Fairness or loss of language capacity?

An article in the Daily Mail on Monday last reported that some quangos are imposing changes on the use of phrases by staff, on the grounds that some expressions might find them offensive.

So, for instance "right hand man" must be replaced by second in command. Since both have been used for many years, and convey different senses, the former suggests reliability the latter formal relationship, the change will cause a loss in the precision of language.

I can understand that "master bedroom" might offend, and it has a perfect replacement in "main bedroom", but I suggest that "master your brief" is inadequately replaced by "perfect your brief" and "master plan" by "comprehensive plan" loses something in translation.

In the same way "gentleman's agreement" loses connotations when translated as "unwritten agreement" or "agreement based on trust", as both elements and others are included in the original phrase.

Many of the offending phrases have their origins in the mists of time, but to replace them with a less than adequate and matter-of-fact modern translation really does make our language poorer for it. It also suggests that political correctness brigade have too much time on their hands.