Weasel words and hot air

http://svt.se/svt/road/Classic/shared/mediacenter/index.jsp?&d=70494&a=845507&lid=puff_845531&lpos=extra_0

As this link clearly shows, yet another display of suicidal seamanship from Greenpeace!

The clip after about 45 seconds clearly shows two Greenpeace boats veering towards the 'chase' boat contrarary to the collision regulations, forcing it to take avoiding action, the two greenpeace boats also have to take avoiding action, and one simply runs over the top of the other.

This from the people who said "One of our core principles is that our campaigning is non-violent, which means we don't put anyone, other people or our own, in jeopardy. " after their action involving jumping into the North Sea in front of trawlers in mid tow.

How long before you kill someone? I really dont mind you killing yourselves with your antics, thats your own choice, but why must you put others lives at risk?

Is it better to just sit back and watch while thousands of people (not to mention all the non human species) die from climate change then? Or do we just not talk about them??

If people aren't prepared to risk everything now to fight for the planet when we are killing it everyday, then when do you think is the right time?

My guess is never....

So Sheltie, Greenpeace activists in tiny inflatables, trying to break into the G8, police in big launches running small inflatables over threatening lives. and you're trying to suggest that Greenpeace aren't indicating when they're turning.

I watched the video and as a qualified boat driver IMO the Greenpeace inflatables haven't violated any particular collision regulations.

Which leads me to conclude that you a) don't know what you're talking about and b) you're a bit of a prat

Well thanks for the compliment emptyhand. Insults really should only come in to play at the desparate stages of an arguement.

Indicating when you were turning eh! Firstly, if you really did know the collision regulations, you might have been aware that it doesn't really recommend turning into the path of any vessel, indicating your intentions or not. Secondly, it seems fairly clear to me from watching the video, that that it wasn't the police, it was greenpeace's own boat that ran over greenpeace's own boat.

Would you care to expand a bit on this 'indicating' issue. Do you as the experienced mariner you seem to suggest that you are, wish us to believe that it is perfectly sensible to carry out an aggresive, unorthodox, dangerous maneouvre if you give a few microseconds notice that you intend to do so?

If so, I believe that subsection b) of your final sentence may well be better directed elsewhere.

Fiona

I have no intention of sitting back and watching while thousands of people die. I would love to see a change in attitude to counter climate change.

However, I do believe that some recent high profile campaigns by Greenpeace are give the impression that you are simply eco-terrorists seeking to gain publicity to bring out the cheque books. Your G8 campaign only served to show how desparate you were to get yourselves killed without any publicity about what you were trying to achieve by it.

Your recent campaign to save the north sea cod stocks was totally misguided. You were protesting in front of the very people who have done far more than yourselves to protect the stocks. They are having to move away from these fishing grounds because recent measures have built up cod stocks to a point that they are so plentiful the boats cant avoid catching them.

Try reading the actual facts that are out there if you care to look for them. Cheap publicity stunts are only serving to lose you support among people who actually know what's really going on in the world. That only serves to alienate your position. You might find this hard to believe, but i'm actually on your side, I just wish you were too!

Okay, before we descend into name-calling (or maybe it's too late for that - please remind yourselves of the house rules or there'll be slapped wrists all round), it's worth pointing out that it was the police who hit our inflatables (see this story for details).

Glad to hear you're on our side sheltie - the money-grabbing accusation did make me wonder. It's one that gets slung about quite frequently, but as we're a non-profit organisation it doesn't really hold water. If you mean we want to increase our income so we can be more effective, then guilty as charged but actions like the G8 boats aren't designed to tug at people's heart strings so they cough up cash.

Their aim is deliver campaign messages to those who need to hear them - in this case seven men and one woman shielded from public opinion within a strictly-enforced exclusion zone. The only reason it was so dramatic (or cheap, depending on your point of view) was because the security measures at these events are so draconian.

When governments think they need to be protected from their people, doesn't that suggest that something, somewhere is going horribly, horribly wrong?

web editor
gpuk

The trouble is though sheltie, that people have been sitting back and 'politely' asking governments to take action against climate change and we are still pumping out more CO2 than ever...

If it could be done in a nice polite manner, then im sure Greenpeace would chose to do it that way. But those in charge dont listen. It's like if someone suddenly decides to attack you in the street and you very politely ask him not to, does he stop? No.

While there is economic profit to be made in IGNORING climate change then thats what governments and corporations will do.

Sometimes, you need to make a little more noise, take a little more action...

If you personally aren't prepared to stand up and defend the planet then thats fine but i don't think you should bash the people that do.

Jamie.

I hope you dont think it was me who was breaking the house rules. And don't worry too much about me being referred to as a 'bit of a prat'. I'm big enough and ugly enough to ride that storm.

My comment about it being your own boat which ran down another of your own boats was based on my own observations of the video. I must still stand by that. The press report you quoted may well have been written by someone sympathetic to your cause, but any Mariner worth their salt can look at the video and see just who was at fault there.

The 'money-grabbing' accusation is based on my belief that you were only out for publicity here. Your North Sea cod campaign was totally directed at the wrong people. These fishermen make their living from their work and hope to sustain the fishery so that their children and their childrens children can do like wise. They are doing far more to sustain the fishery than you are, but still you attack them! It gained you publicity maybe, but lost you a lot of respect among people who actually know what's going on out there.

Your protest at the G8 summit again got you some publicity, but what it failed to do was get you any publicity as to what you were actually protesting against! It only highlighted the fact that you managed to get your boats run over by your own boats in yet another pretty poor display of seamanship.

You may well be a 'non-profit' organisation, but you certainly are not a non-income organisation. That is why I feel that your actions are intended to raise your profile as well as your income.

It is certainly unfortunate that Governments feel they need protecting from their people, but unfortunately that is a bitter fact of life these days. There seems to be an ever increasing number of people who will stop at nothing to cause as much disruption as they can, even to the extent of causing harm to themselves in the process, never mind anyone who gets in their way.

Maybe if that were not the case, I would be able to spend my hard earned money on low energy lightbulbs and solar panelled energy systems instead of taxes to pay for security measures which surely everyone on this planet would rather do without.

You are completely right when you say there is something horribly, horribly wrong.

Fiona.

There are some governments who are trying to address these issues and some who try rather less hard. My point though is that your publicity stunt failed miserably to highlight what your reasons were. It only showed that you managed to get your boats run over. Nowhere did I see what you were actually protesting about.

I have always found that you have to earn respect, and to do that you must act in a responsible manner. If I have a point to make, I would do so in a sensible, coherent manner. That way I find that people will actually listen to what I was saying. Making enemies only serves to build up an automatic defense against your point of view, however honourable it may be.

If I may turn your analogy back on yourself, If Greenpeace suddenly 'attacked' me on the street (or in the North Sea, or at the G8 summit) and I politely asked them not to, I dont think they would win any favours from me or for the cause they were 'fighting' for. They would only serve to put me on the defensive.

Hey Sheltie,

I do understand your views but i think if you look honeslty at the past you will see that 'asking politely' has never changed people's minds when money is involved.

If Greenpeace were to 'attack' you in the street (which obviously they wouldn't) i assume that you feel you would have the right to defend yourself?

Our entire culture is 'attacking' the natural world, polar bears, trees, coral reefs, cod, whales.. etc etc
Who defends them? They too have a right to be defended.

I think they would thank Greenpeace for 'causing disruption' to governments on their behalf. I appreciate that fisherman have livelihoods but we share this planet with many other creatures who have a right to be here. Its can't always just be about the people.

(By the way just want to clarify as you have referred to me as though i represent Greenpeace, that although i am a volunteer for GP, i am not employed by them and so unlike Jamie am not speaking on their behalf. These are just my own personal viewpoints.)

Hi Sheltie

I am sorry that you feel that Greenpeace actions are pointless and dangerous. Greenpeace have been active since 1971 and in that time not one has been seriously hurt on a Greenpeace action. All the activists on all actions are very well trained and all the actions are designed to be Non-violent. Greenpeace do do a lot of talking, to the powers that be, to try and resolve environmental problems, but they sometimes also have to resort to Direct Action to get themselves heard. Greenpeace are not a huge organization and have won many campaigns against multi national companies, so their methods of campaign obviously work. Greenpeace believes in the philosophy of bearing whiteness, which was used by Ghandi and the quakers. Greenpeace does the same thing only they take a camera so that more people can become aware of the injustices they are trying to stop.