Illiteracy at the top.

[Barry Shnikov]

Ruth Turner has given a statement about her arrest in the cash-for-peerages row.

"I absolutely refute any allegations of wrongdoing".

Pop quiz, @ssholes.

What's hopelessly, shamefully, pitiably wrong about that statement?

(Rules: Trampy isn't allowed to enter, and no checking dictionaries.)

[TheTramp]

(Rules: Trampy isn't allowed to enter)

Awwww.

How mean!

[straycat]

If instinct serves me correctly, to refute something, you need proof. I'm presuming that 'deny' was the more appropriate word here...

Of course - not being a lawyer, I could well be wrong

[ducasi]

From this page...

REFUTE To refute a proposition or theory is to establish or prove that it is false. Lately many people have taken to using ‘refute’ as a synonym for ‘deny’, but avoid this usage in philosophy. To deny that God exists is not, in philosophical usage, to refute (or disprove) the proposition that God exists.

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

refute
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of.

She was just employing the word as it is commonly used.

I don't think she was taking part in a philosophical discussion or in a court of law before a judge. Everyone knows exactly what she means.

So what's the problem?

[TheTramp]

Which bit about not checking dictionaries didn't you understand then Duncan?

[ducasi]

Which bit about not checking dictionaries didn't you understand then Duncan?

I knew what the word meant before I checked the dictionary for material evidence for my counter-argument against the charge of illiteracy, which I totally refute!

[Barry Shnikov]

From this page...

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

She was just employing the word as it is commonly used.

I don't think she was taking part in a philosophical discussion or in a court of law before a judge. Everyone knows exactly what she means.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that if the word 'refute' is adopted to mean something for which we already have a perfectly good word - i.e. 'reject' - then we have a concept - 'to prove something is not the case' - for which we no longer have a word.

NB I deny that that is the way the word is commonly used. Plenty of people get it right (not just lawyers) although the effing Labour politicians keep getting it wrong.

The problem is that people who get to be as powerful and influential as Ruth Turner is should know the difference between reject and refute, otherwise we end up in a complete mess.

This just in...

Actually, I wonder if they don't know full well that refute isn't really the right word, but it sounds stronger than 'reject' so they use it anyway...

[David Franklin]

Actually, I wonder if they don't know full well that refute isn't really the right word, but it sounds stronger than 'reject' so they use it anyway...

I think it's pretty obviously the motivation here. 'Refute' implies she has proof of her innocence, and giving that implication is obviously desirable. Conversely 'Deny' has no implication about the actual truth of the allegations, and let's face it, most papers treat "X denies the allegations" as "X obviously did it and won't admit it".

[Stuart M]

So what's the problem?

Erm, something about Tony Blair selling peerages in return for cheap loans to the Labour party, I think.

Ms. Turner's command of the English language is rather less important.

[BeccaB]

We all know that the people at the top have illiteracy problems.
But when you have just a few people at the top out of which there's a few suspected of rape, a few suspected of fraud and those dodging taxes this that and the other oh and the other serious crimes going on I'm willing to let her off for this little slip, it's everything else we should be getting them for!

[andystyle]

The problem is that if the word 'refute' is adopted to mean something for which we already have a perfectly good word - i.e. 'reject' - then we have a concept - 'to prove something is not the case' - for which we no longer have a word.

According to the definition, what she said was fine. She probably has an extensive vocabulary and used the word to add impact to her statement - let's face it, 'refute' is more noticeable thant 'reject' or 'deny'. The thing with the English language is that the vocabulary is large that words can be used in many contexts. And that makes me grateful it's my native tongue! It doesn't mean refute can no longer be used in the context of proving something is not the case - just means it's not categorically reserved for that situation.

[Barry Shnikov]

Erm, something about Tony Blair selling peerages in return for cheap loans to the Labour party, I think.

Ms. Turner's command of the English language is rather less important.

Not really!

Peers have been created for favours they've done for whoever's in power since 1066. It's a bit late to start getting all hot under the collar about it.

[Barry Shnikov]

According to the definition, what she said was fine. She probably has an extensive vocabulary and used the word to add impact to her statement - let's face it, 'refute' is more noticeable thant 'reject' or 'deny'. The thing with the English language is that the vocabulary is large that words can be used in many contexts. And that makes me grateful it's my native tongue! It doesn't mean refute can no longer be used in the context of proving something is not the case - just means it's not categorically reserved for that situation.

Wrong.

[ducasi]

Wrong.

What exactly is wrong with what AndyStyle wrote, or do you just disagree with him?

[andystyle]

"I absolutely refute any allegations of wrongdoing".

refute
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of.

Substituting definition…

"I absolutely deny the accuracy or truth of any allegations of wrongdoing".

Wow! Look at that!

[Spin dryer]

I'm with Barry on this. Please explain the basis upon which you suggest that the the American Heritage Dictionary should be taken as authoritative as concerns the use of English in England.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Indeed. I'd go by the OED but their website is subscription based, however - Dictionary.com has the definitions for refute as..

<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">to prove (a person) to be in error.</td></tr></tbody></table>
So how can you possibly "refute" an allegation ? I'm with Barry on this especially as Andystyles choice of dictionary does not even list english words such as "realise" and "customise".

[David Bailey]

Not really!

Peers have been created for favours they've done for whoever's in power since 1066. It's a bit late to start getting all hot under the collar about it.

Oh well, that's OK then. If an abuse has been going on a long time, it doesn't matter. I guess we should stop chasing criminals altogether then, crime's been around for ages as well.

On the "refute" thing, I noticed that politicians are also using "resile", which was a new word to me - maybe they're all trying to find new words beginning with "Re" for some reason, it could be a new game of something?

[Dreadful Scathe]

You can reanimate a dead policy. Claim all questions you don't like the answers to are rhetorical. Reopen a dialogue. Reinvent the wheel. Restructure and reapply cash for honours when the police go away.

and...Release Ruth from service due to this embarrassment (and release Roderick while you're at it)

[timbp]

She was just employing the word as it is commonly used.

What was the salary? Did she pay superannuation? What about sick leave and annual leave?