JEREMY Clarkson is an arrogant, opinionated, egotistical self-publicist.

On The One Show, he was just doing what it says on the tin.

Should he therefore be sacked for gaining publicity by being arrogant and opinionated, and for being so egotistical that he can’t see the stupidity of his own argument?

Mr Clarkson, who receives a £1m salary from the licence fee payer, is a bigger drain on the public purse than the “gilt-edged pensions” of civil servants that he was condemning. Silly man, he is too blinkered and pompous to see that.

But should he be made to shut up just because he is silly? After all, his comments about shooting strikers have revealed a great deal about himself. He opines on television, radio and in newspaper columns – now all who hear and read him must know that he is so detached from reality that his opinions have little serious merit.

The transcript of Mr Clarkson’s interview suggests that he was also trying to parody the BBC’s need for balance.

He was trying to send it up by offering an outrageous anti-strike stance to counter pro-strike comments.

Only it came out all wrong.

His gaffe is in a different league to that of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand who used their position of power to sexually humiliate a younger girl and an older man. By contrast, Mr Clarkson has only made himself look a fool.

Life – and entertainment programmes like The One Show – would be very boring if all colourful opinions were exorcised. Shows like Mock the Week, where right-wingers like Margaret Thatcher are regularly lampooned without much complaint, would not be broadcast.

And on Top Gear – a motoring programme that has no serious analysis of motors – Mr Clarkson can be boisterously entertaining.

Mr Clarkson’s critics should rise above his ridiculous taunts. The furore is only dignifying his opinions. It makes it look as if they count for something, whereas really everyone knows they are the words of an arrogant, opinionated, egotistical self-publicist.