FAME, it is said, lasts for 15 minutes. Infamy, on the other hand, lasts a lifetime. I thought Bill Clinton would buck the trend. I thought he'd endured his 15 minutes of infamy and was destined for a lifetime of fame.

He'd left a thriving economy. His record suggested that he genuinely cared for all of his people, and his actions suggested that he was compassionately committed to two of the world's longest running sores: the Middle East and Ireland.

And then at the 12th hour he blew it. Just moments before his presidency ended he pardoned his brother, Roger, for drug dealing in the 1980s, and the multi-millionaire Marc Rich, who has been on the run for at least a decade for tax evasion and racketeering.

Roger was almost immediately arrested on charges of drink-driving. Mr Rich, it now seems, has the closest of links to the Clinton camp and appears to have done little more than buy his pardon.

Clinton's many opponents, who felt he escaped too lightly after his 15 minutes of infamy, have now been given a golden chance to once again rummage through his reputation.

Often in life it matters not how well you have performed but what legacy you leave behind you. As the Rich investigation goes deeper and deeper, it seems inevitable that Clinton's legacy will inevitably be one of sleaze.

And, of course, the pardons are only paper. They have done nothing to enhance the reputation of Bill's brother or of Marc Rich. The public will remember them for the crimes they have committed.

CLINTON'S judgement must now be called into question following his late signing of those pardons. On this side of the water, we also have a question of judgement, this time surrounding the Lord Chancellor.

It must be doubly questioned for not simply soliciting donations from people he might one day have to promote, but also because yesterday in the House of Lords he showed not one drop of contrition. That will ensure that this story continues to run and run.

In my role as a policeman, I came across many barristers and part of their training is to erect "Chinese walls" between their clients. This means that although their clients may be linked, they are able to deal with their cases in complete isolation.

I am sure that Lord Irvine was also building Chinese walls between his very separate roles as a politician and the head of the judiciary. This is why the calls for his resignation are so overblown, especially as in his reform of the legal system - trying to make it more open and representative - he has proved successful.

In his four years in office, Lord Irvine has now been tripped up by his expensive tastes in wallpaper and by his invitation to dinner. And yet he is said to be one of the most intelligent members of the Government. How can such a clever man be caught out by such silly mundane matters?

I may not be as academic as Lord Irvine, but one of the things that has always stayed with me from school is the words of the Greek philosopher Socrates: "I am wise because I know I am not wise."

We can all learn - even Lord Irvine. And I am sure he is wiser than he was at the start of the week, although by his performance yesterday he appears not to have learnt a great deal.

It is amazing how politicians never, ever admit their mistakes. According to them, they are all perfect - apart, of course, from the opposition. But we, the electorate, are not that foolish. We know everyone makes mistakes and if Lord Irvine had had the good grace yesterday to say that he'd committed a bit of a blunder, he probably would have emerged from the episode with his reputation enhanced