If people don't have the capacity to understand certain simple words they'll always be offended by something.

And if people believe that prefacing a statement with perhaps removes the potential for offence then we can justify any statement, however offensive simply by starting the sentence with an uncertain adverb.

that is 'perhaps' true, but it is definately completely different argument. It certainly doesnt explain why you have insisted that the word 'perhaps' was integral to the potential offence of Clarkes statement.

Are we supposed to take that as your acceptence that your insistence on the importance of the word 'perhaps' was nonsensical?

YARKSHIRE, SSSHHHHHHHHHHH, YES U R.

Perhaps is obviously integral to the sentence otherwise he wouldn't have said it.

yes they did, its still there, go and have a look.

But was it integral to the potential offence of his statement? Was the potential for offence removed because he prefaced it with an uncertain adverb?

aah, so you believe prefacing a statement with the word 'perhaps' does remove the potential for offence. As i say that is a very naive understanding.

But i do wonder why you were so averse to saying this.

It's only naive if you don't understand what the word perhaps means.

so you wouldnt be offended by the statement 'perhaps' those who contract motor neurone disease deserve it.

or 'perhaps' black people should be forced back to slavery.

which are clearly idiotic and offensive statements in no way mitigated by their prefacing with an uncertain adverb, but they are entirely unoffensive to you?

Like the leeds fans and media who refuse to admit that mcguire injured himself whilst trying to pull Carmont back? That sort of thing?

Unfortunately you seem to have missed off the context within which Clarke chose his words and his use of the word perhaps. It probably explains why people who don't have the capacity to understand simple words would also be incapable of putting them into context.