Thursday, 26 August 2010

Sorry seems to be the easiest word

Especially when it's been professionally drafted

Wednesday 25th August 2010 wasn’t a good day for the Royal Bank of Scotland. That was the day when the press ran news of a Which? survey placing RBS at the bottom of a customer satisfaction poll of 31 banks. RBS apparently offers dismal current account interest rates and appalling service.

But that wasn’t the end of the bad day for RBS, because it was also the day when it was revealed that ‘evil cat lady’ Mary Bale – the grey haired 50 year old spinster caught on CCTV dumping a cat into a wheely bin – is an employee of RBS.

If Ms Bale is typical of staff employed by RBS, it’s not hard to see why they fail in delivering customer service.

Ms Bale is, by any definition, a truly odious woman. Apart from the actual act of binning the cat, Ms Bale’s doorstop media ambush betrayed her apologetic press statement which claims that she is ‘profoundly sorry’ for her actions.

I’m a firm believer that the eyes (and indeed the face) are the windows to the soul, but far from looking profoundly sorry, Bale looks more like a Tory MP who has been caught paying for rent boys.

The apologetic press statement is part and parcel of these low level crime and antisocial behaviour stories when a member of the public is caught doing something nasty, horrible or shameful. But rarely does the wording of the professionally drafted statements bear any believable relationship to the actual person attributed. For illustration, take this week’s other odious example of 21st Century femininity – the ‘cenotaph sex act woman’.

Pee’d off by CCTV
Wendy Lewis was caught on CCTV urinating on a war memorial. When the police arrived they found her carrying out a sex act on a lucky fella on a nearby bench. She topped her delightful evening off by assaulting the arresting officer.

When Lewis arrived at court for an initial hearing, she greeted protesting WWII veterans with a cheery “Fuck off!” before fleeing, her head covered in the traditional style to avoid the cameras (where are the anti-burkha brigade when this happens?).

I may not know Wendy Lewis personally, but I feel safe in making the assumption that she is incapable of drafting the predictable apologetic statement which followed her sentencing, and I suspect that she shares none of its sentiments, if indeed she understands them.

The statement explains that Lewis’ life has been ‘hell on earth’ since her arrest. She now apparently ‘realises the impact of what happened on those who served in the armed forces’ and ‘nothing can minimise the seriousness of what I have done’. I’m sorry, but I can’t believe this women has ever used the word ‘minimise’ in her life. If the statement featured the phrase ‘yeah but, no but’ it would be much easier to believe.

In both of the above examples, it is difficult to believe that either woman has genuine remorse for their actions. They simply don’t look like they do and in the case of Lewis, her actions in front of the cameras suggests she doesn’t.

The apologetic statement is a necessity in the multimedia age, but why are we willingly accepting apologies drafted by third parties? I understand the necessity of giving people professional legal representation for court cases, but the gentlemen and ladies of the media need to start putting their foot down and start rejecting professionally drafted press statements. Instead they should insist that these people draft their own. Assuming that the cenotaph sex act woman actually knows how to use a pen, her scribblings would undoubtedly make much better copy.

No comments:

Post a Comment

PLEASE NOTE To stop those pesky scammers, all comments are moderated. Also, anonymous responses might not be accepted.