Using the word pom to describe people from England forms part of the Australian tradition of rhyming slang and shouldn’t automatically be construed as offensive, a lexicographer from The Australian National University has argued.

Dr Bruce Moore from the Australian National Dictionary Centre at ANU has shed light on the history of the expression, following on from complaints made by the group British People Against Racial Discrimination over the use of the word in a beer commercial. Dr Moore, who oversees the Australian Oxford Dictionary, said such complaints are not new.

“At the Australian National Dictionary Centre we are often pressured by external groups to alter our labelling of the words pom and pommy. We label them simply as colloquial and do not add the labels derogatory and offensive. Of course, it’s possible that the words might be used offensively or in a derogatory way, but they can also be used in a good-humoured and even affectionate way.

“Popular etymology has it that pom is an acronym from ‘Prisoner Of Mother (England)’, but this is as barmy as the army. From about 1860 jimmygrant, rhyming slang for immigrant, was used contemptuously of new chums from Britain. In 1912, another rhyming slang variant appeared—a British immigrant was called a pommygrant, from the red fruit the pomegranate, perhaps referring to the ruddy complexion of the new arrivals. As often happens with rhyming slang, the rhyming element disappeared (as with Noah for noah’s ark = ‘shark’, she’s apples for she’s apples and spice = ‘nice’), and we were left with pommy and then pom.”

Dr Moore said that cricket authorities have recently had to decide on their attitude towards the terms in the context of a clampdown on racial abuse at cricket matches. He said newspaper reports at the end of September indicated that the authorities had referred or deferred to a 1997 ruling by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC).

“As reported by the newspapers, Cricket Australia was advised that ‘pom was not hurtful when used in isolation, but said using the word with others could be deemed racist’.

“Britain’s Daily Telegraph, however, took umbrage, and declared that the poms didn’t need such protections from the word police: ‘But the word pom shorn of any suitably earthy antipodean qualifier is a feeble little thing. Surely our Barmy Army is tough enough to endure whatever emerges from the fecund repository of invective that is the Australian cricket fan. Let’s face it: if we retain the Ashes this winter, we won’t give a XXXX what they call us’.”