Bathing beauty.

From the Herald Sun, Thursday, May 20, 2004.

"Baths Sink Again."

What, they couldn't put the plug in? And isn't the water supposed to be in the bath, not the other way around?

Agricultural argy-bargy.

From the Herald Sun, Thursday, February 21, 2008.

"Farmers plan pipe fight."

Whatever happened to the Marquis of Queensberry rules?

I don't know about you, but I find the image of irate farmers gathered in a paddock somewhere, angrily wielding lengths of piping, a bit disturbing. And what brought all this about? Was it some dispute over water rights? Perhaps there were some accusations of cattle duffing flying around?

And where are the police in this matter? Have they taken steps to prevent this spot of biffo, or have they found the manpower required to be too much of a drain on their resources, and will just watch to make sure no innocents get hurt?

I know farmers can be a bit boisterous, and tend to deal with things in their own way, but really.

No littering.

From the Herald Sun, Friday, February 22, 2008.

"Office plans hit roadblock."

Must have been a slow news day for the Herald Sun. Why else would they have published an item about a set of building blueprints falling on a roadblock?

I suppose it would have been disastrous for the person who dropped them, especially if had been a windy day. And it might have been newsworthy if they had fallen from a great height, narrowly misssing pedestrians below. But, a set of papers hitting an obstruction in the road?

I don't know, it just doesn't seem to have as much impact as one would be lead to believe by the headline.

Lost and found.

Many thanks to Gina E for closing this case.

"Bug which breaks down chemicals found"

You see, that's the trouble with scientists. They're so engrossed in their experiments, they're constantly walking around in a daze and they're always misplacing things. But not for them the usual everyday items you or I might mislay, like the car keys or our glasses. Oh no! They leave lying around less innocuous things: bugs which break down chemicals.

Honestly, you'd think they would be a little bit more careful. Having something like that roaming around free, causing who knows what kind of damage, just isn't on.

I guess it all depends on which chemicals it breaks down. For instance, if it broke down carbon monoxide emissions from car exhausts, that wouldn't really be a bad thing, would it? But what it it only targeted Theobromine, which is the active ingredient in chocolate and is what gives the confectionary its "buzz"? There'd be some very upset choc-a-holics out there.

Maybe if they had discovered the bug instead.

Well, the word "murder" is in the title.

Found guilty of murdering the English language is Melbourne TV Channel 10.

In the promo for their new series "Women's Murder Club", the opening line is "Catching crooks in killer heels has never been a problem for Lindsay."

This statement - small as it is - gives us such a wide scope of "Oh! That is so wrong." Let's examine the evidence.

"Catching crooks in killer heels has never been a problem for Lindsay."

Well, of course it hasn't. How hard would it be to catch a criminal wearing high-heeled shoes? Even a person as unfit as I am wouldn't have any problems catching up with them.

And why is she only focusing on catching criminals who wear them? Doesn't she chase crooks who wear other forms of footwear? Perhaps she has a fetish for Stilettos? Or maybe a thing for blokes in womans' shoes? Maybe they're actually Lindsays' shoes which have been stolen, and she's trying to get them back? Or could it be that she is a member of that elite part of law enforcement known as the fashion police?

I don't know. But I guess, as Lindsay is the lead character in the series and thus needs to be able to catch the bad guys by the end of each episode, the writers were just ensuring that no one lost the plot and there were no slip ups. Or would that be lace-ups or slip-ons?

God help her, though, if one of the criminals decides to improvise and put on a pair of Nikes. She might need two episodes to catch him.

Another possibility is that Lindsay isn't chasing down crooks who are wearing high-heeled shoes, but is in fact trying to apprehend shoes that murder people. I mean, we've all heard the expression, "These shoes are killing me." Maybe one of the shows' writers decided to take that concept and run with it - no pun intended.

This would imply that the person wearing the shoes is also complicit in the crimes being committed. Otherwise they'd simply remove the footwear, wouldn't they? Unless, of course, the shoes have some kind of evil possession over them. I don't know, it all sounds a little far fetched to me. I mean, I've heard of people being slave to fashion, but really?

Then there is the other likelihood; that this is actually what is meant by people when they say their feet are killing them. Though how the feet might actually achieve this is beyond me. And why is it only the heels? You'd think the toes would have to be aware of what was going on, being as they are in such close proximity.

And is it both feet, or just the one? Which isn't as silly as it sounds, if one remembers the famous case involving Madonnas' heels, when her right heel said to her left heel, "Hello! I don't believe we've met before."

I don't know, the whole thing seems a bit corny to me and, in order to maintain the viewers' interest, the show would have to move along at a blistering pace. And, to be honest, I'm getting a little footsore chasing this one around. I might have bit of a rest now.

This doesn't sit right.

Many thanks to the Lone Ranger for bringing this to my attention.

Meet Mr. Pierre Lynch. Doesn't look very happy, does he? I don't blame him, considering he has been arrested for possessing something we all have and, up until now, I wouldn't have thought it was illegal.

But if the headline on the My Fox Website is anything to go by, we're all in big trouble.

"Police: Crack Found In Man's Buttocks."

More accurately, the crack was discovered between his buttocks after an extensive body search by police. And it appears they had a fair idea of what to look for.

So, the crack was found, but who tipped the police off that the crack was there? Was the crack actually Mr. Lynch's, or was he just keeping it safe for someone else?

The latter is a distinct possibility as police stated that they had noticed suspicious activity around the house in which Mr. Lynch was arrested. Could it be the crack didn't fit correctly, causing Mr. Lynch to walk in an odd manner, and thereby giving police reason to believe he was concealing the crack?

Mr. Lynch has also been charged with giving police false information. I can hear it now;

Police: "What's that crack?"

Lynch: "Crack?, What crack?"

Police: "That crack, there. Between your butt cheeks."

Lynch: "Between my ...? Oh wow, man! How the **** did that get there?"

"Police: "Come on, now. You don't expect us to believe you didn't know anything about the crack?"

Lynch: "'God's honest truth, man. I don't know nuthin' 'bout it."

Police: "Wouldn't it be more truthful to say that it's your crack, and you were trying to hide it?"

Lynch: "No way, man! Ain't no way that's my crack. Uh uh. No sir. Must be sombody elses'."

Police: "So, how did it get between your butt cheeks?"

Lynch: "No idea, man. Someone musta put it there when I wasn't lookin'."

Police: "So, what your saying is - and let me get this straight - what you're saying, is someone put that crack in your buttocks without your knowledge. Is that what your saying?"

Lynch: "Yeah! That's it, man!"

Police: "They just snuck up, huh?"

Lynch: "Yeah, dude. Jus' snuck up."

Police: "And put the crack there?"

Lynch: "Sure, man. Like I jus' told you."

Police: "And you didn't notice anything? Didn't feel them putting the crack there?"

Lynch: "Nuthin' man. Hey! They musta had real soft hands, you know?"

Sounds to me like Mr. Lynch was trying to give them a bum steer. However, I'm confident the police will continue to probe the crack angle and eventually get to the bottom of the matter.

Don't look at me like that.

Ouch!

From the Sunday Herald Sun, July 23, 2006.

"How Split Tore Me Apart."

Isn't that what splits do, tear things apart? Isn't it the very nature of a split to be a consequence of something that has been torn? Or is the headline suggesting that a banana smothered in ice cream, cream, strawberry topping and nuts was responsible for tearing some poor soul to pieces? Maybe they over extended in a gymnastic manoeuvre, and did themselves some damage.

Whichever way you wish to look at it, it does bring tears to the eyes.

Grave consequences.

Published in the Herald Sun, Saturday, July 22, 2006.

"Mum told dead son to avoid risky drivers."

A good example of a headline that should never have been printed. The bad grammar makes it look as though the poor mother was trying to warn her already deceased child about the dangers of riding in cars with dangerous drivers. But, if you think the headline was a shocker, check out the leading paragraph of the article.

"A teenager killed after a police chase was warned not to get into cars with dangerous drivers."

So what is the reporter trying to tell us here? That the police chased this boy, and afterwards they killed him? And again, why is someone trying to warn him when he is already dead?

I'm sure that there are some people who will think this is funny, but this is a prime example of poor language skills making a mockery of an innocent person's grief. The fault doesn't entirely lie with the reporter, Matt Cunningham, - although, as a professional writer, he really should know better - but also with the editors of the paper who allowed this article to be printed as it was.

In the know.

Although technically correct, the following statement by then U.S. Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, certainly deserved its acclamation as the most confusing thing said in the year 2002. (The picture on the right shows Mr. Rumsfeld shortly after he delivered the speech)

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are "known knowns"; there are things we know we know. We also know there are "known unknowns"; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also "unknown unknowns" - the ones we don't know we don't know ."

So, does that mean because I now know there are things I don't know I don't know, these things become known unknown unknowns?

Perhaps that paragon of all English language virtues, actor Richard Burton, can sum it up for us. "Indeed he knows not how to know who knows not also how to un-know. "

Who knows?

Something fishy here.

The caption under this photo was, "Fisherman hooks monster shark in rubber dinghy." The error was compounded by the headline in the attendant article: "Man catches bronze whaler in dinghy"

This, of course, begs the question: what was the shark doing in a rubber dinghy?

I suppose it's possible it can't swim, and needs a boat to get around? Was the dinghy actually owned by the shark, or had it stolen it? Perhaps it has seen the movie, "Jaws", and is afraid to go in the water? Maybe the shark had embraced technology and the dinghy was equipped with a fish finder, and the poor creature was only looking for lunch? Being a bronze whaler, could it have been trying to maintain the image of the bronzed Aussie? Or could it have been a cast member of "West Side Story" just looking to spend a little time on the water?

Even if we never find an answer to this conundrum, one thing is absolutely certain. At the end of this saga, something is going to end up battered. It'll just be a toss up which will be more so: the fish or the grammar.

All at sea.

On December 17, 1967, Australian Prime Minister, Harold Holt, disappeared off Cheviot Beach in Victoria whilst indulging in his favourite pastime of snorkelling. Naturally this generated an enormous media storm, and the little town of Portsea was suddenly the focus of the world.

The thing is, the media was informed of the Prime Minister's disappearance some four-and-a-half hours before the general public, but were subject to a D notice which prevented them from spreading the news. Plus it was December, Australia's Summer, and the day was hot and windy. So conditions were just right for someone to step on a verbal banana peel.

The gaffe was admitted by the culprit himself, non other than Geoff Raymond. Reflecting on his long career, he said the worst moment was a live report from Cheviot Beach, reporting the disappearance of Prime Minister Harold Holt. The broadcast went on for ages. Concluding his report, he said: "So at this stage the search has come to a dead halt."

Must have been all that sea air.