Look, I agree with what you are trying to do but do you realise the chemicals you guys are having a bitch about is what prevents fire if machines start sparking? And with Sony's big battery hullabaloo EVERY manufacturer's laptops are going up in smoke and the reason there hasn't been one serious injury yet is because the user has had sufficient time created by these flame retardants to get the laptop off the lap or outside where no damage can be done.

Rather than bitching about Apple creating products to INDUSTRY STANDARDS how bout you chuck that research money into finding an ALTERNATIVE to brominated flame retardants, else harpoon the Japanese for the whole whaling issue.

@james: I think it's about getting Apple to do things better than they are doing now. And it seems it could be done better, like HP or Samsung are showing. However, because of the popularity of Apple they are the perferct pray to make the issue more public and get things going.

Look at lovely picture of a bunch of Greenpeace nuts. You guys are nothing but terrorists and what you do does nothing but harm.

I can't wait for the next person to say "do you love greenpeace" and shove my ipod into their face.

Please, for the sake of the world, just quit what you do.

Yes, a better alternative to brominated flame retardants is the right kind of solution, but why should Greenpeace be the one cleaning up Apple's toxic production practices? That's Apple's job.

Just because the rest of the industry puts toxic chemicals into their products, and just because the toxic chemicals serve a useful purpose today, doesn't make them acceptable, or less toxic!

You have got to be kidding me right?

Isn't there a tree somewhere you can save?

It's not just brominated flame retardants that Greenpeace are warning the public about, there are many other chemicals and heavy metals that are found in these laptops and computers that could harm users. Besides, Greenpeace is not a chemical manufacturer, so they could not possibly spend any of their supporters' money in developing safer alternatives to BFRs. Greenpeace exists to educate the public on environmental issues.

I was deeply disappointed by your activities at MacExpo (I have no connection with Apple btw) and feel that your energies would be far better spent jousting at other targets. Here's one -- why not go in hard and get UKGov to mandate solar and other green energy solutions into all property new-builds? It would kick-start a revolution in UK energy usage and bring down unit costs dramatically.

Wow, James, I completely agree. Greenpeace, and all involved-your ideas are great, and your friendly methods are the way to go but it is imperative that you find a solution that will cost the same to produce, or Apple will never consider it.

And unless you come up with a solution, all Apple sees you doing is making a big deal out of something and convincing people not to buy their products.

They don't want that kind of publicity at a pro-Mac expo, that's like having a Zune booth at a Mac expo-it's not going to work, sorry.

And the other completely valid point that our friend James here has is that the laptops will set on fire otherwise. Yet another huge reason why this will not work until you offer Apple a solution that has identical or lower costs and will not require expensive equiptment in the factory, and is easy to replace.

Are you going to go all-out on other computer companies as well? I find it quite offensive actually that you would just pick on Apple when there are other companies out there doing the same thing.

Regardless, I understand this is but a drop in a bucket to you guys, and the probability that you would read and respond to it even lower. If you were to, it may change my opinion, but it seems you need to change your organizational skills a bit-again, while your motives and ideals may be tried and true, your follow-through is desperately lacking in the same thought and logic that your other aspects carry.

Thankyou for doing your bit to raise awareness of the issue.

Please update your protest site to indicate the alternatives to the chemicals being used (or the process that requires them) and indicate what quantities are used in the manufacture of devices from Apple and other manufacturers. This will allow visitors to your protest site to - dare I say it - compare apples with apples.

There's hype and spin, then there's agitative sensationalism. Your protest site provides no facts, and most people buying Macs are intelligent enough to form their own opinions when presented with the facts.

Sorry to hear that your stall got closed.

James,
A couple of points:
1. Wouldn't it better if battery manufacturers fixed the underlying problem?
2. The campaign is not just about BFRs, but includes PVC and the broader issue of the product life-span. Perhaps its relevant here to note the awarding of a "shonky" award to the iPod (http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=105458&catId=100285&tid=100008&p=1&title=The+CHOICE+2006+Shonky+Awards)
3. There are alternatives to BFRs
4. It is not too wise to threaten to harpoon an entire society.

I applaud what you are doing, and am shocked that they would throw you out in such a manner.



I am a long time mac user who would love to see a greener mac!



And, james, I don't believe that just because something meets INDUSTRY STANDARDS means that we should blindly accept it and the harm that it poses to us and our environment. Nor do I think that it is Greenpeace's job to do the research on finding safe alternatives. I think that responsibility lies with the corporations which are making billions of dollars selling these products. That's my thoughts on it.

peace to Greenpeace,
blue

Greenpeace appears to have its facts in a muddle. I've studied the environmental performance of the leading companies and here is what I've found.
1. Apple is rated best in class in environmental performance for both portables and desktops by the US Environmental Protection Agency's EPEAT tool (www.EPEAT.net). This tool is based on a 2006 IEEE standard for product environmental performance.
2. In August, Greenpeace conducted extensive tests on leading laptop brands to establish whether or not they were compliant with a European substance ban directive. Apple's laptops were subjected to more than one hundred tests and they were unequivocally found to be RoHS compliant. Note that Greenpeace has subsequently buried this report.

3. Greenpeace found 200 parts per million of TBBA (a harmless brominated flame retardant currently used by all manufacturers) in an Apple fan assembly. TBBA is not banned, and even if it were you would need to quadruple the quantity that was detected in the Apple fan assembly before it reached the European definition of concentration that are permitted for 'banned' substances.

4. HP's laptop failed the compliance test, and Greenpeace ranked HP as the top performer in their August score-card ranking.

5. Despite being ranked at the bottom of Greenpeaces scorecard, Apple is the only manufacturer to have commited to phasing out PVC and TBBA without qualifiers (i.e if economically viable)

6. Apple is the only manufacturer to have eliminated DecaBrome from all plastic parts.

From my research, I can only conclude that Greenpeace is targeting Apple because of the 60 million iPod customers out there. Pity, I used to have a lot of respect for Greenpeace.

In the past I used to donate money to greenpeace, but with all that apple crap-campain in mind I now think greenpeace sucks. Hey guys go for some oil- and nuclear-companies!

Someone is lying as MacExpo are saying that Greenpeace did more than just handout apples and leaflets.



"According to Bob Denton, Event Director, the removal of Greenpeace had nothing to do its message or the materials being handed out. Bob said: “They paid money and had the right to be at the show.”
The problem started when a group of 12 Greenpeace activists gathered outside the show entrance and started handing out flyers and apples to attendees. Bob Denton said: “We want people to be cool and calm as they enter the show”.



He explained to the Greenpeace organisers that it would be acceptable for two activists to stand by the stairs inside the show and hand out flyers, but the event management would not allow a gathering outside the main door.




There then followed a number of complaints about the behaviour of Greenpeace activists from four visitors and five exhibitors, one of which was Apple. Allegedly, Greenpeace attendees were invading other stands for mock photo shoots and replacing other exhibitors’ promotional material with their own.




The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child’s pram in an illegal stunt and were taking photographs of him without her permission.




Bob Denton told Macworld: “I explained to them that I had the right to eject them but that wouldn’t happen if they showed reason.” However, later in the day, “two more visitors and two more exhibitors complained” and he ejected the activists under clause 13 of the terms and conditions that Greenpeace signed.




“They were determined to create conflict,” said Bob Denton, “that was their only objective and I had the right to eject them just as I would if they were drunk and abusive.”

Comment from TomD: As this Mac world story above just has the story from the head of Expo security I'm taking the liberty of inserting my comments here as I was there when this woman who complained about our stand visited us.


She came to our stand voluntarily to diasagree with us. She voluntarily took a organic apple and held it next to her baby. A news photographer took a photo of her and the baby she later complained to us about the photo. We asked the photographer to delete the photo which he did.


As a Mac consultant she spent 10 mins or so talking to our campaign expert. The conversation was entirely civil and polite. Yes she didn't agree with us but disagreement is not a reason to be evicted.


Tom

Mac Expo quote came from MacWorld



http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&newsID=16291

Scott (and everyone else!), this is all rather interesting - the team is at the Mac Expo again today, I'm sure Tom will post some responses to you as soon as he can.

Apple has around a 6% share of the PC market, according to Gartner and IDC. I hope Greenpeace will be hounding the manufacturers of the other 94% of computers.

Apple need to remove all toxic waste from their machines, whatever the cost or not only will people stop buying their products but they will be banned from sale! This has already happened with some of their products in Europe - how long will it take them to learn to be good Earth citizens?

What I can't understand, Apple has maybe 5% of the computer market. Tops. The only decent computer in the world and Greenpeace has to go after them. Go after HP or Dell. They cause more damage and suffering than Apple on any given day.

Hi all - there's been a few nasty comments submitted - but not published by people who can't be bothered to stand by their statements.

Any comments posted without proper email addresses, e.g. "xxx@xxx.xxx" - will not be posted. For people who do post their email addresses, we only use them to ensure that you're a real person - we won't spam you, and your email address will not be published. So don't worry!

Hi

Just thought it would be useful to point to the recent ranking document that lists the 14 companies ranked on toxics and recycling. This goes into information about the ranking, how companies were graded and why. Toxic chemicals used in electronic products are not only a problem during the production phase they are also a problem at the end of life when they are recycled. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-guide.pdf

It would be interesting to know how many of you toxics lovers that work for Mac. There have already been examples from Mac employees posting a lot of nonsense at Greenpeace blogs... :-p

In reply to Gareth and Joel Edge above -- Greenpeace are taking on those other brands too, and the computer electronics industry in general.

The focus right now is on Apple Computer though, which is chief among PC manufacturers in terms of design innovation. That's what everybody says -- Mac users and PC users alike. If Apple goes green, firms will improve too.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to proof read these articles before posting them online for the whole world to see. Whoever wrote this ended up using "where" instead of "were" twice in the second and third paragraphs.

[Eek, I thought I'd fixed that yesterday, must have mis-saved. Thanks! - Dave]

Sadly, this smacks of coat-tailing on the high profile that Apple has in the media, to drive the agenda here. Shame on you. Where is your former drive to complete representation on issues? Gone by the wayside in order to gain face time in the media. How do you justify this level of media prostitution - the ends justify the means?? I will not be continuing my support of Greenpeace any longer until the organization cleans up its operations.

You hire a stall at MacExpo to raise awareness on an issue that Apple knows will cost it vast amounts of dollars to put right, and then you're surprised that you get booted out?

Oh dear, it seems that you've also fallen for Apples 'we're the nice creative, touchy feely company' propaganda. They're no different from any of the others. In fact, if you take into account their cynical marketing strategies, they're probably worse.

Green my Mac? Don't kid yourselves - changes need to happen at a much more fundamental level to force high polluting manufacturers into re-appraising the way in which they work.

You seem to be looking at Apple all doe-eyed in the hope that they'll be the ones to lead the way, but realise this: they've been in bed with the man for a long long time, and they don't want your green organic apples, they want your greenbacks.

I assume you had a written contract about the stall at the expo? Reeks of breach of contract on their part, not Greenpeace's.

I've been a loyal Mac user for 10+ years, but I'm not a blind zealot. I fully approve of the message you're trying to get through to Apple here. They are technological front-runners, there's absolutely no reason they can innovate their way to profits but not innovate their way to environmental awareness.

Critics are often misunderstood as people who are against something. Wrong! It`s about improving things you care about.

The reaction at MAC Expo is (again) nothing but really bad PR for Apple. It`s like a "Fuck off" to all eco-minded users.

Remember the "1984" Apple spot? It`s about changing crusted structures and thinking.

I completely agree that Apple should be greener than they are, however i also agree with the person who commented about the flame retardent chemicals, they are needed.

What i do find funny though is the article says they were handing out organic green apples, but the picture clearly shows red apples???

I do enjoy that your guide is based on what companies state as goals on their websites, as opposed to actual practice. I also enjoy that your "Toxic Chemicals in Computers" report contradicts your "Greener Electronics" rankings, with Apple having the least toxic laptop. I even enjoy more the opposite accounts of the MacExpo UK event... and I admit, considering my past experiences with Greenpeace, I tend to believe MacExpo's side of the story.

The only true complaint I see from my research into your reports and the whole truth is that Apple has no take-back program as of yet. Though Apple's computers tend to have double the useful life-span of comparable PCs, take-back would still be nice.

I find it sad that an organization with such noble goals would stoop to publicity stunts and misleading the public. I'd much rather people support the Sierra Club.

Hi folks

Wow a lot of comments, just back online after another day talking to Mac fans at the Expo.

Thanks for all the supportive comments but of course it seems some people online don't like our positive message for Apple.

Interestingly face to face I can honestly say in two days only 4-5 people at the Expo have come to discuss with us complaints about the campaign. So it seems to me that we have the support of the majority of Mac fans, well at least those attending the London Expo.

My favourite quote was from a Mac store employee yesterday outside the Expo, "I don't want to lose my job but in private a big thumbs up for your campaign and a greener Apple."

tom

Green my Apple returns to Mac Expo

Look folks, don't assume too much. Greenpeace has been very cleverly using non-violent protest tactics for years to gain press coverage for many very worthy causes. I love Macs but whether they are at the top of the list or the bottom, there is much more that they (and we) could do to clean up their act.

Apple is a great target for drawing attention to the problems inherent in dealing with the environmental issues related to the manufacture and disposal of computer products. With Al Gore on Apple's Board, Greenpeace maybe deliberately poking him to take the Board to task. Or they may know their protests make it easier for him to pursue such concerns.

What Greenpeace is doing needs to be done so lets not fuss about it, lets appreciate it and help them. Send money to help facilitate their work, or write to Apple asking them to start selling green MacBooks and donating 5% of sales of these and the green iPods to GreenPeace.

We are all happy to have someone protest against the other guy, but we should be willing to have the mirror turned to us if need be.

I'd like to know the last time Greenpeace requested a formal meeting with some high executives and product developers at Apple to discuss what they can do and how it could help drive the whole industry to a greener place.]

It seems that Greenpeace's way of doing things is to be in people's face in the form of a protest.

Why don't you hire some of those Washington lobbyists (that normally sell plans to our government buy into ideas that make very few people rich) and have them sell your plans to make the world a better place.

Maybe you already have lobbyists for this, but my point is that I feel you're going about it the wrong way. You're no better than the blasphemous campaign ads we see everywhere today. You can't lead a negative campaign one day and then meet with them another day and ask them kindly to clean up their act.

And yes, I think Greenpeace should help find ways that companies can change, and not just tell them that what they do is bad. If you really want to change things, that would help. I think more people would be interested in supporting Greenpeace if you did.

This is how I think you can change.

Apple has 3% of the computer market, what about the 97% rest??

Are we talking about iPods?, people buy iPods because is the best, is normal.

Looks to be a campaign to use the popularity of Apple, leaving out the rest of the manufacturers that maybe are doing the things worst, at least we dont hear in the news a Greenpeace talking about the 97% rest.

This is a mistake that not change the global population (normal people could be the 97%??) logical support to Greenpeace.

Maybe the mac users are nearest of Greenpeace, their way of live and behavior, maybe then is better do not use the popularity, not market, of Apple for this things.

Look the editorial: ¨Greenpeace makes Apple to change¨, What is Apple for the most of the people?, they use windows, again thinking in the 97% rest.

Good luck with them (the 97%) :)

I was not the least bothered by the Greenpeace presence at MacExpo (on Thursday morning). I had already heard about the Greenpeace campaign, strongly support it, and have written to Steve. I enjoyed my free organic apple. I was much more disturbed by the lady from Macworld throwing free t-shirts and pink iPod Nano cases at people.

As a matter of principle, I could not agree more with Greenpeace's campaign. I fret about eating organic food, but then tote a computer around with me that's full of chemicals other manufacturers have managed to remove.

But it's not just about high class technology consumers in first-world countries. Old technology ends up in dumps in third-world countries, being picked up by poor workers recycling components and by young children. We have no right to poison these kids. That is another cultural imperialism. It would not happen in europe and europe ought not to be able just to dump stuff on the third world.

The problem I have is that, if better environmental practies regarding chemicals meant that Apples had to end end up looking like Dells, I would be sad! But there are lots of things Apple can do - the recent reduced packaging is a start; world-wide recyclcing (not just in places where they are forced to) is another. And using the safer or less toxic option where two exist is a third. My PowerBook is made of aluminium - it is going to take quite a while to catch on fire... The advantage of the recent change to intel processors is that Apple's computers are getting cheaper. This week, they added lots of new features to their MacBook Pro computers whilst keeping the prices the same. If the problems is that removing toxic chemicals costs more, I would be happy to pay a premium for first-class design and a first-class operating system in a non-toxic shell.

It is very sad that Greenpeace were denied the ability to spread their message to more Mac users: I learned about the campaign initially from MacSlash, and there is a lot of awareness of it amongst the Mac e-community. Apple has clearly responded quietly to Greenpeace by going on about reducing packing in recent promo events, but I would respect them more if they engaged directly and explained why they need to put toxic chemicals in their computers and what their plans are for the future. This is not going to be brushed under the carpet.

I agree with Joseph above, the first thing I thought when seeing the line about passing out green apples was wait, the apples in that picture are red?!? Or does the truth not matter if it makes for a better tagline?

Fact is, getting kicked out of the convention is probably exactly what Greenpeace wanted anyway. Here we all are, talking about it, giving them far more attention that they ever would have gotten if they had just played nice at the convention and handed out flyers to people.

And please, before you think Apple didn't want them in the hall, Apple is smart enough to know that kicking them out is going to cause a bigger media headache that letting them stay, so I tend to believe that they must have been very disruptive, to the point where Apple decided the bad press of kicking them out was better than the disruption of letting them stay.

Which, I believe, is exactly what you wanted.

Argue all you want, but I won't believe otherwise. Crap man, you can't even get the color of the apples you handed out right and you posted a picture of the contradiction right in the same story! Why should I take anything else you have to say at face value?

Look, I think our society and culture is extremely wasteful and environmentally poisonous. I think we need to work to change things and need to try to make our world better when we leave it than it was when we got here. And I think it will take a lot of work and brains and manpower to make all that happen.

I don't disagree with the ideas behind Greenpeace at all. I agree there needs to be more attention to this issue too. But getting that attention in the same way as a spoiled child would simply doesn't help your cause. Ever. You turn off people like me with those kinds of tactics. Call me when you finally grow up and learn to act like adults.

I am the woman with the baby!

As I was walking around MacExpo (with my daughter in a sling), a woman approached us and offered us an organic apple which (as we are an organic family) I accepted. I then spotted the Green My Apple stand and the woman started to tell me about their campaign. I had a few concerns about their research, however she was unable to answer them. While we were talking someone put a cardboard cut out for the Green My Apple campaign behind my back and a photographer started taking photos of myself and my baby holding the apple. I made it clear that I was not happy about this and gave the apple back and left. I also complained to the organisers that it was not appropriate to be taking pictures of small children without their parents permission.

Although I may agree with some of the aims of Greenpeace, this experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth and some unanswered questions about Greenpeace's latest campaign.

Same old greenpiece. Long on hyperbole, short on facts, stranger to the truth.

If greenpiece uses the photos of Ms. Davidson or her daughter in their propaganda materials, she’ll have an excellent case to bring before the UK courts.

Rather belatedly MacWorld has published our side of the story to go with their previous story only quoting the MacExpo security.

Morag, Frank (and anyone who didn't read my note further up this thread) The photo to which Morag objected to was deleted by the photographer.

Brett asked if we ever meet with Apple or other companies - yes we do, meetings with Apple are documented at the bottom of the itox page.

I love my Macs, but I hate Greenpeace Zealots.
Go Figure.

Tom.

Can you please tell us all if the photo of Morag's child was taken WITH PRIOR permission?

Thanks.

Wow, whole lot of folks here who claim to hate Greenpeace and this campaign, but spend an awful lot of time here on the website! ;-)

"Same old greenpiece. Long on hyperbole, short on facts" (Your spelling of our name suggests this isn't an opinion you've developed from close attention to us over the years) :-P Lots of facts here.

"I'd like to know the last time Greenpeace requested a formal meeting with some high executives and product developers at Apple to discuss what they can do and how it could help drive the whole industry to a greener place."

This is always surprising to people, but we don't just spring this stuff on unsuspecting targets. There's been a two-year long dialogue with Apple in person and in writing seeking the policy changes we've outlined. When we've asked for a committment, the stock response we've gotten was "Apple doesn't commit -- we do." But they haven't committed, and they haven't done. And that's why we took it public. There's a brief history of our contacts and meetings with apple execs here.

"Apple has 3% of the computer market, what about the 97% rest??"

And are we being opportunistic in targetting Apple?

Hell yes. That's called activism. You take a high-profile target and get them to change. That ripples down throughout the industry. If we had the resources to target every single manufacturer we would. But the fact is Apple has the potential to change far more than just its own policies here, and that's our challenge to them.

And it's not like we've ignored Dell and HP: we pressured them, they changed. They've done more than Apple.

Woman with the baby - I am the Photographer!

You seemed a nice enough person (at the time), and your beautiful baby looked really sweet holding the apple you had allowed it to have. I remember clearly saying, 'that is a great picture' and you didn't object as I raised my camera asked if it was 'ok' and proceeded to take pictures. I took four photographs, with flash and you didn't say a word to me, you appeared relaxed and unperturbed by the experience. One of the Greenpeace volunteers rushed up and gestured to have your picture taken with the cardboard man, you refused, no picture was taken and you left (without fuss).

I do without equivocation apologise if my presence upset you in anyway, I just would expect you to tell me immediately if there was a problem. As a professional photographer taking pictures with clear consent is rudimentary and I'm sorry this communication has resulted in you being upset.

On hearing of your complaint/ threat I deleted the pictures immediately, no fuss, no questions, no harm done, only a bitter taste in your mouth. Maybe you should have taken the apple after all.

I would like to add.

People seem to be completely blind to the fact; Greenpeace were using Macs, they are not Anti Mac. I had a brand new Macbook in my bag too, wouldn't want use anything else, they're great. But I would like to see them taking the lead in green electronics and I think 95% of the people who stopped at the Greenpeace stand would be acquiesced to these wishes.

As for the slack jawed unshaven security and dunderheaded organisers of the Expo, they're the only thing Apple have ever badly designed. I'm sure if the upper echelons of Apple came into to contact with these incapaciously minded stooges, their sympathies would lie with Greenpeace.

some very weird logic in this thread:

1. Greenpeace should OFFER alternatives to Apple before it can change.
Why??? So when you find some factory is polluting the water you are drinking, you should first find an ALTERNATIVE for it before you can say something about it?!

2. There are MORE important issues such as energy, oil and nuclear weapon, leave Apple alone.
well there are always things that you think is MORE important. So shall we rank everything in the world and only do the MOST important thing?
remember, for those who live in a small Chinese town heavily polluted by electronic wastes dumped from the west, the toxic substances in YOUR Mac or IPOD might be THE MOST important thing for them!

me oh my. as i've been , discovering myself lately there's really nothing quite like the rage of an angered macnerd.

what is it with them? I recently bought a mac, and whilst i adore how well it works that doesn't render my critical faculties obsolete: i still have the ability to criticise apple when they act the arse.

it's so odd: i just can't help but be amused by how breathtakingly defensive some mac users are. it's as though criticism of Steve Jobs, apple or any mac product is tantamount to heresy.

do some of you guys realise that you sound like the taleban? because of your brand loyalty to a corporation?

get a grip lads, it's pathetic.

Hi Morag
Would you like to send me (or post up) any unanswered questions you still have? We'll do our best to get them answered.

- Adele, Greenpeace webbie

Mr Photographer

Thank you for your reply…

Of course I looked relaxed, I was busy talking to the lady on the stand and had no idea you were there!

It was not until the cardboard cut out was placed behind my back, that I realised you were there and were about to take a photo. Had you actually talked to me directly I could have said quite clearly I did not want photos taken.

I do however, accept your apology and (while being biast) have to agree that my daughter is beautiful :-)

In reply to Don –

I was not asked for permission at any time and specifically not before any of the photos were taken.

It would appear however, if you believe the version the photographer has posted, that the photographer thought he did have permission.

Dear Greenpeace

I have just read the article in MacWorld that you refer to above. I am really dissapointed that you chose to lie and claim I had given permission for the photos to be taken, this is completely untrue.

It is also not the case that I am an "Apple consultant paid to look at how people use Macs". I am a mother of 5 young children and the wife of an IT Consultant and as a consumer I had a number of questions about the Greenpeace research which the woman at the Green My Apple stand was unable to answer.

Greenpeace should be ashamed of themselves and I expect nothing less than an apology to both myself and my innocent daughter.

And another thing…

It was previously claimed (and repeated in several places) that only 1 photo was taken, but later deleted. However, the photographer claims he took 4 photos which he then deleted.

I can only assume all the photos taken have been deleted and will not be used but would appreciate confirmation that this is the case.

I am a very reasonable person, but given the circumstances and the fact that my daughter is so young, I am sure you can appreciate my concern.

Morag

Hi Morag,

How could you possibly not see me with this camera (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=296329992&size=m) less than a metre from your baby's head directly infront of you? See battery for scale. Not the subtlest of objects is it?

I'll reiterate, 'you didn't object as I raised my camera asked if it was 'ok' and proceeded to take pictures. I took four photographs, with flash and you didn't say a word to me, you appeared relaxed and unperturbed by the experience. One of the Greenpeace volunteers rushed up and gestured to have your picture taken with the cardboard man, you refused, no picture was taken and you left (without fuss).' Yes, FOUR - Right in-front of you with flash!

I'm only repeating and expressing exactly what was witnessed from an impartial position. Being unbiased, I don't think Greenpeace should be ashamed of themselves and I don't think you were wrong to ask questions and have paramount concern for your daughter. However, Greenpeace simply offered you an organic apple and some information, I took some pictures that I was certain you had given concent. This transpired not to be the case, the pictures were (and are) deleted. No problems. I apologise again and I sincerly wished you no harm, but I fundamentally cannot and will not deny the truth.

I have travelled the world as a professional press photographer. I've taken thousands and thousands of pictures, from Primeministers to starving children and I am disgusted to be dragged into such a contemptable rhubarb.