Clowns and dummies is fair, tame, but fair.

And it's changing very quickly at present. There is a far-right presence and anger that's bubbling under the surface right now; and the self-deprecation is being interpreted, by some, internally as unpatriotic. There's also a conflation between patriotism and British-nationalism which is unpleasant.

The Dutch and the Irish are similar, but most other cultures, including Commonwealth members, tend not to get it.

There is national pride, of sorts, like an affection for an old, unreliable car that holds good memories. And we're not unfragile or without vanity; it's almost too abstract to explain.

To use your example.

"I wish I were younger..."
"I wish I had been younger when..."
"If I was younger (than I recall being) when I met you..."

All wishes are subjunctive so should always be "were" not "was."

The exception is when you're talking about a unwished potential past tense — "If I was rude to you yesterday, I apologise."

The alternatives being —

"If I had been rude, I would have apologised."
"If I were rude, I would apologise."

It's a lot easier to take it on the chin for a mistake my compatriots make, but I do not; but generally, you'll find us a pretty self-deprecating lot. We know our faults and they are many.

I definitely think "that" is wrong, but I'm in the minority. I also use periods for all abbreviations, which is uncommon here. Style is definitely optional in the U.K., and you will have accept being considered eccentric if you stick to it.

But in the interest of fairness, the American mistake that I hate and Brits never make is subjunctives and conditionals.

American's often say "I wish I would've been..." rather than the correct "I wish I had been..." or "I wish I were..." Even worse is "If I would have..." rather than "if I had..."

The one that irks me, and is a more British than American mistake, is British writers often use "that" instead of "who" when referring to people.

"The woman that lives there..."

Thinking about this, British writers often use which in place of that, but, if it's non-restrictive, they'll definitely use which and probably use commas; so there is a distinction, of sorts, but, yes, we could *collectively* do better.

I hope you enjoy your stay. I'm originally from Brixton, which is a couple of miles north of Croydon.

We are oft guilty of confusing that and which. I don't think I learned that rule until my thirties. I certainly wasn't taught it at school.

About half of your examples I wouldn't have noticed.

Missing commas before and after a non-restrictive appositive. (I'm presuming he only has one fiancée.)

I shouldn't pick on The Daily Mail, as it is staffed by a team of barely-literate bottom-feeding sub-humans, but...

Missing an indefinite article —

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar...

You should be grateful American papers have style guides. Here in the U.K., hyphens liberally replace em dashes and there is no stylistic consistency across a single article let alone an entire publication. I think fifty years of libel lawsuits has seen all the copy editors replaced with solicitors.

It's a literary anachronism that makes The Times The Times, like the diereses in The New Yorker or the condescension in The Daily Telegraph.

I honestly think more people would be upset by its absence than would applaud it.

Isn't the first rule of grammar to have rules and stick to them?

You've found the second part of the eccentric rule.

I applaud your passion, though, you're probably about six months away from developing Stockholm syndrome and becoming quite fond of it.

Achilles' heel.
Jesus' cross.
Arkansas's capital.
Texas' senator.

I enjoy the idiosyncrasy.

It is one of the more eccentric rules in the style guide.

@nyttypostypos.bsky.social protégé unless he was hiding something