Ja men det var väl ett listigt tilltag. Undrar hur man kan utveckla det här. En Stinger-missil, kanske?

Det är ju för sorgligt att ni förstör det viktiga budskap ni för fram, genom ogenomtänkta aktioner. Ändamålen helgar medlen?

Stackarna från Vattenfall måste dessutom ha frusit ihjäl om de verkligen satt på Söderstadion och hade personalfest. Tror du inte att de satt inne i Globen, i värmen? Jag tror inte att de såg ett smack.

Också väldigt roligt att ni hade en skojig kväll. Pucko.

Jag vet inte om ert budskap gick fram eftersom personalfesten höll till inne i Globen. Vad jag vet hade personalen från vattenfal ingen aning om det hela. Däremot visste Globens egen personal vad som skedde.
Man kan tycka att det var ett ganska oförargligt sätt att få fram era åsikter men i själva verket satte ni inte vattenfall i knipa utan globenarenorna.

Jag håller med er i många punkter och tycker i överlag att det är bra att ni finns, men som sagt, detta gick aldrig fram till Vattenfalls festgäster inne i Globen, helt enkelt på grund av att alla var inne hela tiden! Och som föregående kommentator skrev, detta skadade inte Vattenfall alls, utan självaste Globen...

Jag var där - jag är Vattenfallare. Jag märkte ingenting. jag hade trevligt därinne!

http://muffinsmartin.blogg.se/2009/october/draft-okt-17-2009-2.html#comment

Ska man använda äkta päls eller fuskpäls?

Såg att ni hade projecerar budskap om kolkraft på Stockholms stadshus fasad. Har inget emot att ni för ut budskap om Vattenfalls kolkraft. Men Fortum Värme, som staden delvis äger, driver Sveriges största kolkraftverk. Värtaverket producerade 2008 mer än 600 000 ton CO2. Politikerna i stadshuset har också ett stort ansvar. Inta att förglömma.

@Valfrid Lindeman
Så länge inga människor eller djur kommer till skada så tycker jag faktiskt ändamålen helgar medlen. Man får komma ihåg att greenpeace inte gör det här för egen vinnings skull, utan för dig och mig Valfrid. Vad gör du själv för att förhindra en ekologisk och humanitär katastrof?

@ Kristina,
på vilket sätt skadar detta Globen? Att den vita färgen bleknade en gnutta?

jättebra gjort fortsätt så !!!!
låt inte alla dumma kommentarer ta ner er d e bara folk som själva inte gör nåt o måste hitta nåt att racka ner på.
skitbra jobbat

Alla i Greenpeace är så härliga! Ni vågar göra mycket för att försöka påverka samhället. Tack för en suverän organisation!

/från en 14 årig blivande Greenpeace-tjej!

EUROPE ALLOWS RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION

This is a part of the instance against the European Court of Human Rights
and the European Union for failing to
protect Juvenile people

Hello

I am Vasileios T. from Greece.

We Europeans and our European Court
MUST CHANGE SOME RULES
ABOUT RELIGIOUS RIGHTS IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

It is ILLIGAL for the European Court of Human Rights
not to protect Human Rights for ANY REASON.

I know that each country has the right to regulate alone
religious guidance and educational propaganda
to unformed and deceivable juvenile.

Juvenile people (yes, they are people with rights) have not yet
developed the intellectual defence to filter religious propaganda,
and to develop unaffected individual view about the object of
the religious propaganda and the religion it self.

According to official scientific researches but also
according to ALMOST EVERY LEGAL SYSTEM
Juvenile People are not physically and mentally ready
to be expected to cope with the same issue
with the same effectiveness of an adult.

Therefore Juvenile People are not mentally ready to cope with
religious propaganda.

Juvenile People are protected by the law more than adults
in many cases, even if they are the victimizer
because they are more prone to incorrect decisions,
due to their youth and immaturity.

The religion we believe as true is not imprinted to our DNA
but is a result mainly of adscititious factors.

We have no right to eliminate the factors which make us
choose a religion.

WE DO NOT ONLY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT
BUT WE MUST
PROTECT JUVENILE PEOPLE
ACCORDING TO
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS!

According to the current laws
The European Court of Human Rights has NO RIGHT to force
any European Country
to RESPECT JUVENILE PEOPLE.

This law contradicts against the fundamental Human Rights and laws
that the European Court of Human Rights defends.

Therefore I will prosecute the European Court of Human Rights
and the European Union for failing to
protect Juvenile people.

The prosecution will be deposited to
the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights was instituted
to protect Human Rights.

Many times, all the legal systems
have some juristic incoherences, because it's very hard
to enact laws.

In those cases, the legislator has to harmonize
the secondary laws to the fundamental law.
This fact does not constitute oddness, but basic
legislative process to all juristical systems.

The new countries which enter the European Union,
MUST RESPECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS
AND THE RIGHTS OF JUVENILE PEOPLE.

If the European Union
and the European Court of Human Rights
do not harmonize the law
THAT ALLOWS COUNTRIES
TO INFRINGE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
of adults and juvenile people,
to the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
that the European Union
and the European Court of Human Rights
defend relentlessly,

I will be perforced to appeal to
the European Court of Human Rights
against the European Union
and also against the European Court of Human Rights,
asking from them to respect the fundamental rights
that the European Union and
the European Court of Human Rights
defend.

I will have to ask for nomothetic act of harmonization
to the most fundamental law.
Namely harmonization to the laws that protect
juvenile people, religious freedom and HUMAN RIGHTS,
because the people who don't follow the
Governmental religion, unavoidably are considered OUTCASTS.

If the European Union and
the European Court of Human Rights decide to officially stop
protecting Human Rights by legislative act and new
European treaty,
I will no longer demand
from them to protect Human Rights.

But as long as the European Union
and the European Court of Human Rights are
the supreme legal and statutory stern defenders
of Human Rights, I have all the legal rights to
ask for nomothetic reconcilement, even for
satisfaction (amends).

The European Court of Human Rights
knows this jurisprudential incoherence.

If the European Court of Human Rights
would fail to defend Human Rights
and would not go along to this legislative harmonization
I will appeal to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The International Court of Justice will not demand from
the European Court of Human Rights
and the European Union to follow specific religious policy
for all European Countries.
It will just demand from the European Court of Human Rights
and the European Union just to harmonize their laws.
To force them choose if they want to be fully apposite
or fully inapposite as the legal defenders of Human Rights,
and to eliminate juristic inconsistencies.