Poor old journos. It’s so hard to keep track of everything. Like spelling. I mean if someone (Paul Doug Peters) can be INdicted for an offence then surely they can also be EXTRAdicted for it? (SMH online today) Well, no. But Vince and Peter were probably a bit over-excicted. (btw, anyone with three first names for a name should be indicted for that reason alone.)

 In my closing days in the profession I was mortified to hear that someone was a going to be “injuncted” – as in an injunction was going to be taken out against them. Doesn’t matter; if it looks or sounds right, don’t check it, just whack it in and hope for the best. No need to be “phased” by it at all. I think they all should be “scapegoated”.

That’s supposed to be what subs are for, innit? But ‘injuncted’ is a tricky one because if you correctly wrote ‘enjoined’ hardly anyone would know what on earth you were talking about so you would be failing in your duty to communicate clearly (or clearly to communicate?). The only solution would seem to be to rephrase but that uses more ink and column inches. btw, the NDL famously used regularly to have photos on the social pages of some girl and her ‘finance’ (not the same girl every time).

-  i concur!