Cherie Blair's former adviser has been undeservedly vilified for too long
Some people don't half make you jump. During the Leveson inquiry, there suddenly appeared the velour-tracksuited, crystal-waving spectre of Carole Caplin, as conjured by Alastair Campbell. It transpired Campbell felt bad about accusing Caplin, Cherie Blair's "lifestyle guru", of leaking stories during the Blair years. He has since conceded the high probability that her phone was hacked.
Was this an apology or more of an excuse? Campbell's account, including a tirade by the former newshound against the "putrid" press, certainly gave the impression of someone who was very sorry – sorry that he, a blameless man, had been tricked by outside forces into making wrongful accusations. Oh, right, that kind of "sorry".
In fairness, one of the keynotes of the hacking scandal has been how swiftly victims' lives became noxious swamps of distrust. However, Campbell also told of how he became suspicious that phones were being hacked when meetings with the then culture secretary Tessa Jowell were mysteriously intercepted.
Jowell was culture secretary between 2001 and 2007. This suggests that during the same time period that "media-savvy" Alastair suspected that phones were being hacked, "clueless" Alastair would have been accusing the likes of Caplin of leaking hither and thither, like a Westminster Tena lady. Excuse me, but I'm muddled. Either Campbell was completely oblivious to the hacking or he wasn't? Not even the Sultan of Spin can have it both ways.
By Caplin's account and, it seems, everyone else's, Campbell was vile to her. Never mind her unwitting tryst with conman Peter Foster. From the start, Campbell accused Caplin of being untrustworthy, "trouble" and plotting to sell her story on the Blairs. This seems a special kind of cruelty, not least because it undermined Caplin's friendship with Cherie Blair. I was the journalist at "Lippygate", where Caplin caused a media storm by applying Cherie's lipstick on the PM's bed. Hilarious though it was, even I could see how badly Cherie needed a close female friend.
Moreover, Caplin was trying to earn a living, being denounced as "trouble" can't have been good for business. Nor was it fair, considering that Caplin's only "crimes" were to light fragrant candles and hold colour swatches to Cherie's face. What does all this say about Campbell, a man neck-deep in a toxic political snake pit, who nevertheless makes a life coach his chief point of concern?
Some might ask: who cares about Carole Caplin? Well, maybe we should because, although surrounded by the powerful, she was the "little person" in all this and innocent with it. Only last month, she was in court, receiving newspaper damages for yet another allegation that she was planning to "tell all" on the Blairs, something she's sworn she'll never do.
Which is more than some could say. All that mud slung at Caplin and yet it was Campbell and the rest who got busy, churning out their memoirs. It turns out that the Blairs were right to be loyal to Caplin – she turned out to be more loyal to them than the bulk of Tony Blair's cabinet. Caplin is even loyal to Campbell, having the grace to accept the micro "apologies" that have trickled her way in recent times.
I wonder though – doesn't Caplin deserve more? The Leveson inquiry was always going to be complex, but this doesn't mean it can be used as a blanket amnesty for all misdemeanours, followed by mealy-mouthed self-justifications. As in: "Yeah, sorry about totally assassinating your character, and all that, but I didn't realise about the hacking. Well, I suspected a bit, but you know what I mean?"
Well, not really. To my mind, hacking shouldn't become a convenient one-size-fits-all excuse for everything wrong a hackee ever said or did during their entire public lives. Perhaps Campbell should stop pontificating and self-justifying and, where appropriate, try apologising unreservedly.
If only these silly old men would act their age
Now we know. Jeremy Clarkson prearranged with The One Show that he would say "something" about the strikers, but then got carried away and ranted about executing them in front of their families. Well, it could happen to anyone. Or maybe not.
When Clarkson reflects upon his latest escapade, what are the odds that he will chalk it up to being outrageous, controversial, a petrolhead, non-PC, Norman Mailer character? And what are the odds of him being deluded?
Likewise the former IMF chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahnhan, who now says that his lack of sexual inhibition led to his downfall?
Ah, the old Berlusconi "Flesh is weak" defence. It is invariably trotted out when somebody wants their abject moral incontinence to look red-blooded and wild. As in: "I'm not a bad guy, I'm just too sexy for my shorts!"
Whatever happened to the Grown Man? Women will know what I mean: the sort of man who wouldn't dream of running around in a state of permanent sexual arousal or letting rip about public executions on teatime telly; the kind of man who could be relied upon to be in control of all his thoughts, deeds and utterances, or at least cognisant of them.
Instead, we have the likes of Clarkson and Strauss-Kahn, who appear to view their worst impulses as balloons to let go and watch helplessly as they fly farting around the room.
Sometimes, Clarkson doesn't seem such a bad cove. Then he does something bizarre and depressing like this, afterwards shrugging bashfully, as if he were just a boy caught scrumping apples. "I didn't mean it, mister!"
It seems telling that these types are usually "larger than life" – perhaps kidding themselves that they are every woman's dream. Haven't they seen females dribbling over Mad Men's urbane Don Draper? Maybe there is a lesson there, namely, that mature men behaving like crazed adolescent loons may not be as attractive or forgivable as they think.
Anyone can be a winner of The X Factor… unless you're over 25
There's much gloating about X Factor being a "ratings disaster", but Simon Cowell needn't rush back to save the day on my account. Chez Ellen, we've had a hoot. Marcus Collins owes me a few quid for the times I've drunkenly voted for him, but I don't hold a grudge. The only point of irritation is that every 10 seconds, someone feels the need to chirrup: "Little Mix should win because girl bands never win X Factor."
Your point? No band, male or female, has won X Factor. Winners have always been either "boys" or "girls". Indeed, while I love X Factor's vibrant, liberal, multicultural mix of black, white, male, female, straight, gay (three homosexuals and a lesbian on this series alone), the fact remains that the, ahem, "experienced" are wasting their time.
The over-25s are never taken seriously. Even judge Louis Walsh is routinely viciously attacked for being "old" (hence "irrelevant").
So sorry, Little Mix, talented though you are, but it's besides the point that a girl band hasn't won.
From where I'm sitting, X Factor doesn't have a problem with young girls in bands or, indeed, young anybody.
X Factor has a problem with ageism.