Offensive offenders

The most recent in a long list of textual bloopers to catch my editorial eye is one that simply should never have seen the light of day:

  • It was authored by an English speaker.
  • The aforementioned English speaker is a lawyer.
  • The lawyer no doubt uses this very same text over and over in many a contract.
  • These contracts have no doubt been read many times by many people.
  • When I pointed out the error to the lawyer author, he brushed me off, highly offended.
  • When I showed it to a number of other people, they split their sides laughing.

So I won’t keep you in suspense any longer; here you are. Please note: this is one of the conditions that you must meet before signing up for a particular service aiming to help guardians of children:

“Not a sex offender: Neither you, nor any of your employees (if you are acting on behalf of a corporation), have not been convicted of any sex crime, possession of child pornography or otherwise been under electronic monitoring in relation to sexual offences.”

Just in case you don’t get the point, I will spell it out for you. This text means that if you want to use this service, you MUST have been convicted of a sex offense.

Incongruous? Yes.
A blooper? Definitely.
Legal implications for this startup? Most certainly.  But not necessarily what they intended.

See other favorite typos.


Am originally an Aussie, although have now spent half my lifetime in the Holy Land. Live in the green Galilee with a willing partner and three strapping boys. Love word games. Love environmental consciousness. Love being a freelance technical communicator. Love the community where I live.
Close Menu