James' point is well made. As Tom correctly alludes to, by blowing issues out of proportion we then allow groups to define themselves as victims.

In this case there is no harm, in other cases such as with militant islam it is important that we do not give them a status that they could use against us.

We don't need more laws or even more hand-wringing. We need common sense.

An excellent posting well made with equally as astute comments.

Britain has gone downhill to the point where if we were all in a public space, we would self-consciously look around to see who was in earshot before raising such a topic.

My reaction to being told to celebrate diversity is polite indifference. I'll choose what I am interested in and wish to celebrate. I certainly don't want to celebrate an awful lot of so-called English Culture...

George, I don't think you could get a razor blade betwen us on this issue. I think you would be negligent (perhaps criminally negligent) to shout "fire" in those circumstances and would counsel you against it. You clearly owe a duty of care to the people who might be injured.

I am all for personal responsibility. I am however very much against the irresponsibility caused by politicians pretending to have the answer to every minor ill.

George, politeness is good; rudeness is bad. Agreed. I also agree that Oprah Winfrey-style daytime TV pop psychology has a lot to answer for. But we must not confuse law with social convention. Street-Porter should not have been arrested. These chavs should not be arrested either.

It not a question of not "creating more thought crimes." We should be abolishing those we have created.

Logically, how is calling this person "Shilpa Popadom" any worse then some French people calling the English "les rosbifs?" How is calling her "fuckawallah" any worse than some French people calling the English "les fuckoffs?" We laugh at that. I stood at the foot of the Wallace Memorial in Stirling and heard a Scotsman explain its significance by describing the English to his toddler in terms which make these idiots sound like diplomats. That didn't degrade me as an Englishman. It degraded him - and him alone - as a primitive, ignorant man. I would not demean myself by asking for legal protection. I don't give a damn what that cretin thinks.

Are Indians so much more feeble than us? Isn't it actually "racist" to think they need protections we don't? Once you start legislating against words, you are doomed - as I put it - to "tyranny by analogy." It's better simply not to begin. The word "racist" has become a hate-word cast around carelessly at all who disagree with the leftist establishment. It is now completely meaningless. Large groups are deemed to be "institutionally racist" or "unconsciously racist" anyway, so there is no way for them to avoid the accusation - other than by steering clear of anyone who might make it. How does that improve social cohesion?

I suspect, as Germaine Greer has suggested, that this whole thing is entrapment, set up by Endemol for financial gain. These idiots have been used. I don't care about them, but I do think the reactions are disproportionate and socially divisive. The BNP are no doubt gaining almost as much as Endemol, because ordinary people are sick and tired of being demonised.

There is (or should be) a world of difference between social conventions and law. It is utterly, utterly ludicrous to criminalise low, rude people. This cabal would, in other circumstances, be just as vile and offensive about each other. Why should one form of offensiveness be outlawed? They are, after all, just words.

No, we shouldn't be in the business of creating new thought crimes (which is why, for instance, Germany is wrong to wish to outlaw holocaust denial throughout Europe). That doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to criticise racist behaviour. And if "she should f**k off back home" and "Shilpa Popadom/f**kawallah whatever" aren't racist phrases I'd like to know what are. Racism is at the very least a pernicious form of rudeness and rudeness isn't nice. Possibly the greatest problem with "political correctness" is that it has allowed itself to be called "political correctness" rather than politeness. In the past certain forms of rudeness (the word somehow doesn't seem strong enough but it is nonetheless accurate) were seen as permissible - you wouldn't refer to your boss as a "c**t" but calling the man next to you a "n****r" was fine. The victory won by political correctness was to make it clear that rudeness was not excusable simply on the basis that the terms were being used against someone of a different race/sex/religion. (It's also worth saying that idiocies like "Winterval" have nothing to do with a sensible application of politeness and everything to do with the patronising attitudes of those who come up with them).

The great difference between Shilpa and the cackling cabal of bullies isn't class or even education it is politeness. Jade, Danielle and Jo have been brought up in a society where anything can be excused on the basis that "I was just saying how I feel", Shilpa appears to have been brought up in a society wise enough to realise that such a claim excuses precisely nothing.

One might note that Pakistan means 'Land of the Pure' in Urdu, Sindhi and Persian, so the joke is very much on those using it with derogatory intent.