Greenpeace

#1
Greenpeace protesters have disrupted the CBI conference this morning. Bearded looneys climbed the rafters of the hall. Idiots. Remember, you can't say environmentalist without saying mentalist!
 
#2
I wonder if they were man-handled into a waiting police van and charged with civil unrest?

Doubtful
Not the Liar's Party conference after all
 
#3
If they were 84, they could have been nicked under anti terrorist legislation. Unfortunately they were bearded weirdo's. On this point I am on the side of the French with Greenpeace, which is a first.
 
#4
the_guru said:
If they were 84, they could have been nicked under anti terrorist legislation. Unfortunately they were bearded weirdo's. On this point I am on the side of the French with Greenpeace, which is a first.
Just for clarity you consider murdering people to be an appropriate response to noisy but relatively harmless civil disobedience?.
 
#5
the_guru said:
Greenpeace protesters have disrupted the CBI conference this morning. Bearded looneys climbed the rafters of the hall. Idiots. Remember, you can't say environmentalist without saying mentalist!
Also preventing-
Whale extinction
Fish stock depletion
Rainforest destruction
Sea pollution
and ...........Greenpeace
Bearded looneys,idiots! yep your statement makes so much sense does it not.
 
#6
invited said:
the_guru said:
If they were 84, they could have been nicked under anti terrorist legislation. Unfortunately they were bearded weirdo's. On this point I am on the side of the French with Greenpeace, which is a first.
Just for clarity you consider murdering people to be an appropriate response to noisy but relatively harmless civil disobedience?.
murder's a very strong result, good beating with cudgels, now that's the way forward! :twisted:
 
#9
There's nothing wrong with trying to protect the environment per se. Many of you must have seen footage of that toxic island in the Aral Sea, the rusting nuclear subs at Archangelsk, or any of the numerous other cr@p holes around the world. But childish stunts such as this only hack off ordinary people and get their backs up.

Edited for geographical accuracy
 
#10
invited said:
the_guru said:
If they were 84, they could have been nicked under anti terrorist legislation. Unfortunately they were bearded weirdo's. On this point I am on the side of the French with Greenpeace, which is a first.
Just for clarity you consider murdering people to be an appropriate response to noisy but relatively harmless civil disobedience?.
Yes, and ?
 
#11
Lucky_Jim said:
There's nothing wrong with trying to protect the environment per se. Many of you must have seen footage of that toxic island in the Aral Sea, the rusting nuclear subs at Archangelsk, or any of the numerous other cr@p holes around the world. But childish stunts such as this only hack off ordinary people and get their backs up.

Edited for geographical accuracy
but sometimes simply coughing politely and pointing out the problem doesn't get the attention the particular cause needs for changes to happen.


The success they had with reducing whaling activities didn't come about thanks to a sternly worded letter to the Times did it?
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#12
Lets keep things in perspective here. Those chaps from Greenpeace were just expressing their freedom of speech in an otherwise one-sided meeting. It wasn't violent and Greenpeace are declaredly apolitical. We go to war to protect this right to speak and protest in this manner.

The key question should surely be, would this be tolerated in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe, pre-TELIC Iraq, Orwell's 1984? Probably not. Should it be tolerated in a liberal democracy like 21st century Britain, I think so.

Anything that makes Bliar look more ineffectual than he already is has got to be a winner in my books.
 
#13
cdo_gunner said:
but sometimes simply coughing politely and pointing out the problem doesn't get the attention the particular cause needs for changes to happen.


The success they had with reducing whaling activities didn't come about thanks to a sternly worded letter to the Times did it?
You're right cdo, it didn't. As I'm sure you know it came about partly because they got politicians of many nations onside, who then outvoted the pro-whaling countries. My point is that it's better to get pollies onside through lobbying; just hacking them off doesn't achieve much on its own. Persuading them that there are more votes to be gained by siding with the cause than against it is surely the aim?

By the way, interesting location from which to post on whaling. Must be some strong views where you are?
 
#14
Been onboard Greenpeace 2,good skipper/crew.
RIP Greenpeace 1 - sunk July 10 1985, Auckland NZ,seen her for my own eyes at the wharf!
As I type I see some truth coming out,on other threads,
 
#15
I_say_again said:
invited said:
the_guru said:
If they were 84, they could have been nicked under anti terrorist legislation. Unfortunately they were bearded weirdo's. On this point I am on the side of the French with Greenpeace, which is a first.
Just for clarity you consider murdering people to be an appropriate response to noisy but relatively harmless civil disobedience?.
Yes, and ?
fascinating so tell me, what exactly have greenpeace done to deserve murder?
 
#17
I do not have a lot of time for Greenpeace, they have been slammed in a recent book by their own former fuhrer.

In the mean time the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and murder of one of its crew (who was dumb enough to back below on a sinking boat to rescue some film) is the only ever terrorist attack in New Zealand. Of course it was all organised by the French who were allegedly a "friendly" country.
 
#18
I do not have a lot of time for Greenpeace, they have been slammed in a recent book by their own former fuhrer.

In the mean time the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and murder of one of its crew (who was dumb enough to back below on a sinking boat to rescue some film) is the only ever terrorist attack in New Zealand. Of course it was all organised by the French who were allegedly a "friendly" country.
 
#19
Seeing as how Greenpeace used to be campaigning to get rid of nuclear weapons, i don't think they're likely to ever support nuclear power, regardless of the strength of arguments for or against. There's plenty of self-styled "enviromentalists" who don't have the first clue about how the enviroment actually works, they just get angry and rant without saying anything sensible. :x

Unfortunatley they do this louder than the people who do actually bother to go and get themselves educated about such things. I've seen just as much bs being spouted from such organisations as i have from oil companies, if not more.

and for once my signature block is actually relevant :)
 
#20
I'm sure the cbi have some competent people in them guess you can't get in if your a complete git .Its just the last time i heard one of their spokesman wittering on radio 4 about felt like throwing something at the radio. :D
 

Similar threads

Top