• GreyShack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, you’re suggesting that this was co-ordinated by Greenpeace and …the Prime Minister? To keep up whose appearances exactly?

    What would both parties stand to gain from this?

    What would be the consequences for both when the co-ordination was leaked/revealed?

    • MDKAOD
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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. 🤷🏼‍♂️

      • GreyShack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You haven’t addressed the critical point:

        What would be the consequences for both when the co-ordination was leaked/revealed?

        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.

        • MDKAOD
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

    • PowerCrazy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The consequences of a leak are zero. Greenpeace exists for rich folks who hang out in the same circles as Sunak to bilk the same folks that the rich folks that are in parliment bilk with campaign donations or equivalent in the UK.

      “True believers” don’t join green peace unless they are marks.