Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: Confidential
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 23:18:21 +0100
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <slrnd9219d.mfi.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
References: <hiIje.110781$IN.1876186@twister2.libero.it> <Misc-D8D9A2.11041921052005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com> <1116732973.986581.228640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: chris@keristor.net
X-Trace: individual.net /1r9gxwF4dDp9KvvC6kDVA4JujLSEeyEne73+uVFniaUZKFxY=
X-Orig-Path: ccserver.keris.net!news
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:734
On 21 May 2005 20:36:14 -0700, credoquaabsurdum
<credoquaabsurdum@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time and long ago, a guy that worked for UCLES told me to
> write "In Confidence" on some kind of correspondence regarding a breach
> of test security. I don't know if that's proper British English, or
> whether "confidential" is perfectly acceptable in the UK. Is it?
Either is acceptable, although I see "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" (almost
invariably in capitals) more often. An older alternative was "For The
Addressee's Eyes Only" (sometimes shortened to "Eyes Only"), but that
was over-used after the James Bond film came out and I think has dropped
into disuse.
As someone else said, writing anything like that may have an effect but
in the case of government ministers probably still won't get to them
unread, it may get to them 'officially' unread (i.e. it is pretended
that no one else knows until it is leaked). Not only do they tend to
get massive quantities of mail but some of it can be physically
dangerous (bombs, poisons, the anthrax-in-letters scares) so at the very
least it is likely to be opened.
The only secure way would be to have it delivered in person to them, and
have the person delivering it make sure that the recipient reads it when
delivered and doesn't just pass it to someone else.
Chris C
|
|