this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
155 points (99.4% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5315 readers
1 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Greenpeace is a marketing company. They product they're pushing is green technologies. Broadly speaking, and obviously without direct knowledge, its possible to buy access to a property for a photo or movie shoot to achieve whatever message they're pushing. Everything is for sale for the right number. It's not unfathomable that greenpeace bought a permit and/or permission for this stunt, even if using legal loopholes suggesting they were just shooting a film.
So greenpeace gets their marketing piece, and PM estate gets paid.
Just saying it's not an implausible scenario. 🤷🏼♂️
You haven't addressed the critical point:
Both would stand to lose vastly more in credibility than ever they might gain.
Whilst that might not matter to Sunak - a lost cause politically anyway, and clearly someone who values money highly - Greenpeace thrives on commitment to the cause.
It certainly seems to me a highly implausible scenario.
That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Certainly there's an element of risk, but I imagine that both parties operate under pseudonyms for exactly that reason.
A point of order here, while you're welcome to criticize my opinion, you also haven't addressed my reasons for doubt.
A) When did you ask me to?
B) By pointing out the cost/benefit to both sides, I would have said that I did anyway.
However, if you would like me to go into more detail: this is a property that was not occupied by the PM or his family - Greenpeace have stated that they were aware of this. The 'high security' was evidently provided by the police - who would also have been aware of this. Even at the best of times, given a little advance planning, avoiding a routine police cordon - routine being the key word - is not exactly difficult.
I struggle to see why Greenpeace would take the route that you are suggesting (a literal conspiracy theory) and decide to take the risk of losing credibility instead of doing as they have frequently, attestably, through court records, done and evade the existing security.