The headline of the article confuses me. When I read the body of the article, that seems to say that the protestor assaulted the newspaper person who then proceded to defend himself.

Yeah I know, each legal jurisdiction follows different rules and I have no idea what applies in Great Britain. Here in Massachusetts, if you hit or throw something at anybody, that person is required to retreat and let the police handle it IF RETREAT IS POSSIBLE (if there was a wall behind him, no way past you, he could beat the crap out of you and not face charges -- YOU attacked him). But in most US states the person can use whatever force is necessary to subdue you. In Great Britain???

This is NOT meant to indicate disapproval of symbolic assaults by creme pie, etc. (I think ridicule is a great tactic). But I do find it annoying when people don't think about what they are doing and refuse to accept the reasonable consequences of their actions. We can't be crying "unfair" afterwards if we choose to use these tactics and the target decides not to respond "proportionally" (that's THEIR choice).

get a life yankee dickhead

There is absolutely no need for verbal abuse.
OK, so we're all very concerned about what's going on in the US but that does not mean to say that all Americans are in on it for goodness' sake!
I would say that having a beer thrown over you is probably just as much an assault as having your face grabbed, even if it is more of an assault on the ego which is - of course - a big thing for most males of the species.
It is vital to maintain perspective or you become just as narrow-minded and bigoted as those you oppose.

The Undercurrents website linked from this article explains,

START
"Big Brother organiser Simon Davies said:

"I'm utterly perplexed and dismayed at the actions at the award last night. As any activist group knows, t's hard enough getting support for our actions. Now it's public knowledge that even our heroes of civil rights are under threat if they attend an award" "
END

If right-wing newspapers and appologists for the secret service are 'heroes of civil rights' who are it's enemies?

I think it's a shame Undercurrents only report on pies and not the main awards. Would have been nice to hear more about the rest of the event and see somne other pictures.

Very Confused said "If right-wing newspapers and appologists for the secret service are 'heroes of civil rights' who are it's enemies?" As it says at  http://www.undercurrents.org/bigbrotherart.htm ...

---start extract---
This year, judges decided that the Telegraph should win a "Winston" for its 'Free Country Campaign'. One strand led by the assistant editor called for 'Cops, not cameras' believing that 'the boys in blue will always be more effective than Big Brother.' As Mr Robinson left the celebrations, a man in suit threw a pint of beer over his head. A heated exchange took place until an organiser of the event intervened. The protester claimed that the newspaper wasn't defending civil rights but was just running a campaign against the Labour Government.
---end extract---

The Telegraph got the award because they're running a campaign for less state snooping and interference in people's lives. I don't see why the fact it's a "right-wing newspaper" should have anything to do with it. When the protester complained that the Telegraph was just running a campaign against the Labour Government he was talking cobblers. The Telegraph *does* run campaigns against the government but, and here are two points...
[A] In this country newspapers often criticise the government. It is considered desireable and unremarkable.
[B] The 'Free Country Campaign' is directed against state snooping and interference in general, not against a particular political party.

Shayler was pied because he expressed support for the legal activites of the intelligence services. Note: his support is for their *legal* activities (spying on enemies), but he has worked very hard to bring their *illegal* activities to light. This seems a very reasonable stance, and worthy of an award. Just because he doesn't think the intelligence services should be disbanded doesn't make him an apologist.

And Mike is right the headline is misleading. A protestor attacked the Telegraph man, not the other way round.

The protestor didn't, as far as I can tell, claim the Telegraph was attacking the Labour government. I think he was trying to point out that awarding the Telegraph a prize for "defending rights" was more than a little inconsistent alongside the Telegraph's attacks on the right to strike (witness its treatment of SWT workers) and the right to asylum. It's not the worst offender in either regard, but it seems a fair point.

Undercurrents headline was right...what i saw was that the telegraph guy ran across a crowded bar and grabbed the guys face so i reckon it was an attack. Thats not any way for a editor of a national newspaper to behave now is it?