On Monday there was also a childrens action.
The children at climate camp, as well as their parents, friends and allies, marched to grenwich park with the bycecology sound system and lots of banners and flags that they had made.
At Grenwich Park the banners were displayed on the bandstand. Many local children and families joined them, as well as local and climate camp activists demonstrating against the olympics. There was a picnic, music, facepainting, chalking, games, activities and workshops and a fun time was had by all.
Although to many at climate camp it may not count as an "action", there were many people involved and was an attempt by the children and their carers to spread the message of climate camp and the power of positive, collective action in the face of ecological disaster, in a safe and child-friendly way.

Here's two pieces on the Daily Mail action.

 http://cambridgeanarchists.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/how-the-anarchist-mob-infiltrated-the-daily-mail/

 http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/137

funny really, all the evil things the daily mail prints on a regular basis, and finally when they actually get "attacked" its for the seemingly inoccuous "crime" of calling climate campers middle class idiots.

have to laugh or i'd f~cking slit my wrists.

Yes, the Daily Mail has many faults, however you should read into the context of why this act happened at this particular time, by people at the Camp. However, your point still doesn't stand once the articles have been read-
'Most of all, as working-class people with a sense of basic human solidarity, all those present detested the Mail for its sexist and racist overtones and long record of consistently scapegoating and demonising marginalised social groups such as immigrants, queers, transpeople, the unemployed, youth stigmatised as "chavs", as well as specific instances like the incredibly inaccurate hack job of an article about anarchists in the run-up to the G20.'

Perhaps you should 'attack' the Daily Mail for one of the many issues you have with them? Isn't that much more productive than moaning when action is taken?
Also, why do you put the term 'crime' in speak marks, when it wasn't used in the articles?