The BBC Style Guide can be found here in the form of a PDF file.

It starts out quite well, even when it discusses the passive voice it is initially quite correct.

quote:

Compare these two sentences:
• A meeting will be held by the company’s directors
next week.
• The company’s directors will meet next week.

The first is an example of what grammarians call
the passive voice; the second is the active voice.
Don’t be put off, it’s really very simple.
Active voice: A does B.
Passive voice: B is done (usually by A).

Sadly this is followed immediately by

quote:

Compare these examples.The first is in the passive, the
second active:
• There were riots in several towns in Northern
England last night, in which police clashed with
stone-throwing youths.
• Youths throwing stones clashed with police during
riots in several towns in Northern England last night.

If anyone at the BBC can point out a passive voice in either of these sentences I will give him sixpence.

I am looking forward to reading the rest of the document.

To just follow on from that, Language Log frequently talks about misuse of the phrase "passive voice" and speculates that is now taking on a de facto new meaning of "any construction that is vague about agency". However even if we allow this new definition (and personally I'd rather not) neither of these sentences is vague about agency, anyway.

Even people who know what "passive voice" means and can explain it seem to go gaga when it comes to using it.

quote:

• Lambs can be euthanised, he says, but who would care for damaged human children? This sentence was written by a news correspondent in Washington, and illustrates the American enthusiasm for turning nouns into verbs. English is not averse to the practice, but we should not risk alienating our audience by rushing to adopt new words before their general acceptance at large. Euthanise is not a verb you will find in any dictionary and it has no place in our output. (But who can say what will happen in the future?)

Euthanize isn't in any dictionary? But it's right here in the OED. And the American enthusiasm for verbing nouns?

quote:

We throw stones, not rocks, because in standard English a rock is too large to pick up.

Really?

I found some other silly prescriptions, but at least they admit the reason for them:

quote:

Our use, or perceived misuse, of English produces a greater response from our audiences than anything else. It is in nobody’s interest to confuse, annoy, dismay, alienate or exasperate them.

And of course they have some good points. I thought this journalist's report was funny:

quote:

A boy of twelve is in intensive care in hospital after a
group of teenagers doused him in inflammatory liquid
and then threw a lighted match at him.

Unfortunately I very much doubt you'd get an acknowledgement, let alone a reply, from the Beeb. It is probably the worst organisation I have ever dealt with for responding to letters - be they electronic or paper.

I did read once that public satisfaction with the Beeb's dealing with correspondence was around 58% - which is quite disgraceful.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
I found some other silly prescriptions, but at least they admit the reason for them:

quote:

Our use, or perceived misuse, of English produces a greater response from our audiences than anything else. It is in nobody’s interest to confuse, annoy, dismay, alienate or exasperate them.

That is the sort of route I take, too. In ordinary writing I'll happily split infinitives and end sentences with prepositions, but avoid doing so at work. Even if their ire is totally unjustified, if a prescriptivist spots a pet peeve their attention is often drawn away from the message that I'm trying to convey. The actual mechanics of passing on the message, the writing itself, should be unobtrusive, so as not to detract from the meaning.

This doesn't apply to poetry and other great writing, of course, where verbal fireworks can add to the reader's appreciation of the work. I don't pretend to write great literature, though ...

And then there are the anti-peevologists, or whatever you call them. That is, I can't stand a stilted sounding sentence merely for the purpose of not ending it with a preposition...similar to Winston Churchill's famous quote.