Jeremy Clarkson on Meghan Markle: Using words as weapons can cause real damage

The scars may be invisible but they can be deep and lifelong.

Far too many columnists thrive on abuse - lazy, glib mockery wrapped round the sharpest of tongues - and social media has amplified those voices and given them an audience that applauds like sealions.

Too often they pander to the lowest common denominator, punching down instead of up.

The targets couldn’t be any easier if they were tied to a stake with a sign saying “hit me” pinned to their foreheads.

I don’t get the buckets of vitriol poured over Meghan Markle or Harry.

The media has created a version of a person, and a couple we don’t actually know, and everyone from columnists to phone-in hosts - another bunch that have tumbled down a rabbit hole where debate has been replaced by pitiful shouting matches - then pick apart their shortcomings and character.

Jeremy Clarkson’s woefully misjudged column on how he “hated” Markle more than he hated Rosemary West and Nicola Sturgeon – names plucked at ‘random’ for maximum reaction– sparked a tsunami of complaints; more than any other to IPSO. He sounded the dog whistle, and social media went into meltdown.

Clarkson’s loathing of Markle was an excuse to fire off a column that was as flippant as it was cruel. I reckon it probably took him all of 25 minutes to file before he wandered out to survey his farm.

But Clarkson - who IS a good writer - knows perfectly well words matter, so his “oops clumsy me” response after his own daughter joined an army of critics was just as misjudged. Clumsy is when you spill your tea trying to put your cup on the next to your chair.

His nonsense about dreaming of the day Markle was made to parade naked through the streets of every British town while crowds chant “shame” and throw lumps of excrement over her was bewildering to everyone who didn’t get the Game Of Thrones reference. I didn’t. Even if you did, it was a horrible thing to say.

There is an argument that free speech means the right to offend, to attack, to express strong views, and it does, but there’s something very disturbing about so many middle-aged columnists - mainly men - who punch down at every opportunity, and at the same targets time after time.

Kelvin McKenzie’s description of striking ambulance drivers was so vile and offensive I can’t even repeat it in print - I wouldn’t want to - while Piers Morgan’s constant sniping at Markle is simply awful. It must be exhausting being permanently angry, and then spewing that bile into tweets and print.

Imagine the good they could achieve with the platforms they have if they spoke with clarity and decency. Sadly, that takes a bit more effort than jumping back on the Meghan bandwagon one more time.

Free speech is a cornerstone of our society, but those who have the privilege of a platform – in print, online, on air – have to take responsibility for their words and the damage they can inflict.