A hymn sheet we can all sing from

Oh dear, oh dear. It seems we are not all singing from the same hymn sheet, at least as far as Salisbury's forward thinking council is concerned.

It seems the state's guardians of the mother tongue Wiltshire branch have banned that particular phrase, about singing from hymn sheets, preferably the same one, on the basis it could be offensive to atheists.

I suppose in the same way saying 'reading off the same page' would be deemed offensive to illiterates or even some poor soul suffering from bibliophobia - that's fear of books by the way - and I suppose soul is out as that opens up a whole can of worms.

Salisbury's watchers of wicked words should be careful though. I am sure that out there someone will find offence in the term atheist, preferring belief deprived or religiously challenged or some other such clanking definition, while those championing illiterates would probably prefer the term 'unencumbered by the written form of communication', which slips of the tongue so easily.

Except of course that that might offend anyone who had relatives who had their tongue ripped out in the Spanish inquisition, which in turn would offend Spaniards and so on.

I could understand it if some official or other had just asked staff to be more original, use less clichés, be a bit more creative - but don't say it because it might upset atheists? Should they really have been put in charge of anything more important than winding treacle on bobbins?

In the mad world we live in we have had coffee shops refusing to serve black coffee because it is deemed racist with customers instead having to order coffee without milk. Then there was the council I heard of who sought to ban Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms in its town lest they offend non-Christians and there was even a pirate day for kids where eye patches and hooks were banned in case it upset the disabled.

Now I am sure it will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that I don't do politically correct. As a student I was once described as someone who not only calls a spade a spade but calls it an effing spade. I just tell it like it is using words we all understand which have sufficed for centuries. If they were good enough for Shakespeare, Wilde, Dickens and the like they are certainly good enough for me.

If you want to find something that is really offensive though, then look no further than the mealy mouthed jobsworths who tire of counting paper clips and look for other ways to interfere in everyone's lives proving for all to see that they have not got one of their own.

A common theme in all these puerile PC definitions and ludicrous attempts to manipulate language for political ends is that no one who is supposedly the victim of these word crimes has ever complained and usually, to a man . . . woman . . . person . . . whatever . . . cannot understand the stupidity of the small minded clique who have the arrogance to stand up unasked and unwanted and make banal noises on their behalf.

The deaf, blind, illiterate, ethnic minorities, women, disabled, tall, short, fat, thin and everyone in between up to those even claiming to be more or less normal, actually have a sense of humour and a much greater grasp of language that the humourless officials who want to control their words, thoughts and deeds. We all know we will be cheered, hurt, touched, offended, lifted, amused, annoyed and even loved or hated by words during our lifetime and that will happen no matter how many cack handed attempts to re-write the English language to sound like a DWP benefit claim form the pen pushers and thought monitors come up with.

So Salisbury, put that in your pipe and smoke it, if smokers, non-smokers, non-pipe smokers, salmon, mackerel and haddock are not too offended.

As a footnote it appears Salisbury's deputy council leader, Steve Fear, has claimed he has no idea where the advice originally came from but added helpfully: "Perhaps it was consultants."

Need anyone say more . . . the mere word is offensive to just about everyone still drawing breath.