Another good Churchill one is the complaint he wrote in the margin of a report (I stand to be corrected on the historical details) on plans for the naval bombardment preceding D-Day: "Why must he write 'intensive' here? The correct word is 'intense'!"

SharonA, I wish I had a pound for every time I've heard BBC radio presenters say "the things is, is that..." or "the real issue is, is..."

Returning to the start of the thread, the entire management of the UK public sector would be unable to work (phew - almost said "operate"!) if they did not have "appropriate" and similar language-bashing and grammar-cutting devices among the tools of their grotesque trade. "In the event that the ongoing situation is unable to be resolved within appropriate timescales it is essential that an appropriate report comprising of [ouch, that really hurts] a detailed overview must be forwarded expeditiously in order that appropriate resources can be diarised to affect an appropriate solution".

A senior personnel manager of my acquaintance once circulated a memo intended to placate staff who had been badly treated in a restructuring exercise. To indicate that some limited compromise may be possible, she wrote that "...there may be some judicious waving of the rules". It probably helps to be English to pick up the unintended play on words compounding the spelling error, but I laughed for a week over that one.

Incidentally (which should probably be 'co-incidentally') the words to "Rule Britannia" assure us that "Britain never, never, never shall be..."(I forget the rest).

Never, never? Or never ever?