'Almost unimaginable' usually followed by 'horror' or 'scene' - used about earthquakes, tsunamis, wars etc, which are all usually 'incredible' too: all of which I can imagine very well actually, and can also believe that they happened too, seeing as they're happened rather a lot in history. Is my imagination and credulity therefore unimaginable and incredible? Am I not 'part of the team' or 'reflecting the diversity' of modern society? But where is 'the elephant in the room' and was it 'tasked with' these unimaginable, incredible horrors which 'impacted' on the planet? (BBC and Ch 4 news please take note)

The ones I hate are.
1. "NWO"
2. Euroskeptics claiming churchill was against european integration when he was for it.
3. People saying Hitler wanted an EU when he specifically told NAZIs to stop formulating such ideas.
4. People who claim the NAZIs were socialists when they were right w in reality. Because they executed the left wing of the party in night of the long knives.
5. People who claim Cromwell was as bad as Hitler. When he was the guy who allowed jews back.
6. People who claim the queen has never done anything wrong when in reality if you look it up you will find she is not the nice nice guy the media pretend.
7. People who say the BNP are for the working class when it is always snooty nosed nazi tories who vote for them.

"... is a potential environmental disaster"

A phrase which manages to be both alarmist and meaningless at the same time since practically everything has the "potential" to become a disaster.

I think it was a couple of days after the Sept 11th attacks that I first recall hearing the following:

1. Everything changed on September 11th.

2. Nothing will be the same again.

3. The world will never be the same.

Within a week they had become shorthand for slapdash and clichéd journalism. If I see them now I stop reading because the writer obviously has nothing new to say.

going forward
a forward policy (this a recent linguistic innovation by Milliband; lord only knows what it means)
a big ask
robust
not fit for purpose
learn from this experience (learn nothing from this experience)
consult (don't listen)
open a national debate (and then do exactly as we always intended)

1. People's Princess - Sorry but not for this person

2. What's up?

3. Can you spare some change?

Oh dear, Dirty European Socialist is going to send me off topic:

"2. Euroskeptics claiming churchill was against european integration when he was for it."

I'm a Eurosceptic and never argue such a thing. What Churchill favoured was continental European integration. For instance "If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea."

"4. People who claim the NAZIs were socialists when they were right w in reality. Because they executed the left wing of the party in night of the long knives."

So? We all know the Left's favourite pastime is fighting (and occasionally killing) each other. Nazis were nationalist and socialist - it is perfectly possible to be both, the political spectrum is not one-dimensional.

"7. People who say the BNP are for the working class when it is always snooty nosed nazi tories who vote for them."
Errr, check any electoral contest in recent years - you'll find its mainly in the working class Labour areas that the BNP are finding their support. I hardly think Barking and Dagenham is full of snooty nosed Nazi Tories.

No Neil Reddin you are utterly wrong;
1. The NAZIs were not left wing Hitler on the orders of big business executed the left wing of the party. This is GCSE level.
2. Churchill expressely supported european integration.
In 1946 he said
"We must build a kind of United States of Europe. (...) The first step in the recreation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany."
3. The right wing governments in the 19th century and 20th century of Belgium, China, the British empire, the Dutch and the Japanese were right wing and they did as many murders as the Communist governments.