and another thing

Regular readers will have been waiting with bated breath for the conclusion to my two-part rant on the subject of this country's attitude to immigration. Actually this bit is more to do with bureaucracy in general. I'm sorry about this, but I need to start with a quote from an official document (the SET(M) Immigration and Nationality Directorate form, since you asked, version 09/2005):

"Please provide ten items of correspondence of the kind, or from the sources listed below, addressed to you and your spouse or partner jointly during each of the past 2 years if they clearly show that you live together at the same address. At least 5 of these documents should be from different sources. If you have not received any such correspondence that is addressed to you and your spouse or partner jointly, it is acceptable to provide no less than 4 items addressed to one of you and no more than 6 items addressed to the other partner during each of the past 2 years so long as they show the same address."

OK. Leaving aside the difficulty of digging out gas bills and so on that have been addressed jointly to two individuals, let's just focus on that last sentence. Shall we have it again?

"it is acceptable to provide no less than 4 items addressed to one of you and no more than 6 items addressed to the other partner during each of the past 2 years so long as they show the same address."

It has a nice precise, anal, irrevocable ring about it, hasn't it? They know exactly what they want and they've made it perfectly clear. Or have they? Well, that's the problem - no.

• "No less [sic] than 4 items addressed to one of you" - but is there a maximum?


• "and no more than 6 items addressed to the other partner" - but is there a minimum?


• "during each of the past 2 years" - are we talking calendar years or 12-month periods?


• "so long as they show the same address" - what if, like us, you've moved house about four times?


• The previous sentence spoke of "at least 5 of these documents" coming from "different sources". Does this apply here?

You might argue that I'm splitting hairs - but this is just the problem, I have to. The language is dry, official and pretends to be clear. You have one shot at this. It's costing you £500. You know from the tone that if you get it wrong you will fail. But the content is totally vague. In my experience, this is a defining feature of bureaucractic language, and it's an insidious, pervasive, low-level abuse of power. It says: we have the control, we have the authority, we will explain ourselves in our terms and if you don't understand them (or if we just don't bother to get it right) then that's your lookout. It's one of the things that makes life less worth living.