Clarkson as real life situation: TOK presentation

What is your perception of Jeremy Clarkson? Is he an anarchic TV personality who should be applauded for his outspoken honesty or is he a tool of the privately educated capitalist bigots who should themselves be locked up for fomenting hatred? Or is he a man who on TV made a joke which due to its hyperbolic nature and his inability to shut up when ahead has led to his vilification in the press and a sharp rise in book sales?
Certainly his humour was not well considered and I suggest you look at my Charlie Hebdo post for more in this context. But, legal action? It seems the lawyers has a similar response judging from the inability of the unionista I heard on PM, who was not going to answer the question about precise legal advice,no matter how often it was asked.
But: TOK. The language was designed to irritate and it succeeded. One complainant to the Guardian is certain that he was serious. How? Is ad hominem so accurate that it can detect nuance of delivery? Satire is a tricky thing. Would 2100 souls complain over a similar outburst by a left wing
Comedian poking fun at the aristocracy? Probably not. The huge majority of complaints have arrived after a day of largely hostile and context-free news coverage. Is Clarkson really this offensive?
Consider the use of comedy in puncturing the grandeur and hypocrisy of governments and politicos of all parties. I comment elsewhere that dictators fear music because the emotional response can not be predicted or controlled. It seems that the commissars are equally affected of comedy. Thanks to the intemperate response to a feeble and possibly offensive joke, the result is a huge wave of publicity which is unlikely to work against Clarkson. Was it all orchestrated by his publicists?