Then there are those who call Clarkson a dinosaur, someone who does not share their views on the environment, on political correctness or some "ism" of which they are particularly fond. This at least is more honest, but I think we can afford to move past them, too, in our seach for worthwhile lessons.
Let's turn to the comparison with Savile. Obviously it is fatuous to compare a row over cold food with Savile's crimes or those who have spoken up for Clarkson with those who covered for Savile but, nonetheless, the Savile affair does have relevance to the way in which the row has evolved.
To illustrate the point I take you back to about 1970. The scene: the washbasins of a large public lavatory under a square in the centre of Amsterdam where I and another perfectly respectable gap-year tourist were trying to shave. It might help if I explain that Dutch public lavatories in the 1970s were not particularly salubrious - ours was full of drug addicts and there were sinister grunting noises coming from the cubicles, many of which had several occupants.
Still, we had been living in a tent before coming to town and we needed a wash and a shave - so there we were.
The honest burghers of Amsterdam were fully aware of the unsavoury clientele which their facilities attracted and so had appointed an attendant to keep an eye on them.
He was a worried looking man, understandably nervous of his task - should he tackle the drug takers, muttering in a crazed manner in the corner? They looked dangerously unstable. What about rooting out the men from the cubicles. How many were they and would they protect each other? What about that gang over there dressed in leather? Perhaps not.
Yet, for the sake of his self-respect, he had to throw someone out. Fearlessly he crossed the floor and told two respectable young Englishman that there was a rule against shaving and that if they didn't leave he would call the police.
Now move the lens back to the BBC following Jimmy Savile. Dreadful things occurred and were covered up; so far as the dogs barked, management did not listen.
What is needed to restore self-respect and trust? Diligence and zero tolerance, that's what. Examples must be made and an easy target is needed. They have no young Englishman shaving, but here is some oikish behaviour by a big star ... that will do nicely.
Actually the stupidest remark in the whole affair is the insistence by some pundit that in deciding what to do, the BBC should ignore Clarkson's status and just apply the rules as they would if one junior employee assaulted and abused another.
That approach may be desirable in a court but the management of a large organisation is different. There, management are responsible for the health of the BBC and they must take the value of their asset into account.
Of course, they must balance it against the disruptive effect on other staff of Clarkson being seen to get preferential treatment.
I do not imagine that the management of television stars is an easy occupation but if the upshot of all this is that the BBC loses Top Gear and they then have to ask the licence-holders to make up the lost earnings, people will want to know why. This case is as much about the BBC as it is about Jeremy Clarkson.
-John Watson writes from Islington in London.
