A man has expressed his surprise at finding his own picture in the dictionary, next to the entry for the word ‘idiot’ (noun).
John Fitz-Turtle, a local man to people who live nearby, spoke to Breaking News last Monday and showed us the entry in Webster’s English Dictionary, a book of words. Fitz-Turtle explained, “I was looking up the word during a game of thing when, to my utter thing, I saw my thing by the thing.” Mr. Fitz-Turtle would later go on to win the game, scoring a bonus fifty points for a nine letter picture of a fire hydrant. Fitz-Turtle is now worried that he will forever be labeled an idiot, and priced accordingly. However, he claims, it has had its advantages: when people call him a moron or a retard in the street he can ignore them, safe in the knowledge that they are inaccurate. Often, he says, he will stop to correct them.
This story prompted further investigation by Breaking News, which can reveal that the definition of the word ‘idiot’ has been a picture of Mr. Fitz-Turtle since the 2001 edition. Webster’s declined to comment but said the following: “All definitions and things are decided by a learned committee who know about these things. Much time and effort went into this thing, and it was determined that the definition of the word ‘idiot’ is exactly the image of Mr. Fitz-Turtle. As a thing believer in the power of the multimedia age, the thing was only too glad to incorporate new things to improve our thing in a way that is most thingly to our customers.” As a result, the definition of a spade has been updated to a sound sample of a cat, vehemently complaining, while the Anglo-Saxon word ‘curtains’ is defined very precisely by a series of ballroom dance steps.
However, the story has come as bad news to word definition traditionalists. Martha Crudden, lead spokeswoman of the pressure group Verbuse and backing spokeswoman of the Campaign to Advocate New Terminology (CANT) claims that this is just another thing of words going without proper definitions. “We live in an age where we no longer have acceptable levels of word definition,” she explained, “and as a result, our powers of communication are thinging.” CANT’s website explains the principle of each word having at least one definition. It claims that 23% of all Britons currently do not have access to proper lexicographic supplies, or, as it has been more commonly referred to, proper thing. “The thing must start to act thingingly. If they do not we will be thing deep in a thing with no thing in sight,” Thing Crudden concluded, the sentiments of which we can only thing thing.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary gave a speech on the new UK Immigration policy:
There has been much talk over the past year, and particularly in the past twelve months, about the problems of immigration in Britain. In the last election, both of the parties gave their solution for dealing with the issue. The people, by electing this government to a third term have indicated that they do not want the Conservative, reactionary, xenophobic policies of a Tory government, but rather, they want those of a Labour administration.
Our national identity is complex and intricate, and is certainly not something you could carry around with you in your pocket. The British people are proud, and rightly so, for they have a lot to be proud of. Above all of the things that they can be proud of, they can be proud that they are British citizens, and that they are part of the British culture. This is a culture of great strength and pride, and not just any pride, but a British pride. This is a pride that can only come from belonging to a country that stands amongst all other countries, both proud of being British, and British and proud of it.
To people around the world, living in Britain is a very appealing option, and that is why so many want to come every year. After all, if you could get your child into the best private school, you wouldn’t send him or her to the local comprehensive, would you? I know I wouldn’t, and I think I can speak for the entire Cabinet when I say they wouldn’t either.
As a result of this, Britain is constantly evolving, making it a varied, multicultural place, and it is the role of the government to make sure this never changes. Do you want your children to grow up in a country where they live, each day, scared of crime and violence, with crumbling public services and no civil liberties, the result of a government that failed? It is inevitable that if a government does not make sensible and intelligent choices with regards immigration, as well as with other problems such as combating global terrorism, that this is the Britain that we will have.
How should we proceed? It is my belief, the belief of the prime minister, the belief of his government – and as yet I haven’t even begun to mention any of our experts on the subject – that by tightening the controls over entry to the UK, we can reduce the number of people who enter illegally. This is self-evident. For consider the reverse: if we were to loosen our border controls, and let people move, freely and easily, then there will be no way to stop those who want to enter illegally from doing so.
Illegal immigration causes massive problems in the UK. Obviously, because of the huge numbers of illegal immigrants that enter the UK covertly every year, it is impossible to get even a rough estimate of how many there are, or by exactly how many the figure is increasing every year. The UK government needs to know the size of its population so it can determine how many people it is going to offer basic public services. Getting the numbers right is, without undermining the magnitude of the other eight, one of the top ten problems facing this government today. And this is far from the only trouble caused by mass immigration on a large scale to the UK. Many immigrants enter the country with illnesses and diseases, which is obviously not something we can reasonably expect our health service to be able to deal with.
We must act, and we must act now. That is why we recently unveiled our new scheme designed to sensibly regulate immigration into the UK. The points-based scheme is specifically created to mean those who will contribute the most and expect the least from Britain will be allowed in first. Applicants are divided into several categories, and scored based on their personal characteristics. Obviously, this does not apply to dissidents and those fleeing persecution in their homeland. Those will be automatically given a high score, with the opportunity to score bonus points for particularly sizeable levels of oppression.
For the remainder, we have a sliding scale. By way of example, consider an Ivy League graduate who has a job offer for an investment banking firm in London. He will immediately score highly upon application, not least for performing the valuable service of accepting a job and a salary that benefits the lives of many every day. In contrast, a Kenyan crop farmer with seven children and no formal education will receive a low score. It has been argued that this policy is racist: I want to make clear that it is not. A Kenyan crop farmer with seven children and no formal education from any cultural, geographical, economic or racial background will be treated exactly the same.
I want to conclude now by saying this: the real issue with immigration is to do with exclusion. With no control over our borders, people feel alienated and detached from the British culture and identity. But by working together, through a common effort to control the problems we face, we can ensure that no one is excluded, and that everyone has the ability to make a better life for themselves. Thank you all very much.