I completely agree with you Olly – I think this is the problem with people who think marriage is the answer to society’s problems. It isn’t. Being in a loving long-term relationship is all that really mattered. So poo to the Telegraph!

If their claims were indeed true then Armageddon would be imminent.

I’m not sure that erroneous use of a word can be excused by identifying its user as a member of a distinct social group, especially if that group would most aptly be named “idiots” (which is true in the case of “literally” abusers).

I’d venture to disagree with your old A Level teacher. After all, in responding to the text with a brief summary, is the student not trying to summarise Shakespeare’s intentions in a basic manner? “Basically” is overused, but rarely in complete contradiction to its meaning.

I’m always keen to remind people that language changes over time, but I think “literally” needs to retain its meaning. There is, ahem, literally no other word which could be used in place of it.

His infuriation was generally sparked when asking a member of the class to voice their opinion about some pertinent point in the text, to then be greeted with the phrase “Basically, it’s like…” It was at this point that he would have a meltdown. Apparently when discussing the complex intricacies of a Shakespearean text, for example, he took offence at the suggestion that something was simple and obvious.

The difficulty is that the speakers’ use of this word identified them with a distinct social group and was it right therefore to condemn them for this? The meaning and usage of words do shift over time after all.

I do agree though that the usage of the word “literally” is incredibly annoying. Maybe you should start a linguistic awareness campaign – at least the placards would be punctuated correctly.

I think the answer is a considerable amount more investment. I’m not sure what sort of profits (if any) the rail companies make. If they are making the profits, then they should be required to reinvest more in the railways themselves. If they are not, then the government needs to step in.

At the moment, the railways are neither reliable nor inexpensive nor pleasant to use. They have to be invested in.

The rail companies do need to be a lot more accountable for the dreadfulness of their services. Public transport is very important environmentally, so both the government and private sector need to try harder to get people using trains instead of cars.

I thought i would leave a message on this becuase you would be excited about a comment on your post!

Long time no see!

Have signed for a house pretty much in Hoddesdon now, 20 minutes away from liverpool lime street, so I will be coming to see you a lot next year. My housemates look a bit normal for my liking but we shall have to see. Been having a bit of a hard time of it myself recently, ring me when you get your phone back, would love to catch up!

Mr Boocock

Concentrate your criticisms on Gove -he may outwardly be acting with grace, he may be doffing his cap in all the right places. But what he is doing to state education is more than rude. It’s a scandalous attack that will drive further disadvantage for those who are most in need of advantage.

It’s a bizarre one, as I just don’t understand what he wants to achieve with these free schools? As a Head teacher said to me in my last placement, I have autonomy over the school’s budget as it is, what would a majority of my job be if I didn’t.

Teachers want a lot of things, mainly the freedom to run the best curriculum hey can for their pupils and the removal of SATs and their impact on league table.

It however, begs the major question – of what is behind these policies – is it just a desire to save money – or is it rooted in an understanding of education and a principle we wish to aim towards. I fear it is just very much based on the first one and not the latter.

The principle I wish they would keep in their mind is – we need schools that are equally resources and equipped for the 21st Century. Pupils around England, need access to a safe and well resourced school to enable them the opportunities to succeed in the future. The schools also need to be equipped for the next 50 – 100 + years, where the environment and our impact on it should be paramount.

Can these be at the heart of decisions please, rather than a grand scheme of supposedly ‘free schools’ which seem to have no real solution to any problem, or will save us any money.