THE RED CROSS IS MAKING ONE EXTREMELY CROSS!

Thank you Daily Mail, for highlighting the re-forming of terminology used in everyday conversation for political and subversive purposes.  The Red Cross should think very carefully regarding public perception as it bulldozes its way through our time-honoured understanding of common-sense language.  Upsetting the very people who support the charity, both in deed and financial support, can be a slippery slope with grave financial implications in the longer term.

The charity, which received no less than £37+ million from government contracts and nearly £44 million from government grants in 2022, has launched a guide for its workers in order that common or garden descriptions and terms can be modified in accordance to their governing body's preferences.  Guide?  Indoctrination more like!  I wonder how the founders of this once august and proud organisation would feel 154 years on from its inception?  They would most likely be aghast at the time spent on telling staff and volunteers what to say in case offence is taken by a minority - and it always the 'minority' who are offended!  According to this 'guide', descriptions such as 'born a man or woman' or a 'biological male or female' should be avoided.  Why?  That is what they were born!  That's what they are!  Why this change?  Well, it might upset transgender or non-binary individuals apparently   So what?   Go-ahead, be offended, see if the majority of the population give a monkey's nuts about your insensitivities.  According to their new-speak, 'a trans-woman is as much of a woman as someone born with female genitalia'.  No they are not!  They were born a MAN.  That is, in old-fashioned parlance, the opposite to a WOMAN. No more 'he' or 'she' for the workers of the Red Cross, Oh no, it should be 'they' or 'them'. Actually, it cannot be so, as both latter words are plural, and grammar trumps ideology. Mr?  Mrs?  No, they'd like to see those two extinguished from our dictionary as well.  Their preference is 'Mx'.  Total bollocks - or should that be bollox?!

If the power and influence of these producers of such pointless and money-wasting phraseology wasn't as great as it is, the whole episode would be laughable, but these nameless ones are a cancerous disease permeating throughout our society, and to the detriment of everyday life.  The NHS is gradually succumbing to so-called 'inclusive' language and terminology.  Woe betide any individual that complains or queries any gender-based policy.  A  correctional programme will be available to rid you of common sense thoughts and utterances. '1984' springs mind...

The Red Cross have also turned their attention to 'Ladies and gentlemen', which is, in everyday usage known as a term referring to...  well, ladies and gentlemen.  They don't like that phrase either as it is not inclusive enough.  I would love to see their employees reaction to being told not to refer to women having periods as 'solely referring to women'.  Those in charge now prefer 'women, girls and people who menstruate', or 'people who have periods'. And there was me, Simple Simon me, thinking it was purely women that had periods. Ye gods and little fishes.  Who are these people?  Where do they come from?  Are they a product of artificial intelligence?  Do they crawl from under some left-leaning rock and spew out directives to be taken as gospel by those who make mischief, melodrama and/or money out of these proclamations?

'Illegal migration' is another area of phrasing that is ripe for change. they should be referred to as a 'person in search of safety'.  Strange that no mention is made of their desire to burden British taxpayers with their costly presence?  Describing someone as being from a 'minority ethnic group' is another term the Red Cross wish to see discarded.  These people are now from a 'minoritised ethnic group'. Someone spent time, and was ultimately responsible  and paid for that change of pointless wording, but will we ever know their name?   Not for the umpteenth time I ask 'Have you ever heard such bollocks, since you stumbled across the last example of bollocks that is, which was about three lines ago I suspect!  It is truly unbelievable.  The lengths these policy-makers go to in order to bugger up our language - language that has stood the test of not only time, but biological common sense.

Esther McVey, one-time Conservative minister for said Common Sense, commented,  'I am sorry that the British Red Cross has fallen victim to such woke nonsense'.  The gal's not wrong.  One final and ludicrous example of this wayward and dangerous guidance is where it urges staff to say 'pregnant women and people' so as not to exclude 'trans men and non-binary people'.  I suspect that we now have a cartload of bollocks to dispose of - along with the authors of this politically-motivated tripe. So there you have it,  tripe and bollocks served on a bed of grass that has been growing under our feet, accompanied with a side-dish of indigestible  political bile, prepared in a socialist kitchen inhabited by university graduates and others who have never led a life outside of anti-social media and a bubble inhabited by similarly self-unaware and perversely irritating loons.  

What's that?  'Loons' is unacceptable as well?  Dear oh dear...