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.
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.
I don’t believe there was a gun involved, I’m open minded as to whether there was a robbery but the language doesn’t convince me there was.
Agree on the gun. Only a gun would put him at a disadvantage in his mind, therefore mentioned twice.
There should be tons of CCTV footage, one hopes.