Similarly you might remember the furore regarding the Brand/Ross antics a few years ago, involving the grand daughter of a certain forgotten 70s TV sit-com star. They made some explicit sexual references on air which may or may not have been funny. But both Brand and Russell were removed from their shows because the BBC bosses wanted to uphold the high moral ground.

They couldn't possibly be seen as defending presenters offending the public, the very people who fund the Corporation.

Personally I thought they had overreacted because in the case of Kholi, the incident was off-air and was essentially a private matter between the comedian and the woman concerned. Likewise in the case of Brand/Ross, the offence was committed to one individual and, it could be argued, it was rather limited in its scope.

But with Jeremy Clarkson the BBC is flagrantly disregarding the public, decency and taste. I am truly flabbergasted how this vile man can continue working for this organisation even after having insulted the blind, the prime minister, the Germans, the French, public transport workers, the teachers et al.

It seems to me that 'Aunty' is taking 'boys will be boys' attitude. Where was the high moral ground last week, the ground the BBC likes to defend? Where was it when the nation was genuinely offended by the comments Clarkson made on a prime time show early in the evening?

And, as my friend pointed out when I played the devil's advocate and defended Clarkson on the grounds that his comments formed, essentially, tongue in cheek satire, when did he become the cutting edge satirist?

And to rub salt in the wound, the very presenter then writes equally - if not more - offensive comments about suicide victims for The Sun! I mean, really!

Pray, how can that be?

Why hasn't the juvenile, publicity-seeking Clarkson been suspended like the other presenters.

I might argue that unlike Kholi, Persaud and Brand/Ross - whose offences were, to some extent, unintentional - Clarkson is unashamedly offending the very people who the BBC should be protecting. I want to know why? Why is there this hypocritical thinking going on in front of our very eyes, and why hasn't the oafish, xenophobic, sexist, irresponsible Clarkson been removed from the BBC schedule? Top Gear enables Clarkson to make outrageous reactionary comments such his condoning speeding, wrecking speed cameras, undermining bikers and being down right disingenuous to foreigners!

I can't understand it.

Unless, that is, the BBC bosses actually share Clarkson's right-wing outbursts and their taking the high moral ground is (and was) just a front to remove presenters they've fallen out with.

Double standards, what?