What exactly do you mean by that?

If I referred to someone as a 'linguist', I wonder how people would think that a linguist is someone who speaks many languages and maybe works as a language teacher or as an interpreter at the United Nations? I'm not, of course. In fact, these people are more accurately called "Polyglots". While many linguists are polyglots, the focus of linguistics is about the structure, use and psychology of language in general. (Definition courtesy of University of Arizona).

Like so many nouns, the word linguist is a label. So, what exactly do I mean by labelling? Labelling or labeling is describing someone or something in a word or short phrase. For example, describing someone who has broken a law as a criminal. That's straight forward, isn't it?

Let me try more suggestions. If I used the label 'conservative' to describe someone (with or without a capital C) what am I saying? Well, I suggest it depends on what I mean and you understand by the term and often our understandings are not the same. If you consider yourself to be a socialist (another label), for example, it is likely that the label 'conservative' conjures up a different image in your mind to the image in the mind of a conservative. So, it seems we must weigh in the balance: who said it; to whom was it said; were the interpretations likely to be the same; was the purpose of the speaker likely to be the same purpose as the listener? Or, as Wikipedia has it: Labeling theory is the theory of how the self-identity and behaviour of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them. You get the idea, I'm sure.

'Rule of Law' is a term bandied about without much definition attached to it. I speak from a school of thought that interprets Rule of Law as including the ideas of 'causing no harm', and 'being honest', and 'being peaceful' and these ideas are expressed as Common Law - the law of the people. That's a subject not much spoken about by politicians and lawyers, except in derogatory terms.

To use words knowing that your listeners are interpreting them differently to you is dishonest. Being dishonest contravenes my understanding of the term Rule of Law.  'Being dishonest' can't ever be interpreted as being peaceful either. Too many politicians refer to Rule of Law as meaning those government statutes they have created and then enforced upon a more or less compliant population. Judges are paid by the state to enforce them. Interpreted in that fashion, it cannot mean Common Law. It must mean Statute Law, which isn't the same thing.

So, Common Law and Rule of Law mean different things depending on who is using the terms and Rule of Law without the addition of  'and Common Law' is very likely to be a dishonest use of the label, possibly intentionally.

Here's the thing: when you choose to live so that, intentionally, you cause no harm; and intentionally you are honest, and intentionally you are peaceful, GUESS WHAT! They can't touch you for it.

Aw, c'mon, I hear you say. I can live by those rules and I'll still get picked on by someone. They'll think I'm a softie. That's he way of the world.

Thus we come to the nub of the matter. Rule of Law and Common Law also open the door for Trial by Jury as opposed to trial by diktat (also known as statute and Trial by Magistrate).  Think about it.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Years ago as a young telegraphist I learned the difference between communication and broadcasting. But not everyone understands the difference. Metaphorically speaking, broadcasting is throwing your good grain into the wind and hoping it will land somewhere fertile. Broadcasting doesn't require anyone to think about or care from where the message emanates, and the broadcaster, often, doesn't much care who receives his message. His job is to broadcast.  Thus, blogging is broadcasting. In the case of the listener, a judgement is necessarily made about who or what is being listened to - which is why I don't listen to Radio 1 but I often listen to Radio 4.

On the other hand communication happens when the good grain is targetted at an intended recipient or recipients - and the recipient responds with confirmation that the message has been received and understood. Thus, communication is a two-way street.


And that's how the world goes about its business. Think about it.

* * * * *

In UK, if you buy your own home and save for your old age you end up paying for your own stay in a care home should you need one.  If you rent your home and spend all your earnings the state will pay for your time in the care home at the end of your life.

So wrote John Redwood MP today in his 'John Redwood's Diary'.  If you are unfamiliar with the name, John Alan Redwood is a British Conservative Party politician and Member of Parliament for Wokingham, Berkshire. (Salary £74,000 p.a., plus, plus, plus). What a lot of labels in one sentence.


It is probably true to say that anyone who would write the opening paragraph (above) is unlikely to be someone who rents his home.

He has been the MP for Wokingham for 30 years. He is the author of several books as well as, prior to becoming an MP and sometimes while still being an MP, he has been a schoolteacher and a Director of a merchant bank, a temporary postman and the Chairman of a major Stock Exchange quoted industrial company, a County Councillor and a University Professor, a shop assistant and the pioneer of privatisation worldwide, a bank clerk and the Head of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit. He is paid by various newspapers for his written opinions and appears regularly on television poltical programmes. Clearly, he is no slouch. Nor is he broke.

As an MP he has been a cabinet minister, an under secretary of state and is a Privy Councillor. He held 'shadow' roles when the Conservatives were in opposition during the Blair years.

Surprising to me, he campaigned for the UK to leave EU and continues to do so. On that basis I'd call him a good guy. Conversely, he generally has voted against laws to promote equality and human rights, according to www.theyworkforyou.com. That makes him a not-so-good-guy, depending on your point of view.

Point of view can be interpreted as 'opinion', can't it? Or, maybe, it can be 'prejudice', can't it? So, the same question pops up time and time again. What do you mean by that?

Try this for size:

prej•u•dice (prĕjˈə-dĭs)

►

• n. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
• n. A preconceived preference or idea.
• n.The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
   
   According to Wikipedia, Prejudice is an affective feeling toward a person or group member based soley on their group membership. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavourable, feelings toward people or a person because of their gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, beauty, occupation, education, criminality, sport team affiliation or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership. Prejudice can also refer to unfounded beliefs and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence".
   
  And they CAN touch you for prejudice! And they have statutes to back them.
   
  _ _ _ _ _ _