Giles Fraser is for many of us, the acceptable face of Anglicanism. He became a national figure when the Occupy protest in June 2011 was forced by the police to move from their preferred site \u2013 the London Stock Exchange \u2013to St. Paul\u2019s Cathedral. He was the only member of the chapter staff there to support London\u2019s version of what has become an international movement protesting at corporate greed and social injustice. It was an embarrassment to the Cathedral (and a loss of income), but Fraser said he was happy for people \u2018to exercise their right to protest peacefully\u2019.<\/p>\n
\nHe regretfully resigned from the Cathedral staff in October 2011 and is now parish priest in Newington, S.E. London. He regularly does the four minute slot \u2018Thought for the Day\u2019 on BBC radio and writes a Saturday column every week in The Guardian. Yesterday he was in holiday mood, but writing grumpily about the misuse of words. He disapproves of the way \u2018literally\u2019 looses its sense when applied imprecisely. His children are amused at his \u2018middle-aged fussiness\u2019.<\/p>\n
The word that raises my ire is \u2018incredible\u2019. It\u2019s widely used in the media and by politicians and rarely means what it says. \u2018Surprising\u2019 is fine when you want to express astonishmen, but that\u2019s not the same as \u2018beyond credibility\u2019. I talk to the blank face of the television frequently (and foolishly), and inevitably when someone\u2019s enthusiasm exceeds the real meaning of the word. It happened yesterday in the BBC\u2019s \u2018Springwatch\u2019, which like so many of the reality shows on the box is as much about the presenters as the subject they introduce, and in many cases more than. In two minutes, two presenters said \u2018incredible\u2019 three times. In each case the word was misused. The whole programme is devoted to making the secret world of nature visible \u2013 and credible.<\/p>\n
Another thing about the radio and TV that makes me \u2018fussy\u2019 (well cross, actually) is the phrase \u2018you know\u2019 , which can punctuate an interview. We don\u2019t know! That\u2019s the purpose of the interview which is presumably intended to convey some new information or opinon to listeners or viewers. Perhaps it\u2019s a way of ingratiating the speaker, a sort of pally moment that brings together speaker and listener. Not for me. It\u2019s sloppy speech.<\/p>\n
Giles Fraser\u2019s children would have to say I was \u2018elderly fussiness\u2019, and probably they would be right. There are far more serious things to be concerned about. Even so\u2026\u2026.<\/p>\n
Bryan <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Giles Fraser is for many of us, the acceptable face of Anglicanism. He became a national figure when the Occupy protest in June 2011 was forced by the police to move from their preferred site \u2013 the London Stock Exchange \u2013to St. Paul\u2019s Cathedral. He was the only member of the chapter staff there to support London\u2019s version of what has become an international movement protesting at corporate greed and social injustice. It was an embarrassment to the Cathedral (and a loss of income), but Fraser said he was happy for people \u2018to exercise their right to protest peacefully\u2019. He <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"yoast_head":"\n