"The verb 'to be' is, I think, the only verb in English that retains a subjunctive, and that subjunctive is 'were' not 'was'."

No. When it is used, the subjunctive verb form shows up in three places:

1. The use of the uninflected base form of the verb in the third person singular:

I recommend that the minister approve the policy paper.

Expressions such as "God Save The Queen!" are idioms with this form of the subjunctive embedded within them.

2. The fossil "had better" usage (often shortened to "better" through ellipsis):

You'd better get going.

3. The "were" form of "be" (discussed).

"'If I was the Prime Minister. ...' said Ed Miliband, British Labour party leader, today, Sunday 24th September 2011. Is this not how to phrase it if it remains a possibility that he was once Prime Minister, or if he is not sure if he was, or is reluctant to admit it?"

As always, pedants attempt to overcomplicate the language. And the English subjunctive is probably one of those aspects of our language that suffers from more schoolmastering than most.

The argument between "if I was" and "if I were" would seem an attempt to put much more nuance of meaning into Miliband's statement than is really there. Whether "was" or "were", the implication is completely clear: "If I was/were the PM [but I'm not]..."

"Never seen the 'ov' form, but 'would ov' is no more correct than 'would of'."

I should've (ha!) pointed out that "ov" is not meant to be used as a substitute word for either "'ve" or "of" in written English but merely as a descriptive term for this particular usage.

The "ov" form has been around for quite a while. It's actually a fairly natural phonetic evolution of the truncated "uhv" sound you get in (for example) "would've".

I wouldn't worry about it myself.

However, when written as "of" (eg, "would of"), it's a spelling mistake. Unless, as you point out, the writer has done it quite deliberately to depict direct speech.

Though even there, I'm not sure why "would've" couldn't achieve the same result.

"How much French is in him?"

As a French speaker, I immediately had the same thought: the different nuances in meaning between "penser à" and "penser de".

The use of "LEGOs" (or, for that matter, "Legos") to describe more than one piece of LEGO is fine.

"Wow, I wonder if the original poster ever thought their question would trigger a five year debate of the topic."

You've got that right!

My suggestion to all? "This is her" is fine.

Now, get over it.

Oops! I meant "instance".

Impact can be both a noun and a verb.

However, at the risk of sounding cynical, I suggest you humour your professor in this instant. After you've finished the course, you can ignore him.

One is spelled c-o-u-n-c-i-l and the other is spelled b-o-a-r-d.

Seriously though, the answer probably depends on the circumstances. What some organization might label a board, another might call a council.