In
law, the sign that separates
adversaries in referring to a case. Although it comes from '
versus', it is pronounced '
and'. So
R. v. Dudley and Jackson is pronounced "Regina and Dudley and Jackson". (R. =
Regina or
Rex depending on who is on the throne.) This at least is true of
English law, as used in England and Australia. In the US it is also correctly written "v.", not "vs." (see
How to cite a United States Supreme Court case), but I'm told the pronunciation is
versus or
vee. This is also colloquially true even in the
and countries, among non-lawyers.
A long poem by Tony Harrison, set in the graveyard on Beeston Hill above Leeds where his parents lie. It reflects on the divisions between people, from football teams to Black/White, man v. wife and Left v. Right; and the way the unemployed youth of Leeds take out their frustrations by spray-painting obscenities upon the graves.
But why inscribe these graves with CUNT and SHIT?
Why choose neglected tombstones to disfigure?
This pitman's of last century daubed PAKI GIT,
this grocer Broadbent's aerosolled with NIGGER?
They're there to shock the living not arouse
the dead from their deep peace to lend support
for the causes skinhead spraycans could espouse.
The dead would want their desecrators caught!
Jobless though they are how can these kids,
even though their team's lost one more game,
believe that the 'Pakis', 'Niggers', even 'Yids'
sprayed on the tombstone here should bear the blame?
Why is it that these crude words are revealing?
What is it that this aggro act implies?
Giving the dead their xenophobic feeling
or just a cri-de-coeur because man dies?
So what's a cri-de-coeur, cunt? Can't you speak
the language that yer mam spoke. Think of 'er!
Can yer only get yer tongue round fucking Greek?
Go and fuck yourself with cri-de-coeur!
'She didn't talk like you do for a start!'
I shouted, turning where I thought the voice had been.
She didn't understand yer fuckin 'art'!
She thought yer fucking poetry obscene!
The full poem is 112 verses long; it appeared in 1985, became an extremely
controversial television film by
Richard Eyre in 1987, and was strongly defended by the columnist
Bernard Levin in
The Times.