Whealie to the pedant phone, please.

[-XP-]

I need your keen eye.

This article: http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/lo ... -1-7778917

the sentence that is bothering me is this, "Allison could not be traced at the time, but he was collared in 2014 after being cautioned for assaulting his partner at the time in Hull."

Now, I read it as the partner he assaulted was his partner at the time of the assault, so is currently no longer with that partner. But, it also seems to read that he assaulted his partner and at the time, they were in Hull. Should there be a comma after `time` to signify it was his partner at the time, or, a comma after `partner` to signify they were in Hull at the time? Or is it fine as is, and I'm over complicating it?

p.s. This guy worked in our offices and all this has just come to light, which is why I was reading the story. You never really know someone huh?

 

[austin]

I read it both ways too Craig so it is either poorly punctuated or poorly drafted. Like you, I think it is supposed to mean your first suggestion but could be either depending on how you took it.

 

[RickSkye]

Lifes too short, go for a ride on the bike.
That should be "Life's"

 

[Whealie]

I started to read this and then fell into a comma.

 

[-XP-]

Lifes too short, go for a ride on the bike.
That should be "Life's"

I can't, I'm stuck at work, which is probably why I'm deliberating over such trivialities.

I started to read this and then fell into a comma.

It must be bad if it's boring you!

 

[RickSkye]

Sympathies.
I am stuck at work too. Terminally booring.

 

[PaulC]

"Allison could not be traced at that time, he was finally arrested in 2014 after being cautioned for assaulting his partner at the time in Hull."
Is that better?

 

[-XP-]

"Allison could not be traced at that time, he was finally arrested in 2014 after being cautioned for assaulting his partner at the time in Hull."
Is that better?

No because the end of the sentence is still ambiguous.

It should read... "For assaulting his partner at the time, in Hull"

If anything, it should state that she's his ex-partner and this would clear up any confusion. as it stands it just sounds like they were in Hull at the time. Very shoddy.

I expected more input from the Wheal, he's obviously not as good as I thought.

 

[PaulC]

"Allison could not be traced at that time, he was finally arrested in Hull in 2014 after being cautioned for assaulting his partner''
Is that better?

 

[-XP-]

"Allison could not be traced at that time, he was finally arrested in Hull in 2014 after being cautioned for assaulting his partner''
Is that better?

That would be better if he was simply arrested in Hull for assaulting his partner. We don't know that's the case because the original article has two meanings, which is my point. Was it his partner, at the time (in other words his ex), or, his partner at the time in hull (meaning they were in Hull).

Like I said, very shoddy journalism but I suppose it doesn't really matter. I just thought I was reading it completely worong and wanted a second opinion.

 

[PaulC]

It was 'is' very badly written, but without the rest of the article it could be read out of context.