I hold no truck with Graham Linehan's trans view but police had no interest arresting him - Nigel Nelson

As recently as this year, Channel 4 thought it necessary to put a trigger warning on one episode to flag up that it “contains language which some viewers may find offensive”.

Ted’s creator, Graham Linehan, should have considered a trigger warning for his tweets before he was arrested over one of them at Heathrow Airport.

He had suggested punching a trans person below the belt, which, if taken literally, was a clear incitement to violence.

But most of us took it figuratively, as the joke it was meant to be.

Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley spoke of the “impossible position” his officers were placed in policing humour.

Sir Andy Cooke, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, called it an “invidious position”.

Most people took the position that Graham’s arrest was ridiculous.

I hold no truck with his transgender views, but I said at the time that if charges were brought, the Crown Prosecution Service should drop them on the grounds there was no public interest in pursuing the case.

Sir Mark went further. He cleared Graham and announced his officers would no longer be wasting their time investigating non-crime hate Incidents.

NCHIs were introduced in 2005 following the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and extended from race to other protected characteristics - religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.

Collecting the data was meant to act as an intelligence gathering tool to spot community tensions which might escalate.

The police would then know where best to allocate resources.

Home Office guidance defines an NCHI as hostility or prejudice towards someone’s protected characteristic.

It also urges common sense in assessing it. And not to let hate speech interfere with free speech.

That’s a tall order for a beat bobby. No wonder Sir Mark is so keen to see the back of it.

The best way to avoid this quagmire of complexity is simply not to be beastly about anyone.

But that has not stopped the search to define what beastliness is. The Government, police, CPS, 135 councils and universities accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.

However, it has had to do some heavy lifting since the war in Gaza. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is clearly antisemitic. But are accusations of genocide in the same ball park?

The definition says: “Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” How is ‘similar’ to be judged?

We use some ripe language about Putin’s Russia, less about Macron’s France and Meloni’s Italy and none about Trump's America.

Where is the line to be drawn? MPs tried to find a definition of Islamophobia in 2019 and came up with “racism that targets Muslimness”. But that could outlaw criticism of Islam, and it’s not compatible with the Equality Act, which says racism only applies to colour, nationality and ethnic origin.

In 1997, the Runnymede Trust put forward “unfounded hostility towards Islam”. That feels a little close to a blasphemy law.

While the Collins English Dictionary suggests “hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture.” Their politics? Politics where? Saudi or Solihull?

There are no easy answers - apart from the one Graham Linehan wrote for Father Ted: “The thing is, Dougal, you have to be careful with the whole ‘God’ thing.”