Donkey walks into a bar in Heathrow and says...
By now you've heard about the uber-cool action our colleagues in the UK have undertaken to stop the third runway at Heathrow, by buying a plot of land smack where the airport authority wants to build, and offering sub-divisions to folks around the world. While legal opinions vary, it may well be that if the UK government wants to take action to seize that land, they'll need to serve every single "beneficial owner" we sign up. Which set Martin Lloyd here in the office to thinking about who we need to recruit into the plot to ensure the UK government will have a really, really hard time finding them. You know, all our ships' crew, friends on remote Pacific Islands, Antarctic overwinterers, Bex on her bicycle across Africa, those sort of folks.
What you may not have heard is the cover story that our UK colleagues used to purchase the land. As John Vidal reports in the Guardian, they claimed they needed the land to set up a (wait for it) Donkey Sanctuary.
Now yesterday I read this. I scratched my head. I pondered. I thought about it on my bicycle ride home. I knew, the way any crossword puzzle addict knows deep in their bones, that there's a joke buried in there somewhere.
But it escaped me. Nonetheless, I Twittered that I was inviting all my friends to join me in creating a new Donkey Sanctuary in the UK.
An old friend from high school, Terri Hartman, knocked me over with the *perfect* joke, leaving this comment on Facebook:
The ass you save may be your own.
DOH! That's IT!
Join the plot:
Follow Greenpeace »
Comments
it may help to stop the government turning blighty into a global warehouse fueling dump
Posted by: david terrance wilson | January 16, 2009 1:46 AM
It would look really good if u whent ahead and did your research before whining about Heathrow airport. Airplane trafic is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of transportation in the world. When looking at the amount of fuel used per flight and the amount of people transported, you will quickly see that it is WAY more fuel efficient than driving your car.
so my question simply is: why is an environmentally friendly organisation trying to stop what can only be described as one of the better forms of transportation when it comes to the environment?
Posted by: Andreas | February 3, 2009 9:05 AM