Clarkson pie-eyed

[Ian Gregory]

antgel wrote:

> The pie thrower is a self-righteous idiot imo. Fine, disagree, but show
> a bit of class, not to mention intelligence, by making your point in a
> way that might actually make a difference to society. She might as well
> have stayed at home.

You may disagree with the politics of pieing, but pre-splat
most people were probably unaware of the fact that Mr Clarkson
was receiving an honorary degree and now it is splashed over
all the newspapers. When was the last time you did anything
that warranted national media attention?

I bet there were many who fantasised about planting the pie
themselves (and Jeremy even said he wore an old suit because
he was expecting it) but Denise Lock was the one who took on
the challenge and succeeded in her mission. Unless you happen
to know her then your opinion of her is nothing more than
speculation imo. For more information pastry politics see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_Baking_Brigade

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

 

[antgel]

Ian Gregory wrote:
> antgel wrote:
>
>
>>The pie thrower is a self-righteous idiot imo. Fine, disagree, but show
>>a bit of class, not to mention intelligence, by making your point in a
>>way that might actually make a difference to society. She might as well
>>have stayed at home.
>
>
> You may disagree with the politics of pieing, but pre-splat
> most people were probably unaware of the fact that Mr Clarkson
> was receiving an honorary degree and now it is splashed over
> all the newspapers. When was the last time you did anything
> that warranted national media attention?

Who cares? Looking at the things that warrant national media attention,
e.g. drinking, dieting, reality tv, mobile phones, I can honestly say
that it's not anything I aspire to. Besides any idiot can do it. I
could certainly get in the national media if I wanted. I would just
stand in Picadilly Circus naked, and perhaps **** on the pavement.

> I bet there were many who fantasised about planting the pie
> themselves (and Jeremy even said he wore an old suit because
> he was expecting it) but Denise Lock was the one who took on
> the challenge and succeeded in her mission.

What challenge? What mission? Is Britain so lazy and pathetic that we
see it as a challenge and mission to shove a pie in someone's face?

> Unless you happen
> to know her then your opinion of her is nothing more than
> speculation imo. For more information pastry politics see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_Baking_Brigade

I'll read that when I have nothing better to do. My opinion of her is
not speculation, it is based on the _fact_ that she carried out a
cowardly and criminal act. Let me get this straight, you're saying that
one is only allowed to have an opinion on a person who one knows personally?

 

[MichaelB]

He is doing rather well financially, as village idiot. Far better, I
suspect, than most of the village idiots on this group.

That is the kind of thing a total loser says. Only people who cant excel at anything else see money as a measure of success because they cant fulfil their esteem needs any other way.

Clarkson is a total disgrace. He blatantly encourages totally unskilled motorists to speed and drive irresponsibly and for that the man should have a grenade thrown in his face not a pie.

Every racing driver I know has serious issues with motorists driving fast; they are a complete danger and this man encourages it along with the immoral motor manufactures that sell cars on the basis that they are 'sporty' when really they are innapropriate and dangerous.

Imagine a man in the street trying to get a tennis ball up to 130mph and within a tennis court - he would not be able to as he has no skills. So why then do people think they can drive a car fast when they have no experience of controlling or feeling a car? The truth is they are passangers relying on the stability that engineers build into road cars and when they push it too far and step over this they crash.

 

[Ian Gregory]

antgel wrote:
> Ian Gregory wrote:
>
>> Unless you happen
>> to know her then your opinion of her is nothing more than
>> speculation imo. For more information pastry politics see:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_Baking_Brigade
>
> I'll read that when I have nothing better to do. My opinion of her is
> not speculation, it is based on the _fact_ that she carried out a
> cowardly and criminal act. Let me get this straight, you're saying that
> one is only allowed to have an opinion on a person who one knows personally?

No I am not - allow me to clarify. When I said "unless you know her"
I should have said "unless you know much more about her than has been
revealed in media reports (for example by knowing her)".

The _fact_ is that she planted a banoffie pie in Jeremy Clarkson's
face. Whether or not the act was "cowardly" is a matter of opinion.
Whether or not it was criminal depends on a number of things - how
do you know it wasn't a stunt dreamed up by his publicist? And even
dismissing that as an unlikely possibility, I very much doubt that
he will bother filing criminal charges.

But if you wish to make an evaluation of the woman's character
based on a single (possibly uncharacteristic) action that you
disapprove of then so be it. You can call it your opinion but
I call it speculation.

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

 

[Wally]

MichaelB wrote:

>> He is doing rather well financially, as village idiot. Far better, I
>> suspect, than most of the village idiots on this group.

> That is the kind of thing a total loser says. Only people who cant
> excel at anything else see money as a measure of success because they
> cant fulfil their esteem needs any other way.

Let me guess - you live in a hole in the ground, and eat gravel for your
tea.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

 

[Geraint Jones]

The Nottingham Duck <[email protected]> submitted:
| Perhaps you could e-mail your reply to the families of the victims of
| the London bombings.

M'lud, I plead Godwin's.

 

[Antony Gelberg]

MichaelB wrote:
> ian henden Wrote:
>
>>
>>He is doing rather well financially, as village idiot. Far better, I
>>suspect, than most of the village idiots on this group.
>
>
>
> That is the kind of thing a total loser says. Only people who cant
> excel at anything else see money as a measure of success because they
> cant fulfil their esteem needs any other way.

True, money is not a measure of success. But there is no need to call
Ian a loser. Two wrongs don't make a right. I could argue that only
people who can't excel at anything else slate people on Usenet because
they can't fulfil their esteem needs any other way.

> Clarkson is a total disgrace. He blatantly encourages totally
> unskilled motorists to speed and drive irresponsibly and for that the
> man should have a grenade thrown in his face not a pie.

I hope this is a metaphor. Should the blame not lie with the idiots who
listen to his tongue-in-cheek persona? This isn't (officially) a nanny
state.

> Every racing driver I know has serious issues with motorists driving
> fast; they are a complete danger and this man encourages it along with
> the immoral motor manufactures that sell cars on the basis that they
> are 'sporty' when really they are innapropriate and dangerous.

Do you have the same venom for, say, Courtney Cox or Dr Atkins for
driving women to starve themselves and develop eating disorders? (That
is a cancer within society that I predict we have only just peeked under
the lid at.)

> Imagine a man in the street trying to get a tennis ball up to 130mph
> and within a tennis court - he would not be able to as he has no
> skills. So why then do people think they can drive a car fast when
> they have no experience of controlling or feeling a car? The truth is
> they are passangers relying on the stability that engineers build into
> road cars and when they push it too far and step over this they crash.

You could say the same for unskilled cyclists or unskilled anything.

 

[Antony Gelberg]

Ian Gregory wrote:
> antgel wrote:
>
>>Ian Gregory wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Unless you happen
>>>to know her then your opinion of her is nothing more than
>>>speculation imo. For more information pastry politics see:
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_Baking_Brigade
>>
>>I'll read that when I have nothing better to do. My opinion of her is
>>not speculation, it is based on the _fact_ that she carried out a
>>cowardly and criminal act. Let me get this straight, you're saying that
>>one is only allowed to have an opinion on a person who one knows personally?
>
>
> No I am not - allow me to clarify. When I said "unless you know her"
> I should have said "unless you know much more about her than has been
> revealed in media reports (for example by knowing her)".
>
> The _fact_ is that she planted a banoffie pie in Jeremy Clarkson's
> face. Whether or not the act was "cowardly" is a matter of opinion.

True.

> Whether or not it was criminal depends on a number of things - how
> do you know it wasn't a stunt dreamed up by his publicist? And even
> dismissing that as an unlikely possibility, I very much doubt that
> he will bother filing criminal charges.
>
> But if you wish to make an evaluation of the woman's character
> based on a single (possibly uncharacteristic) action that you
> disapprove of then so be it. You can call it your opinion but
> I call it speculation.

The facts speak for themselves. Whether the action was uncharacteristic
is neither here nor there. If I **** in the middle of the street it
doesn't matter how characteristic it is, it makes me look like a bit of
a **** (assuming mental illness is not to blame).

FWIW, my evaluation of her character is based on more than the one
action, namely her pompous comments to the media afterwards.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On 13 Sep 2005 19:49:17 GMT, Ian Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:

>antgel wrote:
>> Ian Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you happen
>>> to know her then your opinion of her is nothing more than
>>> speculation imo. For more information pastry politics see:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_Baking_Brigade
>>
>> I'll read that when I have nothing better to do. My opinion of her is
>> not speculation, it is based on the _fact_ that she carried out a
>> cowardly and criminal act. Let me get this straight, you're saying that
>> one is only allowed to have an opinion on a person who one knows personally?
>
>No I am not - allow me to clarify. When I said "unless you know her"
>I should have said "unless you know much more about her than has been
>revealed in media reports (for example by knowing her)".
>
>The _fact_ is that she planted a banoffie pie in Jeremy Clarkson's
>face. Whether or not the act was "cowardly" is a matter of opinion.
>Whether or not it was criminal depends on a number of things - how
>do you know it wasn't a stunt dreamed up by his publicist?

So if some 'hoodie' throws a brick at you,and claims you asked him to
do it then its not aggravated assault ?


And even
>dismissing that as an unlikely possibility, I very much doubt that
>he will bother filing criminal charges.
>
>But if you wish to make an evaluation of the woman's character
>based on a single (possibly uncharacteristic) action that you
>disapprove of then so be it. You can call it your opinion but
>I call it speculation.
>
>Ian

The woman is an ********.If she had any 'balls'-or rather if her
convctions were so strong,why not try sticking a blade into Tony Blair
?

You defending her reflects badly on yourself.
People may describe you as a silly sausage !!!

 

[Ian Gregory]

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 19:49:17 GMT, Ian Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The _fact_ is that she planted a banoffie pie in Jeremy Clarkson's
>>face. Whether or not the act was "cowardly" is a matter of opinion.
>>Whether or not it was criminal depends on a number of things - how
>>do you know it wasn't a stunt dreamed up by his publicist?
>
> So if some 'hoodie' throws a brick at you,and claims you asked him to
> do it then its not aggravated assault ?

So if I go to the school fete and pay 50p to throw a water balloon
at the teacher then it is agravated assault?

> The woman is an ********.If she had any 'balls'-or rather if her
> convctions were so strong,why not try sticking a blade into Tony Blair?

Because she believes that it is wrong to inflict pain on sentient
beings? Because she thinks that Tony Blair is a decent chap? She
knows the answer to that question, we don't. Are you suggesting she
should try knifing the Prime Minister?

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

 

[Antony Gelberg]

Ian Gregory wrote:
> The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>
>>On 13 Sep 2005 19:49:17 GMT, Ian Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The _fact_ is that she planted a banoffie pie in Jeremy Clarkson's
>>>face. Whether or not the act was "cowardly" is a matter of opinion.
>>>Whether or not it was criminal depends on a number of things - how
>>>do you know it wasn't a stunt dreamed up by his publicist?
>>
>>So if some 'hoodie' throws a brick at you,and claims you asked him to
>>do it then its not aggravated assault ?
>
>
> So if I go to the school fete and pay 50p to throw a water balloon
> at the teacher then it is agravated assault?

No. The teacher agreed to it (presumably).

 

[Ian Gregory]

Antony Gelberg wrote:
> Ian Gregory wrote:
>> The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 Sep 2005 19:49:17 GMT, Ian Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The _fact_ is that she planted a banoffie pie in Jeremy Clarkson's
>>>>face. Whether or not the act was "cowardly" is a matter of opinion.
>>>>Whether or not it was criminal depends on a number of things - how
>>>>do you know it wasn't a stunt dreamed up by his publicist?
>>>
>>>So if some 'hoodie' throws a brick at you,and claims you asked him to
>>>do it then its not aggravated assault ?
>>
>>
>> So if I go to the school fete and pay 50p to throw a water balloon
>> at the teacher then it is agravated assault?
>
> No. The teacher agreed to it (presumably).

Exactly my point! The implication of me suggesting that it _could_
have been a publicity stunt was that Jeremy had agreed to it (and
that it was therefore not a criminal act).

If I asked someone to pie me and they did then that would not be
assault _but_ (and this is where I thought Mr Duck was arguing
on a different tack) if I asked someone (regardless of their choice
of attire) to throw a brick at me and they did, and if I was
seriously hurt they could be charged with assault occasioning
actual bodily harm even though I asked them to do it - and even if
I requested that charges should not be brought. For the legal
arguments check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

 

[ian henden]

"MichaelB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> ian henden Wrote:
>>
>>
>> He is doing rather well financially, as village idiot. Far better, I
>> suspect, than most of the village idiots on this group.
>
>
> That is the kind of thing a total loser says. Only people who cant
> excel at anything else see money as a measure of success because they
> cant fulfil their esteem needs any other way.
>
> Clarkson is a total disgrace.

But he's a well-off one.

He blatantly encourages totally
> unskilled motorists to speed and drive irresponsibly and for that the
> man should have a grenade thrown in his face not a pie.

And he earns a lot of readies for doing so,

>
> Every racing driver I know has serious issues with motorists driving
> fast; they are a complete danger and this man encourages it along with
> the immoral motor manufactures that sell cars on the basis that they
> are 'sporty' when really they are innapropriate and dangerous.
>

Serious thread drift here.....

> Imagine a man in the street trying to get a tennis ball up to 130mph
> and within a tennis court - he would not be able to as he has no
> skills. So why then do people think they can drive a car fast when
> they have no experience of controlling or feeling a car? The truth is
> they are passangers relying on the stability that engineers build into
> road cars and when they push it too far and step over this they crash.
>
When you first learned to drive, you were decidedly dodgy at 20 mph. (I know
*I* was). With experience, you were soon quite happy at 20, 30, 40,,,
giddy heights of 60 and so on.

The main reason for higher-speed inadequacy in the motorist (i.e. poor
motorway driving) is our pathetic, patronisingly low 70 mph limit, set in
the days when half the cars on the road had cable brakes and carthorse
spring suspension. How can motorists gain experience at higher proper
speeds unless they are allowed to do those speeds? (police officers on
jollies otherwise excepted).

In this day and age, a motorway speed limit of 80 or 90 would be more
appropriate .... with genuine enforcement of *properly* displayed lower
speed limits on gantries *when justified* e.g. in poor weather. IOW -
higher limits, but with more discipline!

 

[MartinM]

ian henden wrote:


> In this day and age, a motorway speed limit of 80 or 90 would be more
> appropriate .... with genuine enforcement of *properly* displayed lower
> speed limits on gantries *when justified* e.g. in poor weather. IOW -
> higher limits, but with more discipline!

"Where justified" actually includes due to higher traffic volume, that
is precisely why the M25 VSL was introduced. Having an upper speed
limit of 80-90 would be a disaster as it would reduce the already
stretched capacity of the network, not to mention the increased
accidents from morons who don't know anything about braking distance
and drive Russian roulette stylee up peoples' backsides.

 

[Richard]

Antony Gelberg wrote:

>> So if I go to the school fete and pay 50p to throw a water balloon
>> at the teacher then it is agravated assault?
>
>
> No. The teacher agreed to it (presumably).

You can't agree to be assaulted under English law. See, eg, the
Spanner case. There are a few well-documented exceptions, eg boxing.
Water-ballooning at a school fete is not one of them.

R.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:17:52 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>In this day and age, a motorway speed limit of 80 or 90 would be more
>appropriate

As it says in "the Guardian" today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1569430,00.html

>>If motorists want to save energy and money then, on AA Trust
>>figures, merely driving at the legal limit of 70mph instead
>>of 80mph would save 40p every 10 miles.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:51:01 +0100 someone who may be The Nottingham
Duck <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I'm glad you view terrorism so lightly.
>Perhaps you could e-mail your reply to the families of the victims of
>the London bombings.

It is revealing that you compare the blowing up of some electricity
pylons in relatively open country with the blowing up of people on
trains and buses in the middle of a city.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[dkahn400]

Peter B wrote:
> "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Pie throwing, flower bomb throwing, etc is a form of assault
> > unless the recipient is a willing party.
>
> Flower bombs eh? Would that be a spray attack?

By a stalker?

--
Dave...

 

[Ian Gregory]

In article <[email protected]>, Richard wrote:
> Antony Gelberg wrote:
>
>>> So if I go to the school fete and pay 50p to throw a water balloon
>>> at the teacher then it is agravated assault?
>>
>>
>> No. The teacher agreed to it (presumably).
>
> You can't agree to be assaulted under English law. See, eg, the
> Spanner case. There are a few well-documented exceptions, eg boxing.
> Water-ballooning at a school fete is not one of them.

Yes it is. The Spanner arguments only apply to assault occasioning
actual bodily harm. So unless the water-ballon caused "serious injury"
(and it was forseeable that it would do so?) there would be no case.

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

 

[Phil Clarke]

ian henden wrote:

> ... our pathetic, patronisingly low 70 mph limit, set in
> the days when half the cars on the road had cable brakes
> and carthorse spring suspension.

and the drivers had the same brain & reactions we still have
& the same poor training regime we still have

but generally no mobile phones and more wind noice & rattles, so
probably higher levels of concentration.

> How can motorists gain experience at higher proper
> speeds unless they are allowed to do those speeds?

why would they need to?

if they want to try it, go to a track day. I did, it was a great laugh,
I got to play at silly speed and work on my cornering & corner entry, &
endangered no innocents in the process.

Phil