*lawyer and ex-civil servant hat on*

This third paragraph is curiously and painfully worded

And you do not get paragraphs this curiously and painfully worded by accident

Something is up here https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1252679936768344070

There is something either falling in the gaps between the sentences or being cloaked by the definitions (eg Scheme) used, but that is not the natural way for a civil servant to make such a "clarification"

That wording has been negotiated to the point of strangulation

Each sentence of that letter may well be strictly correct, though some phrases seem vague

There is something falling through the gaps

That letter savours of evasion and misdirection

The supposed "clarification" has made things far more unclear

To take one example

Why write
"Ministers were not briefed by our mission in Brussels about the scheme"

Instead of
"Ministers were not briefed about the scheme"

Or even
"Ministers were not aware of the scheme"

Longer sentences do not happen by accident in such formal documents

A similar approach can be employed for almost every proposition in the letter

And that is odd: for a skilled wordsmith like a senior civil servant would usually make such a forensic approach difficult

Something is up here

It's like a coded cry for help from someone kidnapped

And why in paragraph 2 does he go for scheme (singular) but switch to the four schemes (plural) for the comms excuse in paragraph 3

In casual writing, it would not matter

But here, it means para 2 and para 3 are about slightly different things

A Derren Brown-like misdirection

I could go on - but I should not be able to do so

The point of formal writing is that it considered and structured, with each paragraph, sentence and word doing its job

It is what lawyers and senior civil servants *do*

Oh well, let's see what happens

Good night all

Come this morning, that letter is odder than it was last night

(Usually my threads drop like a stone among lawyer and ex-senior official types who probably - and sensibly - have this account on mute anyway...

...but am heartened by quality of those who concur with that thread from last night - this is not fanciful - something is up here)

This would be a good question for someone to ask

Was that "clarification" letter voluntary, or did McDonald insist on a "ministerial direction" so he would have to write it?

And, if so, which minister?

("Ministerial directions" are powerful self-protective tools for officials) https://twitter.com/Bopgun1971/status/1252833856412987393

And, what someone please explain, is a "political decision" as opposed to a "decision"?

And please note the letter - even the title of the letter in bold and in caps - is re the ventilator scheme

Not the PPE or other procurement rounds

He also calls the wider JPA a "scheme" too

This is what makes the switch in the letter from "scheme" to "schemes" confusing

Those in the media citing the "clarification" letter re the PPE scheme are missing that the letter is explicitly titled re the separate ventilator scheme

But is then worded so that it looks like it covers all the schemes

And the "going forward" in the letter

Really?

Anyway, sorry for spamming your TLs with these thoughts

I am now going to write this up for my blog