Veteran BBC Radio Devon presenter, David Lowe was sacked recently for playing a track from 1932 which included in its lyrics the word Nigger. The Sun has got its hat on had the word removed from later versions of the popular song. Mr Lowe, 68 a presenter with the station for 14 years, apologised and said he had no idea the offensive lyrics appeared on that version of the song, but was dismissed.

In contrast, Top Gear present Jeremy Clarkson caused outrage when a pre-recorded show that he asked not to be aired, appeared to include the same offensive word. The clip showed Clarkson repeating the children’s rhyme eeny meanie minie moe. The presented covered his mouth and mumbled a barely audible n-word. Clarkson apologised publicly and was punished with an alleged £12million, three year contract.

Both stories were widely reported in most news-papers and on TV. Almost all of the reports included the phrase N-word but none of the reports used the actual word.

Were they right to not use the word Nigger because its racial implications are so vile and full of hatred that it is deeply offensive and should never be read or heard, or is political correctness gone mad?

There certainly seems to be a belief among some that having an opinion that could be considered by some offensive is absolutely outlawed. While talking to my elderly neighbour recently, she commented on a “coloured” child, and added innocently “that’s been polite, isn’t it- they don’t like being called black these days do they”.  Another neighbour of mine, who lives with and has children with a black Jamaican man was also there and laughed at the confusion the old lady.

We politely corrected her and she went on to ask why then are we not allowed to say black board in schools.

The conversation, which could have come from a 1970’s sit com, was a good example of people being so confused in their fear of offending it hard to know for sure whether one is actually racist or meaning to cause offence or simply ignorant or misinformed. I often hear people at work saying “you can’t say that”.

One could argue also that the English language evolves so much that many once grossly offensive words and phrases are now used as something completely different. Where young people use words like sick and bad when they mean good, is also the case that they use insults as terms of endearment. Sadly I suspect this; to a degree is the case.

A report by channel 4 today revealed that a third of British people consider themselves to either very or a little prejudiced against people from other races.

The Nation centre of social research (NatCen) said that 30% of over 2000 people revealed the disturbing statistic heralded a return to previous levels before an all-time low in 2001 of 25%. NatCen said that racial prejudice has been steadily increasing since the start of the decade.

While the headline of the survey says we are getting less tolerant as a society, the statistics actual show just 3% considered themselves very racist with 27% describing themselves as slightly racist. This from a group of little more than 2000 people, it is impossible to know whether this is representative of the whole of Britain or even what ethnic background the people who answered the survey were from.

Is there a rise or have people just got so entangled in the political correctness web that they are now pre trained to hide any prejudice they may feel. I suspect even the 3% who said they were very racist, would not have readily admitted this if they were to be named or filmed. Anonymity allows ignorance and intolerance to fester and spread underground like proverbial mushrooms.

The tide though seems to be changing, with many people growing frustrated and angry at the lack of debate and lack of representation from political parties. UKIP’s surge in popularity is largely down to angry people seeing angry politicians openly saying they are angry at the number of foreigners flooding our country, steeling our houses and taking our jobs. Of course many of these accusations are absolute nonsense, but because the political elite have been scared to discuss immigration for years, these believers, like my neighbour, are misinformed. The reluctance of Labour to engage in the debate is harmful because the perceived successes of UKIP in areas such as Rotherham and Sunderland opens the door to even more dangerous and extremist groups like the EDL or  BNP. The mainstream parties must put the facts out there for people to make an informed decision before people make a misinformed one and plunge this country into self-destruction.

Unfortunately, Islamaphobia is not uncommon in our country and there are people who are “openly” racist. I use the term openly loosely of course because usually it done with cowardice, hidden behind a shield of anonymity on social networking sites such as Facebook and twitter. Last night I saw some appalling comments aimed at ex-footballer Stan Colleymore, with one tweet saying I will bring up my children to hate blacks you black c@#t. I seriously doubt that the author of those comments would have the bottle to say such things without the armour of twitter to protect him or to Mr Collymore’s face. I do not think however that the moron who wrote the comments should be kept underground and censored. I’m not sufficiently educated to know the origins of the quote but I believe a French politician has been attributed as saying “I absolutely disagree with your opinion but will defend to the death your right to voice it” or words to that effect.

Politicians should not scare monger or downright lie about the consequences of staying in the European Union. They should all engage in the debate and all should agree to a referendum on Europe. Let the people decide in a vote and put the argument to bed once and for all, then we can set about educating the ignorant and the hate filled. What is certain is that while ever the racists, the bigots, the sexists and the homophobes are not allowed to voice their opinions, we cannot begin to confront them and change their beliefs.

So what if they are innocent:

Operation Yewtree is an enquiry into historical sexual abuse allegations involving celebrities. It was launched in 2012 following the Jimmy Savile case.

Today the Crown prosecution service announced that comedian Freddie Starr would not face prosecution after first being questioned in November 2012.

Mr Starr’s lawyers have claimed his arrest was a “flagrant breech” of his human rights due to the length of time it took to reach the decision.

Prosecutors finally dropped the charges due to insufficient evidence in allegations made by 13 people, despite there being enough evidence in a 14^th case for a likely successful prosecution, which the CPS say is not in the public interest. The CPS have faced criticism from some who claim that the arrests of famous celebrities including comedian Jim Davidson, DJ Dave Lee Travis, entertainer Jimmy Tarbuck and Artist Rolf Harris are little more than a witch hunt.

Travis and Harris are yet to face the jury while Davidson was cleared of all charges against him in January before winning Celebrity Big Brother. Veteran comic Tarbuck was also released without charge. Other famous names have faced long trials including Coronation Street favourite William Roach, before being found innocent. There have been calls for suspects to retain their anonymity until convicted as a result of these cases.

So how do the police and the CPS decide what is in the public interest and which leads to simply ignore? They certainly face some tough decisions. It has been said that by suggesting compensation may be available to victims jeopardises the operation as “gold diggers” may tempted to invent assaults. Others claim that by bringing these high profile cases before the judge will encourage genuine victims to come forward.

I think the message has to be loud and clear that people in the privileged circle of show business are not above the law, and any credible allegation will be followed up, and furthermore, anyone found guilty must feel the full weight of the justice system.

Disgraced ex- it’s a knock out sports commentator Stuart Hall is accused of 15 rapes and 5 indecent assaults. He was jailed last year for just 15 months, later extended to 30 month’s for attacks on girls aged as young as 9 years old. He faces a catalogue of further allegations.

PR guru Max Clifford became the first famous name to be jailed last week, after being found guilty of a string of assaults on girls and young women. He was sentenced to eight years.  

The guilt of celebrities abusing not only females but the position of trust fame gives them seems somehow more disgusting than members of the public being charged. They enjoy the trapping and wealth that their position brings and so the deceit and betrayal feels more personal to those who admired them. The fact is that they should be treated exactly the same as any other common criminal accused of similar charges and when found guilty should face the same punishment.

In defence of the actions of these fallen celeb’s people have said that we should bare in mind that culture has changed and things were acceptable in those days. What? Absolute nonsense! In celebrity circles and TV studios it may have been the norm to grope children and young women but even celebrities should know the difference between right and wrong. Jimmy Savile conned the world for decades hiding his filthy secrets behind the public persona he so carefully shaped, even being knighted. The lesson we must learn is that being a famous person does not guarantee decency.

All that said, there is an argument that people should be protected somewhat against malicious accusations.

In 2003 Stars in their eyes host Mathew Kelly was arrested over allegations of child sex abuse. He was eventually cleared but not before losing his lucrative job on prime time TV.

Peter Adamson, who played Len Fairclough in Coronation Street was arrested in 1983, accused of molesting two girls in a public swimming pool. His career was ruined despite him being cleared of the charges and he eventually died a penniless alcoholic in 2002. Soccer manager Dave Jones was suspended by his club Southampton after being accused of sexual assault. He also was cleared of the charges. There is a crude but true saying up north – shit sticks. Many people still remember Len Fairclough being accused of sexual assault with more than a few wrongly thinking he was actually convicted. Sadly, this often the case and the life and career of one can be destroyed by such allegations. The media has a responsibility to remember this when slapping headlines about the accused on their front pages. The police and the CPS have a moral responsibility to not leak these arrests to the press. In some cases the press have been present as the wrongly accused man has been taken away.

One can only imagine how it must feel to be wrongly accused of such awful crimes. Thankfully, I can only imagine how it must feel to be a victim of such crimes and this too should be considered. The more failed prosecutions hit the news the greater chance there is of genuine victims thinking it is pointless publicly reliving the nightmare and putting themselves through the scrutiny.

I suspect that considering all I have said that Operation Yewtree should continue to investigate the accusations, but should exercise a little integrity when deciding who to arrest and whether it is in public interest for a news crew to be present when they reach that decision.