![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Wyzel Words
Feb. 5th, 2009 07:14 amI caught a radio episode of "Yes Minister" on Radio 7 earlier in the week. It was very early in the series and had a marvellous cameo from Bill Nighy as "Weasel" ("It's Wyzel", said Nighy, in response to Paul Eddington's mispronunciation).
I thought of Mr Wyzel while hearing a London Underground announcement yesterday. "There are severe disruptions on the Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines. All other lines are offering a good service".
Whoooahhhh, I said to myself. Hold on a little there Miss Chick-a-picky service announcer. Surely you mean that all other lines are offering a normal service? It's up to me to decide whether the service is good or not. I mean, if you want to preface the comment on the Hammersmith & City line with something like "London Underground is offering a really bad service there today", then I would be minded to let you off crowing about the fact that on the Northern Line the trains were running on time, which constitutes a "good" service, by comparison. But, since you didn't, kindly keep the judgmental adjectives to yourself.
And then, we had Aviva. I really liked this one. Aviva has welshed on a promise to pay £1bn in "forgotten assets" back to policyholders. In its release it said that the falls in equity markets and the value of investments since last July, when the promise was made, meant that to stick to it would be "unfair to both policyholders and shareholders".
Well, actually, it would have been extremely fair to policyholders. But note that Aviva did not say "unfair to either policyholders or sharehodlers", but that it would have been unfair to both of them.
Anyone with a modest knowledge of maths (or, indeed, Excel) will know that the words AND, OR, NOR, etc have precise mathematical meanings and that if you use the wrong word, horrible things can result. But English is more forgiving. You can say one thing mathematically (or "legally") while appearing to say something else. It's a trick beloved by some Diplomacy players who say "no, what I actually SAID was...." (just before you spit on them and walk away).
I bet the prick who wrote that Aviva release came away feeling right pleased with himself.
I didn't even bother phoning them up, because their back-up response (they prepare these things) would have been to say:
(a) that it was "unfair" to policyholders in the long run, because Aviva couldn't afford to pay it, and
(b) it was "not fair" in the sense that it was "too generous".
I doubt that Aviva would have been tearing up the agreement if equities had soared since last July on the grounds that it would have been "unfair to policyholders and shareholders". And the defence in line (a) is the same as that used by Equitable Life, and the House of Lords told them where to shove that.
Aviva's share price moved sharply higher on the news, so I think we can see where the "fairness" will lie in the renegotiated agreement.
All credit to Aviva for one thing; they had the foresight to put in a "renegotiation" clause should the FTSE fall by more than a predetermined amount (which, of course, it has). Then again, it still makes them look like welshing cunts who are resorting to the small print (see wanky Diplomacy plaeyrs, above). So perhaps it wasn't so bright in terms of publicity.
There's a US company called Zapata. When will the Aviva merger with them be announced?
________________
I thought of Mr Wyzel while hearing a London Underground announcement yesterday. "There are severe disruptions on the Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines. All other lines are offering a good service".
Whoooahhhh, I said to myself. Hold on a little there Miss Chick-a-picky service announcer. Surely you mean that all other lines are offering a normal service? It's up to me to decide whether the service is good or not. I mean, if you want to preface the comment on the Hammersmith & City line with something like "London Underground is offering a really bad service there today", then I would be minded to let you off crowing about the fact that on the Northern Line the trains were running on time, which constitutes a "good" service, by comparison. But, since you didn't, kindly keep the judgmental adjectives to yourself.
And then, we had Aviva. I really liked this one. Aviva has welshed on a promise to pay £1bn in "forgotten assets" back to policyholders. In its release it said that the falls in equity markets and the value of investments since last July, when the promise was made, meant that to stick to it would be "unfair to both policyholders and shareholders".
Well, actually, it would have been extremely fair to policyholders. But note that Aviva did not say "unfair to either policyholders or sharehodlers", but that it would have been unfair to both of them.
Anyone with a modest knowledge of maths (or, indeed, Excel) will know that the words AND, OR, NOR, etc have precise mathematical meanings and that if you use the wrong word, horrible things can result. But English is more forgiving. You can say one thing mathematically (or "legally") while appearing to say something else. It's a trick beloved by some Diplomacy players who say "no, what I actually SAID was...." (just before you spit on them and walk away).
I bet the prick who wrote that Aviva release came away feeling right pleased with himself.
I didn't even bother phoning them up, because their back-up response (they prepare these things) would have been to say:
(a) that it was "unfair" to policyholders in the long run, because Aviva couldn't afford to pay it, and
(b) it was "not fair" in the sense that it was "too generous".
I doubt that Aviva would have been tearing up the agreement if equities had soared since last July on the grounds that it would have been "unfair to policyholders and shareholders". And the defence in line (a) is the same as that used by Equitable Life, and the House of Lords told them where to shove that.
Aviva's share price moved sharply higher on the news, so I think we can see where the "fairness" will lie in the renegotiated agreement.
All credit to Aviva for one thing; they had the foresight to put in a "renegotiation" clause should the FTSE fall by more than a predetermined amount (which, of course, it has). Then again, it still makes them look like welshing cunts who are resorting to the small print (see wanky Diplomacy plaeyrs, above). So perhaps it wasn't so bright in terms of publicity.
There's a US company called Zapata. When will the Aviva merger with them be announced?
________________
