The Gaffe machine has struck again. Di-ve reports an assault on a security officer by a Moroccan who was being deported to Casablanca. The description of the violent act leaves much to be desired... in particular the owlish question that is left hanging is the following: To wit, who hit who with the handcuff?
"As the plane distanced itself from Malta, one of the Moroccans, who were all handcuffed, started causing trouble to the security officers and at one point assaulted one of them, injuring him in his face after being hit by the handcuff."
1. The phrase "to distance oneself" does not fit. It is normally used "to declare onself unconnected or unsympathetic to something." Like I would distance myself from both political parties.
2. "Who were all handcuffed" would be better phrased as "all of whom were handcuffed"or even more simply "one of the handcuffed Moroccans.
3. "causing trouble to the police officers". Ermmmm.
4. "at one point assulted one of them injuring him in his face after being hit by the handcuff". So a Moroccan assaulted him and a Moroccan injured him (presumably an officer) in the face. The sentence continues and the subject (the by now notorious Moroccan) has not changed so we must presume it was this Moroccan who was hit by the handcuff. A nasty handcuff indeed.
Self-defence? If I were di-ve I would plead ignorance of the grammar.
...The Waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
I was misinformed.
"As the plane distanced itself from Malta, one of the Moroccans, who were all handcuffed, started causing trouble to the security officers and at one point assaulted one of them, injuring him in his face after being hit by the handcuff."
1. The phrase "to distance oneself" does not fit. It is normally used "to declare onself unconnected or unsympathetic to something." Like I would distance myself from both political parties.
2. "Who were all handcuffed" would be better phrased as "all of whom were handcuffed"or even more simply "one of the handcuffed Moroccans.
3. "causing trouble to the police officers". Ermmmm.
4. "at one point assulted one of them injuring him in his face after being hit by the handcuff". So a Moroccan assaulted him and a Moroccan injured him (presumably an officer) in the face. The sentence continues and the subject (the by now notorious Moroccan) has not changed so we must presume it was this Moroccan who was hit by the handcuff. A nasty handcuff indeed.
Self-defence? If I were di-ve I would plead ignorance of the grammar.
...The Waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
I was misinformed.
3 commentaires:
Gaffes galore continues here:
http://www.di-ve.com/dive/portal/portal.jhtml?id=201116
A sad story indeed. All my thoughts are with the family of the deceased especially her son. For this time I will pass over gaffes incorporated out of respect for the family.
Just one thing. In cases like these the justice that we know of is helpless and can be useless. Its role as deterrent becomes superfluous and preferably is suspended. I cannot explain more but in difficult times like these one can only hope that the press sticks its nose elsewhere.
I agree completely - it is with examples like this in mind that we need to reflect about sensationalism versus honest and ethical reporting.
I was just referring to the writing of the piece, and not the content.
Enregistrer un commentaire