100 banned words

Your comments

• Who in the world thought this up? I would suggest that He/She be re-assessed and transferred to Mars. Could the inference of this list be that the non-council populace is not up to the intellectual standards to extrapolate the meanings of the elementary?

  Denis Walton on 11 Dec 2007

• Some of these are mild what about the government ones such as performance indicators, national frameworks, NI's a rounded picture, the 14 points of Demming etc. etc, etc.

  Ray Slamon on 11 Dec 2007

• how about
  
  raft (as in "a raft of projects")
  robust
  going forward
  direction of travel (unless it's talking about an actual journey)

  Judith Green on 11 Dec 2007

• Take out vision and replace with cohesive.
  Add community involvement.

  Norman DIngemans on 11 Dec 2007

• How peculiar - can't argue with the sentiment but is welcome really a banned word - and customer. Not sure wht that says about the public sector !

  Colette Booth on 11 Dec 2007

• I cannot believe we have sunk to such depths that we are suggesting that an adult is unable understand common, everyday words such as 'welcome' or 'guidelines'. I genuinly believe that there is a serious risk of Councils alienating a large majority of their residents by using the patronising 'plain English' that we have become so used to. Are we really going to dumb down the English language to such a point that we speak to every adult as though they were a child? I would be appalled if my son did not understand at least some of these words by the time he started school.

  Laura on 11 Dec 2007

• From an Australian perspective, many of the words indicated are words that the community use themselves to describe directions/values, etc that they are looking for from the public sector. Notwithstanding that, I agree that the majority of the words should be avoided as many are overused, conveniently used and lack any form of true collaboration or reinforce accountability.

  Bob Holmes on 11 Dec 2007

• With notable exceptions, I believe that a lot of these words are in everyday use outside of Councils. "Welcome" being an obvious example. Is this simply an acceptance of failure from the LGA of the ability to teach basic English in our schools? Residents do understand - stop thinking we are a bunch of illiterate buffoons unaware of what Councils are saying or unable to question to our satisfaction. Has there ever been a more patronising missive from the LGA?!? Excuse me whilst I doff my cap m'lud! I'd call it claptrap but that's probably a word "we wouldn't understand".

  Jed in the North on 11 Dec 2007

• Whilst I welcome (sorry) this initiative (sorry again), I would also like to suggest that someone makes a counter-list of 100 words or phrases to replace these, please! It could be quite transformational (damn, sorry).

  Vanessa Bone on 12 Dec 2007

• This list is ridiculous & assumes the public are unintelligent. What is wrong with transparency & vision for example?

  Philip Rowe on 12 Dec 2007

• There must be better things to care about!

  Dale Cooper on 12 Dec 2007

• Here are a few examples form an education report recently received - and there are more:
  partnership with settings
  Outstanding designs in an estate rationalised and fit for the 21st century
  federate
  
  When acronyms, poor grammar and words that have inappropriate meaning are cobbled together reports become unintelligable!

  John Tomalin on 12 Dec 2007

• Whilst I completely agree with clear communication, I also feel that quite often words that are considered to be jargon are often used because they are suited for that purpose. The English language provides us with a vast choice of words to use when communicating with our citizens and yes, jargon free alternatives can always be found, but by limiting our vocabulary are we not also limiting an informal opportunity for people, especially the younger members of our population, to learn and expand theirs?

  Jenni Latter on 12 Dec 2007

• I'm struggling with this - bit of codswallop (nice and plain english - not!) but honestly, to have words like welcome, customer as words the public don't understand)! Some of the other bits I can see why you wouldn't use them!!

  Paul Del-A-More on 12 Dec 2007

• Jargon is a complete turn off and helps to drive a wedge between people and those in 'power'.
  
  My pet hate is 'Council Tax Demand' usually written in bold red type. Couldn't it be 'Council Tax Request'?

  David Middleton on 12 Dec 2007

• Is 'welcome' really jargon?
  
  Perhaps it would also be useful to publish a list of acceptable alternatives. So what should people be using unstead of capacity and empowerment and good practice...

  Kate Medhurst on 12 Dec 2007

• Interesting - does this mean the IDEA will stop using these terms in its publications?

  Judith Nichols on 12 Dec 2007

• I fully support plain english both in logal gvernment and national government to reduce spin and mi-understanding. Cut the jargon and if you wish to communicate with the public then talk to them in a language they understand - or is it that government, local and national, have something to hide?

  Glyn Harris on 12 Dec 2007

• Why is the word 'welcome' included?

  Chris Joannou on 12 Dec 2007

• A superb idea... But if we ban both service user and customer, what can we use? Personally I like customer.
  But I'd add to the list "basis" (as in on a weekly basis) and "regularly" (when it should be "often"). And anyone who says "on a regular basis" should be fast-track tested for soundness on a level playing field.

  Steve Jeans, Cardiff on 12 Dec 2007

• I am all for plain English and find a lot of council speak stuffy and irrelevant as I shadow people accessing our services - very difficult to get the staff to appreciate just how their special service language often built up over years can irritate, build barriers and is simply not understood in the context that they mean it.
  It seems that the more terminology one has at ones fingertips, the more other professionals think one is ahead of the game.
  LGC publishes a jargon buster every week and I have opened a book on how many hours it takes to hear the particular phrase of the week coming from a colleague and sometimes it is only a few minutes after LGC hits the mat!

  Trish Webster on 12 Dec 2007

• Words can be defined its Acronyms that are the problem

  John Barber on 12 Dec 2007

• There is one word that is missing off this list that the LGA should have realised people do not understand at all. It is the word that they shy away from tackling but which strikes at the heart of its membership's "democratic legitimacy". The word is "vote".
  Perhaps if the LGA concentrated more on such words rather than knocking up patronising lists like this, then people would take them seriously. As it stands, the vast majority of the public and council officers take one look at the LGA and laugh.

  Ted on 12 Dec 2007

• I think instead of dumbing down communications, LA's should spend public funds on EDUCATING people and giving them an understanding of the words.
  
  This smacks of nanny culture as the list includes many words that are used in public sector communication.
  
  Don't sell the public short - educate them!

  Peter Kitchen on 12 Dec 2007

• Pathetic, as a person who regulary communicates with the general populace I Ihave found them to be very intelligent and on one or two occassions more informed than I. I suggest the LGA should find better ways in which to spend their time/resources and stop finding jobs for the boys.

  Stephen Vaughan on 12 Dec 2007

• Have yers not got any work todo
  Cheers

  mick on 12 Dec 2007

• The idea of "banning" words strikes me as leaning a bit towards a big brother state in terms of vocabulary & word usage. The more varied our language the better. Of course when one is communicating one should attempt to reach one's audience to ensure they can understand the message being put across & this is surely where the focus should be - not on banning words (how can you ban something that exists like this anyway?).

  Peter Norman on 12 Dec 2007

• Can we please add protocol and functionality to the list?
  
  I must admit I have found it necessary to use many of these banned terms, when taking minutes, etc, and have not understood all of them myself. However, those terms made perfect sense to the members of the groups I minuted.
  
  I remember being told that "service user" was the authority's preferred term, rather than "client" or "patient" and I don't think there's anything wrong with "customer" either, especially when we are setting up "One Stop Shops" (or is that a term destined for the list?). Also, if we can't use "welcome", what do we use instead?

  Marianne Heaven on 12 Dec 2007

• Many people will be angered and upset by the LGA's banning of these words and I fully expect protests across the country until the LGA lifts this unjust ban. However, words are tools for the task of communicating. And bad workmen blame their tools. I reckon any great author could easily create heartbreaking prose using each an every 100 word on the banned list - some maybe even twice.
  
  So I suggest an alterntive banning order. It would be on the 100 worst offenders from local or national government who have helped murder the reputation of public services by producing tonnage of awkward, jargon-laden, meaningless rubbish. All I need is a good four-letter acronym to describe it.

  Ben on 12 Dec 2007

• But can you give us alternatives to these banned 100 words!

  John, Belfast on 12 Dec 2007

• Nice idea to limit use of jargon, which is essentially elitist/ exclusive. I agree that often 'management speak' creeps in to what we do to such an extent that it becomes a cover-up for really not saying anything at all. The three that personally jar with me are "going forward", "place-shaping" and "across the piece" - what do they mean? Perhaps alternatives would be "what we are doing next", "what is being done for the area" and "the whole range of what we do", respectively.
  However, on the front page of your own bulletin of which this is the first item, you use 7 of the banned words, namely:
  'beacon'
  'best practice'
  'contestability'
  'guidance' (which is almost equivalent to guidelines)
  'improvement network' (which is almost equivalent to mprovement levers)
  'LAAs'
  'third sector'
  No doubt there are many more in use as soon as one enters any of the links!!
  Perhaps you should practice what you preach.
  
  I agree with all the other commentators who suggest this whole process would be much more meaningful if an accompanying list of alternatives to the banned words had been provided.
  
  One final point, knowing what to call people who experience the work of a council is difficult - customers is not right, service-users isn't nice, but they are not always residents or (council) tax-payers (e.g. people from outside who drive on our roads, e.g. children). Citizens is about the best I've ever come up with but it's hardly everyday speach.

  Matt on 12 Dec 2007

• Really disappointing to read some of the negative comments above - a number of readers have completely missed the point. Of course the LGA isn't implying the public don't understand some of these words! It's not about individual words; more that using many of the 100 result in the kind of (in particular written) communication that is artificial and ineffective - the overuse of words like "welcome" just means people switch off. We'd do well to use the list.

  Mark, Bristol on 12 Dec 2007

• Paradigm!

  Rob on 12 Dec 2007

• I would like to comment, but if I can't use any of these words I'm going to be pretty quiet, nay silent, from now on.

  Philip Brocklehurst on 12 Dec 2007

• The "Plain English" required to describe the arbitrary content of this list would be unacceptable in any forum.

  Tom Byrne on 12 Dec 2007

• So its Ok to swear then? Had the people who 'reasearched' this not thought that perhaps the people they surveyed are covertly saying 'go away'. How much did this research cost? How much did people get paid for this 'piece of work'- we all recon they are on more that the three of us put together. - Oh was 'work' on the list?

  Fran & Kieth & Jan on 12 Dec 2007

• There are worse
  How about "swim lanes" and "flight path " used by a number of firms of consultants.

  Janet Mcleod on 12 Dec 2007

• The LGA is currently advertising on its webpage the follwiing events:
  
  place shaping in practice: understanding and using the council's new powers 15/01/2008
  tackling local transport challenges: learning from the transport pathfinder and pilot projects 21/01/2008
  sharing good practice in local dementia services 22/01/2008
  
  "Place shaping", "pathfinder" and "good practice" are all on the banned list. Seems, as always, the LGA is saying "do as we say, not as we do".

  Bemused on 12 Dec 2007

• I can't believe some of the comments people are sending in! Obviously paternalism is alive and well in local government. Colleagues - do you really think it's our job to teach the public "better" English?

  Steve Jeans, Cardiff on 12 Dec 2007

• We're not left with much, are we?
  
  Can I assume that we can use some of these amongst ourselves, since we are meant to understand them?
  
  I could cheerfully consign some of them to the dustbin, but surely not all.

  Helen on 12 Dec 2007

• I agree that there are some words on this list which everyone would understand, but I think that most of them should be banned. It's not just about communicating with the public (whoever they are), it's about communication within the sector too. Reports which are littered with the words and phrases listed above are inaccessible to all of us - I find that this kind of language makes a document boring to read and actually distances the reader from the text. I often edit other people's work and take out unnecessary jargon and repetition of stock phrases which the sector has decided are "acceptable" (BME is a good example). Constantly using acronyms and jargon is lazy and we stop thinking about what they actually mean. I also think people hide behind jargon, and when you ask them to clarify what they mean, they often don't know - the use of inaccessible language allows people who don't know anything to sound like they do. Plain English is for everyone, not just "service users".

  Theresa on 12 Dec 2007

• The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.?

  George Orwell on 12 Dec 2007

• This could be regarded as serious, humourous or depressing. I take the point on some of these, there are many that don't exist as words, 'contestability' for example. Also there are one or two that are cheesy consultant speak. However, many seem perfectly reasonable to me. I'm part of the community and feel rather patronised by this and this approach seems to make a mockery of attempting to raise standards of literacy.

  Simon on 12 Dec 2007

• I don't know which is more entertaining - the list of words, the waste of time putting them together or the comments I read (which definetely made me laugh)

  Martin Heuter on 12 Dec 2007

• I think there is a bit of confusion over why this list has been put together. The 'banned words' on the LGA list are not ones which the LGA think that people don't understand, they are a collection of common words which have been gradually stripped of their true meaning through overuse/misuse. "Welcome", for example, is on the banned words list not become people don't know what it means, but because it is used lazily when people should instead just cut straight to the core of what they are trying to say. The statement "We welcome the announcement of xxxx by the Prime Minister" is pretty much devoid of any real meaning - councils should instead concentrate on getting straight to the issue at hand, i.e. "This announcement of new funding will mean xx more affordable homes/school places/social care place for local people". Just saying "We welcome..." is a waste of time and energy on the part of those who write such banalities and the public who benefit from being told clearly and concisely what their council thinks on big issues.

  Russell on 12 Dec 2007

• What a shame to put real plain english like welcome (should it always be ... hello??) and customer (client? person who needs your service?) with utter nonsense like 'predictors of beaconicity'. Our experience of trying to put a report into plain english was an eye opener when we were informed that for example a word like 'ratio' should be replaced with 'number', totally distorting the meaning of the report, and implying that someone reading a statistical report about our county would be unable to cope with a word like ratio (they didn't like proportion either!).
  I'm all for abandoning jargon and meaningless catch phrases, but as someone in whose work the priority (er ... thing thats most important?) is to ensure an accurate evidence base (...that all the numbers are right so that the people taking the decisions base it on what is happening in the real world?!!) to make sure that resources are allocated (dosh is spent on the things that really need to have it spent on), I can see that that the alternative to jargon may sometimes be long rambling nonsense!!

  Lenna Santamaria on 12 Dec 2007

• No doubt someone will tell the Audit Commission and their inspection teams

  andrew good on 12 Dec 2007

• I must admit that as a predictor of beaconicity, utilising a performance driven network model incorporating peer challenge to hit all my shared priority targets I am astounded that the LGA is even considering banning meaningful consultation...

  Patrick Sebastian on 12 Dec 2007

• Are you people for real? I started to read this with some amusement - thought it was slightly tongue in cheek - especially when I got to the word 'Welcome'. Most of your comments make me shudder, I am amazed that you are actually taking this so seriously. As long as your approach is friendly, professional and informative and you ask "Is that clear or is there anything you would like more information on?" where is the problem!!

  Ali on 12 Dec 2007

• How about banning meaningless management ?buzzwords? such as........
  
  Blue sky thinking
  Thinking outside of the box
  Proactive
  
  Usually uttered by people who don?t know what they are talking about.

  WM on 12 Dec 2007

• And what about those dreaded KPI's??????? Or maybe they have gone and joined the dinosaur..let's hope so!

  Mai Moon on 12 Dec 2007

• As the author of the list it is very interesting to read the comments here. I think I should explain the context of the list and also respond to a couple of the comments. The list has been worked on for two years. We have been working with the MJ, LGC and political parties to come up with words that are overused or jargon that the sector uses far too much about itself.
  
  Publishing this list was designed to start a debate about how we talk in plain English with the people whom we all serve. I do not pretend that the LGA is perfect, and indeed you only have to look at our website to see we do exactly the wrong thing. That said, much of the things on there are sector specific - but that is still no excuse for us. There are words that can and should be added and indeed others that need taking away.
  
  There will be words that people disagree should be in there and others that should be added. However, in response on certain words that people are asking about here:-
  - 'welcome' - since when has this been used in common language? For example - when was the last time you said to a friend "I welcome the pint you have bought me" ? A simple alternative is either 'necessary' or 'needed' or 'step in the right direction'. It is punchier and more understandable for people.
  - 'customer' or 'service user' - aren't they people?
  
  On the debate about how intelligent are people - I think that misses a point. The literacy rate in the UK is very poor and there are literally millions of people who have a reading age below that of a 10 year old. They are still people that we need to talk to and we have to communicate to those people as well as the well informed. The Metro, Sun, Mail, Mirror and Express don't have a combined readership of 10 million for nothing.
  
  I hope a sustainable multi-disciplinary co-terminous debate with key stakeholders and communities about a framework for language in the locality can continue in earnest.
  

  Richard Stokoe on 12 Dec 2007

• I agree with the sentiment of Plain English. However 'banning' specific words doesn't help - all that happens is that replacements will be used instead that make even less sense. Surely it is more important to make communication clear and understandable to its intended audience than to worry about what word you can use to mean 'customer'? I notice that 'quick win' is banned, so I'll use 'quick victory' instead and that will be so much clearer...

  TC on 12 Dec 2007

• Poor Richard. He has worked with the MJC, the LGA and political parties to come up with this list. No mention of working with the general public there then. Seems that in trying to communicate effectively with the public at large he has concentrated on speking to anyone but. A bizarre approach in anyone's book!

  Harry on 12 Dec 2007

• I have also never said, "I necessary the pint you have bought me" or "I step in the right direction the pint you have bought me". (Though "I needed the pint you have bought me" I may well have said). The point being that it is entirely down to context and using the language properly. I could choose any word and find an inappropriate way of using it.

  Context on 12 Dec 2007

• I am a foriegner, and went to university in the UK. If this was the newly introduced nationality test for foriegners wishing to live here, I would have scored atleast 97%. Does it mean Indigenous people should also go through some assesment before felt fit to live here? or does it suggest that the intellectual strength of the UK is a FORMER glory now, a legacy. I think every high school student in ex colonies would know more than 80% of these words and certainly 100% would be familiar with welcome.

  Shaz on 12 Dec 2007

• I think the problem with this list is that with many of these words context makes all the difference. E.g. signpost (noun) is a perfectly normal everyday word. But to signpost someone to a service isn't.
  
  I'd like to add 'action' to this list but only its use as a verb - to action an action(!) - and worse still, actioned.

  Tim Ray on 12 Dec 2007

• This reflects poorly on the LGA. What a tabloid, cheap shot, scatter-gun approach - anyone can make a list of jargon terms. Yes- there are terms here that do get over-used, and some which I try never to use. But the LGA (and all of us) should be saying that jargon has its uses, BUT we should always explain what we mean by these terms. Crucially: how things will be different, what will change for staff and customers and stakeholders (oops! :) )
  Challenge those who use jargon by asking: "after these changes, how will the service look and feel different - please give me some concrete examples".

  Michael on 12 Dec 2007

• Many of the words listed are of course fine in the right context and in clear sentences. The trouble is that they are often used by people in public services who have become fluent in management-consultese and who are therefore almost incapable of sensible thinking, plain speaking and clear writing. I refer to the many senior officials who are far too impressed by management consultants and by what they imagine to be 'business-like' language. In an interminable meeting during yet another reorganisation of my county council (all for a very unreasonable £1m) I once recorded a colleague clocking up 10 minutes of presentation-speak without using a single concrete noun or verb, the whole string of gobbledygook being held together by 'in terms of', 'going forwards' and 'thinking out of the box'. Needless to say this went down well with his superiors. I asked him afterwards what was going on and he admitted to being taken over by the jargon: 'I knew I was talking complete bull**** but I couldn't stop myself. Besides, that's what they like to hear and I have got a mortgage to pay'. He's been promoted since.

  Ian Christie on 12 Dec 2007

• The only respondent who has understood the issues involved and expressed that understanding clearly is Russell.

  Kenny on 13 Dec 2007

• Well done! It is time we ditched the present swathe of meaningless jargon for something actually meaningful. Aren't we all tired of the same old words that come trundling out in every report these days? I'm sure we've all seen reports composed entirely of those 100 words constantly re-arranged in varying sequences, trying to appear to be meaningful.

  Diana Davis on 13 Dec 2007

• I'd like to add 'robust' to the list. Plans, processes, procedures all have to be robust, it seems. Sounds like a redundant word to me. Who would want to create a feeble plan? Or a wobbly process?

  John Liddle on 13 Dec 2007

• If the intention is to make communication clear and understandable I think it would be more useful for the LGA and Plain English Campaign to publicise what they consider we should do - rather than what not to do.
  
  The English language has a wonderful vocabulary that can help people to communicate with precision and clarity. There is no need to use long words or sentences where short ones will do. Sometimes though they won't do. In trying to avoid certain 'bad' words there is a risk of using an alternative that is not so clear.
  
  I'm sure I'm not alone in having read through pages of jargon that seems meaningless. The words themselves are not at fault. I've also read documents that contain some of these banned words that were clear and concise. The fact that someone has written a report that is meaningless drivel is at fault.
  
  Lists like this leave the aim of Plain English open to unnecessary ridicule.

  Natalie on 13 Dec 2007

• Richard - 'since when has welcome been used in common language?'
  'thank you'
  'you're welcome'

  Vicky on 13 Dec 2007

• Clearly human evolution has not only come to a halt, but has gone into reverse. The English language is something we should cherish and respect. Rather than encouraging the use of so-called 'plain' English, surely we should all aspire to extend and widen our vocabulary.

  Malcolm Scobie on 13 Dec 2007

• A guaranteed Hot Topic for the pre Christmas season.!! In arguing the detail we should not miss the heavyweight underlying point - we must talk in such a way that people know what we are saying. These words we use can be dangerous indeed - partuicularly if we shoot ourselves in the feet with them

  Tegwyn Jones on 13 Dec 2007

• Plain English isn't about limiting vocabulary and creativity, it's about making it readable and understandable.
  
  Oh, and the point being made about the word "welcome" not being used in common language is in the context described - ie. "we welcome the government initiative...blah", not in the context of responding to someone thanking you. Of course we all say "you're welcome", but, as said above, we don't say "I welcome the pint you just bought me".

  Theresa on 13 Dec 2007

• "Going forward" really gets on my nerves.

  Graham on 13 Dec 2007

• To the author at the LGA and anyone else who's got this far down the page - get a life! For anyone else who's that bothered, Malcolm Scobie says it all, really

  Rhett Butler on 13 Dec 2007

• I love these words. I use them all the time. I can't say I use them to communicate with the general public, only with other officers and members and other public service types. I lard my reports and briefings with them. We have competitions in our office to see how many of them we can stuff into our work, and to see how many we can string together into meaningless paragraphs. We also pick stuff up from conferences and seminars and other junkets and see if we can incorporate new nonesense into out work, and then see how long it takes to become common parlance among our peers.
  
  Sir Humphrey is our hero, and we do our bit to keep up his standards - these words are part and parcel of that great enterprise. Has anyone out there managed to use "low hanging fruit?" for easily secured objectives? It's a corker, and should catch on really quickly.

  Alexi Con on 13 Dec 2007

• Some of the words and phrases should be discouraged (rather than 'banned') but I agree with others that alternatives should be offered. However, a lot depends on the context in which these terms are used, and the audience. There is often a fine line between using plain English and dumbing down.
  
  "Synergies" is one of my bugbears - people so often misuse it, as in "there are synergies between X and Y " when, in fact, they mean "there are similarities between X and Y". Gives me word rage (a new syndrome I just invented, to describe the overwhelming urge to stab the person using an annoying word or phrase.)
  
  Other words and phrases which should have been on the list: "iteration", "gold thread", "direction of travel", "double devolution", "procure" and "promulgate".
  
  Perhaps linked to this list should be a campaign to Reduce the Tendency of People in the Public Sector to Capitalise Nouns Unnecessarily!

  Lou Rossati on 13 Dec 2007

• Theresa - true but 'I welcome the pint you just bought me' is not in the context described either - at least not in my workplace. 'Thanks mate' is not really appropriate for receiving a government initiative
  Rhett - tomorrow is another day!

  Vicky on 13 Dec 2007

• What would be very interesting is the list not in alphabetical order but in order of priority i.e which words do the LGA think are the worst to use?
  
  And more importantly does the author of the list have management buy in to ensure that the 100 words listed are not used in future LGA publications?

  Fiona on 13 Dec 2007

• What would help the list would be examples in brackets after each word.
  
  I think everyone does get the point of this list but it has stirred up some fairly common feelings about the use Plain English.
  
  The aim is to communicate. We need to make sure that we do that in the most effective way. That means, knowing who our audience is and writing for them. As we know 'jargon' has it's place, and is just our way of adapting language to aid communication, within the right context it is helpful. Out of context any word can become 'jargon' or meaningless.
  
  So, next to 'Welcome' the list should continue: '(as in... we welcome the decision to build a new bridge to improve...)', after 'Best practice' the example could be (as in... sharing best practice with others). To further improve the list examples of alternatives would be helpful, for example: 'Welcome (as in... we welcome the decision to build a new bridge to improve...) - alternative - The council is building a bridge which will improve...'
  
  However, the debate is a healthy one, so Richard's job is done. We are all thinking about the words we use to communicate and are sharing our ideas and experiences to improve our use of language (best practice) .

  Evey on 13 Dec 2007

• I think lists of the top 100 anything are a pointless waste of time and should be banned and anyway what are you doing reading this? Shouldnt you be working???

  Harry the horse on 13 Dec 2007

• Well well well - another example of public funding being wasted. Clearly, the person who made this up has way too much free time. Wonder what the tax payer's alliance would make of this latest gem. Is it any wonder that LGA no longer have 100% local authority membership

  Bemused on 13 Dec 2007

• Was this 'product' 'quality reviewed' against the 'acceptance criteria' and signed off by the 'project executive'? Please, can we get rid of PRINCE2-speak too?
  My pet hate (actually I like pets but the furry ones) is the nonsensical term - 'management capacity'. If we are advised to 'increase management capacity' does this mean get more managers or fatten up the existing ones? I think we should say 'improve capability or ability' and not invent new daft phrases.
  Steve - the simple language man

  Steve Mason on 13 Dec 2007

• While I agree that we should avoid jargon I see no problem with words like "welcome" and "visionary". And What is a good alternative to "joined up"?

  John Woodhouse on 14 Dec 2007

• I came onto this site to look for examples of 'best practice' instead I find 100 everyday words which are banned. Okay Holistic can be and is often used in the wrong context but you have missed my 'Over-arching' which is much worse. It begs the question. Is the dumbing down for the reciever or as I suspect for the sender?

  Rab Lindsay on 14 Dec 2007

• Don't despair, Richard! You have got people thinking and, probably, judging by the strength of feeling expressed, talking about improving how we communicate. That has to be a good thing, even if you had to make up a phrase like "predictors of beaconicity" to fuel the debate.

  Jo on 14 Dec 2007

• It's robust, but is it fit for purpose?

  Liz Brown on 14 Dec 2007

• some comments trivialise what is an important area for public sector to consider. Many (not all) the words are designed to set your profession and class apart from others in society. We all do it, but need to recognise why we do it and what affect it has on others not familiar with it. I get annoyed with folk from social services and health who refer to 'issues around'. And managers who refer to 'drilling down' and 'unpacking'. The phrases are in fact very understandable, but are designed to be used as a word-badge to signify their status in the hierarchy. And as soon as lesser beings start to use these words, they are jettisoned by the managers and new equivalents are brought into vogue. All this is harmless but irritating role playing within the organisation. But when the words are used to communicate with those we serve I think we shd examine why we want to take our arcane workplace language to the real world - to set us apart?

  Peter Gimber on 14 Dec 2007

• Fantastic debate - should be part of the required reading material at management training for all senior officers.
  The 'phrase du jour' that currently makes me growl is "there's no point reinventing the wheel". Is this not just an excuse for the lazy to not try anything new?!
  Oh and while I'm definitely going to try and use the "low-hanging fruit" analogy, can I promote my own new word? Bi-menthly. Dreamt up because bi-monthly means both every two weeks and every two months, so, as you'd have to explain which one you meant each time, what's the point of the word. The only way it can work is if we do the same as we do for biannually and biennially - hence bimenthly would mean every two months and bimonthly would remain for every two weeks.
  Just a thought...
  Lois Prior, East Herts Council.

  Lois Prior on 14 Dec 2007

• Ridiculous. How about we take words out of use such as Local Government Association, as they are making communicating with our customers, (oh wait I cant say that), with our service users, (oh wait, I cant say that either), with 'dem people what use the stuff that we do for a living more difficult.
  
  Its certainly a common sense approach that is used in my local authority where you use language fitting to the audience. For example, in a meeting to discuss strategic direction, we use 'jargon' in our discussions as everyone knows what the acronyms mean / terms refer to, but when enaging with our customers (sue me!) we use language that is fitting for them, ie, no jargon and no tech speak, just plain straightforward and understandable English.
  
  Its a common sense thing, surely we dont need a list of 100 words that we just are NOT allowed to use. We have in our authority some fairly intelligent service users who understand a lot of what we tell them, and we have others who dont, it is all about adjusting the content of our communication to fit the audience.....

  Ian on 14 Dec 2007

• I think someone has been spending tax payers money on a pointless exercise.....AGAIN!!
  
  The only good thing about it has been reading the comments from other readers..................certainly cheered up my day!

  Matt on 14 Dec 2007

• I don't like the word 'banned' I am getting tired of being told that I shouldn't do something, I however agree with Peter Gimber. So often councils and organisations use these terms without any clear idea as to what they mean. If they are used appropriately there is nothing wrong with them but if they are used unnecessarily, meaninglessly or incorrectly then get rid of them, all they do is make those that use them feel as if they belong to the informed clique and those that don't, outside of it and less likely to contribute. While many will understand the terms used there will also be many who will not, we are here to provide a service for all and that often means talking to people who don't and as we all know these terms change from year to year depending on the fashion.

  Helen on 14 Dec 2007

• I'd like to see the phrase "capture the learns" put on a space rocket and sent to Pluto.
  
  I hate it.

  MICHAEL, Dorset. on 14 Dec 2007

• Please don't try and re-invent me, I am quite happy as I am.
  
  Incidentally, as someone whose employer is currently part of the pathfinder process, what word other than 'pathfinder' are we expected to use?

  The Wheel on 14 Dec 2007

• I don't like jargon; I don't like any inert gases.
  
  Good to see George Orwell still contributing

  paul ivory on 14 Dec 2007

• What about nonsense grammar?? Why do people always cap up 'Council' when it is used only as a noun and not a proper noun?
  It is 'council'.
  Same with job titles. Some blowhards think that to have their job title capped up signifies importance!

  neil graham on 14 Dec 2007

• Sorry Jo - Predictors of Beaconicity is a new phrase being coined by Whitehall :-
  http://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/publications/559656

  Steve on 14 Dec 2007

• Just think of how many political speeches, government publications, laws, regulations, forms, e-mails from upper management, etc. would simply vanish completely if all the banned words were removed from them.
  
  We should all think about what we are saying and consider the intended audience and then make the vocabulary suitable for the task rather than just rattling off something in the fashionable rhetoric of the day.
  
  I personally detest 'spin' and find it little better than intentional deception. Honesty, fair representation, and a clear course of action communicated in a manner that is understandable to the majority would perhaps even start to remedy the pervasive distrust people have for government and management in general. Of course, it would put most of the spin writers out of a job but it would be a worthy sacrifice, woudn't it?

  Gaviidae on 14 Dec 2007

• The list muddles two issues.
  
  Jargon (including managementspeak cliches and buzzwords) obscures meaning, communicates nothing and is deliberately confusing. Jargon hides incompetence, poor reasoning, indecision and cowardice in the face of criticism. The source of almost all such phrases listed is Central Government
  
  Intelligent use of English (including 'difficult' words) clarifies meaning, informs and challenges. Babytalk insults peoples' intelligence. It over-simplifies and generalises. In doing so it fails to convey meaning. It is therefore no better than jargon.
  
  Forget banned words and phrases. Just tell the truth in as few words as possible.

  Dan on 14 Dec 2007

• Please add all acronyms to this list. They alienates and excludes those who are not aware of what they mean. It seems to be a common trait amongst all Local Government organisations and is not inclusive and certainly not effective communication.

  Michelle Corbett on 14 Dec 2007

• I've got 3 more...Local,Government & Association.
  
  What a nonsense!

  david tanner on 14 Dec 2007

• What a waste of web space...Did someone actually get paid to think of this list!
  Obviously the LGA is not the "beacon" for identification of "best practice" and "resource allocation".

  Rob Taylor on 14 Dec 2007

• I like the list. I wouldn't ban the words though, just discourage their inappropriate use.
  
  It sounds like we all know people who extensively use words like these, and don't they look foolish? That should be motivation enough not to copy them.
  
  My pet peeves are 'relocate', such as when I heard someone saying they were going to 'relocate this telephone over there'...wtf is wrong with 'move'?
  
  Don't get me started on 'utilise' and 'functionality'.
  
  As a council tenant I absolutely hate being called a customer!!! I'm not a customer!! I'm not buying a pint of milk from the council, the relationship between us and the responsibilities are completely different. Like many council tenants (I'd say most) unlike buying a pint of milk I did not have a great deal of choice of where to rent my home from and if I'm unhappy with the service I can't simply go somewhere else. I'm a tenant or a resident NOT a ****ing customer!

  Alice on 14 Dec 2007

• I would say that as an ambassador for many agencies within my area that I cautiously welcome this initiative which will champion community engagement and customer involvement and enhance the evidence base for a framework of good practice. This will facilitate a step-change in citizen empowerment providing guidelines for incentivising a bottom-up and holistic approach, signpositing localities towards an outcome of meaningful dialogue within a participatory partnership with service users.
  
  In order to encourage a joined up, process driven, transformational seedbed for cascading the vision, the strategic approach needs to be coterminous with the core message that engaging service users provides us with a democratic mandate for capacity building among stakeholders. We, therefore, need to prioritise the scoping of developing a level playing field for language use which will provide a multi-disciplinary audience with a menu of options , thereby encouraging a transparent approach which will highlight best practice.
  
  Hopefully this will be a sustainable approach, but one which will provide a quick win and which will be robustly tested for soundness. However, a performance network will have to be developed to offer peer challenge and monitor outputs, providing improvement levers which will ensure the contestability of the approach. This will be a risk based approach which will lead to more sustainable communities and can then be streamlined in order to ensure correct resource allocation. We also need to develop a symposium for providing external challenge, helping to develop a more consensual approach delivering the flexibilities and freedoms necessary to fast track the core values into all areas of governance.
  
  This should be recognised as a beacon approach which will encourage a can-do culture, cross-cutting areas including the third sector and which will deliver a top-down message that in order to communicate effectively with the public, plain language should be used at all times.

  AH on 14 Dec 2007

• While I believe that is rediculous coming up with a banned list of words for "plain English purposes". I would agree with a list of words that when innocently used can mean something that is discriminatory or offensive to members of our diverse community. Let us remember that communication is also about entering into dialogue and for want of a bad word "engagement" and you need to choose your words for your audiences. However if anyone don't understand what is said let us create a culture where people would seek clarification. Many time you understand best by seeking such clarification. i love to use some of the suggested banned words so let us all "engage" on a more useful exercise. I suggest "lets try to say things simply" many times if you cannot then you too do not understand it fully.

  Ken Andrews on 14 Dec 2007

• Jargon is only ever jargon when people do not understand it, once a word/phrase is understood it becomes part of the vocabulary, and so language evolves. If a particular word/phrase is the most appropriate one to describe whatever it is that needs description then just because someone needs to explain it, doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact, it might be the most appropriate thing.
  
  As usual the LGA entirely misses the point. It is not any particular words that need to be banned, instead, we should be encouraged to ask "what does that mean?" more often, and to accept that, just because we don't know the meaning of a word, doesn't mean we can't find out. How arrogant to assume we would have complete and total knowledge?

  David Land on 14 Dec 2007

• I like it but why not 'customer' or 'welcome'? Shall we say 'person' or 'individual' or 'citizen' instead of 'customer'? I can't think of what to say instead of 'welcome' - it is not jargon, I think.

  Shakil Ahmed on 14 Dec 2007

• "Solutionise" is another one that needs putting out of it's misery.

  MICHAEL, Dorset. on 14 Dec 2007

• Its not the words themselves, its often the context in which they are used that takes them away from a straight forward meaning into the realms of fantasy associated with councils and their reports. I support that thinking.

  Keith Gordon on 14 Dec 2007

• I would add 'colleagues' when not used to describe colleagues at all but people with whom you come into contact during your work.

  Keith Gordon on 14 Dec 2007

• I understand (from some years ago, so the likelihood of change is high) that the 400 most commonly used words in the English language have 1700 dictionary definitions and that 250 words account for 50% of common 'conversation'.
  If we are going to ban these commonly used words then the point about people using the same word but with different 'meanings' for them is likely to get worse - and prove a hindrance rather than an aid to 'better' communicating.
  
  It may be true that, for some people, these words are not in their working vocabulary and so are not in 'common use' by them. For others these words will be in 'common use' by them. To demand bans of words might imply that this arises more from personal opinions, prejudices or incompetences never mind an Orwellian base for limiting certain types of thinking, rather than a 'Nanny' -lets make life easy for those who can't - approach.
  
  The examples about "welcome" seem to sum up the issue. It is unlikely to be used in the sense of "I welcome for the drink you bought me." It is not an alternative to "thank you". But it is likely to be used as "That's welcome.", as you drink that drink, "Welcome to the meeting..." et cetera. There is nothing 'wrong' with any word. All the words on the list have a valid meaning and purpose when used appropriately. But as a consequence of lack of knowledge they may be misused and misunderstood, frequently getting the word rather than the 'sender' a bad reputation.
  
  Because of the lack of a broad vocabulary many people do not understand the valid word being used and demand something simpler -but incorrect- as in a case where I was required to change the word "configuration" to "set up" in relation to an IT situation. One is not an alternative to the other, except to those who do not know what they mean in the IT context.
  It is not possible to explain XYZ concepts in ABC language.
  
  Jargon is the vocabulary that relates to a specific "functionality". People misuse these either accidentally (don't know their meaning) or deliberately (to confuse and boost their ego). "Plain English" is jargon. "Parameter" has a specific meaning within mathematics but is misused in a broader context. Many people label a word that is not in their vocabulary as 'jargon'. For many it is easier to apply the "Abominable No-man" approach than to learn.

  Maurice on 14 Dec 2007

• Did anyone read AH's comment - hilarious!!! Well done, I think you got all 100 words in it!!

  Fred on 14 Dec 2007

• So in other words - there is no capacity, no vision, no best practice, no citizen empowerment, no community engagement, no core values, no customers, no welcome, no evidence base, no external challenge, no governance, no sustainable communities and no transformation?!
  Gimme a break!!!

  Jo on 14 Dec 2007

• I'm appalled that the word 'solutions' isn't there - using it represents possibly the worst word-crime imaginable

  Paul on 14 Dec 2007

• The problem is not with the words but with their euphamistic usage.
  Thus I might say 'I welcome this debate' when what I actually mean is 'What an inordinate waste of time and public money!'

  Helen on 14 Dec 2007

• I saw a beauty on the Communities website today - Beaconicity... UGHH!

  Helen on 14 Dec 2007

• I am delighted with the banning of most of these words it is about time. Local authorities do have buzz words that come and go. Strategic planning, why can't they just say the plan especially when consulting with members of the public. People have often asked after a meeting "what were they on about" it is not because people are less intellegent they just prefer to speak plain English.
  I can't really see why welcome is on the list but I can think of others that should be.
  Abbreviations should definatly be banned half the time they don't know what they stand for anyway.

  Lynne Brosnan on 14 Dec 2007

• Amusing set of comments here. Dividing up between those to whom these words still mean something and are indignant, and those who realise that these words have become "dead" to most people. "Vison" and "leadership" and what have you are "cuddly bunny" words - meaningless because they are so positive that they become overused and hence baggy and meaningless. Yeah "vision". Oh I'm so imspired when people say that (humph).
  
  Also this list does not suggest the plain meaning of "welcome" and "customer" is too difficult for plain folks. What is being suggested is that these words are being used as part of a part of a baffling, insincere and jargonistic gov-speak. I'm always highly suspicious when people start banginging on about "the customer".

  Martin on 14 Dec 2007

• Whoever produced this list has completely missed the point. Many (perhaps most) local government documents are opaque to the point of incomprehensiblity. That is not because of the use of 'management speak', which is what your list seems to be aimed at, but jargon heaped on acronyms piled on an inability to think about the needs and background of the reader when writing documents.

  Mike Fairhurst on 14 Dec 2007

• Jargon is not a form of words but a way of organisations express themselves which as been developed for use within a particular group like local authorities.Making it hard for outsiders to understand, the unfortunate part is that many councillors who listen to this and pass policy fail to understand the jargon. I feel that the training should start there and if they don't understand the words themselves then maybe they may think twice before passing policy.

  Vince Crosby on 14 Dec 2007

• The list is a bit too long and includes words that really should not be there, like welcome. Usually it is the context in which some of the words are used and there are a few which are relatively meaningless.
  
  There is also the over use of words, during the Gulf War in the 90's Saddam Hussain used the word "dialogue" a few times and guess what the in saying was "we need dialogue" in stead of talking.
  
  The John Prescott mentioned a "robust" system and then that was the new word, anything that needed to be strong or "water tight" now had to be robust.

  Nigel on 14 Dec 2007

• I'm so glad that my taxes go towards such worthwhile exercises?! I am at this present moment picking my jaw up off the floor!
  
  I would consider myself a 'normal' member of society (no connection to local authorities in any way) and I find this whole issue silly to the extreme. I can understand the idea of providing guidance in avoiding unnecessary jargon and for people to be thoughtful (and adaptable) about the vocabulary they use but to BAN perfectly legitimate everyday words is, in my opinion, a disservice to the English language and to peoples intelligence.
  
  This is just typical of local authority working culture and their continual pandering to political correctness and dumbing down of standards for the lowest common denominator!
  
  Please, please, please get real and stop wasting your time and the tax payers money on exercises that in the real world have no actual benefit or purpose!

  Michael Sivers, Northants on 14 Dec 2007

• Some jargon is okay, but I still believe in good old plain English

  Jane Tillman on 15 Dec 2007

• Overarching is my most disliked word, second is "around" as in, "We had a discussion around the best way to increase funding" - why not use "about" instead of "around"? Also, Fazed is an awful word, apparently an American affectation.
  
  There are some words in the LGA list of 100 banned words that are acceptable, but only in the correct context. For example "Minimising SLIPPAGE when producing a SEEDBED ......" would be perfectly alright in a farming magazine when discussing cultivating prior to drilling, but the words aren't appropriate to most Local Authority type contexts.

  Donald Bowler on 17 Dec 2007

• Am I the only person to notice that the list contains more than 100 words? Apparently the word phrases (as in '100 words and phrases') has also gone the way of the kind of awkwardly specific words that the authors of the list seem to have a problem with. Or maybe I'm just a pedant - or is that another word one shouldn't use?
  
  Incidentally, I found this sentence from one of the list's authors saddening beyond belief. "The Metro, Sun, Mail, Mirror and Express don't have a combined readership of 10 million for nothing." Is there any need for such ugly writing? Or such inaccurate writing ? Metro actually do get their readers for nothing - they give the paper away in order to gain revenue form advertisers. On any given Saturday it's probably arguable that the cover price of most tabloids comes nowhere near covering the cost / value of the free DVDs, cheap holidays or other promotional items used to attract readers.
  
  Much of the problem with the misuse of the words and phrases in this list comes not from the fact that they are difficult terms but from two related problems;
  1) The assumption that the audience know what a word or phrase means. I was taught in primary school aged 10, that if you introduce a word or phrase that the reader may not recognize you should either explain it immediately or direct the reader to a glossary. I knew what a glossary, aged 10, was because Captain W E Johns made extensive use of them in his Biggles books. I wonder if that marks me down in some way?
  2) The assumption by an author that they must use a particular vocabulary in order to establish their credentials as a practitioner of a particular skill set or their understanding of the latest thinking.
  
  Rather than deciding what words or phrases should be allowed or banned perhaps the LGA's time would be better spent teaching writing skills and discouraging the idea that possessing the vocabulary of a skillset is the same as possessing the skills - I know what a tonsillectomy is but I wouldn't want anyone to let me carry one out!

  gareth davies on 17 Dec 2007

• I notice they didn't ban the word bo***cks!
  This is a classic case of missing the point, as more than one of the people who replied said. Plain English is about the way you use clear language to get the point across, not just individual words

  steve on 17 Dec 2007

• I started off thinking that this is the nanny state gone mad, but then the number of simple spelling mistakes that are in some comments leads me to thinking that there could be a point to it all - does anyone proof reading emails before hitting the post button?
  
  Remember people, all things in moderation.
  
  Good day to you all!

  William Caxton on 17 Dec 2007

• Can I add "tranche" please?

  Mark Fitzgerald on 17 Dec 2007

• I am finding this list very helpful
  Yes some of the words should have examples of the way they are used by councils.
  My own council (HPBC) used to write "Gobbledegook" reports to try and hide facts from both the councillors and the public.
  However after laughing at some of the reports and telling the authors to rewrite them in plain English an improvement is slowly being made.
  I realise that some of the comments made by previous respondents are rather silly and puerile but hopefully common sense will prevail and plain English will become the norm in both councils and public bodies

  Councillor Ivan Bell on 17 Dec 2007

• A list like this is in itself quite meaningless due to the fact that it takes all of its entries out of context and offers no explaination as to WHY these word might be problematic, and to whom. I hear many of these terms used quite meaninglessly almost every day. All it goes to prove is a lack of intelligence and imagination in the user. Alienating? yes indeed. It's hard to respect the opinions of people who can't express themselves without the use of 'jargon'.

  Martin Rose on 17 Dec 2007

• If you can't express yourself in written English without hiding behind words that don't really mean anything except to some bureaucratic cabal ("ka-bal": n. "a small party united for some secret design" (Chambers 20th Century English) then you should learn. Having said that, the other extreme, i.e. the position taken by the disciples of Lynn Truss who delight in looking down on someone else's inability to place an apostrophe correctly, despite the fact that they understand perfectly what that person means, are just as bad. Let's get our priorities right. In 'Carry On Up The Khyber' the Khazi of Kalabar (Kenneth Williams) bemoans his lack of success in rattling the British forces. "You can bomb their palace, set fire to their garrison - BUT PUT THE SUGAR IN THE TEA BEFORE THE MILK AND YOU'VE HAD IT!" And he has a point. I suspect many of the Plain English cabal care more about how something's said then what's actually being said. If you don't know what a word means, look it up. And if it's hard to respect people who, in your obviously not very humble opinion, can't express themselves without jargon - try a bit harder!

  Richard on 17 Dec 2007

• "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" Churchill - 4 June 1940
  
  "We shall have contestability. We shall go until will establish a coterminous relationship. We shall engage on the continent, we shall engage on stretches of water, we shall engage with a value added step change in the atmosphere. We shall ensure the country is sustainable whatever the income streams. We shall engage on the beaches, we shall engage at the transport hubs, we shall engage in the green spaces and in the arterial flows, we shall engage in the undulating terrain. we shall never have a negative outcome!"
  Churchill according to Local Government.
  
  People seem to forget that the way language is used is one of the most powerful things that human kind has to offer. And lets face it - if Churchill started talking in local government jargon then we would have lost the war.

  Roger Storer on 18 Dec 2007

• Glad to see it let us go back to plain speaking and say what we mean without the jargon, on saying that there are some words you cannot replace and should probably stay as there may not be another way of expressing what you mean to say.

  JOHN PENGELLY on 18 Dec 2007

• Please please liberate us from the depressing teduim of the most over-used cliches "robust" as listed, and add the worst of the lot: "fit for purpose". They do technically make sense, but reveal the writer to be so uninspired and mundane that they are unlikely to actually mean what they're saying.

  Pete Lambert on 18 Dec 2007

• A senior officer recently wrote a report to committee using the word 'deliver' ,in its various forms, no less than 52 times, including thrice in one sentence - I am amazed that I haven't spotted anyone else mentioning it (deliverability? p-lease!). To my mind, 'delivering a vision' summons up a picture of a Ford Transit and the Angels of Mons. Time to revive 'run it past you' and 'kick it about', perhaps. We shouldn't assume that people are stupid - it's the incessant use of craze-phrases and words that's so tiresome. The cartoon in Planning magazine often rings very true!

  Frank Woolston on 18 Dec 2007

• i wonder if the person or persons who thought of this list would be honest enough an tell me if they hav attended any courses from common purpose. it all sound like a bit of the eu fascist come marxist mind indoctrination.

  horatio nelson on 18 Dec 2007

• Ok, here's a test. Who can tell us what this really means? It comes from a report to Richmond upon Thames Council Finance and Strategy Overview and Scrutiny Committee (say no more!). Answers on a piece of paper please:
  
  "It is recommended that the Council as landowner commits to provide at least 160
  hab rooms of affordable housing, in lieu of on-site provision at Friars Lane Car
  Park and Twickenham Riverside sites. This will give comfort to the Council as
  planning authority, and give some margin for possible under achievement of
  number of units of affordable housing against estimates for the sites at Appendix
  A. If necessary, substitute sites to those identified will be provided to ensure that
  the minimum target committed to is achieved.
  
  "There is therefore an expectation by the Council as landowner that the Council in
  its capacity as planning authority, accepts the disposal and commitment to
  disposal of the sites at Appendix A for the provision of affordable housing as
  credits against the requirement for the provision of affordable housing within the
  development of Friars Lane Car park and Twickenham Riverside sites, and that
  consequently when planning applications for development of these sites are
  received there will be no requirement for on-site affordable housing provision.
  The policy is being recommended on this basis, and the Council as landowner
  will withdraw from the arrangement if this expectation is not realised."
  
  There is a lot of the same - it's endless! If you pass this test, perhaps you can do some more for us. We can't understand a word our borough is saying, which makes it hard to know if decisions make sense.

  Jill Sanders on 18 Dec 2007

• Having been a TEFL teacher abroad for some years, I am a firm believer in good communication.
  The English language is very rich and a wonderful medium for classic literature. However I believe that the Plain English Society was formed on the premise that we should be able to understand English, especially when it comes to legal and business documents etc. Who hasn't been frustrated and confused by the 'small print' in a document?
  So language should be in its place...clear and uncomplicated when it comes to important documents. Leaving the way for more imaginative and 'flowery' vocabulary when writing novels, poetry and other non-official writing.
  Jargon is language created by professionals for their various disciplines, suitable for in-house usage only and not for consumption by the public. I work for the Fire & Rescue Service now - so what is a pump or appliance? In fire service terminology you might be forgiven for not knowing that it is a fire engine? The emergency services along with myriad other organisations are awash with professional jargon that is often completely unintelligble for the layman and therefore like to confuse when used in public.
  As for the LGA's list of 100 banned words - they have 'gone overboard' when thinking 'outside the box'!

  David Ridley on 20 Dec 2007

• This topic is both informative and interesting.

  Chuck Norris on 20 Dec 2007

• For Goodness Sake!
  Get a grip people.. Take a deep breath and laugh

  Dave Simmons on 20 Dec 2007

• Some one in my office is getting married soon. Unfortunatelly we've had to call it off as we can no longer say "engagement" this causes huge problems when discussing pre-wedding parties.
  
  This morning i cycled to work in the ice and there was a lot of slipage........ oh sorry!

  Josey on 20 Dec 2007

• I don't entirely agree with all words banned words but as an "intelligent" member of the public as well as an LA employee some documents can really be difficult to decipher. Let's also not forget those members of the public who are also intelligent but have difficulty with reading and writing, the elderly and those for which English is not their first language. They are all our "customers" and the plainer the english the better.

  Alex Vickers on 20 Dec 2007

• What about acronyms? Here is one for you: this is BS! I'll use whatever words I like. I don't need someone to tell me how to make myself understood. Yes a lot of these words and phrases are often used as part of meaningless and distracting statments but how can you ban normal english words like priority, or sustainable? I think it is ridiculous that anyone would want to ban the word sustainable, given the scientific consensus (sorry, consensus is banned) that climate change is happening and is almost certainly caused by human activity. I think everyone knows what sustainability means in the context of the economy, the enviornment and also in the context of our society as a whole. Perhaps they just think true sustainability is too difficult to achieve in any meaningful sense so they would rather ban the word and hope all public desire for a more sustainable society will just dry up as a result. The saddest thing is that the people who don't want to make the changes to our society to make it sustainable are the ones who have devalued the word by their misuse of it.
  
  The whole idea of "Plain English" is little more than a flawed attempt to improve public attitudes to government by targetting the communication activities of those lowest down the government food chain. It is just what I have come to expect from the supercillious and disingenuous people who occupy senior positions in local and national government. The reason people don't understand or believe what council officers say is because we are forced to back up politicians in their quests for power by twisting, obscuring or completely contradicting the truth. Politicians are the problem not officers. If politicians (both councillors and MPs) and there senior officers were open and honest there would be no need for officers (or civil servants) to produce dissembling communications in the first place.

  Adam Sawyer on 20 Dec 2007

• Stop wasting my time
  I hope you're not getting paid for this

  Mike Green on 20 Dec 2007

• I thought it was a joke...Erm...A nanny state is only good if they make you cakes and give you extra pocket money. No one likes a strict Nanny (And those that do have to pay for the pleasure these days...)

  Sordid De Tails, Bedlam on 20 Dec 2007

• I suppose this has kept someone in a job.

  Robert on 20 Dec 2007

• Whatever kind of job do these people have that they have time to come up with unmitigated **** like this?
  Unsurprisingly the terms Caring Countywide and Investors in People have both disappeared a long time ago. While some of the words in the list are superfluous there are others that are perfectly acceptable. The people who published this list seem to think that the vast majority of people we deal with are totally illiterate and can only cope with words of one syllable. Don't be so patronising and accept that people should be free to use whatever terminology they see fit depending on the people they are communicating with.

  wendy grimsdale on 20 Dec 2007

• Ay? You what!

  M richards on 20 Dec 2007

• No. No. A responsible organisation such as the LGA should know what jargon is!
  i think this list has been issued 101 days too early ( 1st April!!!!!) and should be condemned to room 101 asap, pronto, pdq..........

  Alan Cockbill on 20 Dec 2007

• Looking at this list Becta should be scrapped immediately ......

  Steven Edgar on 20 Dec 2007

• Plain English should be about using the right words in the correct manner and not reducing everything to the lowest common denominator. My experience of working in a local authority is that many people try to make their language sound more formal and use "myself" where "me" is correct and add an apostrophe in to every word ending in an "s" which drives me up the wall. Many of the words on the list are virtually meaningless and often appear first in a management context and then seep elsewhere with their meaning becoming less and less clear. I have always had a problem with the use of the word "customer" as not everyone pays for services provided by local authorities so how can "customers" be correct? I don't think local authorities will change their ways in the light of this report; their habits are too entrenched.

  Emmeline Bryant on 20 Dec 2007

• But these words are used to hide the failings of people using them!
  
  It just would'nt be fair to take them away!
  Anyway they would just invent new ones to allow them to continue talking in a bubble.
  
  Also it appears that consistent use of some words in this list e.g. Holistic, strategic, synergies are essential if you want to get promotion in Local Authority nowadays. You'll never get anywhere with plain english, not to mention "Plain Talking".

  Desperate on 20 Dec 2007

• This list includes a substantial number of ordinary English words which have specific and well known meanings eg "Welcome, customer".
  It has a number of useful and evocative metaphorical expressions such as "cascading, fast-track".
  It contains a number of words which have valuable special meanings in areas of local governmnet operations such as "beacon, governance, value-added".
  It also some contains some expressions which are not clear, or which are probably over used, becoming cliches.
  I strongly support the use of clear English. But this list makes no distinction between words which have a useful general or specific meaning, and those which obscure meaning, or mean nothing at all.
  I'm surprised that LGA and the Plain English campaign have put it forward - they seem to have lost their way.

  Bob Dunlop on 20 Dec 2007

• Potentially a good idea but whoever included "capacity" obviously hasn't heard or read about the Mental Capacity Act which came into effect from 1 October 2007 and imposes wide obligtions on LA's and others to ensure that clients have the capacity to understand and deal with their own affairs!
  
  Some of the other words are good English and if barred will need replacemnt by whole phrases.

  Paul Jackson on 20 Dec 2007

• What's as bad, or perhaps worse, than any of these words is the tone in which most public communications are written - the "breezy", Americanized, permanently over-positive corporate style which the ordinary council-tax payer more often than not recognises immediately as the over-blown, vacuous and patently patronising guff that is is. It is certainly a very good way to reinforce the public's instinctive distrust of governmental institutions.
  
  I'm also a big fan of the modern practice of "verbing" - to speak of "sourcing" something or other being the classic example. "Source" is a noun, and not a verb, except in corporate-speak.
  
  Am still shocked that the loathsome "proactive" wasn't included!

  Francis Blackman on 21 Dec 2007

• I would like to say that I've never seen such a load of rubbish in all my life, but unfortuneatly I cannot, becauase I have.Somebody is obbviously in desperate need of a real job.
  I am stromgly opposed to the use of 'in phrases', management speak, seemingly endless acronyms, the list goes on.But to draw up a list of banned words (based on what notion I still fail to comprehend [if I can't use that word please substitute understand]) is almost beyond belief.

  Pete Whitaker on 21 December 2007 on 21 Dec 2007

• I thought the whole point of the Plain English Campaign was to cut down the use of acronyms, like LGA, that only those "in the click" would understand, rather than eliminating everyday words that form the basis of a decent vocabulary. How many of us have attended meetings where some smart Alec has tried to sound clever by the over use of acronyms. I agree that this should be stopped asap (sorry). A good vocabulary on the other hand affords us the ability to talk intelligently at different levels and the option to use the best word in any given situation.

  Tony on 21 Dec 2007

• "Welcome" banned - find these people some real work to do... and maybe service providers could actually concentrate on doing a good job rather than writing and talking about it!

  Victoria on 21 Dec 2007

• Thanks to everyone who posted a comment on this article. It's great to see such an interesting and passionate debate on an issue that affects us all.
  
  I'd like to clarify some of the points raised in the discussion, and also say something about our position here at the IDeA.
  
  The phrase 'banned words' is perhaps misleading. The LGA doesn't have the authority to ban words, and I'm sure has no wish to do so! As Richard Stokoe points out above, the intention of the list was to start a debate about the language we use. This was also our intention in publishing the list and opening it up to comment.
  
  Secondly, the context of the words is crucial. Of course no-one is suggesting that the word "welcome" be expunged from the dictionary or from everyday use. Rather, there are certain phrases and linguistic conventions that can make council writing hard to understand for the uninitiated. "We welcome the new place-shaping initiative" is a very different usage from "you're welcome" in conversation or "Welcome to Councilford" on a town sign.
  
  Thirdly, the list was primarily about how councils communicate with residents, not with each other. Here at the IDeA we're very aware that we use a lot of jargon and 'banned words'. But we're also aware that we're usually talking to an informed audience who are likely to be familiar with much of the language. The balance is not always easy, and we are the first to admit we don't always get it right. We do believe that, whatever the context, it's important to know who your audience is, know how you want them to respond, and then put yourself in their place when deciding what language to use.
  
  Finally, please note that the list was accumulated by the LGA and others as a by-product of their ongoing work with local government writing. Rest assured that public funds have not been squandered on a vast research exercise!
  
  Note that the comment function on this article is now closed. We're going to be following up some of the issues you raised in the new year, so watch this space. In the meantime, please accept our best wishes for the holiday season, and thanks again for the debate. If there's one thing we are all agreed on, it's that language matters.
  
  Paul Ireland
  Managing Editor, IDeA Knowledge
  paul.ireland@idea.gov.uk

  Paul Ireland on 21 Dec 2007