Jigjag and Pedagogue, I have to confess that I didn't know anything about the subtleties of 'due to' and 'owing to'. I've checked Chambers and it has confirmed that I am not alone. One definition of 'due to' is - 'owing to, because of (a use still deprecated by some, but now almost standard'. I think you're still able to tut at any instances of 'incorrect' usages, but in the interests of fairness, these will have to be silent tuts.
Malone
Yes, sometimes I feel like Canute as the waves surge forward, knowing that, in the end, our language is dynamic, ever changing.
Perhaps I should, as once said on BBC News, "re-look" at my position.
Pedagogue, I'm sorry that I can't put the whole weight of the PU behind your 'due to' grievance, but I trust I have been fairly even-handed. I admire your realistic attitude, acknowledging that our language is dynamic, ever changing. Great, innit?*
I bet you are with me on this. Politicians say "I refute that" when they mean deny or reject. They do not, of course, give any evidence for their "refutation"
That one gets me too, jigjag.
Another one I wince at every week is when Jermey Paxman introduces University Challenge and says
"With an average age of 24, let's meet the team"
Yes, at school we often discussed "misplaced adjectival clauses" My English teacher, My Higgins loved talking about them. He often mentioned "Sitting at the table was a lady with Queen Anne legs" and so on.