But this isn't about mere opinion, it is about the opinion of a teeny, tiny minority exerting actual, tangible influence over those vast majority who don't share that opinion. Ian Lucraft -a single individual at the time- had an opinion which led to a tangible effect on everybody else, who didn't share that opinion. The shirt was removed. Not because Primark agreed with his opinion (or they wouldn't have stocked it in the first place) but because they were afraid of the tiny minority getting vocal and tarnishing their reputation through social media. The perpetually offended are the more vocal, the more demanding, and thanks to viral media and PC culture now enjoy a disproportionate amount or ear-time and wield a disproportionate level of power over the rest of us.
In your opinion,how many people need to be offended before something can be deemed offensive?
1, 10, 100, 1000, 1,000,000?
If you offend me, I find you offensive. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
Ian Lucraft was entitled to his opinion, he voiced his opinion, lots of people agreed with him, lots of people disagreed with him, Primark agreed and acted, end of.
You can jump to all sorts of assumptions for their motive.
Anyone who disagrees can also voice their opinion, but when it deteriorates into a slanging match, such as describing people as libertards, lefties, PC brigade, perpetually offended, etc, and making other wild allegations and assumptions, the voicing of opinions has gone too far, and those people are trying to stifle debate.
Incidentally, referring to Trevor Phillips again, many of the populist movement that you refer to, resort to horrific insults and threats via social media.
One such perpetrator was interviewed and excused his threats of rape, murder, etc as "trying to promote free speech" and "it is accepted behaviour on social media".
He had served time for his threats via social media.
Sadly, some of the populist movement carry out their threat of murder (Jo Cox).