To the pie thrower...........brilliant!

The populations of two more towns in Iraq are being exterminated, and this New Labour (New Reich) mass distraction propaganda fills Indymedia and other places??? Well done, Blair's goons, you're well on your way to hitting your MEDIA-DISTRACTION targets this month.

Of course, selling out humanity for whatever short term prizes Blair awards you somewhat puzzles me. I mean, you stormtroopers cheer Blair today just as the nazis cheered Hitler back in the 30's, and like the nazis back then, you happily flood media outlets with your distraction propaganda, pushing out stories of the atrocities committed by your Masters. However, come 1945, what exactly did your soulmate nazis ACTUALLY achieve for themselves. Every major german city flattened, and tens's of millions of germans dead.

Blair won't be playing with firebombs, though. His toys will be nuclear weapons, and weaponised viruses. When he has finished, UK cities won't just be flattened, but uninhabitable for decades. He won't kill millions across the globe, but billions. So, when you push your Jeremy Clarkson crap, or whatever else is designed to stop the REAL STORIES getting publicity, what is it that you receive, that will make up for the misery that you and EVERY member of you family will suffer in the future. Yes, I know this thought didn't stop the nazis supporting Hitler, or the Japanese supporting their warlords, but isn't it time for humans to get smarter, before we ALL get DEAD???

Nice action, shame no one actually wrote up about it for Indymedia eh!

I was scared that I thought the Daily Mail report made sense - until I realised it is the same report on all the corp-links - some with one para changed here or there - aren't new agencies brilliant. But it very simple article does cover the background, what happens and what the protestors said. We (as Indy activists) should be able to manage that!

Hey Twighlight (ever thought of changing your handle to 'Earnest' BTW???)

"The populations of two more towns in Iraq are being exterminated, and this New Labour (New Reich) mass distraction propaganda fills Indymedia and other places???"

Clarkson and the whole 'Top Gear' attitude is symbolic of the arrogance of the peak oil mentality, of how nothing on the planet matters as long as 'we' can continue to drive our gas-guzzling cars anywhere 'we' like, be it through environmentally sensitive peat bogs or over the top of cyclists who happen to get in 'our' way. His attitude is DIRECTLY LINKED to the plundering of Iraq for its oil resources so that America can continue to dive, drive, drive, and who gives a shit if a few ragheads get in the way. His attitude is DIRECTLY LINKED to the supremacy of cars over people and communities when Bush asks for more oil from other countries before he asks for aid to save the people in New Orleans who are drowning or dying of dysentry. And what caused the (or at least exacerbated) Katrina in the first place??? Nothing to do with the Clarksons of this world who couldn't give a shit about global warming as long as they can drive their (not so) little motor cars around no matter what?

Pie-ing Clarkson makes the point in a way which is actually funny for once. Have we forgotten the value of Radical Bufoonery (Buffo)???

Well that was long overdue. Nice one.

Violence is wrong, whether to the planet or to an individual. A pie in the face may look a good laugh, but it doesn't help anyone understand the issues better, or even decide to change their way of thinking...
Certainly it raises the level of publicity, but then whoever did it has no doubt raised Clarkson's fees for his increased celebrity.
Two scenarios:
- instead of a pie, how about just shooting him dead? This would stop him saying anything any more, and increase the level of publicity hugely
- if he had say, a serious allergy, and your pie had a trace of allergic material, he could easily be dead and an "innocent" joke would misfire spectacularly
Can't say it enough - violence is wrong. Raise the issue a different, peaceful, way.

The distribution of airborne custard pies and rotten fruit to pompous public figures is a traditional form of political discourse, in this country and others. It may technically constitute a common assault, but common assault is a pretty minor offence, and doesn't necessarily encompass any form of "violence". To imply that pieing someone is a form of violence is just silly.
Here we have Radjel, advocating shooting Clarkson, and in the same breath declaring that "violence is wrong". I suppose that was meant ironically; but Radjel is not the first commentator to have suggested the firearms alternative, and the irony (if that's what it was) didn't work.
Let's not render the word "violence" meaningless. Violence is aggression that results in real injury and death, not just injured pride.

Of course throwing a pie at somebody is an act of violence.

"The unlawful exercise of physical force. Intimidation by the exercise of this". COD.

There is now mention of it having to cause real injury to be violence. There is plenty of violence in schoool playgrounds, and the children all go home in one piece.

Actually, this pie was more pushed into the face than thrown.

driving over a peat bog in a 4x4 is violence to humans, animals, and the planet.

acting as if the "earth can look after itself" is violence (ditto).

lions eating gazelles is violence.

earthquakes are violent.

boo, hiss - ban 'em all, or let's just go up an alley endlessly and forget any idea of focus, never mind actually taking action on our beliefs. posting guff here is so much easier and worthwhile, and non-violent, apart from the journey of the substances that make up this computer (ditto). blah blah

Perhaps I'd better make it quite clear that I was in no way advocating the assassination of minor celeb Clarkson.

I assumed that whoever threw, pushed, or otherwise resculpted Mr Clarkson's face with this "pie" did so to get more publicity than might be had by standing around with a placard. Or stopping him being offered his degree in the first place.

The point I was making, obviously quite ineffectually, was that this was a "violence to get publicity" action in the same way that doing something very obviously up the violence scale is. Just because it's only a "little bit" violent doesn't make it better or ok, because, for example, there are potential unplanned consequences of the allergy type I described. That's like the government saying that a new law only infringes human rights a little bit so that's ok.

And as for the idea that just because something's "traditional" then it's ok? That would justify all sorts of things, from foxhunting to corporal punishment in schools or smacking children at home or the liberal use of carbon-based fuel.

If you think that violence of any sort is wrong, that's your choice. If you want to post those views on IM and applaud what you've done, then that's your choice as well. But once you've posted, expect to have people with alternative views respond with their thoughts.

And if you are into conspiracy theories, it may be that Brookes decided that this was a good way to more publicity and organised it themselves. Hence Clarkson ready with his verbal reposte. Perhaps whoever pied Clarkson would like to tell us all what the real objective was?.