Bishop Hill More Greenpeace death threats
Who can forget the infamous threat from Greenpeace's Gene Hasmi?
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
But was this a one-off? The evidence is suggesting otherwise. In the comments thread to a particularly sick Guardian post, which was adorned with a photo of a severed head, and which I will not therefore dignify with a link, comes this from commenter Bluecloud:
Should that not be [Matt] Ridley's severed head in the photo?
and this from the same source:
We would actually solve a great deal of the world's problems by chopping off everyone's heads.
Why are you deniers so touchy? Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people.
Ask yourself a simple question: Would the world be a better place without Matt Ridley?
Need I answer that question?
Bluecloud turns out to be another Guardian author, Gary Evans, whose day job is as a boat-driver and translator for Greenpeace.
The Guardian and Greenpeace: sick, sick people.
Bishop Hill
I gather that a comment outing Bluecloud as a Guardian author has been removed from the thread. The death threat remains in place.
Reader Comments (97)
TerryS Thank you for your elaboration regarding the Private Self Interest Trust Fund that bankrolls the otherwise bankrupt Grauniad.
Is this about minimising tax liability, charitable status, etc or are their legitimate non-financially advantageous reasons for this seemingly complex web? Perhaps its about journalistic honesty and integrity?
I don’t know why they did it, but charities can not be political and the transfer happening shortly before the General Election.
At the time of the election they pushed for the Liberal Democrats.
@Terry, Jeremy
The Guardian is not regulated by IPSO either.
The Guardian is self-regulated.
I know it is a bit weird for a left-leaning newspaper to argue against independent regulation.
I can't see it,...expanded threads and everything. At least someone got shots.
@Terrys. Uh? The guy works for Greenpeace. They are a charity. I have prepared a letter to the Charity Commission regarding Bluecloud, not the Guardian. And as others have noted, the Guardian could be reported to the police for permitting death threats. Sitting on my letter for the moment.
At the risk of making myself unwanted both at the Guardian and here......I do think we are making too much of a fuss about this and are running the risk of being held up to ridicule ourselves.
That is to say...we all know the score about such idiotic postings and if Matt Ridley really feels threatened, which I am sure he does not, he can do the necessary himself.
However.....as long as we are all agreed with that...I suppose if the "authorities" are being alerted purely in the spirit of making life inconvenient for ones opponents... Faux outrage is a well used tactic by those of the Greenpeace persuasion these days.
One still feels slightly grubby, though? Or is all fair in love and climate war?
Re: Richard Tol
Last year I raised a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (IPSO's predecessor) regarding the Guardian paying a convicted criminal to write a piece about his own conviction and punishment. The PCC investigated the complaint but did not uphold it because the Guardian claimed a public interest defence. At least the convicted criminal (Chris Huhne) had repay his fee. If the Guardian wasn't regulated by IPSO then they wouldn't have investigated.
All UK newspapers come under the remit of IPSO
Re: jeremypoynton
Sorry, I thought you were going to complain to the Charity commission about the Guardian.
I doubt you will have much luck about greenpeace either. They have a limited company which isn't a charity and employs everybody and a charity that give money to "worthy" causes.
The greenpeace charity (called greenpeace environmental trust) has 0 employees.
This screenshot I took tells you everything you need to know about the Guardian.
An article about the most evil money laundering bank in the world, HSBC. Sponsored by - HSBC.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/Guardianhsbcdrugs.jpg
@Terry
The Guardian was regulated by the PCC until September, but it did not transfer to the IPSO.
I had five concurrent complaints with the PCC. All thrown out after much foot-dragging by the Guardian.
These complaints (and one more) are now with the Guardian Review Panel, which consists entirely of Guardian employees.
IPSO recommended that I go through my local MP instead. That's Caroline Lucas.
Calm down - it's not a death threat. It's just commenters and moderators who are already well known as a bunch of nutters. It is intimidation, but it is disrepectful to the CharlieHebdo victims to say this is in the same level.
- However one should draw attention to the moral rules the Guardian teams break everyday in their fervent campaign to disallow free speech in climate issues and present a constructed reality as the truth. They constantly demonstrate Dehumanising opposition is part of their procedure.
There stupid actions might draw attention to how they routinely censor critical comments, and use such trickery as stealth editing ..and is useful to the cause of truth.
Re: Richard Tol
I had no idea IPSO was optional.
They have replaced a toothless PCC with a toothless optional IPSO.
Remarkable how the Grauniad, campaigns for freedom and liberty (allegedly) yet goes to such lengths to be outside of regulation.
No wonder, anything illegal they do, is fighting for justice, yet they will fight to be outside justice, claiming free speech, whilst charging people to buy the newspaper, which doesn't have to be profitable, and if you express adverse comment, it will be censored by the bosses daughter.
Stalin would be so proud, that a British newspaper, upholds such principles.
Richard Tol:
Oh, the irony!! [weeps]For what its worth, I've reported it to Crimestoppers.
Gary Evans lives / lived in Aachen, Germany. He even managed to lie about that in an article, claiming he lived on the Thames.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/18/river-thames-london-access
The last link is broken.
Rather than ignore comments about doing violence to opponents we should put them in the proper context. The real believers in climate catastrophism are deeply insecure. Their whole world view is threatened by people pointing out the ambiguities, or thinking the issues through, or evaluating the quality of the evidence. They would not be human when faced with such threats to counter with threats of their own. It is just a more extreme version of viewing critics as being somehow lower than they are, either through being unqualified, to discuss scientific issues or blinkered by ideology, or paid to lie by some shadowy big oil conspiracy.
Let's rename the rag to Der Völkischer Grauniad.
"Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people."
Does he mean 'evoke'? I know Grauniad contributors are famous for their inability to spell, but you'd think with all their literature degrees that they might be able to write.
It's important to realise that these hate filled outbursts are much stronger when said by Greenpeacers and Guardianistas etc, than they might appear. Those people live in an environment where the mildest insult or potentially derogatory remark is strictly proscribed by endless "safe space policies" and the like. To direct such language at us is a clear indication that they regard us as lesser beings to which such courtesies do not apply.
I wouldn't worry about them. They're only JV. Just like these guys http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/20/obama-dismisses-al-qaeda-resurgence-theyre-jv/
If the Grauniad supported the Liberals at the last election, and the Grauniads lack of financial sustainability, is matched only by the Liberals dubious political sustainability, what is it about sustainability, so often touted by the Liberals and Grauniad, that they themselves don't get? Is sustainability unsustainable? It wouldn't make a good Sun headline, too many letters.
After some 30 hours, the Guardian has removed the call for beheading Matt Ridley and others.
Je suis Matt
I'm with you Mr Ridley. They'll have to take your head from my cold dead hands
"You've got to wonder where the Guardian's moral compass is pointing..." --TinyCO2
They're liberals. The first thing they liberate themselves from is any moral compass. Moral compasses are for other people.
"I could write books about the advantages of cannabis, whereas the evidence for harm has not yet been found...!" Blueclod
I think we just found it.
People often despise those who disagree with them. Religion and politics (and apparently environmentalism) offer excuses to take this trait to extremes.
It is much to science's credit that it encourages us to overcome this failing.
We would actually solve a great deal of the world's problems by chopping off everyone's heads.
This is actually quite true, but for some reason those advocating for the destruction of mankind never want to lead by example. Just like those who jet around the world calling for reduced CO2 emissions, I question their sincerity.
"That's nice!"
h/t Mrs Brown
Which toxic chemical produces Blueclouds?
Is "Bluecloud Thinking" the new buzzword generated by the Green Luvvies, to indicate cold blooded murder?
As an anagram BLUECLOUD produces COLD BLUUE. It is close, and it is the thought that counts, especially with gift horses that keep giving.
I look forward to reading that Bluecloud has the full support of Alan Rusbridger and his daughter. Clearly he has enjoyed their full support to date, and his recent incitement to gruesome murder, is not out of character.
There's definitely a huge communication problem which we need to get past before any real progress can be made.
Perhaps a few dozen 'green' folk would be good enough to organise a demontration, a bit like big brother but with none of the things the greens don't like, I don't think I have ever seen that, the closest thing seems to be the hippie / protester camps but they have nylon tents, mass produced clothing, plastic furniture and generators to charge their iphones, I'm pretty sure they're bringing food in too.
Come on greens, please show us how it's done. I'm sure the BBC would be happy to air it.
Jaffa, the Greenpeace activists imprisoned in an unheated Russian prison, complained that they did not like it at all. I can't see them recommending camping during a British winter, unless it is in a proper tent, with heating, hot and cold running water, a functional loo, supersoft toilet paper, a cafetiere, 4G connectivity, tofu, a rice steamer, and a cuddly toy resembling a snow leopard so they can demonstrate solidarity with something, for no apparent reason. The tent will need double glazing and loft insulation, and the mattress on the double bed will have to have an electric blanket powered by renewables.
It is hardly a demanding or expensive list, and easily affordable, with the amount of taxpayer funding Greenpeace obtains with menaces.
To be fair, some of their followers might have shouted for it, but at least Greenpeace never murdered anybody.
I think
Richard Tol notes that it took 30 hours for the Grauniad to pull references to beheading, by a Grauniad staffer, from the thread. What was it, that took so long for Alan Rusbridgers daughter to notice? Was a Mystery Man involved, like Gavin Schmidt was at Climate Audit?
What could have worried Rosbridger and/or his daughter, so much to impose censorship now? Was it a typo?
Agree with Jack Savage's comment above. Perhaps a bit of exaggeration here in the Paris aftermath, but let's say that the number of death threats you get, is your impact score. Apparently, Matt Ridley’s conversion story had a considerable impact. Of course, he is a public figure but his story also contains a brilliant element, assuring a maximum of identification by those who want his head now. My conversion story would have been without impact as I would have written that I consider Darwinism a nineteenth century pseudo-science. Many Greenies are atheists with Darwin as their prophet. Well done, Matt.
Esmiff (Jan 23, 2015 at 1:14 PM): with opponents like these, one has to wonder quite what the problems are:
The arrogance is truly breath-taking. Only they can see the reality; everyone else is wrong. It is such a shame that they are incapable of actually showing us what the reality is, they can only assure us that they can see it, even if no-one else can.It gets worse:
As the future cannot be “managed”, by simple definition – i.e. it is in the future, therefore totally beyond our capabilities of managing (if, indeed, any managing is actually feasible). We can only manage our present, from which our future grows. The Graun should just be left for such terminally-stupid people to play with, were it not for the fact that these are the same people who are a significant influence on government policy.Radical Rodent, management of the future....
The former USSR, could manage the future, by determining in advance, how many tooth brushes would be needed.
Why bother wasting too much money on climate science, when available science enables you to determine in advance, what the temperature will be, and you can always manipulate the data and results to make these advanced determinations correct.
What didn't work for the USSR, should be given a chance to work in Climate Science. After all, it won' t cost climate scientists anything.
Re: Richard Tol,
> These complaints (and one more) are now with the Guardian Review Panel, which consists entirely of Guardian employees.
Have you heard of The Press Recognition Panel?
They appear to be the press regulators regulator so you might be able to complain about the non-independence of the Guardian Review Panel to them.
Terry:
The Press Recognition Panel is the regulator's regulator. It will not examine individual cases, only patterns of abuse by the Guardian complaints and appeal committees.
One for the Charity Commission I think. Is it NZ &/or Canada who have removed GP's charitable status. Would be good to effect that here.
Jan 23, 2015 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton
Don't know about NZ, but here in Canada, they had their charitable tax free status removed in 1989 by the Conservatives.
Then, they got it again after setting up a new "charity". That charities tax free status was removed in 1995 by the Liberals.
They've tried to get it back a few times, but Revenue Canada keeps denying them as far as I know.
In the comments of that Guardian article on the Thames that Evans wrote commentator Bluecloud makes no secret of the fact that he is Gary Evans, the author of the piece.
Here's the response I got from Greenpeace. Note that I corrected her statement that Greenpeace do not issue threats, using the link supplied above by the Bish. I noted that this Evans twat may not be employed by them, as Andrew pointed out to me, but may work for them pro bono. Or pro malo, more accurately.
Dear Jeremy
Thank you for your email and I am for one, absolutely astounded by the claims on the link you posted. I dont know who these people are and cannot speak for The Guardian newspaper - but hope you email them too to give them a chance to set the record straight. Greenpeace is and has always been a non-violent organisation - it is central to the way that we work. We are entirely irreligious - we have no affiliation with any religion or indeed with any political party - preferring to sit outside of all these - our staff and volunteers come from all over the world (we have offices all over the world from the UK to China to USA) and come from all walks of life and all denominations from atheist to christian to muslim.
We would never condone this kind of behaviour and frankly I would like to see where the evidence is to prove that this was indeed someone working on behalf of Greenpeace (in whatever capacity) and not someone trying to cause trouble trolling online. I will certainly be passing your email to colleagues to investigate - if someone is using the Greenpeace brand in a way that is not appropriate we need to address that immediately.
Thank you for your email and please do have a look at our UK website www.greenpeace.org.uk/about to see how we work, and also www.greenpeace.org to see what we do worldwide. We do often work on thorny issues and work in very direct ways but we would never issue death threats or set out to hurt, intimidate or bully anyone.
Eternal Optimist. Unfortunately you are living up to your name. Greenpeace pushed an anti-chlorine campaign back in the early 90s, that killed at least 10000 people from cholera because a lot of countries in Latin Americ stopped water treatment. So yes, Greenpeace has a lot of blood on its hands. It could also explain why Peru doesn't take kindly to them
The Guardian has replaced the photo, with a note suggesting that people were offended by it (rather than by the call for Ridley's beheading).
Green/left freespeech
Saudi man lashed for blog
... Benedict Cumberbatch to be executed for saying "coloured" on American TV
.. Oh hang on it's been commuted to life of nervousness, due the possibility of people replaying the clip at any pretext.
Poor old Benedict, using a term which is not only still common in the UK but also in the US.
As Lou Reed declaimed:
"And the coloured girls sang ..."
Hollywood movies used the term for decades. Are they going to be withdrawn?
Yes, it's O/T in the direct sense, but the thought police followed by violence mindset and execution (literally, in some cases) is not.
Thanks for sharing about Three Reasons You Should Hire a Great Plumber........................
Emergency Plumbing Seattle