Greenpeace office invaded by GB News

Status
Not open for further replies.
GB News made a very good point, in a way that the wussie establishment Beeb and Sky never would have done.

Greenpeace could have reported them to the authorities if they wanted to. But they knew that this would have been an idiotic move, so were forced into giving that feeble explanation instead. They were put on the spot and couldn't get away, it was good journalism.

Plus they managed to slip in the news that the boss earns £100k, which might make the idealistic and probably fairly poor people who donate to them start to question the real motives of those in charge.
 
Sponsored Links
Oh, you mean they feed their moron viewers loads of lies, Fox News style.
Thank the Lord for Sky and the Beeb (y)
You're pushing an open door. Most people know that they have an agenda. But it's a different one to the opposite agenda that the others have.

Overall it's a good healthy balance that we didn't have until they came along.
 
Sponsored Links
What are you suggesting, that all his numerous houses should be permanently protected by armed guards at all times?

What about other politicians, presumably they need their own armies too.

Where do you stop? Council leaders? TV personalities? By this logic we should all have a few armed guards each, all on shifts 24 hours.

Presumably the people who did this will be dealt with somehow. That's how it works, we deal with issues as they happen. No harm was actually done.

Yes a serving PM should have his house protected by armed guards

Any people attempting to unlawfully enter said house and grounds should get a verbal warning if they ignore the warning they should be shot and carried out in body bags

Same criteria as buck house
 
On a slightly different tack

All of them or some of them protestors in the states that invaded the capital building they should have been shot as well imo
 
Last edited:
Has the CEO etc. claimed it was not a Greenpeace action? Have they denounced it? Have they defended it? Do you not think pasting on their website with an in depth defensive position (nobody home, trained not to cause damage blah blah), is not endorsement?

Do you think they would allow their logo on the banner if it wasn't.

Quite right. Nothing in that to say it was officially commissioned or authorised. Not even that they had been given permission to use the logo.
 
Oh they've stated that have they?

In other news those arrested (wearing Greenpeace shirts btw) claim to be Greenpeace activists. I'd have thought the CEO or media relations person would have issued a release if that wasn't true.

Are you suggesting they had nothing to do with Greenpeace?
Screenshot 2023-08-04 at 15.59.44.png
 
Last edited:
Oh they've stated that have they?
No, so far as I am aware, Greenpeace have not issued an official statement saying they ordered or authorised the action.

Are you claiming that they have?
 
What do you suggest we conclude based on their website home page - attached above. Do they normally issue "an official statement saying they ordered or authorised the action"?

I think a reasonable person would conclude they support the action in their name.

remember you asked this question:
Was it an official Greenpeace action?

What have you concluded?
 
No, so far as I am aware, Greenpeace have not issued an official statement saying they ordered or authorised the action.

Are you claiming that they have?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top