mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 19/9/05 at 09:29 PM |
|
|
Pie 1 Clarkson 0 :)
Clarkson attacker is serial flan flinger
THE woman who hit Jeremy Clarkson in the face with a meringue last week can be revealed as a serial “pier” who has claimed three other high-profile
victims in the past five years, writes Jonathan Leake.
Rebecca Lush, an environmentalist and anti-roads campaigner, hit Ann Widdecombe, the Tory MP, with an egg five years ago and humiliated Alistair
Darling, the transport secretary, by smearing a carrot cake across his face last May.
*
Lush has not confined herself to Britons. In 2000 she hit Frank Loy, the US under-secretary for global affairs, with a black forest gateau during
climate change talks in the Hague.
In the attacks on Widdecombe and Loy, Lush made such a quick getaway that she was never identified. She was recognised in the Darling incident, but
days after the event.
However, the pieing of Clarkson was carried out in front of so many photographers that Lush could not escape being recognised.
She said this weekend: “I never did want publicity for myself. I just wanted to draw attention to the cause of climate change and the environment.”
Lush was an activist in the anti-roads campaigns of the early 1990s. She abandoned protests after the election of Labour in 1997.
Since then, however, Labour has extended road building, with about 200 projects now under way. Lush, appalled by the “betrayal”, founded Road Block,
which aims to co- ordinate anti-road groups.
George Monbiot, the author, said: “Few things are as effective in subverting meetings as a well placed pie. Nobody gets hurt except the image and ego
of the targets.”
|
|
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 19/9/05 at 09:32 PM |
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4235742.stm
and lots of pics at
http://www.arbib.org/clarkpie/
I didnt hear about this when it happend, and personally i dont find it funny. (well, not that funny anyway  )
thats not a whack against clarkson, its a whack against all of us by some do gooder bitch who wants us all to ride bicycles.
atb
steve
ps quote
While other universities are rewarding the likes of Nelson Mandela, Brookes is rolling out the carpet for a dangerous buffoon
thats the same nelson mandela, that today would be classed as a terrorist, advocating violence against the south african state......
[Edited on 19/9/05 by steve_gus]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 19/9/05 at 10:01 PM |
|
|
So what should the caption be:
"Ask her for the recipe!"
[Edited on 19-9-05 by Hellfire]
 
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 19/9/05 at 10:17 PM |
|
|
you just know thats gonna be on the next top gear dont you? perhaps with a re-enactment?
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
Bob C
|
| posted on 19/9/05 at 11:31 PM |
|
|
That is excellent pie work.
& lookat the expression of pride and joy on her face as she smears it home. Superb.
Could we sponsor her to target prescott. . . . ?
Bob
|
|
|
jonbeedle
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 12:10 AM |
|
|
I bet she drives a car.
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion however stupid!"
|
|
|
greggors84
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 02:23 AM |
|
|
Good to see my university getting some press! I read about Clarksons honarary degree a while ago, but didnt know about the pie in the face!!
Chris
The Magnificent 7!
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 03:13 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jonbeedle
I bet she drives a car.
If not I'll bet there's summat shes does that would needle a different section of the environmental lobby. Summat like using peroxide on
her hair, or having an energy-hungry vibrator
[Edited on 20/9/05 by Browser]
|
|
|
suparuss
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 05:54 AM |
|
|
i dont get these people, they rattle on about saving the planet but weve only been here for a blink of an eye compared to the age of the planet, so
surely for the sake of the planet were best off ruining it as quickly as possible so when we all die off from global warming and the following ice
age, the panet can get on with things without us to worry about.
russ.
|
|
|
scoobyis2cool
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 08:04 AM |
|
|
He should have punched her in the face 
Pete
It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care...
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 08:23 AM |
|
|
Does nobody else but me put global warming down to natural causes and climate fluctuations? The earth has been through many cycles of hot and cold.
Most sensible scientists admit that if ALL cars and fossil fuel burning were stopped, only about something less than 1% of CO2 emissions would be
saved. Warming makes a good reason for additional taxes though! Frighten the masses, and make fossil fuel taxes mildly acceptable.
What happens to all the heat from ocean floor volcanic vents, venting 2000deg C gas and crap into the ocean? Heats up the ocean. Common sense. How
about all the heat and garbage from volcanic activity? This is multitudes more than man made emissions. Are the whackos going to want to plug the
volcanoes and ocean floor vents next?? They want to stop their own smoke emissions first, the stuff that smells like grass.
The beardies with their sandals and sandalwood bo mask need to get a proper life, and look at the whole real picture!!! Think how many forests would
have to be cut down for grazing, if we all had to ride horses!!
Syd.
Now off soap box.
[Edited on 20/9/05 by Syd Bridge]
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 08:59 AM |
|
|
[soapbox]
I do agree with Syd in most of his "message to the forum". However, if we don't 'go green' this too has serious
ramifications. Let's just put things into perspective - 'going green' doesn't just mean cutting out your waste, it
means reducing your waste - I'm a firm believer in this philosophy as; long term it does us all more good. "Going green" is
something we all do during our shopping trip... I don't just mean groceries, I mean "white goods" etc. I don't know about you
but I always search for the most efficient machinery I can afford... this often means spending a little more (sometimes a lot more - but..) to save
much more on energy in the long term.
Now, further to this - I'd like to pose a question to you... in my work I am employed to discover the most efficient working design, procedure
and method to manufacture a component/object which in turn has been designed with exactly the same goals, to be more efficient than it's
predessesor. On a recent project I am invovled with, the Rolls Royce Trent Jet Engine produces more power than the one it replaces, it's
lighter, it's quieter and it does more mpg than most cars... does your employer or you, continually improve?
So, just think about that for a moment... Rolls Royce employ more than 100,000 people all with the companies goal in mind; to make money; but by doing
so make travel cheaper, make it progressively quieter and whilst using less of the worlds natural resources....
So while in essence I disagree with the morality of the reasons we're being "force fed", but I do agree with the ultimate goals.
Afterall, I'd be out of a job and I dare say most of you's would be too if it wasn't for the continual strive to evolve.
[/offsoapbox]
So I guess what she is doing is keeping us in our jobs and using the roads she doesn't want us to build. If we all did what she wanted
there would be little need to develop automotive and aerospace efficiency, therefore most of the planet would be on the "Rock & Roll"
but we would still have our Brum's... and she'd be out of a hobby! But then again....
(S)
|
|
|
timf
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 09:54 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Browser
or having an energy-hungry vibrator
natures vibrator
angry wasp in a cigar tube 
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 11:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by suparuss
i dont get these people, they rattle on about saving the planet but weve only been here for a blink of an eye compared to the age of the planet, so
surely for the sake of the planet were best off ruining it as quickly as possible so when we all die off from global warming and the following ice
age, the panet can get on with things without us to worry about.
russ.
hit the nail on the head.
All this talk of emissions friendly this and fuel conserving that..............total ball-cocks.
Fuel will run out and we will emit the same pollutants whatever, it's just the period of time over which they are emitted that will change.
|
|
|
jonbeedle
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
I reckon as far as damaging the ozone is concerned, vegetarians have a lot to answer for. They produce a lot of green house gasses on their own.
Cheers
Jon
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion however stupid!"
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 09:46 PM |
|
|
Syd
I agree mate. Always did believe global warming to be a load of bollocks.
Then I read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which while a work of fiction, the facts are FACTS, not estimated or models or any other report by
someone who wants to benefit (taxman/media springs to mind).
I've mentioned it on here before re a similar thread, but no-one else seems to have read it!!
The environmental groups wanted to ban the 3/4 million cars visiting the Eden project each year, but admitted that 3 trees would cope with the
emissions! So better we drive than use nuke powered trains.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 10:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
The environmental groups wanted to ban the 3/4 million cars visiting the Eden project each year, but admitted that 3 trees would cope with the
emissions!
Let me get that straight - someone thinks that 3 trees can balance out 750,000 cars?! Bollox...
Id be suprised if 3 trees could gain more than a tonne in a year, but 750000 cars would burn a crapload more fuel than that - thats only approx 1200
litres.
Thats what it boils down to, the CO2 being cycled between reserves.
I might also point out, that fossilised carbon reserves are a lot more perminant than biomass, as in 1000 years the trees will have fallen and
rotted.
As for volcanic activity, thats been happening for a fair few years. Man made atmospheric inteference is a lot newer. There is no denying that we are
affecting the planet. You all just better cross your fingers that you are correct, i have little faith myself.
Global extinctions do happen. Undoubtedly the unbelievers will say it would happen anyway, and maybe so, but we should at least be aware of what can
go wrong through inaction.
Within 100 years it will all be irrelevant, as techology will get to the stage where we can save the planet or leave, its just weather we can maintain
the house for long enough to keep up the level of scientific advancement. A major nuclear war, or rapid sea level rises, or meteor impact, would
seriously affect society, and if it undermined our ability to maintain progress, it would set back human development by 1000s of years.
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 10:30 PM |
|
|
global warming.
why was it i was taught at school that 20,000 years ago england was covered in ice. what stopped that then? mammoth fart methane?
Didnt the thames stop freezing over 400 years ago. Was that down to cars and the yet to be industrial age?
go back a few million years and the world was hotter.
the climate changes anyway. its a bit difficult to quantify what effect man has.
You could all do your bit.
switch off that computer thats using about 500 watts.
go to bed NOW and save all the electricity you would have used.
cut up your locost. you dont need it - its only fr fun. why shag up the environment just for fun. How selfish is that?
trade in whatever you are driving tomorrow for the most economical low emission car you can.
any takers?
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 20/9/05 at 10:36 PM |
|
|
100 years joel, and we can leave the planet?
bollox.
i watched man on the moon in 1969. we have been no where since. And its just been announced that man will be back on the moon by 2020. So, fifty
years, and we are back where we started!
Going to the moon adds a fair bit of pollution to!
in terms of 'giant steps' just look at cars.
In 'back to the future' the delorean flies in 10 years from now!
Car development, in terms of quantum leaps is nowhere. We have abs, air bags, a bit more mpg, crumple zones. But no futuristic 'drive by
wire' hands free ala 'demolition man' and we are still firmly on the ground.
I would be amazed if in 100 years space travel for man would be commonplace. Not in the least cos I would be 146 by then!
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 21/9/05 at 12:18 AM |
|
|
Did I also read somewhere that the earth's relative axis is increasing? Therefore the 'poles' whilst one increasingly melts the
other increasingly freezes. It's all bloody cyclic and apparently cow fart is a greater contributor to global warming (if it exist's) than
today's vehicles. (Not speaking about yester-years cars though!)
And - why can't you tap cow fart and run cars on that?
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 21/9/05 at 05:15 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
... and apparently cow fart is a greater contributor to global warming (if it exist's) than today's vehicles.
That's it! I'm giving up all dairy produce from tomorrow (after my cornflakes with lashings of milk). 
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 21/9/05 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
i watched man on the moon in 1969. we have been no where since. And its just been announced that man will be back on the moon by 2020. So, fifty
years, and we are back where we started!
Steve,
I, too, watched man land on the moon - my father woke me, and told me to watch as I'd remember it forever. 36 years so far - yeah I was
three.
Anyway, anyone else listen to the conspircay bit on Ian Collins on Talksport yesterday - very amusing. They did a quick phone vote and 63% of
listeners didn't believe they ever went. Topic was bought up because they are apparantly going back - 2018 - 2020.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 21/9/05 at 10:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
100 years joel, and we can leave the planet?
bollox.
i watched man on the moon in 1969. we have been no where since. And its just been announced that man will be back on the moon by 2020. So, fifty
years, and we are back where we started!
im sure some people at nasa would argue about being back where we started! Theres all the experience of the shuttle program, a perminantly manned
space station, ion propulsion systems, talk of space tourism etc. Plus within 10/20 years there will be a replacement for the shuttles.
We could easily maintain a presence/base on the moon nowadays, and indeed could've many years ago. People have lived inside airtight boxes for
many months now, some using plants to recycle air and some using air conditioning. Its just the expense and vulnerability that makes it not happen,
plus nothing to gain except experience.
You are quite right though, if man 'settled' on the moon in 50 years and earth was destroyed in 100, the colonists would still be a little
shafted...
I might argue green points but im not at all green myself. Thats more because im resigned to our fate, one way or another we're going to f%ck
everything up and be dead soon anyway.
|
|
|
