In the UK, the government of the day debates and evaluates issues, implementing guidance and passing legislation which continually adds to a body of "owned language", through which all ideas, opinions and pronouncements must be filtered.

It controls virtually everything we say or do, wherever we are, largely via the legal system, either through the courts or threats of legal proceedings. Many Members of Parliament have legal backgrounds and it could be argued, therefore, that they are the best prepared and equipped individuals to create and amend legislation.

This would be true if the body of language in question operated in an efficient and equitable manner, affording those involved in policy implementation a functional, fair and cost-effective system.

In fact, it is plain for all to see that what we actually have is a slow-moving, biased and extremely costly process which, if measured in business terms, would not be let continue.

The apparent inability of any government or political party to recognise and remedy its mistakes can result in the implementation and acceptance of a set of "truths" or beliefs that is defended at all costs, politicians often shifting their own understanding to adjust to each newly-manufactured reality.

The inevitable product of this, therefore, is that ordinary citizens have no viable means of influencing (or even contributing to) the manner in which our lives are governed.

If you accept that we have now effectively reached such a position in society at large, then surely we need to ask who most benefits from our lack of influence in this respect.

The forthcoming General Election, no matter which political party is elected, offers no prospect of the kind of changes needed to the existing body of official language.

Remember, MPs have a legal duty to declare any financial or business interest they may have in their wider lives. Have we not, therefore, reached a point where we are being asked to pay a significant amount to the government for a "service" that offers precious little comfort or assurance to the majority, yet provides constantly expanding employment and financial gain for those administering it?

Any law which does not genuinely challenge those who break it, to consider the consequences of so doing, must be rewritten. At present, many of those who willfully commit crime, do so in the knowledge that it is a risk worth taking; they are never forced to face the fact that "it's not worth it".

However, looking at the situation from another perspective, it is evident that it most definitely is "worth it" for those who administer the very laws that are so frequently and flagrantly broken.

Ken A Pickett Silver Street Cheddar