I'd just like to [ahem] shove my oar in.
1) How effective was his protest? What has he achieved for his cause? Sure he got lots of publicity, but I don't see evidence of him turning it to his advantage. So he's pissed lots of people off, disrupted a harmless sporting event and made lots of people hate him - who exactly benefited from his actions?
2) The boat race is not exclusively for "toffs", the only time I've watched it was when a boyfriend of my sister's was a Cambridge Blue. I don't know the details of his background, lower middle class I think, by no stretch a "toff".
On point 1, I'm inclined to think it was ineffective.
It fits in with my idea of the propaganda of the deed having no significant value unless backed by mass support.
The Arab Spring provides a good example.
You'll recall the trigger was a young man setting himself alight.
This encouraged mass demonstrations in the same city, the same country, and soon across parts of 2 continents.
Sometimes even mass support doesn't guarantee results (See Syria), but where governments fell it was the mass support that produced the results.
Now as a contrast, imagine NargleFargle was to set himself on fire as a protest against the Celsius temperature scale.
I'd imagine street protests would be minimal, and aside froum a few nutty columnists in the usual papers, life would carry on as normal.
Lets take it a step further - Some guy in speedos floats down the Thames to protest against something even more abstract than a meaurement system.
Where are his demands / programme, what is his organisation.
He's achieved even less then Fargle, and pissed a few people off for no good reason.