The midget, the old man and the lad.

This week, Jeremy Clarkson had been in trouble once again for hitting a member of staff (after, it would appear, verbally abusing him). He has, as I am writing, been suspended, and the rest of the Top Gear season has been suspended.

If, in any job I have had, I had racially abused a colleague and then hit them, I would have been sacked immediately. In fact, if I had done either of these, not both, I would probably have been taking some time at home. Doing this when I was on a final written warning would have meant that this home time would not be unexpected.

Sacking Clarkson would have an impact on the BBC revenue - although much of this money is from the Top Gear programme, which is more than the one presenter (however significant he is in it). Losing him would result in all significant financial cost from paying him off (possibly twice, because he also has an investment in the worldwide sales of the programme), and from the loss of revenue from sales.

The question is, should this financial loss impact on the decisions the BBC will make? I am all for them considering the financial implications of decisions they make, because they are a publicly funded organisation. But at the end of the day, this is a question of morality, of whether the stars should be allowed more leeway because of the money they generate.

The problem is that I am reminded of the Jimmy Saville era, when he (and a number of others) was allowed to get away with abuse and unacceptable behaviour for many years because he was a "star", and he brought a lot of money into the BBC. But that was wrong - his star status should not have excused his behaviour.

While I am NOT suggesting that Clarkson is guilty of sexual abuse of any sort, he is guilty of abusing people, of being racist, sexist and violent. In my view, irrespective of his "star" status, this should not be tolerated, and he should be sacked.

Of course, he doesn't really care. He is a multimillionaire, much of which has come from his role on Top Gear. He could find some work somewhere if he wanted to, or simply retire and enjoy life. Sacking him would not cause him any real problems, so it is not a threat. Some part of me thinks he might be behaving like this deliberately to get a decent payout so he can then retire with an extra few million in his pocket, and claim to be persecuted.

I used to watch Top Gear, and enjoy it. I haven't for a decade or so, because it has gone from seeing some aspirational cars, understanding where the market is going, providing an insight into the motoring industry to a lads show a sort of Men Behaving Badly. I am not convinced that the other two presenters are actually much better - they have, to a large extent, taken their lead from Clarkson, and this is shown in the other shows they present.

I am a bit of a petrol-head (and I know that this is not entirely consistent with my Green party membership). I enjoy driving good cars. But I do find their arrogant, careless attitude and approach to be broken and mistaken. That is not me, and that is not the only attitude that fits - I want good cars that drive well, and, ideally, are environmentally acceptable. That does not mean that I enjoy watching a group of old men driving strange beat up vehicles across other countries. That doesn't mean that I have to accept their views. That does not make me a lout.

I think it is time to get rid of the louts. It is time to get rid of the celebrities who think they can dictate their own terms. It is time that we stopped celebrating thugishness. Because celebrating being a thug gives real thugs - people who then consider it to acceptable to be offensive and violent - a role model.