Should you tell someone if you notice that their flies are open? Robin Saunders, Warwick
Yes. But you should do so discreetly, by indirections letting the humiliatingly exposed one find directions out. It would be coarse to cry: “Your flies are undone!”, or “Your willy is showing.” There are certain twee euphemisms for conveying the message. I suspect that they have military origins. For example, “There’s a star in the East,” and “Are you feeling the draught?” It is polite to let the poor chap know of his nakedness in the storm of social activity. But it must be done by signals, ambiguities and whispers, so as not to humiliate him publicly.
Is there a correct way to informally introduce two people I know to each other? I always feel the person I mention first gets the upper hand! Does it really matter? Helen Harris, Bristol
Your sensitivity to social nuance does you credit. The Brits are notoriously bad at introducing and being introduced. Is this native shyness? Or surliness? Or having momentarily forgotten the name of the Whatsisname whom you are introducing? The important thing is to follow the American and French practice, of speaking up, introducing loudly and clearly, and with a welcoming smile. Who comes first sometimes selects himself and herself. If you are talking to somebody, and another friend butts in, you probably introduce the butter-in first. “Hello, Isabel. Have you met my friend Hermione?” Provided you make the introductions clearly and warmly, as though you are delighted to be butted in on, it doesn’t matter a toss who gets introduced first.
My brother lives in Scotland. Every time I call him when he is at home, he puts me on speaker phone without telling me and so that anyone and everyone (including his wife) can listen in on our conversation. I only find out much later that I am actually on speaker phone. This has happened to me twice and I have since heard that he does the same thing when my mother calls him. Just last week, midway through our conversation I told him about a gift I just bought for his wife’s birthday. It was only at that point that he told me that I was on speaker and that he would turn it off and pick up the phone. Of course by this time his wife had already heard me discussing the gift I meant to get her. I think its rude to put a caller on speaker phone without telling them and in my view common courtesy dictates that if one wishes to use the speaker phone then one must inform the caller that he or she is on speaker phone. What are your views? Lisa AnonyMiss, Cardiff
Well, a bit rude. A bit thoughtless. And a great deal tiresomely technomane. Modern Infotech is remarkable and develops like lightning. Some of us are so in love with our silly (clever) new gizmos that we use them all the time, without thinking about those who are less in love with modern wizzbangs. For example, mobile phones, video cams and I-Pods. To impose your amazing gadgets on others without giving them a chance to refuse is RUDE. Well, I think it is. For example, those wittering trivial trash on mobile phones loudly in public or filming or snapping others without asking their permission. It is inconsiderate. It exhibits a selfish solipsims as acute as that of Simeon Stylites. Surely a sister should be able to ask her brother politely to talk to her in the old-fashioned way head to head on telephone rather than broadcasting the conversation by speaker. Make a joke about it.
My wife and I have invited our next door neighbours over for dinner on three occasions. They have reciprocated our invitations, but astonishingly they never cook for us! It’s just wine and nibbles. Do you think they are being stingy and/or rude? David T., Berks
Who can tell? Your neighbours may be thoughtless. They may be socially inept. They may be skint, even in comfortable Berkshire. They may not share the recent British obsession for competitive cooking as a form of One-Cupmanship. In any case, it is more important to be on good relations with out neighbours than to engage in petty accountancy over reciprocal entertainment. Good canapes or good whalemeat Wellington make good neighbours as well as good fences.
What do you do with someone who constantly interrupts you when you are speaking so they can tell their own anecdote or version of events? I have a friend who pays very little attention to what I have to say, and simply waits for the first opportunity to interject so they can take over the conversation and tell a story of their own. Can you suggest some way of showing that their behaviour is irritating and thoughtless? GM, Norwich
Most of us find what we have to say more interesting than what others have to say. Most of us may be wrong. It is insensitive and socially inept continually to butt into conversations. But do not let us the butters-in irritate us or divert us from the even tenor of our ways. Let us make sure that when we get a chance to speak, our intervention is witty, amusing, to the point and BRIEF. As Samuel Johnson observed about the supposed decline of the English language: “What remains but to acquiesce with silence, as in the other insurmountable distresses of humanity.”
There’s one person at work who goes out of their way to ignore and snub me. Everyone else is friendly - but he refuses to join in the banter and, I think, is resentful of my “popularity” in the office. How can I remedy this situation? J. K. R, London
By not noticing your colleague’s refusal to join in office banter. By not seeing snubs where none may be intended. Some men are born extrovert and jolly. Some men are naturally introvert and taciturn. Some are even mean, jealous and ornery. But let them not divert us from the even tenor of our office life. It is not a major flaw not to enjoy banter. Carry on being cheerful. I should take pains to be particularly polite (but not effusive) to the chap. On this Ship of Fools we should not let one man’s surliness spoil our pleasure.
I have met a lovely man who seems rather shy. We spent a pleasant evening together recently, and I’d like to see him again but he hasn’t contacted me since. What is the correct etiquette - should I approach him? Jane, Esher
Yes. Treading delicately. Victorian etiquette decreed that ladies did not make passes, even at shy blokes who wore glasses, or at noisy men who looked passable. But we are not Victorians. We live supposedly at the dawn of an age of equal opportunity, Hem, Hem. I should invite the chap out, to the cinema, for a drink, or a meal. But casually, and leaving him a certain amount of wriggle-room, in case he is not that way inclined.
In your comments in The Times on Saturday, June 10, you state: “..and should address people as they wish to be addressed” Try telling that to many of the UK’s large corporations. I do not want to have my name - Suzan - prefixed with any title; if any title is to be used I prefer Mrs Edward Smith. On no account will I EVER accept MS. I am frequently told this is not possible as “the computer won’t let me” and other such reasons. BT even told me they needed to have a title as they needed to know my sex for security reasons. They were unable to answer my query as to how they could tell sex if, for instance, my title were be Dr or Professor. Suzan D. Smith (Mrs Edward J. Smith)
Well, I stick to the principle that we should try to address people in the style that they wish to be addressed. But large organisations have to have rules of style for such matters. Otherwise we should have the Supreme Leader Colonel Gadaffi turning up all over The Times with different spellings full of Qs and Ks and alternative titles. It doesn’t often matter how we sing, provided that we all sing from the same song-sheet. And the rules tend to be applied by people who have neither the wit nor the authority to alter them. For man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,/ Most ignorant of what he’s most assured,/ His glassy essence, like an angry ape,/ Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,/ As make the angels weep. The rules become as inflexible as the Laws of the Medes and Persians. You are not alone in disliking the handle Ms. It was introduced in the Sixties, first of all in the States, in the wave of feminism. It is a rare example of a linguistic change brought about for political reasons rather than by the random tides of fashion. It became very awkward to ask a woman her marital status when it was not relevant, and when the same question was not put to a male. The reporter who asked a woman whether she was married, for the sake of designating her “correctly” in his paper, risked a tongue-lashing at best, and at worst a belt around the ear-hole with a handbag. At The Times we address women as they wish to be addressed, when possible, using reference books and their letter to us. When in doubt, we write Ms, as the common, neutral handle for females. Many young women strongly object to being labelled Mrs or Miss. We must do the best we can. And thank our lucky names that we still are identified by names as charming as Suzan Smith rather than by Orwellian numbers.
In re cream teas:
Advertisement
Charles Freebury, Crewkerne, Somerset: ” ‘Tis about time ‘ee Lunnon folk got to know the real story about us Cream Teas, which after all us did invent down yerr. Always has been, yerr in Zummerzett and up over Debbn, that we do put the cream on first. They down Cornwall put the jam on first but beyond the Tamar they always do have to be different. ‘Tis simple as that. And it don’t slide around if its proper scald cream and proper jam.Us don’t expect you from up country to know such, but we be not just yokels zot around in smocks chewing straw and mangel-wurzels. Since that Fearnley-Whittingstall moved in just down the road, we do grow Sparrowgrass now which they grockels pay the earth for. We’m not stupid.”
Yet even grockles and emmets eat of the crumbs of scones which fall from the Somerset tables.
More tea:
Aurelia Buckingham, Uteapia: “As an Austrian national I am a neutral observer in the tea and scone wars discussed in last week’s Modern Times. However, long association with the natives has convinced me that a) milk should be put in the cup first to stop the cup getting stained - the scourge of European mugs and b) cream goes on the scone first for aesthetic reasons and should never be sandwiched together as this leads to unpleasant overfilling of the mouth. Not nice to watch. Not elegant to try. In very unfortunate cases, cream may even splurt out onto one’s own clothes or worse, someone else’s.”
Lyndall Barbour, Warminster: “You make two pots, one caff, one decaff, and ask who wants which. Pour same, and ask who wants milk, full cream, or skimmed. We always have the milk in afterwards. It does make a difference — I don’t know why. Our neighbour pours half a cup of tea first, and then fills up with hot water, then milk. She is quite upper class.”
And on that constant Little Big-Ender argument from Uteapia about whether to pour milk or tea first:
Rod Dalitz, Edinburgh: “With reference to your answer on Saturday 10 June, the difference in taste is due to the amount of time the milk is at a high cooking temperature. If the milk is placed in the cup first, it is heated up to the final temperature as the tea is poured in. If the tea is placed in the cup first, it is hotter, and the first part of the milk is overheated. The extreme version of this cooking process is experienced when tea with milk is kept in a vacuum flask; it is always preferable to carry the milk separately, or to avoid milk. There is an international standard - ISO3103:1980, see here - which is also referenced as BS6008:1980. Paragraph 7.2.2 includes the words: ‘... pour it into the bowl after the milk, in order to avoid scalding the milk, unless this procedure is contrary to the normal practice in the organisation concerned. If the milk is added afterwards, experience has shown that the best results are obtained when the temperature of the liquor is in the range 65 to 80 degrees C when the milk is added.’ The time taken by the butler is likely to achieve this temperature.”
So now we know. Or do we?