might die a death however!

  Ben O'Steen on 12 Mar 2010

• Banned the word 'proactive'. I wasn't aware that gorvernment organisations were aware of that word anyway.

  Simon Bean on 12 Mar 2010

• I would also suggest removal of...
  
  Accountability,
  Responsibility,
  Performance,
  Delivery,
  
  As I see precious little representation of these words in day to day activity in Local Government.

  G.Evans on 12 Mar 2010

• Has the LGA got too much time on its hands? I coudn't say quite how rediculous this list strikes me, as the words are probably banned by my Authority's e-mail filters!

  Andy Hulme on 12 Mar 2010

• I agree with comments made earlier - if this is a checklist of what to avoid maybe there needs to be a corresponding list of words/phrases to use instead.
  
  The problem in isolating and 'naming and shaming' these words is that no standard approach or best practice in approaching plain English have been generated in their place. An idea for the LGA to work on perhaps?...

  Bob from London on 12 Mar 2010

• This is great. Some of these words and phrases are incomprehensible, and others are just plain ugly. Habitual use of much of this sort of language makes people fall asleep. But some will find it a hard habit to break!

  Giles Turner on 12 Mar 2010

• Thanks for publishing the game card for bullshit bingo.

  Dougie on 12 Mar 2010

• Nice to see but the list would make more sense with an explanation of the true meaning of the words

  Derek Adamson on 13 Mar 2010

• English is my second language which I learned about 20 years ago. Now I work as a translator. I found that public servants are simply unable to speak in the language of people they serve. For example Nurses will not know how to say 'You have depression' if the word depression was taken away from their vocabulary. Similarly while seeking an explanation in a document I was translating I learned that Community engagement had very little to do with community involvement. A message a reader will assume implied by community engagement. What LGA needs to do is to suggest the best words to deliver meanings for each banned phrase. And at the same time rewrite text books and training material without these phrases. This will help people think which phrases are possible to be replaced with alternative words from everyday speech of a common man's language.

  Sajjad Rehman on 13 Mar 2010

• I am all for discouraging jargon, but your list is getting silly. You can't just 'ban' perfectly valid words like advocate, capacity, client, dialogue, framework, guidelines, output and priority without some explanation or illustration of how they are being misused.

  Peter Gasson on 13 Mar 2010

• I opened this doc expecting to feel a wave of self- righteous indignation- banned words! The idea! etc- but on reading this think it is nothing short of GENIUS. Thank you, whoever came up with this list, o, crusader with sword held high to avenge the rape of poor defenceless English by ghastly marketingspeak! You are my hero. Kill 'governance'! Cut down 'going forward'! Yes - our beautiful language has been colonised by thugs for far too long. I'm all for it.

  Claudia@cdaventry.com on 14 Mar 2010

• I would also ban the words 'unfortunately because of the economic downturn we are going to have to make some redundancies'

  flobbidy on 14 Mar 2010

• This is just plain daft, and shows the public how overbloated the public sector is to be in a position to have so much free time to propagate such a ridiculous list in the first place.

  David Hendrix on 15 Mar 2010

• Pleased to see 'laughable' isn't in the list.

  Troy on 15 Mar 2010

• This is pretty stupid you use the words that your audience understands when engaging in communication and if they use some of these well fine as long as the job gets done, I really can't be bothered with 'banned' innofensive words there are enough offensive ones to ban which really do need banning.

  Rosemary on 15 Mar 2010

• Some of these "words" should indeed be banned (but then they're not real words are they - "thoughtshower" anyone?) but the whole list is undermined by banned words which are important. Why ban "Customer"? Why ban "challenge", "strategic", "outcome", "initiative" or "priority". It's just daft.
  
  A few more Local Goverment initiatives that address the problems with inefficiency might help us to address the problems with poor delivery of council services - and I haven't seen the LGA spending too much time or effort on that!. That really would be a good strategy.

  SWF on 15 Mar 2010

• the members of the public are very inteligent please don't treat them as second class citizens they can make sentences and work out what words mean in context if the word is in the dictionary use it

  Andrew on 16 Mar 2010

• There are some real beauts in that list - "wicked issues" and "under-capacitated" among them. But there are also some perfectly good words and phrases.
  
  Rather than ban them all, it would be better (if a lot more difficult) to train and coach people to use language properly, to communicate clearly. If somebody wants to blather and spout rather than communicate, no amount of word-bans will stop him or her.

  Fiachra on 16 Mar 2010

• "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words"
  
  Syme.
  
  Nineteen Eighty-Four. George Orwell.

  Steve Molloy on 16 Mar 2010

• Does anyone know what hereditament means?

  Vicky on 16 Mar 2010

• Vicky - good question.
  A list is all well and good but who is going to enforce it?
  My question is "why does the list?"
  As already mentioned 'laughable'

  Cliff Brunt on 16 Mar 2010

• I'm perversely glad to see that such nonsense isn't restricted to any one branch of the UK Public Sector.
  
  Thre are a few nonsense words in here, like "wellderly" that are mutilations of the English language and should be expunged from the vocabulary (if they were ever in it!), but as other comments have pointed out, many of these words are perfectly valid parts of the language. A decent vocabulary is not a bad thing!
  
  I suggest we all try to do our best to use reasonably clear English, and keep the "banned" category for those words that IDeA wouldn't dare publish in a banned list on the site!

  Colin Evans on 16 Mar 2010

• Some good and relevant comments. I enjoyed English until I started working in the public sector! Now its full of nonsense such as (some of) the words shown...note to self: what does holistic mean.........

  Chris on 16 Mar 2010

• some words are clearly ridiculous (there is no place in the world for 'predictors of beaconicity!.. it should of course be 'predictors of LISifit stillexistsnextyearicity' ... ) but the inclusion of some is equally ridiculous..
  
  I think the fact that a lot of the words on there are not just localgovspeak and jargon but real words does portray a low level of regard for the capabilities of the general public too.. i'm sure most pople out in real world can get their around a lot of this.. customer, partnerships, priority, joined-up..
  
  and it does all smack of people at the LGA having to much time on their hands.. and i'm sure it causes a wave of web surfing distraction around the sector too..
  
  Can we have 'LGA banned words' on next time...

  Bob's Uncle on 16 Mar 2010

• This is a really funny and useful list. It is just to make you think "Oh, I wrote that yesterday, how silly!"
  
  I would go further and pick out a subset of the list that should not be used at all.
  
  The reason for avoiding these words is partly to avoid confusing people, but mainly to avoid looking an idiot. Words and phrases that become common usage inside an organization can still make you look a fool if you use them outside.
  
  A great book for people who like this sort of thing is The Dictionary of Diseased English, by Kenneth Hudson, and sadly out of print at the moment. It's funny, but also points out the logical mistakes beneath so many buzz phrases.

  Matthew Leitch on 16 Mar 2010

• I agree with Ben Saunders (12 Mar) - some of the 'banned' words are perfectly reasonable. Should Local Government use only words with one syllable, starting with an apology for thinking people are too stupid to understand more? How insulting!!!

  Gsry Hillyer on 16 Mar 2010

• What happened to Beaconicity - twas a real belter!

  Ian on 16 Mar 2010

• A Local Authority having "Customers" - what a farce that was as if they had a choice.

  Wise Owl on 16 Mar 2010

• I was unaware that a list existed!
  
  "print page" - will now check all public info supplied.

  Elizabeth Haynes on 16 Mar 2010

• In the next list can we include the following;
  Taste the strawberry
  Golden rollerskate
  Get on the bus
  Treat People as human
  Make staff future proof
  Deliver our promises
  Tackle wicked issues
  Do your job plus
  Nimble and savvy
  
  The list should not omly be words and phrases banned when communicating with the public, but also internally in our own organisations and between organisations. Let's have plain English throughout!!!

  Dave Stuttle on 16 Mar 2010

• If you look at the description of the IDeA on the website in the "about us" section it uses five "banned" words describing itself.
  
  Glad to know my hard earned taxes are not being wasted on pointless idiots

  Cyclist Speaks on 16 Mar 2010

• Communication should be planned either at an individual, team, service or corporate level. In each case it is important to give out information that the recipient understands and where engagement is undertaken with a view to receiving information back this is even more important. Looking at the list, it clearly contains a lot of words and phases some of which are undesirable jargon. It also contains words that could be sensisble to use in some situations. Finally, it contains some words that seem fine to me in many situations and not just a few reflecting that lists like this always find at least one over enthusiastic person to help compile them.

  Warren Park on 16 Mar 2010

• How did "granular" not make the list?
  
  I think the problem is not with the words themselves but the people who use them trying to look like they are intelligent when they actually only recently learned not to dribble when they talk. These people are clearly the naughty t-word.
  
  As are people who actually bothered to sit down and write this list
  
  And people who can get upset about it on forums (and yes, I am aware of the irony of writing this before any naughty t-words comment)

  Neil Pritchard on 17 Mar 2010

• Don't blame Local Government for lots of the words. Most come down to us from central government or inspectorates and we struggle to understand what they are going on about. There is also an increase in the use of jargon from the worse offender of the lot , the NHS - contestability being my own pet hate. It would be useful to try and distinguish between 'technical' language which may be appropriate for some audiences and the jargon and cliches such as wellderly which should not be used in a million years and make us look worse than David Brent.

  Richard Howroyd on 17 Mar 2010

• Many years ago a colleague had a notice over her desk which said, "You only communicate when the other party understands."
  There is, and always has been, a desire in some people to show off their self importance by writing and talking in jargon. All too often those of us on the receiving end don't ask the perpetrators to explain themselves in plain English. There is no need for more rules and regulations. Just apply the simple test: 'will the other party understand what I'm trying to say?' We need to make ourselves clearer, not dumber.

  Paul Robinson on 17 Mar 2010

• I think the list misses the point. Rather than spending time looking through lists of words you shouldn't use, why not look at some plain english training. Think positively about what you want to get across, not negatively about word lists.

  Nick Brereton on 17 Mar 2010

• I notice that this story, in your email circular, sits next to a story entitled "New engagement and empowerment tools launched"
  
  physician .. ...etc?

  Ken on 17 Mar 2010

• Well that has cheered me up..
  Even spell check doesn't recognise half the words!!!

  JEH on 17 Mar 2010

• Nice to see that Procurement is on the list but I think they might have something to say about that. Everyone off to Argos!

  KSJ on 17 Mar 2010

• Hello. I have a wry smile on my face whilst reading through the list. I support any initiative which makes life easier and simpler. Of course, jargon in whatever walk of life should be avoided wherever possible. In my view jargon acts as a barrier and creates a 'mystique' about the organisation. We all have a responsiblity to ensure we communicate in an fair and effective way which makes it easier for others to understand what we are saying, and to improve access to services and opportunities. This is particularly so for the public sector in the planning, provision and delivery of services and employement. If 'complicated' words and language cause, for example, confusion or misunderstanding then I welcome any effort to rethink what we say and the impact of those messages.

  Hiten Shah on 17 Mar 2010

• I think the question is leading to two (or is it too or even to) lists. Banned words and Band words. The latter (ie second one) being those words that become 'necessary' within a select band of communicators. They appear to have a need to elevate (think they are better) than those they are attempting to cumunicate with (talking to). Now what was I trying to say (state, communicate, proffer eh? doh!!)

  John Mc Cusker on 17 Mar 2010

• Oh my...surely in our march towards a fully-functioning knowledge economy we will be attempting to turn the majority of the population into the sort of people who wouldn't just understand this language but positively revel in it! ...am I allowed to say 'positively revel'? Oh yes, it seems so...nobody tell the LGA; it might not last...

  Will Morris on 17 Mar 2010

• Sir Ernest Gowers wrote in the 1950s about the importance of good official communications in his book "The Complete Plain Words", which has been revised several times since then. He stated clearly and eloquently that: "The golden rule is to pick those words that convey to the reader the meaning of the writer and to use them and them only."

  Jan Kevlin on 17 Mar 2010

• We should be as clear as possible when talking or writing to the public. Words and phrases like stakeholder, the client, the customer, the council could be replaced with you, your, I, we. (It's more friendly.) It's unlikely you would use these pompous words out of work-time so why use them at all? I would add to the list: alternatively. What's wrong with 'or'? Even worse: 'or, alternatively...' Agh!

  Support Plain English on 17 Mar 2010

• Can I just clarify to a few of the posts why I think 'client' and 'customer' are on here.
  
  Although these are obviously words the public understand, it is the context in which the public sector use them that confuses the public.
  
  So when the words are used in the context of benefits or adult social care or whatever, the public doesn't know who the 'customer' or 'client' is as they don't see themselves as customers or clients of their council - and rightly so, as councils are essentially public-owned.
  
  A better word to use instead would be something more generic such as 'public' or even just 'people'.

  Owen Jones on 17 Mar 2010

• "toolkit" yes!! Most of our Customers oops service users no er clients oh dear what shall I call them? How about punters that's not on the list! think a toolkit starts with a hammer and some nails.
  
  Glad to see we are still able to use pathetic and ridiculous as they will definitely be in my correspondence with anyone who asks so run that one up the flag pole for some blue sky thinking and what the heck does Beaconicity mean????

  Peter Hill on 17 Mar 2010

• As usual with such lists, it's a mish-mash of words that no perceptive person would use unless they were trying to mystify people; words that are useful and lack good alternatives, but are likely to need explanation; and perfectly good words.
  
  It is vague to talk about "the general public" as if that is one unchanging audienceI presume it isn't meant to include partners such as third sector organisations, many of whom would be insulted if we assumed they didn't understand "slippage".
  
  By listing "compact" as a banned word, the list really shoots itself in the foot. I expect the Commission for the Compact will be having a word. This leads to the basic point that some words will need to be used - I don't know how I'd explain about the Essex Compact to the general public without using the word "compact" - but should be mentally marked as needing explanation, not banning.
  
  I'm dead keen on Plain English, but this approach is too directive.

  SIMON BANKS on 17 Mar 2010

• This is ridiculous and nothing short of an insult to members of the public. I would have thought the LGA has better and more pressing things to concern itself with than playing with this, like advocacy (close, advocate is on the list) and support for the public sector.
  
  Come on LGA, most councils are aware of Plain English and you guys putting up a list of "banned words" won't make a ha'porth of difference. (Ha'porth = northern term meaning a halfpence worth, not a great deal. Not to be used in front of members of the public).

  Brian King on 17 Mar 2010

• I'm surprised that 'cuts' and 'redundancies' aren't on the list - nobody seems to be using those words in my authority.

  Soon to be renamed Strategic Commissioner on 17 Mar 2010

• When are we going to address job titles? Previously the public understood simple titles that described what departments and individuals did.
  'Customer Service'; 'Head of Safer and Stronger Communities' - what do they actually do? I would suggest that the vast majority of the public have no idea.

  Alan on 17 Mar 2010

• There is a need to avoid jargon words and use language which excludes people but this list suggests that members of the general public would not understand words like 'challenge' or 'joined up'. This is rather patronising and threatens the valid arguments for good communication. Words which do not offend should not be 'banned'. Explained maybe

  Emily Georghiou on 17 Mar 2010

• No more goldfish bowl facilitated conversation.......fantastic!

  PJ on 17 Mar 2010

• The list would be more usefull if divided into 'perfectly good words often used inappropriatly' (e.g. leverage), 'Inappropraite euphemisms' (e.g worklessness) and 'words that are not English' (e.g. disbelief)

  Keith on 17 Mar 2010

• I clicked on this with interest, for some reason I was expecting a list of expletives, this list is laughable enough tho in light of the fact that it does not contain any expletives, are we to assume then that such words are acceptable?!!

  *!&^$% !! on 17 Mar 2010

• It's more of a shock to read some of the comments of people who think their opinions of what the public want and what the public understand are worth more than the wealth of research that shows people detest this sort of gobbledegook.
  
  Whatever you think of the details of these lists, these initiatives remind us that it bad practice to use the latest fashion in business-speak outside of our business sub culture. If you do, the best you can hope for is that your readers will not understand you, because if they do it will probably have the opposite effect to what you want to achieve.

  Steve Jeans, Cardiff on 17 Mar 2010

• This exercise has been an unconscionable waste of time on the part of the LGA and has made the organisation a laughing stock. The list consists for the most part of simple, day-to-day words that contribute to the richness of the English language. One phrase that should be banned from public usage is 'dumbing down'.

  Terence Dear on 17 Mar 2010

• Mr Singh's comments on 11th of March are objectionable and only serve to show the level of arrogance that some people can display on the matter of plain english.

  Stephen Devine on 17 Mar 2010

• On the other hand, the IDeA's new publication Local By Social is a good example of the excessive use of jargon. The Foreword alone is bad enough to make one cringe.
  
  What should be banned is the use of commas. Public documents today are scattered with the things, without any regard or apparent understanding of their proper use. Again, the Local By Social document is a good example of the appalling grammar that is now commonplace in our publications.

  Terence Dear on 17 Mar 2010

• Surely a word is used in the context of the sentence that it is in and ultimately the message that the recipient recieves. Therefore, banning words which form part of the languge seems absurd, especially if it assists in projecting the message to the recipient. Common sense should apply. If any reasonable person views a sentence full of words that require a thesaurus for the recipient then why do this in the first place. Words have meaning and should not necessariliy be banned.

  J Virgo on 17 Mar 2010

• You can't ban words and phrases that no-one has ever heard of. Did the LGA invent the word "clienting" or the phrase "goldfish bowl facilitated conversation"? I've never heard them and have no idea how I would use them - even if I wanted to.

  Steve Ing on 17 Mar 2010

• Looking at the list I realise I use far too many of the above words far too often. They seem to fit perfectly which is worrying because "real" people don't talk like that. Quite frightening to read some of the responses - think some people need to get out and talk to more people outside their game.

  Mike Cronin on 17 Mar 2010

• "goldfish bowl facilitated conversation" How often does that ever come up?

  Angela Tunstall on 18 Mar 2010

• We are currently consulting on our Core Strategy . Are you suggesting we should delete all the 'banned words' from the document? There are numerous references to sustainable communities, the Local Development 'Framework' and providing an 'evidence base' If that is the case, perhaps you could be provide some alternatives. I await your reply with interest.

  Fiona on 18 Mar 2010

• Has anyone told Paradigm Housing Association they're on the proscribed list?

  Kate on 18 Mar 2010

• We can quibble with the inclusion of some of the words, but I think this helps avoid some of the terrible public sector jargon. But why are these words only 'not for use in communication with the public'?Jargon should be tackled internally too - speaking one language externally and a different one internally is not very transparent, is it..?

  David Hunter on 18 Mar 2010

• Last year's list was a lot more useful, because it suggested alternatives for many of its terms. The list' still on the LGA website.
  
  [Ed. You can see last year's list here: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1716341]

  Lyn Whitfield on 18 Mar 2010

• When scoping sectrorwide spillage it is advisabel to test the fulcrum of the appendage for the governance of meaningful reusable interactivity.

  Steve on 18 Mar 2010

• Can we add 'excellence' (because it is over-used to the point of meaninglessness) and 'competencies'?

  Simon on 18 Mar 2010

• Clearly some people think they impress with the size of their diction! Well, it may be a shock to those 'Sir Humphreys' but communication is the usual purpose of words and many of these words (although not all) obfuscate (they confuse, bewilder and make unclear). Our corporate-speak seems perfectly ok to us public servants because it's the language we use all the time but it's meaningless to most people outside. Eliminating local government jargon isn't "dumbing down" it's about speaking the native language...

  Duncan Lewis Jowitt on 18 Mar 2010

• I cautiously welcome this meaningful dialogue across the piece within the delivery chain.
  
  Going forward I suggest Paradigm Housing Association need to seedbed a robust, resource efficient new name preferably using a thought shower and ensuring it’s future proof and tested for soundness as well as safeguarding against self-aggrandizement and situational slippage.
  
  I’m off now to the World Cafe to procure some low hanging fruit from their menu of options and engage users in a goldfish bowl facilitated conversation about strategic priorities and other wicked issues to see who blinks first.
  
  Later on I’ll be watching my favourite band the “Predictors of Beaconicity”, who incidentally have great tonality and are sure to be a quick hit. I advocate their visionary album “Headroom for Change” apart from the track “Webinar”. Despite its great baseline, it leaves me feeling a bit under-capacitated in its direction of travel.
  
  John

  John on 18 Mar 2010

• Whatever happened to speaking ‘normally’? The way society works is to assign grouped words for a specific age range. So you use simple English in first and middle school, then use bigger words in high school, use complicated words in college and university, followed by using fancy words when you work. Words are stigmatised by social groups, when politicians use stupid words that make no sense other people will copy.
  
  People should speak with words they are comfortable with and not try to use words purely impress.

  Vocal critic of goverment on 19 Mar 2010

• Perhaps the LGA should have published a list of words that were allowable. Shouldn't be too hard, I don't think there's much left.

  J on 19 Mar 2010

• I would love to see 'goldfish bowl facilitated conversation' used in context!

  Dawn on 19 Mar 2010

• "Taste the strawberry"??????
  
  Conjures up some interesting images.... an interesting diversion for some committee meetings.

  Stan Talbot on 19 Mar 2010

• I think all council employees have the common sense to use language appropriate for their audience/customers (as this is widely varied) and explain words or phrases as and when needed. After all one of our duties is to make sure our audience/customers leave satisfied and fully understand.

  Gemma McCreadie on 19 Mar 2010

• This list has made zero impact at work.
  
  If there's no policing or naming & shaming for local authorities, or no consequences for the overuse of these words then it is ultimately an enjoyable, but meaningless, list.

  NO on 19 Mar 2010

• Is this really value for money from LGA? Is this why we now have to pay £150pa to look at their website?
  Utter nonsense.
  If we can't say "comprehensive area assessment" when talking about the comprehensive area assessment then what on earth are we supposed to do?
  There are certainly some howlers in the list, but no more than if you were to stray into any Boardroom or commercial office. Many are in common use anyway. I really should have spent the last two minutes doing something more productive but at least my anger management session has worked!
  Lets focus more on doing the job instead how being "clever" about how we describe it.

  Jon Swift on 19 Mar 2010

• I wrote Idea's April Fool stunt a couple of years ago, which was a spoof article comprised of all 100 words from the list as it was then.
  
  What is a little disturbing is that not only has the list expanded but a number of people who have commented here seem to think that many of the words are perfectly reasonable.
  
  They seem to miss the point that it is not so much that the words can't be understood, more a question of the context they are used in not being appropriate outside the business culture of the author or speaker. Then again, there are some in the list that are inexcusable, whatever the context.
  
  I'll just go home and ask the stakeholders of my evening meal what they would like to eat tonight.
  
  John

  John R on 19 Mar 2010

• You could include "ambassador" as well. I went to a meeting last week where someone referred to "public appointments ambassadors" and I had to ask what it meant. Now this week a council press release began "The Council is conducting new ambassadorial training for its front line Neighbourhood Team staff..." Help! And then there was the American who boasted "every noun can be verbed"...

  Mark O'Sullivan on 19 Mar 2010

• The list is of no importance to most of us. We are all general public, to someone. As a member of that group, we know how we would like to be spoken/written to. We communicate in our official capacities in the same way, thereby treating others as we would like to be treated. For those that don't make that connection, please refer to list (above).

  Rational on 19 Mar 2010

• Here we go again! The LGA clearly think the general public are stupid and semi-literate. Whilst this may, to some extent, be true surely we should be encouraging people to improve their vocabulary, not dumbing-down to the extent where we communicate through a series of monosyllabic grunts. Local Government should be encouraging the preservation and propagation of the English language in all its magnificent glory. Gobbledygook aside, if the general public do not understand normal English, is that not an indictment of the decline in our educational standards.

  Malcolm Scobie on 19 Mar 2010

• And, of course, my own relative illiteracy is displayed in my first posting! I meant to use the word "indicative" rather than "an indictment" in the valedictory sentence. To read: "Gobbledygook aside, if the general public do not understand normal English, is that not indicative of the decline in our educational standards?"

  Malcolm Scobie on 19 Mar 2010

• How fab is this. I have spent 30 years in local government speaking and writing english that anyone can understand. It's not dumbed down, offensive or even defensive. It is clear in meaning and only has to be read or said once. Why is this a problem? Because the people I work with and for actually know what's going on. Dangerous anarchy or accountability?

  Liz on 19 Mar 2010

• Does the LGA really not have anything better to do?
  
  Is it any wonder that councils are (and have) began leaving the LGA because they see no use in it?
  
  Clearly one word the LGA has banned is "context"

  James on 19 Mar 2010

• Malcolm - here's a news item chosen at random from my council's website:
  
  "The XXX Strategic Partnership is currently developing the new Sustainable Community Strategy for launch in April 2011.
  
  "The new Strategy will replace the existing Sustainable Community Strategy for 2008-2011. It will set out how services can be improved and delivered to increase the environmental, social and economic well-being of the district and will act as an overarching partnership plan for XXX.
  
  "In order for the strategy to be a leading and influencing document for the area it is important that the document contain key aspirations of all local partner organisations and the community."
  
  Would you say this represents 'the English language in all its magnificent glory'? More prosaically, is it an effective way to encourage people to respond to a consultation?

  Patrick on 19 Mar 2010

• This is absolutely nothing to do with thinking the public are stupid and everything to do with not alienating them or exposing ourselves to ridicule.
  
  The words are suggested as banned for communication with the public, not between ourselves, although there are many in the list that would raise my blood pressure if so used.
  
  Outside of work, would you really talk to your family and friends in terms of holistic governance, citizen touchpoints, place shaping, community engagement or any of the others listed here? If not, why treat anyone else beyond your professional world differently?
  
  Am I going to talk to my neighbour tonight or am I going to engage in meaningful dialogue with him? Does the parish council want me to help out in a litter pick or for me to participate in a community engagement intiative? Who outside of local government and the health service has any idea of what a local area agreement is?
  
  John

  John R on 19 Mar 2010

• Totally ridiculous to have a list of banned words, does anyone actually read the list and take out the incorrect phrases? think not!
  What's needed is a bit of common sense and a correct use of the English language.
  This list could form the basis of Terry Pratchett novel: Discworld - Corporate adventuresof the Proffessor of Made-up-ology!!
  Hands off Terry, that's my Idea!

  BEMUSED AND AMUSED on 19 Mar 2010

• Feels like 1984...

  Jon Harvey on 20 Mar 2010

• Its all about respect for the public who we are there to serve.
  If you start spouting management speak you will just look stupid and the message you are trying to express will be lost in the sea of meaningless drivel.
  Less David Brent more David Dimbleby is whats required.

  George O on 21 Mar 2010

• Anyone writing content for the public should try and use english instead of jargon.
  
  Managementese is just another slang - innit?

  Julian Pratt on 22 Mar 2010

• If they wanted to make this really useful, they should develop a web app where you paste in a press release and it highlights offending terms.....
  
  We would all like to write clear and uncluttered materials, anything that makes the process more efficient would actually help instead of being another burden.

  Journojulz on 22 Mar 2010

• Consultation activities we carry out with vulnerable adults still identify jargon as a significant barrier to accessing good quality and consistent information and communication from LA's who still struggle to find ways of effectively communicating with their local communities ...with or without this list

  Sandra Lomax-Pearce SLK Training & Consultancy on 22 Mar 2010

• There is a fine line between ‘easy read’ and regression. I’m not sure that I really want to live in a world where words such as capacity, challenge, enhance, guideline, outcome, output, priority, and utilise are considered too complicated for the general population to understand. These words are not ‘jargon’. I find it extremely difficult to think of a context in which anyone would not understand some of the words on this list. Whilst I understand the need to rid published public sector material of jargon, I have to say that if the general population are unable to understand some of these words, the government have bigger things to consider than publishing a list of banned words!

  Steaming of Shropshire on 22 Mar 2010

• Seriously?! I agree to avoiding jargon but some of the words on the list are just that, words.
  We need some common sense in all this.

  BillC on 22 Mar 2010

• One word - ridiculous!

  Anne Wraith on 22 Mar 2010

• To Steaming of Shropshire: 1.5 million people in the UK don't speak English as their first language. Another 1 million have learning disabilities. Are you saying we should ignore these people as a matter of principle?
  
  When I first started working in the public sector I didn't have a clue what 'capacity' meant. And I have an English degree...
  
  Incidentally, the LGA is not the 'government' and has no authority (or, presumably, desire) to 'ban' words!

  Patrick on 22 Mar 2010

• I've never come across 'goldfish bowl facilitated conversation', but now I'm going to use it at every opportunity.

  Alan Paterson on 22 Mar 2010

• I would like to make an early nomination for next year's list:
  "Opportunity" as in the sentence
  "We see our budget reductions as an opportunity to....."

  Paul on 22 Mar 2010

• It seems we all agree. Many of the words genuinely exist in our language, but they are put together in such a way that they patronise the general public. We need to be sure we don't speak over people's heads (and we know when we are doing it). It may gain us respect amongst our colleagues, but it serves only to lower the residents' impression of us. It's not big and it's not clever. Logical thinking springs to mind. We wouldn't need a list if we stopped seeing ourselves as any better than the people we are here to serve.

  Elisa Dushku on 23 Mar 2010

• Maybe if we treated the 'punters' as customers we wouldn't have these problems. Too much time spent doing nothing. OOps that includes me now!

  John on 23 Mar 2010

• As usual with so many of these half baked attempts to 'humanise' opps there I go, local government, this only gets o the point of saying don't do it, it fails to offer advice on what should be done. Yes, many of these are nonsense words, cobbled together to make something sound good. All they are doing is giving some bright spark an excuse to devise another more plausible sounding term to replace the now discredited one. Where's the list of 'good old fashioned' words to be used instead - or is that one step too far, straightforward unambiguous answers?

  Roger on 23 Mar 2010

• I would ban 'stakeholders' - it always makes me think of vampires and garlic at midnight. When I became a Councillor four and a half years ago I decided that most of these peculiar words and phrases were used by Officers to try and flummox (how about that for a word) Elected Members, especially when they had things to hide. It's like the 72 page report, full of nothing and with the vital part buried on page 48. The number of times Officers used phrases or words which none of my colleagues understood and yet I was often the only one who dared to raise my hand (a bit like being at school) to ask for an explanation. However, the last thing we need is plain English - there is a danger people might understand what is going on.

  Vanessa Churchman on 23 Mar 2010

• Should the LGA also consider banning the use of acronyms?

  Deborah Mason on 24 Mar 2010

• A sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are some meaningless words/phrases on the list that should be avoided like the plague, e.g. blue sky thinking, predictor of beaconicity and thought shower (I believe that term was invented to replace brain storm which was felt to be offensive to epileptics - I'm epileptic and am not offended by brain storm!), but have been put together with many perfectly sensible words/phrases - partnerships is the one that sticks out to me.
  In any case, if you work with real people in real communities, you don't need a list to tell you what words/phrases should be avoided - you'll know anyway!

  Robin Wiles, Newcastle-under-Lyme on 24 Mar 2010

• Where is Sir Humphrey Appleby when you need him?

  Terry on 24 Mar 2010

• There are certainly some tired old expressions on the list, most representing lazy substitutes for original thought.

  Ian Ireland on 24 Mar 2010

• I'ts the way the words are put together which is important. My wife has english as a second [or third] language and has difficulty with long, meandering sentences. Often the aim of the communication is scattered across several paragraphs, and has to be deduced. Very commonly the point is left to the last of 5 or 6 otherwise largely irrelevant paragraphs. Appreciation of the art of precis would help. A problem is that concise communication can appear impolite.
  
  As 'banning' words is unsatisfactory I suggest a jargon list - the most abstruse jargon could be given a red flag, useful but obscure jargon - amber, and jargon for which there is really no substitute - green.

  Mark Collinson on 24 Mar 2010

• I agree that such phrases as 'key asks' should go, but most of the 'banned' words are good words. It's not the words, but rather the context in which they are wrongly used. Please, let's just use the right word in the right place.

  Christopher Clark on 24 Mar 2010

• The list makes a good point but is itself often mis-communicated.
  
  Jargon is a means of communication and using it often helps people ensure that the exact meaning of what they are trying to communicate is correctly picked up.
  
  The problem is using jargon with people who would not consider this to be an improved means of communication.
  
  Getting rid of words is obviously a step backwards but encouraging people to think twice about the best way to communicate to each audience (sometimes jargon is very much best!) is a good thing. I just hope that the talk of 'banning' words, especially when many of these words are good means of communicating complex ideas, does not detract from this aim.

  Gareth Young on 24 Mar 2010

• I haven't heard of some of these words?!?

  Sharon on 24 Mar 2010

• The trouble is many officers do use this sort of language internally - and the use the same language for customers.
  
  I work in an area that has an average reading age of 12 - how many people with those literacy skills would understand these?

  Ian Clarkin on 24 Mar 2010

• What a complete and utter waste of time. If anything makes the case for public sector spending cuts, this is it. I shall immediately use a selection of these phrases in my blue-sky thinking report which I am actioning at this moment in time!

  Paul Reeves on 25 Mar 2010

• I have never so much rubbish in all my life. What sort of 'jobsworths' are behind this.
  Yes, I can use 'jobsworth' (it's not on the list) but unfortunately I don't have the 'capacity' to 'challenge'

  dumbfounded on 26 Mar 2010

• I LIKE IT, CAN WE NOW WITHDRAW THE ENGLISH DICTIONARY AND LET THE LCA REPLACE IT WITH THERE OWN THEY WOULD MAKE A MINT.

  ALAN on 29 Mar 2010

• Blue Sky Thinking, for God's sake - which idiot comes up with these phrases?????

  Mark Walton on 29 Mar 2010

• Earnie Gowers advises use a dictionary.

  Brian Cross on 30 Mar 2010

• It would be better for the LGA to simply remind its members to 'say what they mean and mean what they say'

  Flabbergasted on 30 Mar 2010

• Simply brilliant and if we had abbandoned our love affair with the americanisation of our language then this would never had occoured. What use does this provide, it just goes to show that people in the main ignore most official paperwork because they themselves are ignored by local goverment. Is this an "ongoing" excersise or as should be said "continuing" a much better word and one that makes much more sense!

  Dave Bacon-Campbell on 30 Mar 2010

• Could we add Gross Value Added please or GVA. It's apparently how much a person contributes to the economy in terms of productivity and a close relation to worklessness

  Sheila MacDonald on 31 Mar 2010

• Why is it that the LGA has made a publication with the title cohesive communities in it? (banned above).
  Perhaps they should clean their own house first?

  Saul Ravenswood on 31 Mar 2010

• I agree that some of the words could be misleading or confusing to the general public, but don't use either best practice or good practice, what is the alternative?
  
  Of all the words used these must be the most common know to the majority of people outside of local goverment

  Susan PW on 31 Mar 2010

• Even if this list does not make a difference to the use of the words on the list at least it makes people in the public sector think a little bit before they communicate!

  Ignatious P. Freely on 31 Mar 2010

• I suspect many terms have their roots in a desire to be creative to inject some poetry into otherwise dull communications. Overusage or misusage moves them into the realm of jargon and eventually onto the banned list. Worry not more will be invented so long as the poetic heart of civil servants continues to skip a beat. My current favourite in describing outcomes for health care workers is that should " behave as though they give a S#!T". I hope it makes it into common usage.

  John b on 31 Mar 2010

• A laudable aim despite the incoherent execution - I think it would be important for the LGA to also make an effort to set a standard for how public sector workers communicate in person as well as in print.

  Hugh Jass on 31 Mar 2010

• This started out as a good jargon busting idea but when every day words, not to mention statutory definitions, become outlawed it are does rather make a mockery of the whole thing. Plain English is a good thing but dumbing down and over simplification are not the way ahead.

  Chris Plumley on 31 Mar 2010

• Chris Plumley - I disagree, clear simple guidelines often are the most straightforward to implement. While some sophisticated practitioners of the English language may be able distinguish appropriate usage for time pressed public sector employees it is probably easiest just to have a clear defined list to check against.

  Jaques Strapp on 01 Apr 2010

• I don't think Jaques is accurately reflecting public sector workers here. While they are under time pressures the responsibility of managing communication with the public should not be taken lightly and clear communication should be the priority rather than the speed at which the message is constructed.
  
  Standards are necessarily high and the public sector should rise to meet them rather than employ time saving techniques that save money but lose comprehensibility.

  Benjamin Dover on 01 Apr 2010

• Since my work focuses on the vulnerable groups (including those at risk of 'social exclusion') prioritised within the outcomes of a 'Sustainable Communities' Strategy, the indicators within a 'Local Area Agreement' , and the recommendations from a 'Comprehensive Area Assessment' I guess I'm scuppered in the absence of LGA alternatives!
  
  Also, given that the people we provide services for, should not now be called 'service users', 'clients' or 'customers' did anyone think to consult with them on how they would like to be known?
  
  I'll be producing two documents, one with necessary sensible words, despite LGA's list, and one easy-read non-jargonistic summarised version. Now, would this be 'best practice' or 'good practice' or just plain common sense?

  Mary Gibson on 07 Apr 2010

• There is some utter nonsense used in communication in my own workplace in what can only be an attempt to confuse people as to the real meaning. Given time I could probably add another 15 or 20 words that I'd like to see banned.
  
  To Deborah Mason - I assume you were trying to be clever but LGA isn't an acronym!!

  Mark on 09 Apr 2010

• It comes as no surprise to see how many people have failed to grasp what the list of 100 banned words is all about.
  
  The local authority that I work for has its own language and every service its own sub-language. This perpetuates a culture where people write documents in a particular style because ‘that’s how it’s done’. Rather than demonstrate intellect I believe that it is symptomatic of a sloppy and thoughtless approach to writing. If you ask somebody to explain what he or she means when they come out with a baffling splurge of jargon they look as if you are from another planet.
  
  My particular favourite was a report that referred to a ‘direct access public interface area’ IE a reception/enquiry desk. Another example: pre-defined narrative arcs in a discussion about plain English. I am disappointed that you haven’t included eligibility criteria as I am never sure what that means. And taxonomy was that a use of irony? Say what you mean

  Jargon Warrior on 14 Apr 2010

• What utter garbage.
  
  Quoted from the LGA website:
  
  "Chairman of the Local Government Association, Dame Margaret Eaton, said:
  
  “Any organisation that spends taxpayers’ money has a duty, not only to provide value for money to local people, but also to tell them what they get for the money they pay. People would be furious if they had no idea of what services their cash is paying for and how they should get to use them. "
  
  I think people would be similarly furious (sorry, furious in the same way) if they knew that money was being spent coming up with lists of words that should be banned from the english language.
  
  I certainly am. LGA - Go and get a real job. Plain enough?

  Robert on 28 Apr 2010

• I would like to know how long it will be until LGA's introduce "doublethink", "thoughtcrime" and "newspeak"...

  Winston Smith - 1984 on 29 Apr 2010

• "Agencies, best practice, capacity, champion, client, customer, flex, fulcrum, lever, outcomes, robust , stakeholder" etc etc are not jargon but ordinary every day words - unless you live on Mars.

  Jeff on 03 Jun 2010

• Watch out! This list is a sure sign that Thought Fascism is developing in the UK. Ideas are being mooted to make it a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to communicate in a "non-accessible" way. (i.e. Dostoyevsky would be sent to the Gulag for his "Gobbeldy-Gook". Look at http://www.out-law.com/page-4949 for cutting edge legal thinking in this area. (Web site of Pinsent Masons Lawyers)

  Mr Reasonably Well-Educated on 05 Jun 2010

• My comment on this topic has been rejected by the web-site editor. Needless to say my point was against PC speak. Is this evidence of suppression of free expression, as is the whole matter of "banning words", by legal force or otherwise?
  
  [Ed: I'm assuming you are the same poster as Mr Reasonably Well-Educated? If so, please be assured nobody is censoring your contribution - it's just that we don't monitor comments at the weekend. I'd also like to point out that your link to 'cutting edge legal thinking' is nearly six years old and is more akin to an advertorial for the Plain English Campaign. It is not a 'criminal offence' to communicate in a non-accessible way, although it may be unlawful in certain circumstances. The RNIB website has up-to-date (and accessible!) guidance on this issue: http://www.rnib.org.uk/professionals/webaccessibility/lawsandstandards/pages/uk_law.aspx ]

  Mr. Citizen on 05 Jun 2010

• It's a great idea! Surely it must be a good thing to increase access to information for all.

  John W on 05 Jun 2010

• 'Community engagement' and its development is part of my remit. I now find I have to rename this.
  
  Perhaps we can call our 'Community engagement toolkit' the 'Big book of ideas to make sure everyone has a say in things' instead? Somehow I think this rather lacks brevity compared to the original...

  Rhyfelwyr on 08 Aug 2010

• A good 75% of these words and phrases should never be be used in any type of communication, ever! If anybody thinks that time has been wasted coming up with this list, then how much time did it take some twonk to think up all this artificial rubbish? It's obvious, to me at least, that all these do is boost the user's imagined superiority by making their "victim" feel stupid by not knowing what they mean. Buzzword bingo may be fun, but the joke can be taken too far.

  Ian Mac on 20 Aug 2010

• Can anyone tell me how a council would talk about their Local Area Agreement without using the words local, area or agreement?

  VB on 20 Aug 2010

• What if the LGA or other government bodies spent more time making sure we eduate children and other members of the public instead of trying to 'dumb-down' our language for the public? If a member of the public isn't educated enough to understand what it means when we say we have a 'priority' our problems are much larger than jargon-busting.

  Martin on 23 Aug 2010

• I love these sorts of lists. This one obviously encompasses jargon, cliché and just plain old fashioned sloppiness. The full horror of some of these uses only comes to life when they are seen in real time (oops, action).
  
  Maybe LGID don’t feel their role is to name and shame. As an individual I have no such qualms and people might like to cast an eye over my small but growing collection of jargon used by public figures and organisations in the jargon bin on my blog at http://helpgov.wordpress.com/the-jargon-bin/. I always welcome further examples…
  

  Roger White on 25 Aug 2010