Conceptual slippage

I'm not usually one for semiotics and the like (semantics, even) - at root because I tend to think there is a real world out there which exists prior to what we call it, and that's what we should concentrate on understanding and changing - but sometime you have to accept that what things are called is important.

Which is why the slippage in terminology reported here is so interesting. A 'probation' service which is called a 'public protection' service would seem to have a very different role and mission to that usually envisaged. As the writer of the piece says, probation should be about reintegrating offenders into society - getting them housing, work and generally resettled - with the aim of stopping them from offending again. If public protection is the main aim, where does that leave such notions? It either sidelines them, or it's a purely cosmetic exercise.

Which is of course not out of the question. Changing the names of things is an easy way to score a few political points. And after all, who could be against public protection? But sometimes we need to be careful what we wish for. It may start off as purely cosmetic, but there is surely a slippery slope argument to be made. Once it says public protection in the tin, there will be pressure to make sure public protection's inside, too. Which, again as the writer linked above says, is surely what we already have the police for?