I saw a statement in a forum saying that what David Cameron has been saying in the media is nothing compared to what Jonathon Ross says on every show. Good argument except... as far as I recall Jonathon Ross is not attempting to become the next leader of our country. He is a mildly amusing light entertainer. David Cameron, on the other hand, wants to steer the country. So perhaps their behaviours should not be compared.

Comparisons should be made with say, Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Nelson Mandela and let's add Gordon Brown for good measure. All accomplished diplomats with a rounded view on how a country's affairs should be organised.

Can you imagine any of those four people mimicking a German SS officer when discussing ID cards? Can you imagine any of those four people swearing on national radio? (twice) Can you imagine any of those four people being ridiculed for their lack of diplomacy? Let's not forget the 'lightweight' label either. This guy is seriously flawed but I still suspect we, as a collective, are going to be stupid enough to put him in the hot seat.

I would suggest you start worrying in earnest when you see David Cameron stand in front of the doorway at No10 because every Chancellory of every major nation thinks that when it comes to economics in the credit crunch, Gordon Brown got it right. His economic prowess is admired throughout the G8. He thinks the conservative 'solutions' are naive and unworkable. I would agree if I knew what the hell those 'solutions' were.

See you down the passport office.

Clarkson belches in public - again!

Jeremy Clarkson may well be a popular populist on a highly viewed television programme. He may well even be responsible for the viewing figures though his popularity bewilders me. Jade Goody (bless her) was popular too but I would not have saught her political council and at least she had endearing qualities . He, on the other hand, is simply a loudmouthed buffoon. A self-aggrandising man who, in my opinion, lacks any humor, dignity or humility. He is very big on his own opinions on things outwith his remit. You will gather I do not like the man or his opinions.

If I want political commentary from TV 'personalities' I will watch political programmes and read political articles in the media. I will not look for sensible political commentary from a man so obviously unqualified and biased.

I know the argument is that "Gordon Brown is a cunt!" was stated during a 'not-intended-for-broadcast' section of the recording but for all the consequential media coverage it could have been prime time TV and renders the defence redundant. The same applies to his stupid near-racist (certainly nationalist) comments in Australia in an earlier incident. Jeremy Clarkson? Commenting on someone's appearance? It's a bit rich is it not?

He only has that voice because he presents and represents a BBC TV programme - on motoring!. So the argument that he is not speaking for or on behalf of the BBC is a leaky vessel. His words and actions are intrinsically linked with the corporation. It is as a representative of the BBC that he makes these comments and his lack of punishment suggests an underlying support of his actions. Heaven forbid he should have sullied the image of someone important like the grandaughter of Andrew Sachs.

He is, in my opinion, a man with seriously flawed and offensive political thinking not far removed from fascism and nationalism. His hatred and denunciation of anything non-english is xenophobic and simply not funny. I do not want his opinions foisted upon me. I am not interested. The BBC, by paying his salary condone his political bile and I am registering my distaste as a license payer.

What will it be next? BNP's Nick Griffin presenting the gardening programme?

Everyone has a right to free speech. Some people just abuse the principal and some people (the BBC) supply the vehicle.