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:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MDKAOD@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GreyShack@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.