NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,reohn2 wrote:Your point being?
The emphasis on "him "if it had been "it "then it might not of been half as bad.
Are you happy with the "it's good to see him like that "?
I am not, it could've been worded a bit differently by the presenter.
But there again this is the BBC isn't it.
You know they BBC are very good at rewording some of the reporting.
His use of the word "him" and not '"it" could very well be intentional,to mean "him and all he stood for" meaning the trade in human beings he was in large part responsible for.Or it could've simply been a slip of the tongue,equally it could've just been bad use of English.
It's anyone's guess only he who said it could clear up that mystery for you.
Whether I'm happy with it or not is beside the point,but seeing as you ask it doesn't bother one way or the other as we're not speaking of a human being but an effigy one,but by all accounts he was a pretty poor example of humanity IMO.