Ouch.

I’ve been taking something of a schellacking on Twitter for a piece I wrote for the Huffington Post earlier this week about how Unionism needs to give ground in order to kick start the devolution process.

In doing so, I wrote that ‘Unionist politicians make a difficult situation worse with a combination of bellicosity and mean-spitedness,’ adding: ‘Frankly, if the DUP was a person, modern etiquette would see them cut some slack on the suspicion they had a spectrum disorder.’

My reference to ‘spectrum disorder’ was meant as a general, catch-all to underscore the broader point of the piece, but not everybody read it like that. Various autism campaigners have upbraided me for the connotation of ‘spectrum disorder’ with ‘autism’. (I’ve since exorcised the reference).

I should have had the forethought to see how my remarks could have been misconstrued. ‘Spectrum disorder’ is a term commonly used in association with autism and I should have recognised that its use could cause unintended hurt.

In all honesty, not for a single second was I thinking of autism as I wrote the piece – and never actually used the word. There are a range of conditions that fall under the umbrella of ‘spectrum disorders’ and the description is not synonymous with autism. I had recently read about another, more general condition meriting the term and used the phrase in that context.

This is usually the point when the recalcitrant politician or celebrity offers the line: “I’m sorry if my remarks caused any offence”. Well I’m neither a pol or ‘sleb so let me avoid that trite formulation.

I apologise in all sincerity for the offence my reference clearly did cause to people with autism, their families or campaigners on their behalf. This was never my intention. I recognise, fully, how hard it is dealing with autism. I have an autistic nephew so never – ever – use the term pejoratively.

It’s also important to clarify something else.

While there is increasing cognisance of mental health issues – (all to the good as one in four of us will suffer from them at some stage in our lives) – it’s a universal human experience  in a way that autism is not.

So, in my judgement, elliptical, generalised references to an opponent being a ‘loony’ or ‘stark raving mad’ (I guess the point I was trying to make) are still entirely fair game.

British politics has a long and illustrious tradition of political abuse – and long may that continue. So I have to follow my own logic – even if can scarcely believe I’m writing this: the DUP’s Sammy Wilson was right.

Not in his inelegant dismissal of Leo Varadkar as a “nutcase”. The Taoiseach is, to all appearances, a thoroughly decent chap – but I will defend Mr. Wilson’s freedom to refer to a political opponent in pretty much any way he wishes.

I can hardly dish it out to the DUP – as I do and fully intend to continue doing – without defending their right to do the same.

He should have stuck to his guns. Alas, he folded; the latest episode of an unhealthy trend where forced retractions and reversals from our political class become inevitable as soon as the flak starts flying.

Is it any wonder our politicians are all so utterly banal?

Where an apology and correction are warranted – as in my case – they should be made.

But poor old Sammy is entitled to make his half-baked and spurious political attacks.

That’s the price of free speech.