Legal English Workbook - ebook

“_The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”_ Mark Twain

Dear Readers,

I am delighted to present to you this workbook. _Legal English_ is dedicated to those who wish to expand their vocabulary in the general practice of law. It has 20 chapters that will take you through subjects ranging from defamation to human rights and from white-collar crime to cryptocurrencies. My intention was to create a book that would be different to traditional legal textbooks. Hence, there is no particular order of chapters that should be followed, and there are no lengthy references to sources of law, such as statutes and law codes. Instead, the book features news stories written in legal jargon that touch upon the different branches of law.

My main emphasis was to help you to develop your reading comprehension and legal vocabulary. In each chapter, you will find exercises on reading comprehension, terminology matching, phrasal verbs and grammar structures as well as a glossary of the most useful legal terms. There is also an answer key at the end of each chapter for your reference. I am confident that this workbook will come in handy not only for lawyers but also business professionals and all those involved in the daily running of any business in which law has an inextricable role to play.

I hope that you will enjoy the discovery in perusing this book. Thank you for choosing it, and happy reading!

Marcin SkurzakTable of Contents

Chapter 1 - White-Collar Crime

Chapter 2 - Defamatory Publications

Chapter 3 - The Right to Protest

Chapter 4 - Divorce Litigation

Chapter 5 - Freedom of Speech

Chapter 6 - Counterfeit Goods

Chapter 7 - Terrorism Law

Chapter 8 - Data Protection

Chapter 9 - Equal Treatment

Chapter 10 - Vocabulary Revision 1-9

Chapter 11 - The UN Court of Justice

Chapter 12 - Customs Fraud

Chapter 13 - The Right to a Fair Trial

Chapter 14 - Gun Control

Chapter 15 - Cryptocurrencies

Chapter 16 - The UN Criminal Court

Chapter 17 - Sexual Consent

Chapter 18 - Class Action Settlement

Chapter 19 - Unfair Dismissal

Chapter 20 - Vocabulary Revision 11-19

End Note

About the AuthorCHAPTER 1

WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

In general terms, white-collar crime can be referred to as the different illegal activities committed by office workers or even business executives who are largely motivated by financial gains. In 2021, it represented almost 50% of all fraudulent activities that were reported.

BEFORE YOU MOVE ON

1. What specific examples of white-collar crime can you give?

2. What is money laundering and why has it become more difficult to uncover?

3. Who should be tasked with investigating financial crimes?

4. What type of entities can most often become victims of fraud?

5. What do you think is needed to prevent white-collar crime from happening?

Task 1: Read the following article about white-collar crime.

Banks are considered to be one of the most common victims of financially motivated criminal activities. As repositories of huge volumes of cash, their accounts can be used in illegal ways to traffic money and trade in secret information. On the other hand, however, the fact that most banks are heavily regulated does not preclude them from becoming responsible, at least indirectly, for such incidents.

HSBC, headquartered in London, is a multinational investment institution operating in 64 countries around the world. It was established at the turn of the 19th century in Hong Kong, the then colony of the British Empire. As of 2021, it was the world’s sixth largest bank by total assets and market capitalisation, while second in the EU. However, despite its 156-year banking tradition, it has not managed to avoid being embroiled in a number of financial scandals. According to one of the most recent reports by independent journalists, the bank identified certain irregularities in 2016 while conducting standard checks on its accounts, but it failed to notify the relevant authorities about it.

The discovery, which later led the team of internal investigators to a money laundering network worth millions of dollars, was made at a time of intensified monitoring of the bank by a watchdog brought in by the US Department of Justice in 2012. But the issue did not surface until HSBC was forced to make its report public at the request of South African authorities, which were conducting their own investigation into high-level national corruption claims.

As the report revealed, the bank uncovered an illegal scheme when it was assessing the exposure to some of its clients, who themselves had come under the scrutiny of investigators. The scheme involved 4.2 billion dollars' worth of payments between 2014 and 2017. It is not clear whether this was brought up with the US monitor.

According to some insiders who spoke to the journalists behind the revelations, the bank might have purposely withdrawn the information in the hope that it might not come to light. “HSBC never disclosed money laundering to us voluntarily. They waited to be asked about it,” one member of the monitoring team said. This raised questions whether the bank abided by the rules of transparency in its dealings with the auditors.

According to the lawyers involved in the case, HSBC should have shared the information with the US monitors instantly when it became aware of the irregularities involving its accounts. Whether they did this is still subject to speculation. Nevertheless, the bank seems to find itself in hot waters because if the allegations turn out to be true, it could mean that the bank would have breached its prosecution agreement with the US authorities.

The agreement was reached after an earlier scandal involving the bank in which it was accused of allowing drug traffickers in Latin America to funnel millions through its accounts. According to the deal, criminal proceedings were deferred, and HSBC was requested to overhaul its anti-money laundering policies and take part in a four-year-long global supervision programme.

The programme entailed inspections by dozens of auditors who travelled to HSBC offices all over the world to check what kinds of monitoring and compliance procedures were in place across the bank’s sprawling business. Each team of auditors was entitled to request copies of the bank’s internal policies, procedures as well as meeting minutes. They could even demand access to specific client accounts that had become problematic.

The bank is denying any wrongdoing. It said in a statement that its internal compliance team could not find any evidence of an extended network of money laundering. Moreover, the bank warned that it was illegal to disclose the contents of the report it had made available to the authorities in South Africa. “Over several years, HSBC has put in place robust policies to detect, deter and prevent financial crime across all of its affiliates globally that often exceed what is required in the local jurisdictions. We are committed to preventing criminals from accessing our financial systems,” the bank concluded.

HSBC is now under scrutiny from US politicians, who are also investigating whether the bank’s executives can be held accountable.

Task 2: Decide if the following sentences are true or false.

1. The bank’s report was prepared and published at the request of the US.

2. The discovery of the irregularities coincided with the start of the supervision.

3. It was reported that the illegal activities had spanned two years.

4. The bank has previously faced money laundering charges.

5. The bank has agreed for cooperation if formal proceedings are instigated.

6. As part of the supervision, the auditors seized different bank documents.

7. The bank is now being sued by the US Department of Justice.

See answers

BEFORE YOU MOVE ON

REVIEW: SEIZE v SIZE

“TO SEIZE” is to confiscate or grab something violently, for example, the police can take possession of something by legal right, whereas “SIZE” relates to dimensions or magnitude of something.

Examples

The police have seized our company’s hard drives.

They were surprised by the size of the office.

NOW, LET’S MOVE ON

Task 3: Find the right preposition for each gap.

1. The bank would rather comply ... the rules ... break the applicable law.

2. After receiving the application, the bank will respond ... the complaint ... ten business days.

3. Pursuing your profession as an investigator might build ... your confidence levels over time.

4. His colleague did not have any experience in the field and was ... a disadvantage ... regard ... the project.

5. The two lawyers were ... the impression that they had already seen him ... some conference before.

6. ... my honour, I swear ... you that I had no prior knowledge ... this report.

7. The CEO is very thrifty and likes to keep costs ... check.

8. We are always ... the hunt ... new talents.

9. ... addition ... her career as a financial advisor ... a city law firm, she is also a full-time clerk.

10. Our team of lawyers has drawn ... a new version of the contract.

Task 4: Match the following words (1-10) with definitions (a-l). There are two extra definitions that are not needed.

1. To commit to (v.)

2. To preclude (v.)

3. To funnel (v.)

4. Sprawling (adj.)

5. To overhaul (v.)

6. To deter (v.)

7. Robust (adj.)

8. To hold to account (exp.)

9. Embroiled (adj.)

10. To defer (v.)

a. To be involved in sth to the extent that it is hard to get away

b. The opposite of “to encourage”

c. To prevent sth from happening

d. Strong or healthy, unlikely to break

e. To make sb explain publicly why they have made a mistake

f. To be involved in sth marginally

g. The opposite of “to bring sth forward”

h. To end sth quickly and without delay

i. To agree to give your loyalty and time to a particular purpose

j. To move through a narrow space

k. To completely change sth so that it works better

l. Existing or reaching over a large area

Task 5: Find two mistakes in each of the following sentences.

1. On our last meeting, the board committed itself to present the results of the audit within two weeks from the date of its conclusion.

2. The inspector deferred the proceedings as part of a settlement with the company, details of which have not be made publicly availably.

3. I am very sorry to say that it all look like we have became embroiled in the biggest scandal of this decade.

4. Rather than retreat from the market and winding down our operations, we should try and overhaul our activities on this sector.

Task 6: Fill in the gaps with a proper verb form.

Dear Mr Ashton - President of the Management Board,

I (1) ______ (write) to you at the request of the security director, Mr Fasting, who (2) ______ (task) with (3) ______ (conduct) an inquiry into the allegations of certain financial irregularities at our bank.

The investigation (4) ______ (last) four weeks between 1 and 31 January and (5) ______ (conclude) with a number of findings, details of which I (6) ______ (forward) to you in the attachment.

The report (7) ______ (classify) and, as such, it (8) ______ (not/share) with the shareholders. However, according to the banking law, we now (9) ______ (have) a week until it (10) ______ (become) public.

Please, note that we (11) ______ (still/await) an external audit report which might in fact change our time limits for publication. If we (12) ______ (not/outsource) it in the first place, we (13) ______ (must) to go with the publication next week.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, I (14) ______ (remain) at your disposal.

Yours sincerely (…)

See answersGLOSSARY

COMMIT

to commit to – to promise to do sth loyally and willingly

to commit – to do sth illegal

a commitment (n.) – a credible promise to do sth

committed (adj.) – loyal and willing to give his or her time to sth

uncommitted (adj.) – unaffiliated and uninvolved

Examples

... committed to working harder ...

... committed crimes against humanity ...

... the company’s commitment to improve ...

... being a committed member of ...

... uncommitted voters of the ruling party ...

DETER

to deter – to prevent the occurrence of sth

to deter from – to discourage sb from doing sth

a deterrent (n.) – sth that discourages sb from doing sth

deterrent (adj.) – able to deter

Examples

... strategies to deter war ...

... problems deterred him from seeking ...

... cameras are a major deterrent to crime ...

... the deterrent effect of the new law ...

PRECLUDE

to preclude – to make sth impossible

to preclude from – to prevent sb from doing sth

a preclusion (n.) – the act of barring evidence from a trial

preclusive (adj.) – preventing sth from happening

Examples

... tensions precluded the recognition of ...

... it precluded him from pursuing a career ...

... preclusion of testimony is treated as ...

... grounds for a preclusive intervention ...CHAPTER 1: ANSWER KEY

Task 2:

1. False (it was prepared by the bank while trying to assess the exposure to some of its clients and it was published at the request of the authorities in South Africa).

2. False (the discovery was made in 2016, while the supervision started in 2012).

3. False (the illegal activities spanned three years: between 2014 and 2017).

4. True.

5. False (the bank has denied any wrongdoing).

6. False (the auditors requested copies of different documents).

7. False (the bank is facing questions from US politicians).

Task 3:

1. with, than

2. to, within

3. up

4. at, with, to

5. under, at/in

6. on, to, of

7. in

8. on, for

9. in, to, in/with

10. up

Task 4:

1i, 2c, 3j, 4l, 5k, 6b, 7d, 8e, 9a, 10g

Task 5:

1. on: in/during, present: presenting

2. be: been, availably: available

3. look: looks, became: become

4. retreat: retreating, on: in

Task 6:

1. am writing

2. has been tasked

3. conducting

4. lasted

5. was concluded

6. am forwarding

7. has been classified

8. has not been shared

9. have

10. becomes

11. are still awaiting

12. had not outsourced

13. would have

14. remain

Back to topCHAPTER 2

DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS

Defamation is a grossly untrue and misleading statement, made either orally or in writing, that is used with the intention to harm somebody else’s reputation.

BEFORE YOU MOVE ON

1. What do you think is needed to prove defamation?

2. What should be the limits of the freedom of speech?

3. When could a person making false statements avoid liability?

4. Should news reporters be protected against defamation claims?

5. Why do public persons have more difficulties in proving defamation?

Task 1: Read the following article about defamation.

Legal textbooks define defamation as an overarching tort — or a type of civil wrong — that can be committed in two different ways, either orally or in writing. Oral defamation is termed ‘slander’, whereas defamation in writing constitutes ‘libel’. The claimant alleging defamation must prove the existence of four elements: the statement in question must be defamatory in nature, it must be about the claimant who is bringing the action, it must be published or communicated to third parties with the intention to harm the claimant’s reputation and, finally, it must indeed cause serious harm.

What is interesting is that, although both slander and libel are torts, libel is the one that is also a criminal offence under English common law. The case described below, which involves libellous statements published online, proves that by virtue of the operation of law, people can be protected from different types of harm, even harm to one’s good name and character.

The phrase “a compulsive liar” was one of the least abusive captions that a scorned patient had superimposed on the images of a Sydney surgeon who had fallen from grace. The images, which were posted online using four different complaint websites, aimed to destroy an otherwise impeccable reputation of the doctor who had previously enjoyed an opinion of a virtuoso in the field. Other images under investigation were captioned with more offensive phrases, including “inhumane medical treatment,” “the devil himself” or “abuse of power.”

The case eventually ended up in a federal court. After hearing evidence from the claimant, the judge ordered the defendant to pay 450,000 dollars in compensatory and aggravated damages. The conduct of the patient, which spanned over the period of eight months and started after the surgeon had simply declined to operate on her, was described by the judge as “an appalling and entirely unjustifiable campaign of attacks.” Whereas, according to the court, the decision not to operate was “in fact professionally appropriate and justifiable, and undeserving of adverse comment, let alone the scandalous and misleading criticism that was subsequently meted out.”

The claimant-surgeon gave extensive evidence on the actual effects of the posts, alleging that not only had his online rating dropped from the maximum of five to barely three stars, but he and his family had also suffered emotionally from a great deal of distress. The surgeon said that he had to live under pressure and was incessantly concerned about his own safety as well as the safety of his family and staff. The judge indicated that “to refer to the emotional trauma wrought on the claimant by the publications as hurt to feelings would be to understate the effect that the publications had on the claimant’s mental and physical health as well as well-being.”

The court also heard evidence from one of the claimant’s patients. She said that after seeing the images, she started to question the surgeon’s skills and had doubts about whether to continue the treatment.

Besides the substantial amount of damages she had to pay, the defendant was also barred from publishing any further statements about the surgeon. But enforcing this judgment was challenging, if not entirely futile. Despite the court’s efforts to serve her with hearing notices and court documents, the defendant could never be contacted and her whereabouts remained unknown throughout the proceedings. In an effort to serve justice, the court permitted the service of documents by electronic mail as well as by telephone, but this too was ineffective. Not once did the defendant appear in court, and she did not even file her defence.

Nevertheless, despite the defendant’s clear intention to evade being served, the judge ruled that “the statements published online were full of falsehood, gross misrepresentation of facts and unjustified criticism,” thus clearly constituting defamation inflicted against the claimant. At the time of publishing, some of these posts are still online, and the surgeon might have to wait a long time before they are finally taken down.

Task 2: Answer the following questions.

1. How many defamatory online posts did the case concern?

2. How long did the activities of the defendant last?

3. Did the defendant plead guilty to the allegations brought against her? Why?

4. How did the court attempt to contact the defendant? Was this effective?

5. What was the effect of the hateful campaign on the doctor’s reputation?

6. What did the court order and what was the justification behind the verdict?

7. Do you think that justice was eventually served in this case?

See answers

BEFORE YOU MOVE ON

REVIEW: THROUGHOUT v THROUGH

“THROUGHOUT” means in every part of something, for example, a document, whereas “THROUGH” means moving in and out of something or by means of something.

Examples

There are many factual mistakes throughout your report.

We will seek justice and redress through courts.

NOW, LET’S MOVE ON

Task 3: Find the right preposition for each gap.

1. Any reference ... the memorandum of association is pointless ... this stage.

2. The court warned ... a statement that it was illegal ... disclose any of the details that it had shared ... the litigants.

3. It is not clear ... the authorities have been made aware ... the offence yet.

4. We have put ... place two policies ... deter and prevent the offenders ... making any future libellous statements.

5. When asked ... the whereabouts of his accomplice, the accused referred ... his right ... remain silent.

6. Is it ... the law to commit suicide or is it illegal to aid a person to die ... suicide?

7. The lessee shall be ... a duty to compensate the lessor ... any damage ... the property.

8. Members of the board shall be bound ... the rules of conduct set ... in the internal policy of the company.

9. She had the right to enter the property ... all times ... the term of this agreement.

10. He refused ... sign the agreement and our negotiations broke ...

Task 4: Match the following words (1-10) with definitions (a-l). There are two extra definitions that are not needed.

1. Incessantly (adv.)

2. Wrought (adj.)

3. Appalling (adj.)

4. Overarching (adj.)

5. Futile (adj.)

6. To mete out (v.)

7. Scorned (adj.)

8. To inflict (v.)

9. Impeccable (adj.)

10. To aggravate (v.)

a. Feeling rejected

b. Attractive and interesting (of an idea or sb’s personality)

c. To make a bad situation even worse

d. To force sb to experience sth unpleasant

e. To give or order a punishment

f. When sth is done in a regular, endless way

g. The opposite of “comforting and good”

h. Encircling, including

i. Brought about (of a negative impact)

j. Perfect and ideal, for example taste, manners or credentials

k. Not producing the effects or results that are wanted

l. Achieving more than expected

Task 5: Find two mistakes in each of the following sentences.

1. Both parties in the case agreed that the behaviour of the witness was simply appalling and against the sanctioning rules of conduct in a court of law.

2. Closing down the surgical ward might have inflict an irreparable damage to the reputation of your hospital, particularly in the medical community.

3. The disciplinary board is of the opinion that the head surgeon himself should be hold accountable of negligence in the operation.

4. The criticism meted on against the medical council damaged its impeccable reputation that have been built tirelessly by the previous generation of doctors.

Task 6: Fill in the gaps with a proper verb form.

To whom it may concern,

I (1) ______ (write) to complain about a surgery that I (2) ______ (undergo) at your hospital last week.

I (3) ______ (have) severe allergic reactions to some antiseptics and I (4) ______ (mention) about it in my questionnaire that I (5) ______ (fill) right before the surgery. However, due to negligence of your medical staff, this (6) ______ (not/pass) on to the surgeon who then (7) ______ (use) an antiseptic that I (8) ______ (be) allergic to.

As a result, not sooner (9) ______ (the operation/begin) than my allergic reactions (10) ______ (develop). I (11) ______ (cover) with rash and (12) ______ (have) immediate problems with breathing. I (13) ______ (must/take) to the emergency ward and (14) ______ (treat) for a life-threatening condition.

If your staff (15) ______ (be) more careful, I (16) ______ (not/be) in hospital now. I (17) ______ (now/consider) suing your institution.

Yours faithfully (…)

See answersGLOSSARY

LIBEL /ˈlaɪ.bəl/

libel (n.) – writing false statements about sb else

to libel – to publish false statements about sb else

libellous (adj.) – containing false statements about sb else

a libel case (exp.) – a case investigating libel claims

Examples

... threatened to sue him for libel ...

... have been libelled by media ...

... libellous articles about his company ...

... the defendant in a libel case ...

DAMAGE(S)

damages (n. plural) – compensation paid to the winning party

to damage – to do harm to sth or sb

a damage (n. singular) – an injury or harm

Examples

... awarded $500,000 in damages ...

... was badly damaged during the war ...

... have done serious damage to ...

ENFORCE

to enforce – to make sth, usually the law, obeyed

enforcement (n.) – the process of making people obey the law

enforceable (adj.) – of sth that can be enforced

unenforceable (adj.) – of sth that cannot be accepted as legal by court

Examples

... need to enforce the traffic laws ...

... support the enforcement of laws ...

... enforceable environmental laws ...

... is unenforceable under federal law ...CHAPTER 2: ANSWER KEY

Task 2:

1. Four defamatory publications.

2. They lasted over 8 months.

3. No, she never appeared in court and never filed her defence. It can be inferred from the text that she purposefully evaded service by court.

4. An attempt was made for the defendant to be served with hearing notices and court documents. Later, the court allowed for an e-mail and telephone contact. None of it worked.

5. Loss in ratings (from 5 to 3 stars) and patients reconsidering treatments with him.

6. A ban on publishing more about the claimant, apart from compensatory and aggravated damages. The judge was convinced that the publications were defamatory in nature.

7. Yes and no – the claimant might not receive the compensation, but the defendant is banned from publishing more defamatory statements.

Task 3:

1. to, at

2. in, to, with

3. if, of

4. in, to, from

5. about, to, to

6. against, by

7. under, for, to/on

8. by, forth

9. at, during

10. to, down

Task 4:

1f, 2i, 3g, 4h, 5k, 6e, 7a, 8d, 9j, 10c

Task 5:

1. parties in the case: parties to the case, sanctioning: sanctioned

2. inflict: inflicted, damage to: damage on

3. hold: held, accountable of: accountable for

4. meted on: meted out, have been: had been

Task 6:

1. am writing

2. underwent

3. have

4. mentioned

5. filled

6. was not passed

7. used

8. am

9. had the operation begun

10. developed

11. was covered

12. had

13. had to be taken

14. treated

15. had been

16. would not be

17. am now considering

Back to topCHAPTER 3

THE RIGHT TO PROTEST

According to many scholars, the right to organise and take part in peaceful protests is an intrinsic human right as much as the right to liberty and privacy or the right to a fair and public hearing.

BEFORE YOU MOVE ON

1. How should police deal with violent and aggressive protesters?

2. How have protests changed the history of some countries?

3. Is there a better way than protesting to make your voice heard?

4. How do social media platforms influence protests?

5. What are the risks of protesting and not protesting?

Task 1: Read the following article about the right to protest.

The right to protest is protected in the EU under the European Convention of Human Rights. Its Article 11 states that every individual has the freedom of assembly, regardless of their cause. This implies the right to protest, march or demonstrate in a public space. But this is not an absolute right as governments can place restrictions if the assemblies are not peaceful, for example, when they induce violence as a result.

It is therefore not surprising that whenever there is a threat to public safety, governments choose to invoke this exception in Article 11(2) to ban public gatherings. Sometimes, the course of action adopted might even put undue and unnecessary restrictions on the right to assemble.

Reservations of a similar nature have been recently raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David R. Boyd, in relation to the legislation proposals presented by the UK government. If these become law, it will be substantially easier for prosecutors to press charges against those accused of perpetrating illegal assemblies. Moreover, the new law might also weaken judicial review, a process by which the judiciary can effectively subject various decisions of the government to the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

“These pieces of legislation are shrinking civic space at a time when the global environment crisis demands that people’s voices be heard,” said Boyd in a response to the proposal. “These developments counter the direction we need to be going in,” he added, especially “at a time when the right to the freedom of assembly, association and expression are absolutely critical to environmental progress.”

His comments came after a call for action by Not1More, a campaign group that actively supports frontline environmental defenders worldwide. The group has called on the UN to act in defence of the right to peaceful protests in the UK. “We have been shocked that the level of violence in Britain is comparable to that experienced by protesters in repressive regimes,” said the campaigners.

To date, they have documented over 400 incidents of gross violence used by British police to deter protests. According to the group, these range from “years of harassment in the form of unfounded charges that are eventually dropped, to shattered bones and broken limbs, to degrading treatment of people with disabilities.”

It is feared that the new police bill proposed by the government, which purports to protect undercover state agents from prosecution, might in fact curtail temporary encampments and increase repressions, including subjecting those accused of illegal assemblies to arbitrary detention and undue restrictions.

According to Boyd, since modern governments show a very stagnant approach to the issue of climate change, very often the initiative remains in the hands of people. This way, if peaceful protests are ever to put a squeeze on world leaders, these gatherings must be considered critical to environment protection.

“If you put this in the context of a global environmental crisis, those people trying to push us to address this crisis deserve our full support, it is in the public interest,” he said, adding that “taking part in protests is an ultimate, desperate act in desperate times when we face desperate challenges.” He also referred to the example of Canada, where the government was forced to introduce a moratorium on logging after a wave of protests, and warned that “if people see the UK government as increasingly repressive, at some point there will have to be a backlash.”

In turn, the UK government has firmly defended its stance, arguing that “the proposed measures in no way impinge on the right to protest” and are in fact needed “to enable the police to better manage highly disruptive protests which have cost millions to the British taxpayer and caused misery to businesses and local communities.”

Task 2: Decide if the following sentences are true or false.

1. The UN is concerned about the effect of the new rules adopted by the UK.

2. Judicial review is a court process of scrutinising government’s environmental decisions.

3. The UN says that the new rules might be critical to environmental progress.

4. Not1More has called for more attention from the UN after the comments of the rapporteur.

5. The UN has evidence of incidents where British police used violence to disperse protests.

6. David Boyd said that protesting is the first thing people do in desperate times.

7. The response of the UK government is congruent with the position of the UN.

See answers

BEFORE YOU MOVE ON

REVIEW: REPRESSIVE v OPPRESSIVE

The adjective “REPRESSIVE” refers to something that controls what others do and restricts freedoms, whereas “OPPRESSIVE” refers to something that is cruel and unfair.

Examples

The director fuelled an oppressive atmosphere at work.

The rebels imposed a repressive military rule.

NOW, LET’S MOVE ON

Task 3: Find the right preposition for each gap.

1. Can you please pick ... the phone and put the client ... to me?

2. He claimed to have been at home ... the time of the murder but his story did not really add ...

3. The team has finally managed to break that final part of the project ... into two parts.

4. They called ... the appointment and we have not heard ... them ... since.

5. ... the new regulations, we are allowed to do ... with outdated tax records.

6. ... of now, the protesters have been split ... two groups.

7. The two partners have eventually fallen ... and their investment went ... the drain.

8. Let’s run ... these files again before the board is convened.

9. We must weigh ... all the pros and cons before taking any further action.

10. I have not heard ... him lately so there is nothing I can share ... you now.

Task 4: Match the following words (1-10) with definitions (a-l). There are two extra definitions that are not needed.

1. To imply (v.)

2. Covert (adj.)

3. To perpetrate (v.)

4. To impinge on (v.)

5. To purport (v.)

6. To curtail (v.)

7. Stagnant (adj.)

8. A backlash (n.)

9. To induce (v.)

10. Arbitrary (adj.)

a. Slow, sluggish and not developing

b. The opposite of “open and in plain sight”

c. A strong and negative reaction to sth

d. To reduce sth or to stop sth before it is finished

e. Based on chance rather than reason

f. Related to arbitration

g. To pretend to do sth, especially if it is not easy for others to believe

h. To cover or hide sth

i. To commit a crime or a violent or harmful act

j. To cause sth to happen

k. To communicate an idea or feeling without saying it directly

l. To have an effect on sth, often by limiting it in some way

Task 5: Find two mistakes in each of the following sentences.

1. To avert the consequences of violent protests, the government will eventually need to resort for another extreme measures.

2. The government’s move saw a dozen of cover police officers surrounding the suspect thus preventing the escalation of the attack.

3. The fact that the government have put in place a moratorium for drilling in the national park will be welcomed by many environmental groups.

4. The decision of the minister to remove the encampment were arbitrary and it curtails on the freedom to protest.

Task 6: Fill in the gaps with a proper verb form.

Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to your complaint, which we (1) ______ (receive) yesterday, I would like to refer to the issues (2) ______ (raise).

We (3) ______ (take) your case seriously and (4) ______ (now/ conduct) an extensive investigation of the incident. Our preliminary inquiry (5) ______ (confirm) that the police officers present during the incident (6) ______ (might/indeed/use) disproportionate violence. We (7) _______ (identify) the persons who (8) ______ (delegate) to contain the protests and we (9) ______ (now/look) at the events that (10) ______ (follow).

If our investigators (11) ______ (confirm) that the use of force was excessive and unreasonable, we (12) ______ (hold) all those responsible to account.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Visit: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1136402 to purchase this book to continue reading. Show the author you appreciate their work!