At The National, I have done my level best to write and edit in British English. It is more difficult than you might imagine.

I have made a mental note about 500 times now to keep a list of all British usages that run counter to those in America. It would be a very, very long list had I ever gotten round to keeping it.

A few off the top of my head: Rubbish (instead of trash or garbage). Which goes in a bin (instead of a can). Or into a tip (instead of a Dumpster). A caravan (instead of a motorhome or trailer). A tannoy (instead of a PA system). A windscreen (instead of windshield). Petrol (instead of gas). This could go on for hours.

Anyway, I have a British friend who once edited in American English at the International Herald Tribune. The reverse of my situation at a British English newspaper.

I can relate to how difficult it must have been for him, and he has sent along a piece from a British newspaper suggesting that American English usages may not be all that bad.

This is news, because to many of the British, especially journalists, the idea of Americanisms in their stories is enough to drive them barking mad. It surely will set off a row. (See how I did that?)

Here is the piece, from The Daily Telegraph, perhaps England’s leading newspaper at the moment.

The author isn’t in favor (favour) of embracing Americanisms willy-nilly, but he suggests that they sometimes enter British vernacular because they are useful — being more specific or colorful.

He also suggests that many Americans are simply Britishisms returning home after decades … or centuries.

This is an open-minded approach to things. I would imagine that he was “rubbished” by some of his colleagues.