Quick thoughts on Amir Khan's tweet
Here’s a quick breakdown on a tweet I saw this morning from Amir Khan the boxer
Just had my watch taken off me at gun point in East London, Leyton.
In this first sentence I detect storytelling. Why is one of the first things he says the location? Why is it really important that he tells us where it happened? Next “had my watch watch taken off me” is passive and doesn’t convey any sense of robbery or stealing. Merely it has been “taken off”.
I crossed the road with Faryal, luckily she was few steps behind me.
Was he “with” her or was she “few steps behind” him? Why is it important to tell this part of the story. Compared to be robbed at gun point, the fact that he crossed the road is trivial.
2 men ran to me, he asked for my watch whist having a gun pointed in my face.
“2 men” becomes singular when it becomes “he asked for my watch”. “He asked for my watch” is similar to “had my watch taken off me” in that it doesn’t convey robbery or stealing. “Whilst having a gun pointed in my face” is again passive and doesn’t convey any threat. I would expect the gun to come first along the lines of “he pointed a gun at me and demanded my watch”.
The main thing is we’re both safe.
Conclusion
This isn’t the first time I’ve had concern’s about Amir Khan’s use of words.
There are enough indications that something more is going on here for me to not accept this telling of events. The passive recounting and the elements of story-telling suggest to me that the events are not truthfully told in this tweet.
What do you see? What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
A lack of a pronoun at the start - “I” just had my watch taken off me. “Gun pointed” mentioned twice. It sounds like the politest robbery ever - “watch taken off me”. Robbers that ran up but then they disappeared. Not the first time he’s made a questionable tweet!!
First things first: he should PAY somebody to take this ugly thing off his wrist. Who in his right mind would wear this atrocity...
I agree a lot of unexpected passive language, and a case of vanishing perpetrators. What did they look like? Age, nationality? He reported they fled in a car. What make? Licence number? All of this is missing. A victim is usually interested in the criminals getting caught. He isn't.
Gun mentioned twice, obviously sensitive to him.
He does appeal to the watch being found by posting a picture and serial number. That sounds legit. A better way to go about it would be to describe the perpetrators.
I'm always thinking shame when being robbed in cases like this - especially here since he is a boxer and there is an image to maintain. That makes the passive language twice as strange. Hence gun mentioned twice? It could be there was no gun.
Maybe his wife chucked it into the Thames because she found it gaudy as heck.