• MDKAOD@lemmy.ml
    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@lemmy.ml
        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.