I may only be 24 years old, and I may not have a “political education” (whatever that may be. An education in ‘politics’? Would this be given at school? Or is it a kind of ‘School of Hard Knocks’ learning that you get from experience?), but what I do understand is the English Language.
Now, it is fairly trite and unoriginal to complain about the way people abuse the English Language. I am no prescriptivist, I fully understand that language changes over time; often for the better. Furthermore, I am also not writing to align myself with any political party. This is no defence of David Cameron or his website; it is a defence of the comma, the semi-colon, and grammar in general.
Viz. “With out [‘without’ is one word] you speaking clearly and clarifying not only what you mean by what you say [comma needed here] but how you plan to do what you say [another comma needed here] I just can’t take you seriously.” Well, that’s interesting Rodney, as without you expressing yourself clearly (in expressing how upset you are that someone isn’t expressing himself clearly enough), I find it hard to take you seriously too. Also, note how mentally jarring it is to read a sentence constantly broken with my corrections. This is what reading your letter was like for me.
To continue: “Early today [sic? I could give you the benefit of the doubt here] I visited David Cameron’s website, [you seem to have found the comma button, but I’m afraid you’ve not hit the jackpot with this one – you needed the little dot without the tail here, or better still the ‘sad face’ one above the ‘9’] I knowingly called it David Cameron’s website and not the Conservative Party’s website because the first thing I saw on the home page is [the first thing you “saw” “is”? Try again, champ] a flattering picture of him smiling and staring off [into, would be the accepted phrase here, or ‘off into’] to the distance, [again, congratulations on finding the comma, but this time the better choice would have been the ‘winking’ eyes] nice but not needed and vain [was it not needed and also not vain, or not needed and but still vain? Mishaps like this can be avoided by using other words, like ‘unnecessary’].”
Continuing further: “I was quick to check the parties policies [‘party’s’ is what you were after here. Or perhaps you were checking the various parties’ policies, in which case you were after what I just typed*] by that I of course [oh, sorry, you also needed a comma before ‘by that’ there. I can’t even keep up with it all myself] mean Mr Cameron’s** policies, there I go being facetious again [yet again, what you were after there was the little dot, not the one with the tail hanging down – or even that little ‘minus’ sign. You see, try reading this joke and punchline: Why did the chicken cross the road to get to the other side? Do you see why you needed that break in the sentence? Do you?].”
Crikey! This is getting to be hard reading, isn’t it? All these interruptions, thoughts occurring to you unbidden, while you’re just trying to read a letter. This is what reading your writing was like for me, I’m afraid. However, this is just one small example of the many clouds cast by our youth today (probably due to the lack of widespread “political education” – one to write to your MP about I think), and for me to single out one young man in our entire nation’s youth is wrong. You, Rodney Aaron Marsh Wroot, are just one of the many sufferers*** of Poor Grammar, and I have used you as an example because you have been in the limelight recently.
Clarity of expression is so incredibly important, especially when writing to proclaim the lack of clarity in someone else’s. So kids: Please think before you type.
* You go on to make it clear I was right in the first instance.
** Hurrah! You’re right, ‘Mr’ doesn’t have a full stop after it. Congratulations!
*** You wrote “suffers” instead of “sufferers”, Rodney.