Bart Becht, chief executive of Reckitt Benckiser, appeared in a newspaper last week describing some of his company’s innovations as “very stupid”. The consumer products group angrily said it was obvious to everyone present that Mr Becht, whose first language is Dutch, meant that the company benefited from simple innovations, not stupid ones, and that his English had momentarily let him down. The other newspapers, including the Financial Times, certainly took it that way.

I have every sympathy with Mr Becht. Once, in my French class, I attempted to summarise an article on the rise of fast food in France by saying that the French now used their lunch hour merely to satisfy their hunger and ended up saying they used their lunch hour to satisfy their wives.

At least Mr Becht did not claim he had been quoted out of context, the usual resort of those embarrassed by what they have said.

Last year, when Boeing complained that subsidies to Airbus were damaging its business, the European Union pointed to Boeing vice-president Randy Baseler’s blog, in which he said the company’s prospects were so good they reminded him of the 1980s hit song “The Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades”. Boeing said Mr Baseler had been quoted out of context.

Roel Campos, commissioner at the US Securities and Exchange Commission, last year caused a fuss by describing London’s Alternative Investment Market as “a casino”. Quoted out of context, he said. “What I was referring to was a generalised situation in which if standards are ignored and you have a spiral downward you could get into a situation where an exchange could be nothing more than a casino.”

I prefer the approach of Auberon Waugh, the British columnist, who once said he would “see my marriage out”. Quizzed about the remark, he said he could see it sounded rather ungracious out of context, adding: “I’m sure it’s bad enough in context.”

There are worthier users of the “out of context” excuse, such as Barack Obama. In a newspaper interview, the Democratic hopeful said that President Ronald Reagan had changed the trajectory of the US in a way that neither Richard Nixon nor Bill Clinton had. Reagan had come along when the US was ready for change. Today, was similar, he said. People felt the US was bogged down in the same old arguments.

“The Republican approach, I think, has played itself out,” Mr Obama said. “I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”

Hillary Clinton summarised this by saying Mr Obama “really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years”. Now that really is out of context.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who recently caused a furore by suggesting the British legal system should make space for Sharia law, is a different case. The Archbishop made his remarks at the Royal Courts of Justice in a long, sinuous and intricate talk on the extent to which the law should accommodate the rulings of religious authorities, particularly Muslim ones.

I have read the transcript twice without being able to determine whether he was saying British law should always prevail, whatever status religious courts were given. The speech might have attracted little attention because few would have understood it, except that the archbishop gave a BBC radio interview in which he said the application of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”, adding: “An approach to law which simply said ‘there is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the process of the courts’ – I think that’s a bit of a danger.” This was much clearer, and more disturbing, but the archbishop told the Church of England’s general synod last week that he had been misunderstood. He said “we are not talking about parallel jurisdictions” and “there is no dispute about our common allegiance to the law of the land”. So it seems the archbishop’s BBC interview was an unusual case of someone quoting himself out of context.

There are lessons for anyone who speaks to the public. First, what you say will be summarised, so provide a clear conclusion, such as “on one thing there can be no compromise: we are all subject to British law” and repeat it at every opportunity.

Second, think about how your words can be used, whether by journalists looking for a story or by your opponents. If you say the Republicans had good ideas, insert “not that I agree with them”.

Finally, if you are speaking a language other than your own, make sure someone is ready to jump in to correct you the moment you say something embarrassing.

Send your comments to michael.skapinker@ft.com

More columns at www.ft.com/comment/columnists/michaelskapinker