<< Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En bas
Questions/problème de justice
Message de elii-se posté le 11-11-2010 à 18:34:32 (S | E | F)
Bonjour,
voici des réponses à des questions portant sur une affaire judiciaire.
Pourriez-voussvp s'il vous plaît m'aider à corriger mes fautes d'anglais.
Cela est assez important pour moi car cette note contera comptera dans mon premier semestre de droit.
1. Does this article deal with a court case? If so, identify the case and give a brief description of the facts. If not, describe briefly what the article deals with.
2. What is the main legal issue in this article?
3. Answer the question which is relevant to your article:
a) What was the outcome of the court case?
b) What are the possible outcomes of the court case OR What is the probable outcome?
c) What was the outcome of the debate discussed in this article?
d) What are the possible outcomes of the debate discussed in this article OR What is the probable outcome?
4. Give your own personal opinion on the legal issue discussed in this article. (75 words)
1. My article deals with general court case between civil people and police officers and staff. It deals with Stephenson’s proposals, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, about the lawsuit against his officers because there are speculative claims. He wrote a letter to Theresa May who is Britain’s most senior police officer with his proposals. For Stephenson, legal action against his officers cut police budgets whereas this budget is necessary to fight against crime. Moreover these actions generate large fees for the lawyers.
2. The main legal issue in this article is to persuade government to shakeup of his system: review the application of Freedom of information act and introduce fee for issuing claims like the Data protection Act.
3. c) The outcome of the debate discussed in this article is that the government introduces Stephenson’s proposals in his plan to reform policing because with this plan it’s easier to reach cuts expected to be around 25%.
4. I agree with Stephenson’s proposals. Introducing fee for freedom of information requests is beneficial because like this, there is less lawsuit and police lose less money at court and devote this money to struggle criminality. Moreover, if officers and polices staff are at court, they aren’t on the ground, thief can act! What’s more, there are speculative claims, with more fee, claimants have a financial risk and can will be demotivate to protest against police.
Merci beaucoup, Elise!
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 11-11-2010 19:01
Message de elii-se posté le 11-11-2010 à 18:34:32 (S | E | F)
Bonjour,
voici des réponses à des questions portant sur une affaire judiciaire.
Pourriez-vous
Cela est assez important pour moi car cette note
1. Does this article deal with a court case? If so, identify the case and give a brief description of the facts. If not, describe briefly what the article deals with.
2. What is the main legal issue in this article?
3. Answer the question which is relevant to your article:
a) What was the outcome of the court case?
b) What are the possible outcomes of the court case OR What is the probable outcome?
c) What was the outcome of the debate discussed in this article?
d) What are the possible outcomes of the debate discussed in this article OR What is the probable outcome?
4. Give your own personal opinion on the legal issue discussed in this article. (75 words)
1. My article deals with general court case between civil people and police officers and staff. It deals with Stephenson’s proposals, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, about the lawsuit against his officers because there are speculative claims. He wrote a letter to Theresa May who is Britain’s most senior police officer with his proposals. For Stephenson, legal action against his officers cut police budgets whereas this budget is necessary to fight against crime. Moreover these actions generate large fees for the lawyers.
2. The main legal issue in this article is to persuade government to shakeup of his system: review the application of Freedom of information act and introduce fee for issuing claims like the Data protection Act.
3. c) The outcome of the debate discussed in this article is that the government introduces Stephenson’s proposals in his plan to reform policing because with this plan it’s easier to reach cuts expected to be around 25%.
4. I agree with Stephenson’s proposals. Introducing fee for freedom of information requests is beneficial because like this, there is less lawsuit and police lose less money at court and devote this money to struggle criminality. Moreover, if officers and polices staff are at court, they aren’t on the ground, thief can act! What’s more, there are speculative claims, with more fee, claimants have a financial risk and can will be demotivate to protest against police.
Merci beaucoup, Elise!
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 11-11-2010 19:01
Réponse: Questions/problème de justice de gerondif, postée le 11-11-2010 à 19:04:37 (S | E)
Bonsoir,
bleu ou rouge à corriger. vert = correction ou rajout
My article deals with general court case(pluriel) between civil people and police officers and staff. It deals with Stephenson’s proposals, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, about the lawsuit against his officers because there are speculative claims. He wrote a letter to Theresa May who is Britain’s most senior police officer with his proposals. For Stephenson, legal action against his officers cut police budgets whereas this budget(votre premier budgets est pluriel, celui-ci est singulier,cela surprend) is necessary to fight (against) crime. Moreover these actions generate large fees for the lawyers.
2. The main legal issue in this article is to persuade government to shake up
3. c) The outcome of the debate discussed in this article is that the government introduces Stephenson’s proposals in his plan to reform policing because with this plan it’s easier to reach cuts expected to be around 25%.
4. I agree with Stephenson’s proposals. Introducing fee(pluriel?) for freedom of information requests is beneficial because like this(maladroit pour dire ainsi, de la sorte, grâce à cela), there is less lawsuit (je mettrais le pluriel, donc there is doit passer au pluriel, ce serait aussi plus logique au futur (il y aura moins de), trouvez comment dire moins + un nom pluriel, less est lui suivi d'un nom singulier , le mot mystère commence par un f ! lawsuits sera au pluriel) and the police lose(futur?) less money at(in?) court and devote this money to struggle (mauvais choix de verbe to struggle signifie se débattre))criminality. Moreover, if officers and polices staff (nom composé, première partie invariable) are at(in?) court, they aren’t on the ground(vérifier si cette expression signifie "sur le terrain" en anglais moi j'aurais dit "dans les rues"), thief (à mettre au pluriel, d'ailleurs pourquoi seulement les voleurs ?)can act! What’s more, there are speculative claims, with more fee(pluriel?), claimants have a financial risk and can will be (horreur !! can , auxiliaire, n'a pas de futur. Pour dire "pourront être démotivés", utilisez le futur du verbe être, seront + un adverbe comme probablement) demotivate(participe passé, démotivés) to protest against the police.
(ou alors, ils seront moins prompts à, moins tentés de....)
Réponse: Questions/problème de justice de elii-se, postée le 12-11-2010 à 08:40:01 (S | E)
Merci vraiment beaucoup pour votre aide, voici ma correction, qu'en pensez-vous?
My article deals with general court cases between civil people and police officers and staff. It deals with Stephenson’s proposals, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, about the lawsuit against his officers because there are speculative claims. He wrote a letter to Theresa May who is Britain’s most senior police officer with his proposals. For Stephenson, legal action against his officers cut police budget whereas this budget is necessary to fight crime. Moreover these actions generate large fees for the lawyers.
2. The main legal issue in this article is to persuade government to shake up the system: to review the application of Freedom of information act and to introduce fees for issuing claims like the Data protection Act. > pour les deux to en vert, je ne sais pas ??
3. c) The outcome of the debate discussed in this article is that the government introduces Stephenson’s proposals in his plan to reform policing because with this plan it’s easier to reach cuts expected to be around 25%.
4. I agree with Stephenson’s proposals. Introducing fees for freedom of information requests is beneficial because thanks to this, there will be fewer lawsuits and police will lose less money in court and devote this money to protest criminality. Moreover, if officers and police staff is in court, they aren’t in the field, bandits can act! What’s more, there are speculative claims, with more fees, claimants have a financial risk and will be probably demotivated to protest against police.
Elise
Réponse: Questions/problème de justice de gerondif, postée le 12-11-2010 à 14:46:57 (S | E)
Bonjour,
bleu ou rouge: à corriger: vert : les corrections que je vous fournis
My article deals with general court cases between civil people and police officers and staff. It deals with Stephenson’s proposals, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, about the lawsuit against his officers because there are speculative claims. He wrote a letter to Theresa May who is Britain’s most senior police officer with his proposals. For Stephenson, legal action against his officers cut police budget whereas this budget is necessary to fight crime. Moreover these actions generate large fees for the lawyers.
2. The main legal issue in this article is to persuade the government to shake up the system: to review the application of Freedom of information act and to introduce fees for issuing claims like the Data protection Act.
3. c) (tournure bizarre: the outcome, le résultat, colle mal avec la suite:Pourtant, votre question est formulée comme ça. Je pense qu'il faudrait un verbe de volonté ou de souhait quelque part: ce qui ressort de ce débat, c'est que le gouvernement veut/ voudrait introduire ces propositions pour réduire les coûts...)The outcome of the debate discussed in this article is that the government introduces(ce présent me paraît bizarre, c'est là que le verbe vouloir, voudrait, souhaiterait, serait le bienvenu) Stephenson’s proposals in his plan to reform policing because with this plan it’s easier to reach cuts expected to be around 25%.
4. I agree with Stephenson’s proposals. Introducing fees for freedom of information requests is beneficial because thanks to this, there will be fewer lawsuits and the police will lose less money in court and devote this money to protest(combattre irait bien, vous l'avez déjà employé, ou restreindre,juguler: to curb) criminality. Moreover, if officers and police staff is(pluriel) in court, they aren’t in the field, bandits (mot désuet ! delinquents ? can act sonne maladroit aussi pourquoi ne pas dire la criminalité peut continuer...)can act! What’s more, there are speculative claims, with more fees, claimants have a financial risk and will probably(adverbe devant be) be demotivated to protest against the police.
demotivated ne me plait guère, j'aurais dit: ils seront moins enclins à, (double cliquez sur enclin) vérifiez aussi le sens de anxious to, eager to...
ou alors ils hésiteront avant de ....
Réponse: Questions/problème de justice de elii-se, postée le 13-11-2010 à 15:08:57 (S | E)
Voici une nouvelle fois ma correction, sauf que cette fois-ci j’ai repris le texte plus en profondeur et me suis aperçue que je n’avais pas compris certains points, d’où la modification de certaines de mes questions tout en essayant de tenir compte de vos remarques.
My article isn’t deal with a court case. The article is talking about proposals to change the law with regard to prosecutions of the police by civilians or members of staff. Also about proposals for charging the public for information requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
2. The main legal issue is whether the police should be protected from prosecution through making it harder for people to sue the police.
3. c) The outcome of the debate discussed in this article is that the government thinking about (justement je viens de comprendre que ce projet de loi n’était justement qu’un projet et n’était pour le moment que pensé mais pas du tout introduit et encore moins appliqué) Stephenson’s proposals to reform policing because with this plan it’s easier to reach cuts expected to be around 25%.
4. I agree with Stephenson’s proposals. Introducing fees for freedom of information requests is beneficial because thanks to this, there will be fewer lawsuits and the police will lose less money in court and can devote this money to curbing criminality. Moreover, if officers and police staff are in court, they aren’t in the field, the delinquents can continue! What’s more, there are speculative claims. If people have to pay to prosecute the police they will be a financial risk which would meanfewer prosecutions and less waste of money for the police.
En vous remerciant beaucoup pour votre aide! Elise.
Réponse: Questions/problème de justice de elii-se, postée le 14-11-2010 à 10:12:37 (S | E)
Reste-t-il des erreurs
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 14-11-2010 18:20
Réponse: Questions/problème de justice de gerondif, postée le 14-11-2010 à 17:45:53 (S | E)
Bonjour,
My article isn’t deal (mauvais choix d'auxiliaire)with a court case. The article is talking(un article ne cause pas, il n'a& pas de voix) about proposals to change the law with regard to prosecutions of the police by civilians or members of staff. Also about proposals for charging the public for information requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
2. The main legal issue is whether the police should be protected from prosecution through making it harder for people to sue the police.
3. c) The outcome of the debate discussed in this article is that the government is thinking about Stephenson’s proposals to reform policing because with this plan it’s easier to reach cuts expected to be around 25%.
4. I agree with Stephenson’s proposals. Introducing fees for freedom of information requests is beneficial because thanks to this, there will be fewer lawsuits and the police will lose less money in court and can devote this money to curbing criminality. Moreover, if officers and police staff are in court, they aren’t in the field, the delinquents can continue! What’s more, there are speculative claims. If people have to pay to prosecute the police they will be (il y aura ? alors, remplacer they par there) a financial risk (il y aura un risque financier est vague comme formulation: les gens devront payer pour poursuivre la police serait bien plus clair) which would mean fewer prosecutions and less waste of money for the police.
<< Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
