A tangled web.

I've been thinking about this business of Carol Thatcher and that word. And what I keep coming up against is - who decides (or more to the point, is entitled to decide) what is offensive and on what basis? If I decide for whatever reason, that I find the word "sheep" offensive, does that mean that nobody should be allowed to use that word in my hearing, or - even more bizarrely - in circumstances where I am not present, but might hear about it? Obviously basic good manners says that you should not say something which you know will offend someone within earshot - but what if you don't know that it would offend them, or you are later accused of offending someone who wasn't even there? As far as I am aware from what I have read, the only person present who took exception to what was said was Jo Brand (and there's irony, if you like!) and the people who are now jumping on the bandwagon are those who have simply heard about it. Which of course also raises the question of who leaked this into the public domain, and what responsibility they bear for the consequences. Obvious parallels have been drawn with the Jonathan Ross incident, and it was amusing to see the BBC trying to justify a distinction in the way the two were treated. All down to apologies, apparently. Well sorry but my cynical mind says it's far more likely to be down to ratings. The Beeb couldn't afford to sack Jonathan Ross because he gets them big audience figures, whereas Carol Thatcher doesn't so she can safely be thrown to the wolves.