Don't tell him your name, Pikey!

F1 commentator Martin Brundle is in hot water with the TV thought-police for an off-the-cuff witticism concerning the association of a certain element of the itinerant community with road surfacing activities. Naturally, all manner of indignant champions of minorities are being wheeled out (mostly by the BBC, surprise) to wail and gnash their teeth at the inhumanity of it all. All in all, a handy opportunity for the chattering classes for yet more sanctimonious time wasting in the sacred name of inclusivity.

There is a reason why these terms arise in language. They tend to become a shorthand to identify a specific element of the community that the majority of the population regard as less than desirable in some way. As the term becomes recognised as pejorative or derogatory, so those so tagged are then sent a message and urged to reconsider their image, and thus encouraged back to conformity with the expectations of "normal citizens".

Some terms are considered more sinister than others, generally because they touch on a real populist nerve that the populous immediately recognise as an issue that the chattering classes pretend does not exist. Some are considered wholly innocuous and come under the heading of "banter" - for example, anyone who doesn't sound like a refugee straight from the set of East Enders or Corrie can be called a "toff" with impunity.

Now - it is precisely because we all know that we will be traced and harangued that we generally do as we are told.

The current method employed our legislators when dealing with those who choose to defy the laws that the rest of us (mostly) obey, is to allow these "less conventional" but equally important and culturally important sectors of the community, to exist outside the scope of normal identity, and assume that they can have immunity from the usual social and community responsibilities that beset the rest of us.

But there comes a point when those who value the benefits of conformity, and are weary that the police cannot be bothered with the paperwork involved when trying to charge someone with no tax, insurance, license, MOT, road fund tax, fixed abode or bank account to freeze.

The fact these folks and their apologists instantly recognise who is being identified from the use of the naughty p-word suggests that they all know precisely what it is that the rest of society thinks about their position at the less desirable and accountable fringes of that society. Is that really such a bad thing if we want to send the message that we would prefer that they did pay their dues, and accept the same standards of social responsibility as the rest of us.

Mind how you go - and remember to lock up your lawn mower!