I’m sure you’ll join me this week in wishing Sir Michael Parkinson all the best with his threat to “sue the arse off” his unemployed cousin, Malcolm Tonge, and the Barnsley Chronicle newspaper, where he began his illustrious journalistic career. Sir Michael is vexed that Tonge wrote a home-made pamphlet challenging some details in Parky’s bestselling autobiography, and describing his late father as, among other things, “bombastic, selfish and money-grabbing” some of which was published in his local paper.

The lovable chat-show host has now engaged the London libel solicitors Carter Ruck to launch legal proceedings. “You are treading on my reputation and my father’s reputation,” he said. “For them to say these things about him only displays their deep and utter jealousy.”

Oh dearie me. It’s never pretty when relatives bicker like this, especially when one of them is a national treasure and fronts a fine advert for funerals in which you get a free Parker pen “just for inquiring”. Even so, some might regard any threat by a millionaire to sue a redundant glass-factory worker who claims to have “got nowt” to be a fraction heavy handed.

No one would blame a man for wanting to defend his father, but Sir Michael is a wise old pro. Surely he knows that by running to the lawyers and demanding his old newspaper show him the article before publication he has turned a little family squabble into a national talking point and made himself look as precious as many of the luvvies he interviews?

Surely he can see that it’s a bit rum kicking off about the reputations of the dead when he stuck the boot into Jade Goody, calling her “ignorant and puerile” when she was scarcely cold in her grave? Maybe not. Maybe he’s still got stardust in his eyes from all that time spent flirting with the Beckhams and he believes that his status as the housewives’ favourite makes him beyond reproach.

But then Parky is only doing what all celebrities seem to do these days — phoning a lawyer. One of our more embarrassing national truths is that, for celebrities, London is now the world’s defamation capital.

Yes, so easy is it for actors, pop stars and supermodels to trouser a few thousand quid over an unflattering adjective, a cheeky anecdote or a former employee painting them as less than gorgeous that they flock here in sunglasses and blacked-out cars for comfort in the arms of m’learned friends.

The number of celebrities suing here has doubled since 2005, with many flying in from the US and Australia to launch cases because they know that they’ll get a more plaintiff-friendly time of it. I’d like to give you a list of hilarious, vainglorious celebrity libel actions but I can’t, because they might sue. Isn’t that pathetic? What kind of a nation are we? Oh, yes I remember. One that’ll pay £2 to read in a sycophantic magazine that an EastEnders star has a lovely home.

Of course there are a gazillion celebrity magazines now and thus in theory more platforms on which the famous might be defamed. But there is also something called Conditional Fee Arrangement — the no-win, no-fee legislation that some greedy lawyers (allegedly) use to urge their clients to sue over piffling slights then ramp up their costs to newspapers and magazines.

So the plaintiff might secure £5,000 in damages, barely enough to cover their monthly masseuse bill, but the lawyer lands the publisher with a legal bill of £800,000, often leading publications to settle early without airing valid defences.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has called for the UK to re-examine the use of no-win no-fee arrangements in defamation cases.

But the real miracle these days is that any celebrity gets libelled at all. The control freakery routinely exhibited by not all, but many celebrities and their agents over the most anodyne interview would leave the average fan catching flies in their mouth.

You want a lifestyle interview with X? OK, we’ll need a guaranteed plug for their clothing and soft-furnishings range, we pick the writer, stylist and photographer, the PR sits in on the chat to veto any tricky questions and there will be NO mention of X’s spouse/ home life/recent drink-driving conviction. Naturally we’ll need to vet the copy beforehand as well, an (only slightly exaggerated) exchange might go.

A journalist friend of mine once interviewed the wife of a famous pop star for a glossy magazine. As usual her agent demanded that she see the (very complimentary) article before publication and as usual it came back with red pen through it. One thing she objected to was being referred to as Y’s “third wife”. But she is his third wife, argued the writer. Yes, but she doesn’t like being referred to as such, came the reply. And so this information — an unarguable matter of fact — was duly removed from the article.

If you doubt how petty celebrities can be over innocuous details, read a highly entertaining interview in the Daily Mirror from 2001 with Richard and Judy, who were promoting a new TV show. They had demanded to “tweak” the article before publication, and in doing so rewrote 1,375 words — half the article. Piers Morgan, who was at that time the Editor, took the rather splendid approach of publishing both versions side by side to give the reader a small but revealing insight into celebrity lala land.

In such a craven climate, when Bono will pursue a lengthy high court case — and win — for the return of an old pair of leather trousers from a former U2 stylist, it’s little wonder that celebs are willing to consult lawyers as casually as they swat away a bluebottle.

It’s just that we expected more from Parky, a seasoned hack who in his day (pre the more recent brown-nose style of interrogation) was a hugely talented interviewer and definitely less celebrity, more journalist. Maybe he has now shed his old skin and completed the transformation into fully fledged luvvie. But suing the respectable local paper that set him on the road to riches would not be his finest hour. Indeed, as a fellow Yorkshireman might say: “Stop being mardy and get over tha sen.”

Times Recommends

• Strip away the figleaf and reveal naysayers
• Dave’n’George: there may be trouble ahead
• I do not accept that £64,000 a year for politicians is peanuts