Double-take, # 129

This seems a very odd construction to use in the context:

Link: The Sunday Times (subscription access only), ‘Superfit Jools eyes up 5th child’

For clarification, the article suggests that Jamie Oliver and his wife, Jools, may be considering an addition to their family. Oxford Dictionaries confirms that ‘eye up’ means ‘Look at someone in a way that reveals a particular, especially sexual, interest’; while Collins English Dictionary doesn’t offer a non-sexual variant, defining the term as: ‘to look at in a manner indicating sexual interest; ogle’ (eyes, number 40).
    Even without the sexual dimension, it would be difficult to ‘eye up’ someone who does not yet, and may never, exist.

Jools eyes up 5th child

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 69

Mangled breadcrumbs and links again; this time a persistent problem with a placename, spotted by Des Pond of Slough:

The mountain’s name was consistently spelt correctly on the linked page, though it‘s unclear if the mangle in the links (perhaps a hypercorrection) was made by human or automatic agency:

Link: BBC News, ‘El Capitan — the world's toughest climb? in 90 seconds’

El Captain for El Capitan [a couple of times]

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 68

Another mangled breadcrumb:

The headline actually reads:

Link: The Telegraph, ‘Up to 5,000 Europeans pose terror threat after going abroad to fight jihad’

which makes more sense.
post for pose

You Cannot Be Serious, # 35

This paragraph, with its dubious noun-verb agreements, shifting perspectives and overall bizarre syntax, directly quotes a person of seniority in tertiary education — Ed Byrne, the principal of King’s College London — making the case for maintaining levels of funding in tertiary education. Judging by this, it needs all the money it can get:

Link: The Times (subscription access only), ‘Labour’s tuition fee cut “would kill universities”’

 If £3,000 per student was […] one would destroy […] and one would make […]. Labour must identify clearly if […] and that university funding must not be reduced; &c

Double-take, # 128

Doesn‘t one subsume the other?

Link: The Telegraph, ‘Not on the team? Then no more sport for you’

overweight and obese

The Wrong Word Entirely, # 67

From Pop Spencer, a confusion of words, with apostrophe catastrophe:

Link: Northampton Chronicle and Echo, ‘Impromptu vigil held in Northampton […]’

affect for effect; it’s for its

Double-take, # 127

I‘ve seen several examples of these cut-off-before-the-end mangles recently. Some render the text completely meaningless; this one results in an accidental paraprosdokian:

Source: The Daily Telegraph, 15 November, 2014, p. 19

paid at least [end cut off]

Handritten, # 4

From the archive of Dr Faustus, who spotted it at a pub in Sandhurst late last year:

colesalaw

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 162

Always check the little words, for mangling them can alter meanings, create confusion and/or produce nonsense:

Link: The Guardian, ‘Ex-Sun [Sic] journalist on trial for article he didn’t write, court hears’

now for not; identify for identity

Not Washed or Cooked, # 201

A remarkably widespread, and world-wide, typographical error is represented in these two headlines. How did the writer not notice?

Link: Halesowen News, ‘Oldbury robber jailed after knife attack on firend [sic]’

Link: Ghana News — Adom Online, ‘Man kills best firend [sic] for sleeping with wife’

firend for friend

Double-take, # 126

Duplication and a slipping capital letter in this report about the dangers of drinking wine:

Link: The Telegraph, ‘Drinking a glass of wine is the same as downing three shots of vodka’

duplicated paragraph & slipping ‘L’

Double-take, # 125

The use of prepositions seems fast to be growing both random and illogical, despite the fact that even quite basic dictionaries usually indicate, often with examples, which preposition to use in a verb+preposition construction. This opening sentence of a recent news item offers a bizarre concept:

Link: The Independent, ‘Israel not included in HarperCollins map […]’

Omit means leave out, so it is not only inaccurate to use the preposition in, but also both illogical and counterintuitive. Oxford Dictionaries and Cambridge Dictionaries Online, amongst others, clearly show that this verb takes the preposition from.

omitted … in