A letter in the mail (at the public’s expense namely paid for by Parliamentary Services) illiterately addressed to “Sir Robert Jones”, followed by “Dear Robert’, this from the local MP, invited me to a “get-together” to discuss issues of concern.

My issues of concern are first, why is this postage cost being met by the public when the underlying motive behind it is the MP’s interest in being re-elected?

Second; as I’ve referred to before, the ill-mannered familiarity of “Dear Robert”.

I’m not precious about these things but am also a fan of courtesy. Writing to strangers, this in fairness by the MP’s half-witted secretary and addressing then by their Christian name is not being old-fashioned but simply discourteous, and thus not conducive to support.

That said, I won’t name the MP, rather I’ll simply say in his place, I’d ensure the goose he has addressing these overtures, is educated about common courtesy. In his place, I, knowing the likelihood of such gaffes, would have educated the girl on this.


Why not name him? You were named, albeit incorrectly and discourteously, by him or by his direction.

Ah, but just as one should not assume in business correspondence that it is ok to address a party whom one does not know personally

…so one should not presume to say that people have a (to quote you, Bob/Sir Robert) “Christian name”. They may not in fact be Christian, much less baptised as an infant, which is the origin of the term. Especially if their name is, say, Muhammed Iqbal. Pedantic maybe, but then this is your second post on the topic. 🙂

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: