As we are plunged into a summer of airport chaos, short-staffed public offices and public transport disruption, it is not surprising that complaints and demands for refunds and compensation are escalating. How do we ensure that our complaints are effective and do not descend into slanging matches or intemperate insults?
The British love to moan but are reticent about complaining. At this moment in a restaurant near you, there is a familiar scene being enacted – a couple is huddled together, carping about the over-salted soup, cold consommé and pallid pastry, when a waiter approaches. “Everything all right here?” “Oh yes, fine, thank you.” This form of complaining isn’t rude, at least, because its target never gets to hear our harsh words, but privately nursing a grievance about an inadequate and expensive meal is certainly not the best recipe for an enjoyable night out.
Inevitably there comes a point when private moaning just isn’t good enough – a holiday or important trip abroad is ruined, a job interview is missed, a new appliance floods the kitchen…This is when you have to face up to the fact that you have valid grounds for making a complaint and proceed to do so. You must remember that your complaint is justified, and never start the proceedings with an apology for complaining. Recognise that you are entitled to do so, and a company or organisation that prides itself on good customer service should be grateful that you have brought their shortcomings to their attention.
The best approach when complaining, especially when it is in person and it is a matter that can easily be resolved, is not to give up. If the person you are speaking to isn’t offering any form of resolution or compensation, ask politely to speak to his or her manager, and make it clear that you will not leave until some positive steps are made to resolve the issue. Try, if at all possible, to settle the complaint there and then, rather than being fobbed off by advice to write a letter or send an email.
Invariably, the employee who is handling your complaint in person (and often on the phone as well) is in no way personally responsible for the offence. They have the unenviable task of manning the barricades, deflecting complaints, passing them further up the food chain, and ideally terminating their conversation with you as soon as possible. It really is pointless getting agitated or aggressive with them, and it will only reflect badly on you. Stay as polite and charming as you can, convince them that your complaint is genuine and justified, and make it your mission to extract a clear and recommended path for advancing your complaint – names of managers who are personally responsible, email addresses, complaint procedures (if applicable). Thank them politely, record their name, and move on.
If you find yourself consigned to email correspondence or an online form, don’t be hoodwinked by the appearance of anonymity. Remember, an actual person will eventually have to read your complaint, and unleashing a stream of obscenities and abuse is hardly the best way of advancing your cause. Bear in mind that emails can be recirculated indefinitely, so don’t write anything you might regret, and be just as polite as you would be over the phone.
If you are writing an email of complaint, follow these recommendations:
• Complain promptly: don’t defer for weeks, as it will undermine your cause.
• Always try and address your email to the right person, and if you have been advised to send an email by somebody at a complaints desk, make sure you have taken their name so you can cite it in your email.
• Lay out your case concisely and in an orderly fashion (bullet points will help). Clearly explain what has gone wrong (citing dates, places, people involved – whatever is relevant). If you have already initiated a complaints procedure, list your previous contacts (provide copies of correspondence if relevant). If pictures will help to elucidate your complaint, include them.
• Never use intemperate language; rudeness is liable to activate defensive ‘customer complaint’ strategies.
• Lay out your email like a formal letter (sign off ‘yours sincerely’), with a proper subject line and paragraph breaks. Check it carefully before you send it, and make sure it is grammatical.
• Emphasise that you are eager to solve your problem, and give some indication of the recompense you have in mind.
• If you do not receive a timely or adequate response, you may have to escalate the complaint: inform the company that you are not happy and that you will be taking the matter further (Ombudsman, Trading Standards office, review sites, the media, the Small Claims court). Before you take this step, research carefully to ensure that you have selected the most deadly option, and then you won’t appear to be firing out empty threats.
Whatever the reason for your complaint or your particular circumstances, it is sensible to acknowledge that aggression and rudeness are inevitably the worst way of getting what you want. Approaching the complaint in the spirit of “I’m sure you regret this as much as I do and I know we’ll be able to work something out” is always the most effective method. But if you follow this recommendation and still find yourself thwarted by a professional stonewaller, then you will need to turn icy and steely. Now is the time to summon your rage, but keep it repressed and bubbling threateningly beneath your impeccably polite surface – you will be surprised how effective this volcanic option can be.
It’s the peak of the British summer: the days are languorous and long, strawberries are in season, tennis and cricket matches are drawing huge crowds. Everyone is enjoying the outdoors – whether it’s picnics, barbecues, days on the beach, or just lounging in the park.
Many of us will be contemplating the school holidays, or perhaps planning a staycation – a much safer option than risking airport chaos and cancellations. For those of us who plan to explore home territory this summer, the British countryside provides a rich palimpsest of history, replete with archaeological remains from the Roman and Anglo-Saxon periods, Medieval castles, Tudor mansions, stately homes and remains of the Industrial Revolution. It also offers a stunning range of landscapes – from the mountains of the Lake District, Wales and the Scottish Highlands, to the fens of East Anglia and dramatic coastlines of the Southwest. The distances between all these attractions are comparatively small, meaning that a magnificent array of landscapes and history is widely accessible.
Much of this heritage is managed by two extraordinary organisations, both of which can trace their origins to the late 19th century, when there was a growing recognition that our national legacy needed to be protected and preserved.
In 1895 three Victorian philanthropists – Octavia Hill, Sir Robert Hunter and Canon Hardwicke Rawnsley – founded the National Trust. They were dismayed by the impact that rapid industrialisation and uncontrolled urban development was having on the landscape and decided that something should be done to safeguard our national heritage. They embarked on a determined plan to acquire historic buildings and land that was under threat, setting up the Trust as the guardian of our historic legacy. Their first acquisition of property, in 1896, was the Alfriston Clergy House in East Sussex, which they bought for £10. Their first nature reserve was Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire, which they acquired in 1899.
Britain’s remarkable cultural patrimony of stately homes and landscaped grounds, mainly constructed between the 17th and 19th centuries by aristocrats and landed gentry, was coming under increasing threat in the 20th century. Advancing industrialisation was undermining their land-based wealth, and crippling taxes and death duties were causing further difficulties. Many aristocrats were forced to sell their birthright, and the National Trust began to step in in to save and preserve this unique legacy.
From its modest beginnings in the 1890s a great national organisation took root. Today the Trust manages over 780 miles of coastline, more than 250,000 hectares of land, over 500 historic houses, castles, parks and gardens, and nearly one million works of art.
The National Trust currently boasts more that 5.37 million members, and runs its properties with the help of over 50,000 volunteers. It operates over 280 cafés and restaurants at its various sites and properties, and even owns 39 pubs and inns. Substantial tracts of Britain’s most beautiful terrain are expertly managed and protected by the Trust, ensuring that the organisation is woven into the tapestry of the British landscape, an instantly recognisable sign that our history is valued and respected.
The origins of English Heritage date back to the same period: the Office of Works, a government department responsible for architecture and building, began to acquire buildings and monuments in the 1880s. The initial focus was on prehistoric and Medieval remains – it was several decades before country houses and industrial landscapes were recognised as a heritage that needed to be preserved. By the 1930s the Office of Works was responsible for world-famous sites such as Stonehenge and Rievaulx Abbey. While the primary aim was to protect these historic treasures, it was also recognised that they should be made accessible to the general public.
After the Second World War, the Ministry of Works (as it was now known) continued to acquire a widening range of sites, including its first stately home, Audley End in Cambridgeshire. After much debate it was decided that it would be preferable for the National Trust to manage country houses, while the Ministry of Works looked after more historic monuments, although this brief was extended to include a widening range of sites including Georgian villas, windmills and iron works.
In the 1980s the Ministry of Works briefly became the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which was then renamed English Heritage. Since 2015 it has been a charitable trust, which not only looks after historic properties but also safeguards and protects our national legacy. It now cares for over 400 historic buildings, monuments and sites, including 66 castles, 58 prehistoric sites and 47 London statues.
With a great range of historic sites and pristine landscapes to choose from, we are spoilt for choice. But it would be irresponsible to take our heritage for granted, or to be careless or inconsiderate about our carefully conserved landscape.
So, if you are out and about this summer, bear the following recommendations in mind:
• Many of us will want to enjoy a picnic, but don’t just choose your site indiscriminately. Many sites have designated picnic areas, or you can find a ‘suitable for picnics’ icon when you are looking up the site details. In general, fires and barbecues are not allowed. If, in doubt, ring up the specific property for advice first. English Heritage encourages visitors to picnic at all its sites.
• Carefully dispose of all rubbish, and if you can’t find a bin, bag it up and take it away. Always leave the site absolutely pristine.
• National Trust-managed landscapes are completely dog-friendly (keep dogs on leads when you are crossing fields with livestock, or when requested to do so). It’s fine to take your dog to historic gardens, but you should keep your dog on a lead. Look up individual properties’ details to check whether dogs are allowed in cafés. English Heritage encourages visitors to bring dogs to castles, abbeys and gardens.
• Always follow the countryside code and ensure that gates are securely fastened when you have passed through.
• The National Trust is tolerant of wild camping, but requires visitors to follow certain guidelines. Wild campers are not allowed to camp in valleys or lowland areas or by lakeshores. They must keep their pitches small – if two tents are already in their chosen spot, they should move on. Food should be heated on lightweight camping stoves – lighting fires is risky and leads to the risk of damaging wildfires. Wild campers should use small, lightweight tents, and blend as much as possible into the landscape.
• It’s fine to photograph any outdoor site managed by the Trust, but care should be taken when photographing or filming indoors. Photography without flash and filming is permitted at many properties, at the property manager’s discretion. Permission must therefore be sought and any restrictions respected. Both the National Trust and English Heritage must be contacted for copyright permission if photographs of their properties are being sold commercially.
• Obey the ‘don’t touch’ notices and don’t stray into roped-off areas. Follow normal gallery etiquette: be aware of the flow of crowds, don’t block access to works of art for other visitors, keep your voice down. If a guide is giving a talk (even if you’re not part of the group), don’t talk over them.
• If the facility is available, check in large and bulky bags. You wouldn’t want to cause incalculable damage to a precious antiquity with your bulging rucksack…
• Switch off mobile phones when you are in historic houses or other buildings. Be considerate about using your phone in enclosed gardens – other visitors may not appreciate being forced to eavesdrop on loud conversations.
• Smoking is not permitted inside buildings, or in cafés or shops. If you’re smoking outside, try and find a spot away from other visitors, who may be hoping for lungfuls of delicious floral scents, not nicotine.
• We all enjoy spectacular floral displays and exquisite gardens, but horticultural enthusiasts should resist the temptation to purloin the odd cutting when nobody is looking. As with the art on display, the plants are for contemplating, not touching.
• Never wear stiletto heels inside historic properties – they can do irreparable damage to floors, carpets and rush matting.
• Always be polite and respectful to stewards inside historic buildings. They are giving up their time voluntarily, and are often genuine enthusiasts, who are well-informed and delighted to talk about the property. Engaging in a polite conversation with them will probably elicit all sorts of arcane and fascinating information.
When feelings run high, it is easy to believe that gestures speak louder than words. They pack a powerful punch, are highly visible and many gestures are considered to be universal.
But this is where the problems lie. Many gestures are open to a spectrum of interpretation, and there is rarely universal consensus about what they connote. It is clear that a gesture such as giving the finger is an insult – but on what level? The gesture’s origins can be traced back to Classical Greece and Rome (it was known as the digitus impudicus), where its meaning was unapologetically sexual and physically threatening. It is unclear how the gesture fared in subsequent centuries, but we do know that it was resurrected in the United States, probably introduced by Italian immigrants, in the 19th century. Famously, a well-known baseball pitcher for the Boston Braves, named Charles Radbourn, used the gesture when posing for a team photograph in 1886, the first person to do so on camera. In 1982, Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau (father of current prime minister Justin Trudeau) gave the middle finger to a group of protesters while on a train in western Canada. The event became a national sensation, and from then on the middle finger became known as the “Trudeau salute” in Canada. In North America the gesture continues to be considered lewd and insulting, frequently deployed by celebrities who have been enraged by fans or paparazzi, or as a sign of protest and defiance.
In the United Kingdom, however, giving the finger is a comparatively recent import from the US, and may not carry the same weight. We have our own unique home-grown insult, the two-finger salute with the palm facing inwards. In Britain this hand signal has much the same meaning as the finger in the US, and is understood to be an offensive gesture, especially when the hand is moved up an down for added effect. It is possible that the V-sign developed from a much older horns symbol (made with the little finger and forefinger), used to denote a cuckold from at least the 16th century. When the palm is turned outwards, the gesture is used to denote Victory or, from the 1960s onwards, peace. Winston Churchill made much use of the V for Victory sign in the Second World War, though interestingly there are also many photographs of him gesturing with his palm facing inwards – we can only guess if this was intentional or merely a careless error.
It will already be apparent that these gestures are charged with meaning, but their comparative gravitas and impact is very much in the eye of the beholder, and factors like gender, age, nationality and the context in which the gesture is used will all come into play. They should therefore be used with extreme caution, as there is a risk that a casually flipped finger will induce feelings of murderous rage or profound humiliation in recipients. Children should certainly be discouraged from aping adults and using these gestures, and made to understand that using them carries a certain risk.
In addition, these gestures – as Winston Churchill clearly understood – are highly photogenic. They are a visual shorthand, creating an instantly arresting image and making the need for captions superfluous. As such, they are an extremely blunt instrument, incapable of conveying subtlety or nuance. Anyone in the public eye should be extremely wary of using these gestures, as they may well come to symbolise the perpetrator, and in the most unflattering light.
The instant gratification of an insulting hand gesture should therefore be carefully weighed against its possible impact – both on other people, who may be incensed or insulted by the gesture, and on the person from whom it originates, who may be defined by their action and ridiculed because of it.
Many of us will find ourselves in situations where we feel we have reached the end of our tether, when other people’s behaviour, especially if it is mocking or provocative, can tip us over the edge. It is admirable if, in extremis, we are able to present a smooth, unruffled exterior to the world, and do not rise to the bait and behave in a way that we will later regret.
Lying is much in the news as the moment and we have turned to Principles of Politeness and of Knowing the World, compiled from the letters of Lord Chesterfield, with comments by the Rev Dr John Trusler in 1775, for some 18th-century insights on the matter.
Trusler’s contempt for liars is magisterial: “Of all the vices there is no one more criminal, more mean, and more ridiculous, than lying. The end we design by it is very seldom accomplished, for lies are always found out, at one time or other…Lies generally proceed from vanity, cowardice, and a revengeful disposition, and sometimes from a mistaken notion of self defence…If a man lies, shuffles or equivocate, (for, in fact, they are all alike) by way of excuse for anything he has said or done, he aggravates the offense rather than lessens it… Besides, lying, in excuse for a fault betrays fear, than which nothing is more dastardly, and unbecoming the character of a gentleman.”
“There are persons also, whose vanity leads them to tell a thousand lies... These persons are foolish enough to imagine, that if they can recite any thing wonderful, they draw the attention of the company, and if they themselves are the objects of that wonder, they are looked up to as persons extraordinary. This has made many a man see things that never were in being, hear thing s that never were said, and achieve feats that never were attempted, dealing always in the marvellous…”
No doubt Lord Chesterfield and the Rev Trusler would be appalled by the extent to which lies have now entered public discourse, and by the fact that people who lie do not necessarily face universal calumny or enforced resignation, even if their lies are widely acknowledged and pilloried. After all, as Trusler points out: “There is nothing more manly, or more noble, if we have done wrong, than frankly to own it. It is the only way of meeting forgiveness.”
They identify several very recognisable reasons for lying: malice (telling lies in order to injure somebody’s reputation); vanity (exaggerating achievements, making unverifiable claims); self-defence (telling lies as a way of evading condemnation for inadequacies or incompetence).
Any reader who cursorily examines this list will be struck by the fact that these kinds of lies are very commonly displayed by young children, who recklessly blend fantasy and exaggeration with strict truth, boast sinfully, and whose knee-jerk response, when challenged with any kind of wrong-doing, is to go for wide-eyed, innocent denial. We identify these undesirable traits early, and work hard to socialise our children into behaving more honestly and responsibly. They very quickly learn that their wilder fantasies and fabrications really don’t hold water, and that any self-respecting parent or teacher is going to be deeply suspicious of their outright denials and outrageous excuses when they are caught red-handed.
So it’s a very bad sign when this kind of behaviour makes it into adult life, especially when it is manifested by people in positions of power and responsibility. But maybe we should also take some responsibility – as parents we do our utmost to call out our children when they are caught in a lie, so we really should muster the same level of outrage when a powerful adult falls into the same trap and add our voices to the chorus of disapproval.
On a more everyday level, if you suspect somebody else of lying there are three ways of dealing with it. You can ignore it: the lies are probably more to do with the insecurities and problems of the liar than they are to do with you, and as long as they do not have a severe impact on other people they can just be overlooked. Or you can turn to forensic questioning, then sit back and watch the liar tie themselves in knots and become ensnared in a tangled web of their own making. Finally, if they’re a loved one or a good friend, you stop them in their tracks and save embarrassment with a mild “come off it”.
We will let the Rev Trusler have the last word:
“Remember then, as long as you live, that nothing but strict truth can carry you through life with honour and credit. Liars are not only disagreeable but dangerous companions, and when known will ever be shunned by men of understanding. Besides, as the greatest liars are generally the greatest fools, a man who addicts himself to the detestable vice, will not only be looked upon as vulgar, but will never be considered as a man of sense.”
The latest spate of political resignations has led us to contemplate the etiquette of leaving your job, and we have been pondering how to write a good resignation letter. For most of us, resignation will not be met by political fanfare or a media outcry. But it is nevertheless important to write a clear and well-constructed letter and to ensure that your departure is not messy or emotional.
For most of us, a good resignation is all about not burning bridges. Nobody knows exactly where their career will lead, and it is sensible to avoid leaving a trail of bad feeling and recrimination. It is also possible that you will have to go back to your employer at some point for references.
You may well be leaving your job because you have reached the end of your tether, or been badly managed, or repeatedly overlooked for promotion. Unless you are a politician, who is publicly staking his or her claim for a high profile job in the future, it is best to mute your resentment. Try and translate your grievances into something that sounds reasonably positive: “I am looking forward to moving on and taking the skills I have acquired over the last five years to a new level” (I never got the promotion I deserved) or “I am sure I will be able to apply everything I have learnt about teamwork over the last two years in my new role” (our team didn’t function properly).
In most employment situations, you would discuss your resignation with your manager first. Try and prepare what you want to say beforehand and stick to the script. Even if you have been unhappy in your job, try and sound positive and work to stay on good terms with your manager. If he or she argues with your or becomes confrontational, you must try not to deviate from your original posture; reiterate your pre-prepared remarks if necessary.
Once this conversation is over, you should then send your formal resignation letter, or hand it to you manager at the end of the interview. Remember, this letter will be kept on file, so it is best to make it bland and formulaic.
If your manager comes up with a counteroffer, be very cautious. Offering more money is a common reaction to unwelcome news of a resignation, but you must question why a better salary has only been proffered under threat of your departure, not as a reward for a job well done. If you are offered a promotion, think very carefully about the circumstances that have led to this gesture – underlying problems and grievances with the company might still be bubbling under the surface and will come back to haunt you later on.
Reassure your manager that you will work your notice period and do your best to ensure that there is a seamless transition following your resignation. Your imminent departure may generate a giddy sense of freedom and irresponsibility, but you owe it to your employer to ensure that colleagues and your successor are well briefed and ready to take over.
If you really do have well-founded grievances with the company that you are burning to get off your chest, or you feel that it imperative for the well being of your former colleagues to spell out the company’s shortcomings, don’t put them in writing. Even if it is not part of your company’s formal procedures, you can always ask for an exit interview and try and convey your criticisms to your manager. Only do this if you’re confident that you won’t make intemperate remarks and can keep the conversation polite and civilised.
• The letter should include the current date, company name and company address.
• The letter should be addressed to your line manager.
• It should open with a simple statement of your intention to quit: “It is with regret that I tender my resignation from my position as [job title] at [company name]” or “Please accept this letter as formal notification of my resignation from my position as [job title] aat [company name]:
• For the sake of clarity, state your notice period, and specify the date of your departure.
• Give the reason for your departure: the most common reasons cited would be a new job, new opportunities, moving elsewhere, personal reasons (you don’t need to go into detail).
• It is a gracious, but not essential, gesture to thank your employer for the opportunities they have given, and say something positive about your time at the company: “I have enjoyed being part of a great team, and feel proud of the work we did in bringing Project X to fruition”.
•Sign the letter and print your name underneath. You can use the formal sign-off ‘Yours sincerely’, but in most companies it would probably be more appropriate to use a phrase like ‘With best wishes’.
We have so many digital ways of communicating – texts, emails, message boards, chats – that it can sometimes feel that face-to-face communications are coming a poor second. But it’s important that we take a step back and really determine when it is appropriate to say things face to face, and also acknowledge that on some occasions a handwritten note is the best option.
Digital communication is wonderfully convenient, but it is a blunt instrument. We sprinkle our texts with emojis in an attempt to add layers of complexity and meaning to our words, but – when the subtlety and nuance of in-person communication is lost – there is always a risk of misinterpretation.
The very ease of digital communication is also a danger, as it means that spur of the moment thoughts are immediately transmissible, and dangerous and provocative messages can be conveyed at a touch of the ‘send’ button. Late night drunkenness, maudlin emotions and 4am blues are all real hazards, and many messages that should never have been sent find their unerring way to unsuspecting recipients, detonating a storm of hurt and recrimination.
Some would argue that emails are a different matter. They can be treated as digital letters, long mulled over, and only sent after much deliberation. However, the moderating impact of pen and paper (not to mention finding envelopes, buying stamps and walking to the post box) is sorely missed, and many of us, who spend our working days churning out countless emails, are liable to revert to the ill-considered, impetuous send mode, precipitately dispatching our missives before we’ve had a chance to review them and assess their potential to do harm.
We all need to think carefully about the ways in which we choose to communicate. As a general rule, momentous life events, whether positive or negative, should be properly marked. Even in this digital age, a handwritten note to send condolences on a death, or congratulations on the birth of a child or a new job, will have much more impact and meaning than a short text or email. The effort that has been taken is commensurate with the importance of the occasion.
We should never hide behind written communications when circumstances demand a face-to-face discussion and explanation, which is simply cowardice. If you are ending a relationship or sacking an employee you need to concede that the emotional and practical reverberations of your decision must be acknowledged and, if at all possible, mitigated. You must express heartfelt regret and, if need be, compassion. You must have the bravery to stand by your decision, even when feeling overwrought. Sending this kind of bad news in writing will inevitably lead to terrible recriminations and heartache.
•Births, engagements: a well-chosen card with a short message (not just a signature) will convey an appropriate note of celebration.
•Deaths: a hand-written letter should be sent promptly, which should contain fond recollections of the deceased person, as well as offers of help and support.
• A new job: it’s always a kind gesture to send a card with a short message of good wishes, especially when it is a young person who is just starting on their career.
• Thanks: It’s fine to send a text or email when you’re thanking hosts for everyday hospitality, but on bigger occasions, such as weddings or overnight stays, it is a pleasing gesture to send a handwritten note of thanks.
• Thank yous for presents: a text message is too cursory an acknowledgment of the trouble that has been taken to purchase and wrap a gift. A short note of thanks will be much more appreciated
• News of redundancy. Mass redundancies, announced by email, have been much in the news lately. News of dismissal or redundancy should be never be conveyed en masse, which cruelly devalues the impact on each individual. The news should be communicated in person, and only by note or letter (never by email or phone) if it is absolutely impossible to find somebody to deliver the news. It’s bad manners to give someone notice of their imminent departure in this surreptitious way, and dismissing someone in person means that you can verify that they have fully understood what has happened and why.
• Telling your spouse that you are seeking a divorce. This is a life-changing decision and, while it might not come as news to your partner and may well be the culmination of much discussion and counselling, it may still be devastating or distressing. Announcing a divorce by email is both cruel and cowardly; it does not give the recipient of the news any forum for discussion, does not allow you to show compassion for the emotional impact, and makes no provision for discussing next steps and the way forward.
• Ending a relationship. While the ramifications and fallout might not rival the complexity of a divorce, it is still extremely lily-livered and shoddy to hide behind the protection of a text or letter. You should be able to look you soon-to-be-ex-partner in the eye and offer an honest explanation.
We all deploy a multiplicity of facial expressions, but they’re not always clear forms of communication. These non-verbal signals are open to interpretation, and we learn at an early age to contextualise a smile or a frown, and then judge whether it is indicating delight or derision, confusion or concentration.
But some signals defy easy interpretation, and a wink is a prime example. For a start, it is not a universally accessible signal – some people actually cannot wink (or arch an eyebrow). But for those of us who can, winking requires some careful forethought. It is a deeply ambiguous signal, and open to misinterpretation.
For many people, a wink is a flirtatious gesture, a form of eye contact that creates a sense of collusion and intimacy between two people. This is probably the most common interpretation of the wink, especially between consenting, mutually attracted adults. But beware, in a different context a wink can easily be misinterpreted as sleazy, especially if it is exchanged between strangers (for example on the tube) – it’s all about using it when flirtation is appropriate.
The sense of complicity that a wink brings can also be used to reinforce friendship. It could, for example, be used between two friends who are making fun of someone who doesn’t have a clue they’re being gently mocked, to signal that they are sharing the joke. But if this signal is intercepted, the wink can easily lead to a sense of rejection and exclusion.
A wink can also be used to underline that a remark is intended as a joke, or to underscore teasing. If there is a sense that this form of humour might be misinterpreted, a wink is a useful way of indicating that a remark should not be taken seriously.
A wink is also a commonly-used way of communicating thanks or conveying friendliness. It is reinforcing behaviour – a non-verbal signal that serves to emphasise the merely verbal.
On the other hand, and confusingly, the wink can be used to undermine verbal communication. If someone is speaking with apparent sincerity, but then winks, most people would interpret this as an ironic footnote to the remark, indicating that what is being said should not be taken literally or seriously. It could also be used to indicate that a lie is being told, or a double entendre is being signalled. In all of these cases a wink is intended to be unsettling, an invitation to venture into the uncertain territory beyond the merely verbal.
These multiple ambiguities are magnified when the wink is used digitally, as an emoji. A wink emoji will tend to inject a note of sarcasm into messages, especially when it is not entirely clear how to interpret them; “I thought Emma’s dress was extraordinary ;)”comes across as sarcastic. If a remark already comes laden with sarcasm, a wink can mitigate it; “You looked absolutely wrecked ;)”. However, the world of emojis is never that simple, and the winky face is often scattered throughout texts for all sorts of reasons beyond the merely sarcastic, often indicating a kind of desperate humour.
In conclusion, the wink is one of the most ambiguous of the non-verbal signals, and in some cultures, such as China and India, is seen as rude and vulgar and should not be used. You should be aware that if you do wink, you have very little control over how it will be interpreted. If you are interested in absolute clarity of communication, and you eschew any gestures that might be unsettling or provocative, you might be wise to forego winking, and to revert to clear verbal communication and universally recognised gestures and body language.
Group chats have become the new way of communicating about a myriad of topics and situations, and inevitably this tool has thrown up a number of new etiquette dilemmas. What are the protocols for joining and leaving the chat? Should you ask before you add to the chat? How promptly should you respond to messages? How do you distinguish between private and public? Is it a good forum for airing grievances?
Our etiquette experts have been pondering the complexities of this communication tool, and have been looking at the ways in which everyday good manners, courtesy and consideration can be brought to bear to make the whole experience more civilised:
• Only use group chats to talk about topics that are relevant to everyone in the group. If you have something particular to say to one individual, message that person directly – you don’t want to force a whole group of people to eavesdrop on one-to-one conversations.
• Ask permission of the rest of the group before adding someone – you wouldn’t indiscriminately bring gate crashers to a close friend’s party, so don’t heedlessly impose your own friends on everyone else.
• Group chats are often used for making arrangements, so it is really helpful to answer promptly and not keep everyone in suspense about your availability. Everyone will see that you’ve read the message, so a non-response just looks rude.
• Always acknowledge messages; unless they involve a pressing question it’s acceptable not to respond immediately, but try to do so reasonably promptly, it’s only polite.
• Post your message in a single chunk of text; you’ll drive people mad if every sentence arrives as a new message with all the attendant, and distracting, alerts.
• If your phone is beginning to distract you from what you really need to do (for example, work), then just mute WhatsApp (no buzzing or beeping alerts when messages come in) and address the backlog later.
• If you’re really feeling overwhelmed by the multitude of messages you’re receiving, it might be a good idea to take some time out and send a message alerting people to your intended absence or non-availability (this is useful when you’re going on holiday too). That way, you won’t be reproached for your non-responsiveness.
• Keep an eye on your WhatsApp commitments and simply leave the groups in which you’re no longer interested – many groups are set up for time-specific purposes anyway, for example to arrange a hen night or a school event.
• If you’re in a group thread, participate. Nobody likes a silent observer who lurks around on the edges of groups at parties, listening and contributing nothing. You will definitely need to respond to group messages, or you’ll begin to look like a stalker.
• Adhere to the original purpose of the group. If it’s been set up by a gang of school-gate mums to facilitate making arrangements for their kids, it would be inappropriate to berate them with your latest political rants, requests to sign petitions, and links to news websites.
• Be careful about deluging the group with memes, adverts, promotions or system-slowing attachments. Unless the group is actually set up for this purpose, people will feel like they’re being spammed.
• Don’t be offended when people leave the group; think of it as comparable to a social event, when some people leave early because they have other commitments or are not particularly sociable, while others stay on until the bitter end. As long as departures are polite they’re completely acceptable.
• Don’t add someone to the group without asking them first. You would never unilaterally RSVP to social invitations on your friends’ behalf, you would ask them if they want to attend first. It’s no different with a WhatsApp group.
• Know your boundaries – before your message, think if what you are saying is for public consumption. There are lots of areas of our lives – financial, health, partnership – over which it is wise to exercise a little discretion, and which might be more appropriately divulged in a private message to a trusted confidant.
• Don’t share criticisms of other people with the group. While WhatsApp groups may feel like places to gossip and exchange confidences, your remarks don’t evaporate into thin air. They lurk around on people’s screens, and in their chat histories, a permanent reminder of your negativity.
• If you have a problem with a member of the group, never air your grievances in the group chat, which will cause no end of discomfort and embarrassment. Address your problem one-to-one with the relevant person.
• Don’t become a nuisance texter, bombarding your group with endless stream of consciousness messages, demanding replies, soliciting opinions. You need to respect the dynamic of the group – if it is a laid-back, occasional arrangement, your compulsive messaging will become oppressive.
It’s wedding season, and all over the country men (and in some cases women) are nervously attempting to pen, and memorise, their best man’s speech, an excruciating ordeal for many nervous public speakers, who are torn between the honour of being asked and severe performance anxiety.
To pile up the pressure, the best man’s speech is generally expected to be the highlight of the post-wedding formalities. It is traditionally the culmination of the wedding speeches, following on from the father of the bride and the groom. The father of the bride (or whoever is chosen to act in this capacity) is expected to thank everyone who has been involved in the organisation of the wedding. He may then launch into some affectionate reminiscences about the bride, pay tribute to her achievements, welcome the groom into the family, and finishes with a toast to the “bride and groom”.
The groom’s duty is, firstly, to thank the father of the bride (or equivalent) on behalf of himself and his new wife for his speech – the first mention of “wife” is always a popular moment. He then thanks the guests, the bride’s parents (if they’re hosting the wedding), and his own parents and best man. He may say a few words about his beautiful new wife, and then – traditionally – finishes with a toast to the bridesmaids, although this is becoming less common and an alternative toast may be preferred.
Now it is the big moment. The preceding speeches have effectively dealt with the etiquette of the occasion; formal thanks have been given to all concerned with the organisation of the wedding, and an elegant tribute has been paid to the bride. The best man’s speech is intended to be a witty and entertaining account of the groom, and a sincere reflection on their friendship. It should be warm and affectionate – ultimately, it is intended as an endorsement of the groom’s character and therefore the marriage.
There is, however, great pressure on the best man to make the speech humorous, the idea being to regale the audience with amusing anecdotes about the groom’s various juvenile antics. This expectation is where many best man’s speeches break down – jokes backfire and stories of callow indiscretions stray into the “‘too much information” category. While it is traditional to cause the groom a flicker of embarrassment as he is forced to listen to accounts of his misspent youth, it is certainly not desirable to reduce him to a state of red-faced shame and humiliation.
Remember, the primary purpose of the speech is to demonstrate how the groom – despite earlier misadventures – found his way to his bride, and ultimately proved his worth. Anecdotes should all serve this purpose; rambling reminiscences that do not contribute to this central narrative are irrelevant.
It is, therefore, imperative to tread carefully. If you do not feel confident about your ability to hold the room spellbound with well-told and apposite anecdotes, it is probably safer to back-pedal a little and opt for a much more workmanlike speech – providing you keep it reasonably short it won’t be too boring and at least it won’t be embarrassing. Remember, as long as you come across as genuinely delighted with your friend’s good fortune, you will be forgiven for not leaving the guests helpless with laughter
• Prepare your speech carefully and practise delivering it, preferably in front of a friend or partner. This will show up any longueurs or lapses of taste, which can be excised. It will allow you to time the speech (aim for no more than five minutes), and will also help you to memorise it – you should avoid using notes if at all possible or ad libbing, unless you’re super-confident.
• Remember the formalities of the speech. It is customary to begin by reading out any messages – usually by text or email – from friends and relatives who couldn’t attend. Make sure that you pronounce their names correctly (ask ahead if need be).
• Once you’ve spoken about the groom, remember to include some stories about the couple – how they met, their relationship and a few warm-hearted compliments to the bride.
• The speech should conclude with reiterated thanks to all involved in organising the wedding, and a toast to the newly-weds; you should also announce the cutting of the cake, if applicable.
• Resist giving in to your nerves and drinking too much before your speech – you may be deluded enough to think it will calm you down, but it will certainly impede your performance, sometimes disastrously.
• It’s fine to refer to your friendship with the groom, but keep it short – if you’re not careful, the speech will end up being all about you, and that’s a big no-no.
• Positively no dirty or off-colour jokes or swearing – you will be talking to a broad, multi-generational audience (possibly including children), so it is better to err on the side of being bland, rather than giving offence.
• You may fancy yourself as an all-round entertainer, but don’t get over-confident – you will run the risk of upstaging the bride and groom, and you should remember that first and foremost it is their big day.
Image: the lobby of the Cavalry & Guards Club in Piccadilly
Seventeenth-century London coffee houses were the ancestors of the private members’ clubs that evolved in the 18th century, reaching their peak in the Victorian period when there were over 400 in London (today there are less than 40).
Coffee houses were male retreats, where gentlemen could meet up, eat, drink, socialise, read newspapers and debate contemporary issues, and many of these essential traits persisted. Private members’ club were initially for men only; they provided a space outside the domestic, female-dominated sphere, where gentlemen could consolidate friendships, make professional contacts, or simply seek sanctuary away from everyday concerns and problems. A typical gentleman’s club provided a formal dining room, a bar, a library, a billiards room, and a suite of parlours for gambling or socialising. They were frequently located in grandiose, lavish buildings, providing luxurious and comfortable surroundings, which created a sense of the club being a “home from home”.
London’s clubs were concentrated in the affluent district around the St James area, in what became known as ‘Clubland’. While clubs were originally aristocratic, by the early 19th century they were bastions of the contemporary class system, wielding extremely strict controls over the background and calibre of potential members. Clubs tended to reflect common interests – political, professional or cultural – reinforced in the choice of members, which ensured that they would provide a coming-together of like-minded people.
Clubs were seen as social retreats, where it was bad form to talk about business. However, by fostering friendships and cementing social networks, they did in fact play an important role in building strategic business networks and enabling their members to advance professionally. Clubs were excellent proving grounds for young gentlemen, who were able to build up their own network of respectable contacts, whilst polishing their social skills and gentlemanly attributes. By demanding scrupulous acquiescence with a strict set of rules and rituals, these institutions promoted moderation and social cohesion – social transgressions could potentially be sanctioned by a humiliating exclusion.
The oldest clubs, such as White’s, Brook’s and Boodle’s, all provided an environment for gambling, which was illegal outside of members-only establishments. White’s was for Tories, Brook’s was for the Whigs, and Boodle’s was for the country set. Founded slightly later, the Carlton Club was for Conservatives and the Reform Club was for Liberals. The Travellers Club was for globe-trotting gentlemen, while the Athenaeum focused on men of science, literature and art. Housed in beautiful Palladian mansions with grandiose entrances, these clubs were at the heart of a part of London that catered for gentlemen – from the barbers of Jermyn Street to the tailors of Savile Row.
Given the benefits that accrued from club membership, it is scarcely surprising that the rituals of joining these establishments were very exacting. When a club accepted a member, it was known as an ‘election’. The membership voted for the election of new candidates, who were proposed and seconded by existing club members. Typically, voters chose from a large supply of black and white balls, and secretly cast a single ball into a ballot box (voting was strictly anonymous). When the voting was complete, the box was opened and the balls were counted. Black balls indicated a rejection of the proposed member; the number of black balls needed for disqualification varied from club to club – in some very exclusive establishments, a single black ball would be enough to deny membership – hence the phrase “to be blackballed”.
Clubs operated a gentleman’s code for taking payment. Members signed a chit for drinks and meals consumed, and in some cases did not even have to do this, as staff kept records. Regular accounts were sent to members at the end of the month, and the expectation was that they would be paid promptly, or incur a ten per cent surcharge. In some clubs if an account that was outstanding after ninety days the non-payer’s name went up on a board – a severe humiliation. In general, these establishments were run on an honour system, and if there was any shortcomings in a members’ behaviour, the club authorities would hold his proposer and seconder to account.
This exclusively gentlemanly world was inevitably challenged. Women’s clubs, intended to rival their male counterparts, began to be founded in the three decades before World War I. Some of these clubs aped the grandiosity and pomp of their male predecessors, others’ raison d’etre was to advance women socially and educationally. Ladies’ clubs were grouped to the north of Piccadilly, close to the shopping areas of Bond Street, Regent Street and Oxford Street. Famous ladies’ clubs included the Alexandra (1884), Pioneer (1892), Bath Club (1894), and the Empress (1897). These clubs provided strong-minded, independent women with comfortable facilities, well-appointed accommodation for visitors from out of town, and in some cases, programmes of improving lectures, as well as smoking rooms for the more raffish members.
Inevitably, as traditional gentlemen’s clubs have been forced to evolve and adapt in the changing social climate of the post-war years, one major concession for many has been the decision to admit women as guests and members. There are, however, some very notable, and traditionalist, exceptions, which retain their men-only status (although some allow female visitors), including: Brook’s, Boodle’s, the Garrick Club, Pratt’s, the Travellers Club and White’s. The University Women’s Club, founded in 1921, has no male members (in 2018 another all-female club, the AllBright, was added to the list).
While some bastions of tradition continue to exist, many clubs found themselves marooned in a fading historical anomaly. From the mid-1990s many members’ clubs have moved with the times, offering a much more nuanced and all-embracing experience of the luxury retreat. Many clubs that have been founded since the turn of the 21st century are now the preserve of millionaires and newly-affluent millennials, who seek an exclusive, and unique, experience.
While many contemporary clubs still nod towards the wood-panelled, book-lined, thickly-carpeted opulence of the Victorian era, the actual experiences on offer are infinitely more varied and attuned to 21st-century zeitgeist. Clubs now provide gyms, pools, saunas, hammams and fitness and wellbeing centres that offer everything from boxing to hot yoga. Gastronomic meals, cooked by top chefs, are a must.
No longer homes from homes where work is a secondary priority, many clubs today are used as places where members can work and engage in professional networking. As the divide between pleasure time and the world of work becomes more ill-defined, clubs provide excellent dedicated workspaces for laptop-wielding digital nomads, who are able to benefit from all the social contact that clubs provide.
Many also offer contemporary guest rooms for overnight stays, as well as laying on full programmes of exhibitions, lectures and concerts. Dress codes are notably relaxed (smart jeans and trainers are often tolerated), creating a less conventional ambience.
The more traditional clubs still adhere to relatively strict dress codes, which are perhaps more rigorously enforced than in most present-day communal spaces.
In general a ‘formal’ dress code is recommended for everyday attendance (a suit or tailored jacket and trousers, a collared shirt and tie, or the female equivalent – think smart business attire).
Some clubs relax this code to ‘smart casual’ for Friday evenings and weekends, which effectively means that ties can be discarded and, in some cases, smart pullovers may be worn instead of jackets.
In most clubs, certain items of casual clothing are not considered acceptable. These include: jeans, shorts, t-shirts, tracksuits, trainers, flip-flops, or clothing with brash logos.
While every club has its own particular traditions and practices, there are a certain number of etiquette rules that would typically be found in most establishments in the 19th century, and many persist to this day:
• Aspiring members should write, in the first instance, to the club secretary. It is generally necessary to be introduced and seconded by two existing members.
• If accepted, new club members should pay for their annual subscription by return.
• New members should familiarise themselves with the club rules and should comply with them. They should be very aware of existing hierarchies and privileges – for example they should not hog the latest newspapers or occupy the best chair. They should defer to older members at all times.
• New members should be cautious about butting into conversations between existing members. They should wait until a friendly remark is addressed to them before joining a conversational group.
• Club members are always amiable and courteous, reticent about inflicting their own views on others, and resist gossip about fellow-members at all times.
• Always leave club dressing rooms exactly as you found them as a courtesy to other members.
• If you are playing cards or billiards, you must immediately settle all gambling debts.
• Resist approaches for loans or credit from other members, who may well be persistent and adept at judging likely targets.
• While you must be diligent about upholding the standards of the club and your own behaviour, never be censorious of other members.
• Do not tip club servants. If you want to offer them some reward, there is usually a ‘Holiday Box’, where you can leave a contribution from time to time, which will be divided up between all the servants.
