The SMH. This is getting ridiculous:
Clarke did exactly the same in the first innings in Sydney in January to claimed another left-hander, England’s Michael Carberry, off Johnson.
Australia was just one wicket from victory when Johnson bounced out Philander, but it proved to be a fleeting celebration as Philander’s challenged Aleem Dar’s adjudication [scil that] he had hit the delivery caught at short-leg by Alex Doolan. Continue Reading →
Some rather wrong history in the Canberra Times:
It took six more months for this to break out into a major conflict. The then Allies’ reaction to the German invasion of Finland in late 1939 was to talk at length and expel Germany from the League of Nations: not the most robust response. Some clashes broke out, especially at sea, but it was not until April/May 1940 that large-scale warfare began.
1. Germany did not invade Finland. The Soviet Union — later one of the Allies — did, on 30 November 1939. That war, the Winter War, lasted until 13 March 1940. (It was revived, as the Continuation War, just after Barbarossa in June 1941). Fighting was bitter, with the Russians alone losing more than 100,000 killed or missing in action.
2. Germany was not expelled from the League of Nations as a result of the Finnish invasion — that was, again, the USSR. Germany had withdrawn from the League of Nations some seven years before, in 1933. Continue Reading →
More lacklustre writing in the Herald:
It comes as Fairfax Media revealed the T-shirts pulled by Aldi had been approved by the federal government.
It is unclear if the Big W shirts were also approved by the government.
Numerous objectionable bits in just two sentences. Starting with the minor ones:
- “It comes”
- “revealed the” should be “revealed that the”
- “It is unclear if” should be “It is unclear whether”
More significantly, the reference to “federal government” is rather slipshod.
First, it should be (as is stated later in the article) a reference to a permission granted by DPMC (the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) not the “government” itself.
Secondly, the article omits to mention that the approval occurred in July 2013 (i.e. the previous administration).
Thirdly, the article omits to mention what the approval was for. It says later:
The seven designs had been approved by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in July 2013, under strict guidelines regarding products bearing the image of the Australian flag.
However, it appears likely that the approval would not have been for the content of the shirt per se, nor even for use of the flag on a commercial product. Rather, it seems likely that the “approval” was actually permission to import a product bearing the Australian flag under Customs legislation — suggesting that the shirts were made overseas. See this explanation (or the legislation itself).
If that is the case, then the “strict guidelines” in the quote relate to the import of the articles, not their content. The article rather suggests that the approval was as to the content, and that it was given by the present administration, which is a wholly different complexion.
Strange; why the sic? Do they misunderstand the ellipsis?
“But the great thing has been that the team my GP assembled to check out the possibilities has moved Heaven and Earth to gather all the information I need quickly over the Christmas period … not an easy time. (sic)”
Get better soon, Brian.