"However I suspect that the Padstonians don't much care to be lectured by outsiders (although between themselves there may be a more diverse range of views)."

I would be very surprised (and depressed) if there weren't numerous Padstonians who object to the blacking-up, and also who find talk about "outsiders" as if Padstow was a different planet, rather self-condescending.

I find the blacking-up totally embarrassing, and it would be condescending to Padstonians to suggest that I couldn't conceivably have grown up to be me – the me that reads Paul Gilroy and loved Public Enemy as a teenager – had I grown up in Padstow.

The phrase "the right not to be offended" is, I always think, a red herring in these discussions, because it's only when we're talking about laws - about something being banned - that the phrase has any real meaning. As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested that the dancers be legally required to stop blacking-up.

I also think it's wider than a simple question of "black people being offended". I'm white and while "offence" is probably not quite the right word in my instance, I'm still immensely embarrassed by the blacking-up and embarrassed by the fact that grown men can be so blasé about it. If anyone I knew decided to join a blacking-up dance team I'd have a lot to say to them.

So for me, the real question is not "how far we should go to avoid giving offence" (although of course, the answer to that question from the participants concerned is "we do not budge one tiny millimetre or even acknowledge there is anything remotely problematic").

For me, the real question is "at what point does someone's professed intentions become irrelevant when they are so determined to adopt so many of the trappings of the thing they profess not to be?"