Wow. You have some serious ignorant rage. You have literally seen none of the purported offenses and it's very, very evident by your post.
1. There's no denying that he's rude in that post. He does like to stir the pot. Is it wrong to be rude or is a comedian allowed to be rude in the attempt to get laughs?
2. In no part of the post is there anything attempting to explain away anything-- just a more accurate description of what occurred as evidenced by video, not conjecture and snarling Daily Mail outrage.
3. The only thing held against him that could possibly be considered racist was the thing about Mexicans and even that isn't literally racist. It was prejudicial and stereotypical. They got in trouble like that as they should have. Even the accusation that he used the N-word is baseless because he never used the word. He mumbled a placeholder sound that, if you trained your ear to hear it, could sound like it. And then they tossed that take. And then someone dug it up years later.
4. We still don't know if Clarkson actually hit his producer. Read the investigative report. There was a 30-minute drunken verbal assault and then 30 seconds of an "assault". Assault is an attempt or threat to batter (strike or physically harm). You may be happy grunting over your morning coffee at the lack of genuine information, but the law uses specific words for a reason. In NO PART of the document does it say anything about punching, throwing, kicking, etc. 30 seconds is a long time for a person to be throwing punches on someone who does not fight back and for that victim to leave with only a fat lip.
So, if I take your post as any evidence, that long list of explaining what happened in each of the accused offenses in genuine truth (not shallow, detail-less, outrage mongering), is trolling.
I gotcha. Thanks for the insight.
PS -- If you want to disagree with the factual nature of any of the points, then do so by all means. I'll happily go into more detail and support my assertions with external links.