Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

UK Lego Customer Services closed? (and LEGOshop.com down)

2»

Comments

  • Craigster10Craigster10 Member Posts: 54
    Last thing I am saying on this thread, as I really don't want to get drawn into a discussion were I am not entitled to express my views.

    Yes I think they are hypocrites, I agree with others that they do more harm than good in there tactics, extreme members or not. This is just my opinion again!

    There campaign is to get Lego to end its association with Shell, and if Lego does not listen to them they just get more aggressive. If Lego wants an agreement with Shell rightly or wrongly that is up to them, its not up to anyone else. They have said there peace now they should leave it, lets see if they will. Or are they going to force every company to do what Greenpeace says?!
    fenderbender336
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,824
    Xefan said:



    God, not this stupid argument again. It's like saying they're idiots for being against polluted air, yet they still breathe it.

    If you want them to start using solar powered boats or whatever then I'm sure they'd absolutely love for you to spend the millions to buy one for them, otherwise they can only do so much in the bounds of the world in which they exist. To them it makes more sense to spend a barrel of oil getting to an oil platform that may spill millions of barrels of oil to stop it doing so by making people aware that it's being run in an unsafe manner than it is to not spend that barrel of oil and there to be a spill of millions of barrels of oil.

    It's really not rocket science, so enough of the idiot-thinking that demands absolutes. The world isn't black and white.

    It wasn't so long ago (4-5 weeks) that Pascal Husting, Greenpeace International's programme director, was caught out by The Guardian for taking regular short haul flights to get to work, with the knowledge of Greenpeace, for "family reasons" when he could have taken the train. This is at the same time as Greenpeace campaigning against short haul flights, saying they are unnecessary. Why is any other businessman any different to him? Take the plane, travel quicker, get home to be with the family. Why is any family going on holiday any different? Less journey time, more family time.

    He only stopped doing it and made an open apology when he was caught out, after two years of doing it. No doubt if he wasn't caught out, he'd still be doing it. That is the sort of hypocrisy that people high up in Greenpeace are guilty of. It's OK to disregard some of the company's key ideas, since it doesn't quite fit with their lifestyle choice.

    They can only do so much ... when it suits them.
    Craigster10ShibmadforLEGOfenderbender336oldtodd33gifinim
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    @CCC and that was indeed hypocritical and incredibly stupid. I don't think anyone is saying that greenpeace and those that work for it are perfect, what were saying is that the argument put forward here and in the other thread that because you use oil means you can't complain about oil companies or suggest we use less is hypocritical - that is a nonsense argument.
    Xefan
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    Shib said:

    ^^Would be true if not for the fact that I listen to other environmental groups that have less of an extremist following. If Greenpeace as an organisation separated themselves from their extremist followers, and displayed less hypocrisy, then I would pay more attention to them.

    Greenpeace is the biggest and most well known so of course it's going to attract more. Sure you can focus on growing others but as they grow they'll tend towards the exact same point so you'll achieve exactly nothing.

    Its not an argument its an opinion, and there you go again shouting it down, I am entitled to think what I like, as you are.

    Actually I have no problem with you stating your opinion, but if you want to parrot the same demonstrably nonsensical argument multiple times in a single thread then don't cry that you're some kind of victim whose being shouted down. I might similarly make the same argument about your posts and responses to me. What you're really asking is that you be able to spout nonsense and not have anyone dare question it. It doesn't work like that.
    KingDave said:

    The problem is that the people setting strategy for Greenpeace (at least nowadays) seem to be on the more extreme end of things, at least from my perspective.

    I wouldn't call anything in this campaign thus far extreme so I'm not really seeing any evidence of that. If extremists were running the show at Greenpeace then we would indeed be seeing official calls from Greenpeace for DDoS attacks, we would be seeing calls for people to damage Lego products in stores to make them unsellable and that sort of direct action. We've not got any of that, we've just got social media campaigns and protests, neither of which are extreme actions by any rational measure.
    cheshirecat
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    Shib said:

    I would not suggest for one minute that Greenpeace use solar powered boats, but I'd have thought they'd set a stronger message by using sailing boats, yes it might take them a bit longer to get to the oil platform to protest but it would be a far greater show of their belief.

    Right and get blockaded by much faster powered boats? You're asking them to campaign at a distinct disadvantage to those they're campaigning against which is completely and utterly stupid.

    It's like saying Fairy Bricks is hypocritical for having an auction and giving Lego to AFOLs through it when it could just give the auction items to kids - it's a complete nonsense argument, because by having an auction they can auction off more collectable items that are less interesting to kids and get money in return to get more sets that kids will find more interesting to kids. The net result is that they can serve far more kids than they otherwise would even though it involved some giving away of Lego to people other than those they primarily exist to serve.

    It's like the argument that Bill Gates' charity is unethical because it has invested in companies that have some link to suffering (that it likely wasn't even aware of) even though the net result is that it's gained far more money to decrease far more suffering overall. If they were to audit every action of every company they invest in then they'd be so incredibly inefficient that they'd never achieve their charitable goals in the first place.

    Save the rainforest prints out leaflets that originally came from trees which even if recycled will often have some rainforest origin to some degree, but if every thousand leaflets only results in the felling of one tree, but generates enough revenue to protect many square acres of trees then it's worth it.

    Sometimes organisations have to go to some degree against their stated aims short term to achieve their goal successfully long term. Again, I don't know why this seems so hard for some people to understand, it's not exactly a ground breaking or cutting edge concept.

    Just about every charity does this in one way or another, so you may as well argue all charities are hypocritical and if like @Craigster10‌ you want to defend your right to continue to make such stupid arguments for whatever reason then fine, you can, but at least accept the stupidity of it.
    BJ21BOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149

    @CCC and that was indeed hypocritical and incredibly stupid. I don't think anyone is saying that greenpeace and those that work for it are perfect, what were saying is that the argument put forward here and in the other thread that because you use oil means you can't complain about oil companies or suggest we use less is hypocritical - that is a nonsense argument.

    Exactly. Cherry picking the odd individual example here and there does nothing to discredit the whole.

    The only thing that matters is whether the charity is successful in achieving a net improvement in the areas it is seeking improvement, anything else is irrelevant. Given that Greenpeace has had much success in recent years with campaigns such as forcing electronics companies to reduce the level of pollutants in production of products that end up in landfills then I'd argue they can't really be accused of going far wrong - a net improvement is the only thing that ultimately matters. Anything else is just an argument of efficiency - and all organisations have scope for efficiency improvements, why hold Greenpeace to a higher standard?
  • SirKevbagsSirKevbags Fairy Land Member Posts: 4,030
    Don't bring us into this ;-)

    You're right though. You try your best and can't possibly get every decision correct. When you're out there promoting public benefit though you need to be very careful not to do stupid things. Like donating Mega Blocks.
    ShibXefanCraigster10roxioBOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,824
    Xefan said:

    @CCC and that was indeed hypocritical and incredibly stupid. I don't think anyone is saying that greenpeace and those that work for it are perfect, what were saying is that the argument put forward here and in the other thread that because you use oil means you can't complain about oil companies or suggest we use less is hypocritical - that is a nonsense argument.

    Exactly. Cherry picking the odd individual example here and there does nothing to discredit the whole.
    There is also a belief system. In that do you believe Greenpeace when they say something. The fact that Greenpeace as a corporation - not just a one off individual - was happy enough to allow one of their high profile members of staff to break one of their core beliefs while campaigning against it leads me to be highly skeptical of them. And not just on that issue. Personally, I don't think Greenpeace has the right to campaign against short haul, given it's previous stance that it is OK for them to do it for lifestyle choices even though they now, since being caught out, admit it was wrong. And that every time they do campaign against it, they should be reminded of that fact. It is similar to politicians campaigning for family values, at the same time as having an affair or using prostitutes, and the top ranks of their party knowing about it too but allowing it to go on.

    No doubt there is also something similar with lego. I wonder how many Greenpeace employees - not just activists, but employees - are allowing their children to play with lego. If they are, then again it is hypocritical of their stance of targeting lego (and now it's consumers, by denying them access to lego customer services).

    Although it is really not clear to me what Greenpeace actually want people to do and, longer term, what they expect to gain out of it - is it stop playing with and buying lego, or just attack lego while continuing to buy it.

    It will be interesting to see what happens if lego does stop partnering with Shell - although I'm not sure what that will entail. Do they have any ongoing co-promotions at the moment? I reckon another toy manufacturer will step up and have their toys given away with a petrol promotion.

    Then they and we have to ask, is it worth it. What benefit will there be if lego stops promoting with shell. Kids won't see the shell logo on a very tiny proportion of lego toys, but they will see their parents filling up their cars with petrol. Kids will have lego cars and trucks to play with, with the fictional Octan oil company printed on the side. Shell will go on drilling. Is that success?
    Craigster10
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    ^ I believe that the LEGO promotion has been said to be worth £166 million to Shell. Not sure where that comes from, but its a given that Shell will perceive a value in the cross promotion so by scrapping it it hurts shell. Shell want to promote with the biggest toy manufacturer in the world, one whose brand is seen as excellence, family values etc etc. If they end up promoting with megablox then they lose (I suspect they wouldn't as it doesn't have the same brand reputation that they are looking for). So yes it is worth it.
    Xefan
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,824
    Without knowing where (or even who) the figure comes from, it doesn't mean much.

    It could be anywhere from the value of all petrol sold during the promotion, worldwide, through to the profit of all predicted extra sales due to the partnership.

    For example, if it was coming from Greenpeace, no doubt they would include all gross petrol sales before taxes are taken off, to make sure the figure is as large as possible. Whereas to Shell, the number that matters is the extra sales due to the promotion, after taxes.

    I have no doubt both lego and shell get something out of the promotion, since otherwise it would not happen.
    Craigster10
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    edited July 2014
    @Xefan‌
    You seem to be extremely protective of a group of washed up environmentalists. Get over yourself.
    Craigster10
  • electrobovineelectrobovine In the LEGO roomMember Posts: 34
    I've just ordered a complete set of Series 2 Mixels to bolster my counter-protest. I think @Shib's idea above about getting an Arctic set is a super one, so next up is that tasty looking 60034-1: Arctic Helicrane. Huskies to the picket line!

    This is the most fun I've ever had supporting a cause. Why, it's even more fun than playing with cardboard cut-outs of bricks on the road side... :)
    Craigster10
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    The best thing we can all do is ignore greenpeace (but keep the jokes coming) and continue to support Lego and their products. If they come after the forums, then it becomes personal.
    Craigster10
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    CCC said:

    The fact that Greenpeace as a corporation - not just a one off individual - was happy enough to allow one of their high profile members of staff to break one of their core beliefs while campaigning against it leads me to be highly skeptical of them.

    But this is really the problem, for Greenpeace, people like yourself are taking a single indiscretion and implying it had organisation wide support and then suggesting we should hence ignore the whole company.

    Now with TLG someone pointed out just the other week that on one hand TLG is putting out corporate responsibility statements saying they support sustainability and on the other partnering with companies that are the anti-thesis of that. This is absolutely no different in terms of the level of hypocrisy, but with TLG we don't say boycott the whole organisation - we just treat it as a case of corporate schizophrenia where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

    Now I could ask why the disparity in the way Greenpeace is treated, but I really already know the answer - people are treating Greenpeace differently simply because they do not support what it stands for - environmentalism, or simply because they've fallen victim to stories, rather than broader facts.

    And that's what really makes these discussions stupid. People aren't arguing against Greenpeace because it's genuinely done anything more wrong, or are any more inefficient than any other organisation, they're arguing against it because they're against what it stands for but do not have the courage of their convictions to simply admit that and instead try to frame their argument as if they have the moral high ground, they do not, but they could at least have the balls to say what they really mean rather than dance around behind arguments that just do not make any sense.
    cheshirecatBJ21BOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149

    @Xefan‌
    You seem to be extremely protective of a group of washed up environmentalists. Get over yourself.

    Sure and you seem very protective and supportive of irrationality, stupidity, and general idiocy, but I guess we both make our choices, and I'm happier with mine than you really should be with yours.
    cheshirecatBJ21
  • electrobovineelectrobovine In the LEGO roomMember Posts: 34
    Crikey! All this vitriol. I'm reminded why I don't usually loiter around forums now. Join me in my campaign instead. It's fun, friendly, and no-one gets insulted. And at the end of it, you end up with a box or more of LEGO of your choosing. I'm off to Amazon next... Such fun :)
    Craigster10BOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    edited July 2014
    @Xefan‌
    So supporting greenpeace makes you a genius? What has greenpeace accomplished??? Taking people's money while doing nothing that positively affects the world? Or maybe line their pockets with the money of their donors? If you want to support a company that actually can, and has put a dent in the oil industry, then support Tesla Motors.

    Also do you think that going after Lego, a toy manufacturer, makes them look good? How about brainwashing kids to support the greenpeace movement?

    You may call me an idiot all you want, but at the end of the day you are the one who looks arrogant. I would rather look like an idiot, than a pompous prick.
    Craigster10
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 9,356
    edited July 2014
    Xefan said:

    ....
    Now I could ask why the disparity in the way Greenpeace is treated, but I really already know the answer - people are treating Greenpeace differently simply because they do not support what it stands for - environmentalism, or simply because they've fallen victim to stories, rather than broader facts.

    And that's what really makes these discussions stupid. People aren't arguing against Greenpeace because it's genuinely done anything more wrong, or are any more inefficient than any other organisation, they're arguing against it because they're against what it stands for but do not have the courage of their convictions to simply admit that and instead try to frame their argument as if they have the moral high ground, they do not, but they could at least have the balls to say what they really mean rather than dance around behind arguments that just do not make any sense.

    First, stop saying the 'these discussions are stupid to me' that sounds like code for these '...people are not thinking like me, ergo this discussion is stupid'.
    Second, I'm, and I'm sure many on this forum that are railing against GP, all for the environment, I get we need to preserve this world for our future generations. I get their are things everyone can do to help out and make this planet more sustainable for everyone (and really needs to happen ). I get that Whales really no longer need to be hunted for food. However, I do not want to live in a thatched hut and play with rocks and stare at a fire and ride a horse or walk everywhere I go.
    Sadly, our world needs oil. Oil for transportation, oil for toys, oil for medications all of these eco-people take when they have an upset tummy, headache, or have a bacterial infection. Oil for moving vehicles, making vehicles, and powering homes. Oil for plastics that stop deadly pathogens from getting through the suit to the wearer, etc etc.
    Does an alternative need to be out there?Sure
    However, how exactly does submerging a toy company in CS calls or getting extremists riled up enough to take down the toy companies website help out?!
    LEGO is a petroleum based product. Once these people figure that out, what is next? Call for a permanent ban on the toy itself? I think people here would change their tune about how great GP is if they could not buy LEGO anymore.

    People seem to forget the guys that make the rules are in their nation's capitals, not a toy company, or even a corporation. The power lies with LAWMAKERs to make these changes, not expecting corps to do it. If GP would use their brain they would realize submerging their govt representative in these same phone calls and threatening to vote them out of their offices would make MUCH more of an impact than trying to extort a toy company or corporation.

    The silver lining here I think is this though:
    What this actually DOES do is force LEGO to update their website and beef up their infrastructure so that they will not have this issue in the future, as I think we all have complained that LEGO needs to update their website when it crashes every BF at 12:01am.
    Imagine a LEGO site that actually handles demand of the masses during BF.
    I never thought Id say this, but THANKS GP.
    fenderbender336Shiboldtodd33monkeyhangerCraigster10JP3804BOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,824
    Xefan said:

    CCC said:

    The fact that Greenpeace as a corporation - not just a one off individual - was happy enough to allow one of their high profile members of staff to break one of their core beliefs while campaigning against it leads me to be highly skeptical of them.

    But this is really the problem, for Greenpeace, people like yourself are taking a single indiscretion and implying it had organisation wide support and then suggesting we should hence ignore the whole company.

    It WAS a corporate decision to allow it, a single indiscretion made by someone in high office, and agreed to by the International Executive Director. A single "temporary" indiscretion that was allowed to go on for two years.

    And in fact many of the supporters didn't agree with it once it came out in the open, and have refused to fund or volunteer for Greenpeace any more, once they knew that the governing policies don't necessarily apply to the top tier of Greenpeace executives.
    Craigster10
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,824
    Xefan said:


    And that's what really makes these discussions stupid. People aren't arguing against Greenpeace because it's genuinely done anything more wrong, or are any more inefficient than any other organisation, they're arguing against it because they're against what it stands for but do not have the courage of their convictions to simply admit that and instead try to frame their argument as if they have the moral high ground, they do not, but they could at least have the balls to say what they really mean rather than dance around behind arguments that just do not make any sense.

    I don't care if someone flies shorthaul. I do care if someone flies shorthaul at the same time as saying no-one else should be allowed to fly shorthaul, that their circumstances are somehow special.

    I don't care if someone has an affair. I do care if the person having an affair is promoting family values and monogamy, and demonising anyone that does not stand for the same. Would I listen to that person about something else, if I knew they were hypocritical on another serious matter? Probably not. Which is why politicians usually have to resign when they are caught doing what they are supposedly against. They lose credibility.

    For me, Greenpeace lost a lot of credibility when it not only allowed an exec to break their policies over a prolonged period, to go against what it has been advocating for many years, but also to try to come up with excuses why they did, before admitting it was wrong when caught out. And then allowing the people that did it to remain in position. Why should people believe them when they have been proven to have little credibility on other environmental policies and decisions, when it affects them directly?
    fenderbender336ShibmonkeyhangerCraigster10BOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    What is it with this idea that we can only save the planet by living in huts, I assume it's local media and interested industry but jeez. The average American has a carbon footprint of about 19t/year. The average German just 12.5 t/year. I chose those two because they are rated as having the same quality of life - yes they even have refrigerators! There are plenty of others such as Netherlands, Sweden, Finland that have even lower CFs and even better quality of life. It's not an all or nothing game.

    Similarly we can try to use less oil even knowing we can't yet cut it out or even come close to it. Similarly we can insist that oil companies do everything they reasonably can to not cause environmental damage and where they do to properly clean it up. Similarly we can encourage companies that claim to be supportive of sustainability and promote themselves as such not to unnecessarily actively support polluting oil companies.

    Failure to understand that is quite frankly idiotic, if you don't believe in CF or sustainability then fine but then don't wrap that up in spurious arguments that don't hold up to any form of scrutiny. However Lego claim they do and that's what counts.

    It's almost always better to do a little rather than nothing when doing it all isn't possible or practical. For example a Dr is right to advise someone drinking 7 bottles of wine a week to cut down even if it would be better to stop completely, even if the Dr drinks a bottle a week.
    BOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    edited July 2014
    ^ ok let's look at who is actively trying to reduce their carbon footprint. Every car manufacturer in the US is downsizing their engines and increasing fuel efficiency. Also, once again, we have Tesla Motors, and they offer the best electric car on the market, and it's not a golf cart, but a full sized sedan. We get a bad reputation due to our big, gas guzzling V8s, but that is quickly changing in the industry, plus Tesla will be offering an SUV next year so expect the footprint to start diminishing. And while many will say that a Tesla is expensive, they're the most advanced cars on the market by far. Within a few years they will have a $30K car available to the public. These cars can drive 200+ miles on a single charge. The attitude towards big displacement V8s is quickly changing due to smaller, more efficient engines that produce the same, if not more horsepower, and they aren't stopping there. All of these companies are developing new techniques for dropping the weight of their vehicles. I for one am 110% supportive of these practices because I do care about the environment. I may not support greenpeace but I do support progression.
    Craigster10BOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    And that's great, and I have no problem with someone not supporting greenpeace - I'm not remotely a big fan of theirs, would never have supported unilateral nuclear disarmament etc etc. I'm an engineer who likes technical and economic progress. However on this issue I think greenpeace are right and going about it in a reasonable manner. The trouble is I haven't seen a single argument against their stand point on this campaign that holds up to any level of scrutiny and many that are just batshit crazy - like I don't want to live in a hut so I'm not doing anything.
    fenderbender336
  • fenderbender336fenderbender336 Member Posts: 88
    @cheshirecat‌
    Looks like we share some of the same views then. What bothers me is the fact that the US knows that we could be using solar energy, but really isn't doing anything about it, whereas Germany is making effort to integrate that technology into everyday life. We only have a few companies truly working on solar energy, Solar City seems to be the only one really facing that head on. The oil companies have too much power and the government is filled with lobbyists so we aren't making too much progress thanks to their seemingly infinite power.
  • GoodCoffeeJoeyGoodCoffeeJoey Member Posts: 81
    You guys are looking at this all wrong. Lego is located in Denmark. The last country to attack Denmark was Nazi Germany. The leader of Nazi Germany was Hitler. We are at war with Hilter again!
  • VenunderVenunder Nottingham, UK.Member Posts: 2,484
    Greenpeace had a really great idea.
    Let's protect the environment from rampant exploitation
    by big business and protect some wild life at the same time.

    Step forward 40 years and you have to wonder what went wrong with Greenpeace?
    The answer is big business running rampant within Greenpeace and a general feeling that in such a large scale "War" against the corporations, the ends justify ANY means.
    When quite clearly they do not.

    Unfortunately this just debases and corrupts Greenpeace, when what the world really, really needs is the Greenpeace that should have been .....
    Shib
  • david325david325 Member Posts: 138
    Mods, please close my thread. Thanks! @Huw‌
    Shibfenderbender336Craigster10KingDave
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 9,356

    And that's great, and I have no problem with someone not supporting greenpeace - I'm not remotely a big fan of theirs, would never have supported unilateral nuclear disarmament etc etc. I'm an engineer who likes technical and economic progress. However on this issue I think greenpeace are right and going about it in a reasonable manner. The trouble is I haven't seen a single argument against their stand point on this campaign that holds up to any level of scrutiny and many that are just batshit crazy - like I don't want to live in a hut so I'm not doing anything.

    I made a hut remark ( I presume I am the one referred to a 'BS crazy') and should have known that someone would completely over-blow it and misinterpret that one little line. But here is the funny thing, that was not ALL I said. Easy to cherry pick things eh? I'll expand on my original comments. but I need to try to keep it short, so no one go flying off the handle grabbing another little blurb and start ranting like you, yourself, are BS crazy.

    GP stopped up LEGO for one/two days, maybe cost 1-2 mil in sales, actually did not cost anything, just delayed, which they will now make up in sales for the rest of the week. It is the same stupid argument seen with people saying do not buy gas on the 1st to show the oil companies this or that, then go to the station on the 2nd to fill up. Get a car with better gas mileage. Nothing scares Oil companies like better gas mileage.

    Quite frankly corps and businesses do not give two @#$%s about what some group or consumers say to them as long as they can still make their money. In fact, Corps are legally bound to make money and will do so using every legal measure until a law is passed to stop them. They instead all say the same thing, the LAW states we can do this, the LAW states we only have to do this for clean ups of spills, or fuel economy, etc etc. It does not mean I like them doing this or seeing a dependency on oil (where there are developing alternatives that I would rather see) and I am definitely NOT just saying 'do nothing', NEVER did. Corp and business will not police themselves period.

    I'm just saying the ire is not being directed at the right place. In the US for example, The ire needs to be directed to state capitals and Washington DC.. Y'know? Where the LAWMAKERS are that allow this crap to go on and can stop many of these corporate shenanigans. It is easy to go submerge a company in calls and get zealots to knock down a website-which really does not do much to most companies that make billions. It takes more grit and determination to get lawmakers to see the problem and fight to get it fixed.

    Like I said above (which apparently some ignored) If GP would devote this kind of effort to say 'contact your representative and demand that you make a law forbidding toy companies from making agreements to advertise oil companies' instead of basically doing nothing by their protest of the company. I think more would get done. That is all, that is it. I did not say put my head in the sand nor advocate it to anyone, Anyone saying so is simply trying to put words in my mouth to justify their position.
    I will admit that I could expanded my answer a bit more to cover that as well ,but did not, someone started assuming what I meant and you know what happens when you 'assume'.
    Craigster10
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,824
    If the US reduced it's per person carbon footprint to that of Germany, climate change still happens, right? Just at a slightly slower rate. At the same time as rising populations, requiring more food, energy and the big one, water. That's what is going to kill the planet.

    In the same way that Greenpeace are seen as a bunch of loons from one side, so the other side see the oil industry as purposely trying to pollute the planet, that all drilling is bad drilling, and that they don't care about spillages. This is just as wrong.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    @CCC Indeed and somewhere in the middle is the sensible ground where we recognise a current need for fossil fuels whilst understanding that we also need to reduce our dependency on them for both our own and wider societies benefit. The middle ground would also see that there really is no need for lego to support shell especially when it goes against the sustainable ethos they promote. It would also point out many of the bad things that shell does (including not fulfilling their legal obligations to clean up spillages) to a toy company that is happy to let shell benefit through association with the lego brand.

    As for the US getting down to German levels it would be an incredibly good start and would help but more importantly shows that improvements can be made without much or any loss of the life we've got used to. Then maybe they could get down to some Scandinavian levels of about 7t/year (a 66% reduction on today's levels). We are totally use to economic progress and technological progress we also need sustainable progress in terms of not abusively exploiting the planets resources or indeed society, something big oil has done for decades and continues to do. That can't happen overnight but can be a steady change but it needs to start yesterday. And yes water is a big problem, the biggest (food probably not so much) and one of the main problems is contamination of water by industry.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited July 2014
    @madforLEGO‌

    The hut remark was yours but similar ones were made in the earlier GP thread too as well as the infamous refrigerators remark. Having gone back and looked again there's no other way to really take it especially as it was followed by a long list of why we need oil.

    Lobbying governments is all well and good but has been shown not to work as a) industry pays for lobbyists and political funding and b) politics is now sadly fundamentally corrupt.

    As for industry sticking to the law, they don't -again see shell in Nigeria as an example. Also they do do more than what the law requires, they do bow down to public and commercial pressures all the time. Whether that's a multi national paying additional tax or one of legos suppliers improving it's workers rights or lego changing it's cardboard supplier. In all those cases it's about shining a light on the unethical and immoral activities. When those hurt it's bottom line they act much quicker than any change in the law would have them do.

    Also we still don't know that legos site going down was a ddos, I remember our resident Internet security boffin saying it was a shambles and we've all seen it go down often enough to know it could have been anything.

    I'm still waiting for a good reason why lego should continue supporting shell and why whilst supporting it it isn't a legitimate target for the kind of action we've seen so far.
  • SchwallexSchwallex Member Posts: 121
    Greenpeace stole my walrus. Nuff said.

    It was up on LEGO Ideas, saying "created by Schwallex":

    image

    And now it's up on greenpeace.org.uk saying "All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace":

    image

    That's what happens, children, when you publish free building instructions and 3D files.
    fenderbender336GoodCoffeeJoeyLostInTranslationLegobrandonCPelectrobovinecheshirecatKingDavegifinim
  • Wil348Wil348 Member Posts: 240
    That's just wrong. :o

    You should contact them and tell them. That's plagiarism, they should have at least asked you first or made their own original one.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,824
    They have amended it. Extra studs for the eyes, 2x1 cheese slopes instead of 1x1s. The orientation of the parts used to hold the tusks also looks slightly different.

    Although nicking ideas is fine if it is for the greater good.
  • electrobovineelectrobovine In the LEGO roomMember Posts: 34
    @Schwallex That's a lovely walrus. And all those other smart looking critters, too. I have added my support on LEGO ideas. In the meantime, mind if I build one for my own set-up? I'll call it Schwallex the Walrus, so you are duly credited for your talents!
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited August 2014
    @Schwallex‌ Its a very lovely walrus (and by the way, your stuff got a mention in an email I got from Lego Ideas yesterday!) and assuming GP did knowingly use your walrus then they should have asked you for permission to use it. On the plus side your design has appeared in numerous online and probably print publications.

    To everyone else, and just to clarify...

    Although bashing GP appears to be the popular thing on brickset, officially GP haven't done a single thing wrong and its certainly not plagiarism. The GP copyright is for the image itself and theres no requirement to ask or name Shwallex. Its a derivative or composite work that retains its own copyright entirely separate from the originals. If GP uploaded instructions to build the walrus that would be a different matter, but to my knowledge thats not what they are doing. Unfortunately even in that situation its not Schwallex thats been 'damaged', as someone mentioned in reply to a comment on the GP site, as soon as a model is uploaded to LEGO ideas the copyright transfers to LEGO. (https://ideas.lego.com/terms 3(i))

    That is though just the legal stuff and obviously the right thing to do is ask Schwallex first or if they weren't aware (if it was actually built and filmed by an AFOL) then to now say sorry. On the plus side, if they can gather 700,000 signatures for a petition they might be able to help the walrus reach 10,000 votes on LEGO ideas!
    LegoKip
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,824
    Maybe Lego Ideas is their next target .... The Greenpeace logo, or a walrus covered in black 1x1 round plates. With their followers they'd easily get the 10,000 votes needed to get it to review.
  • david325david325 Member Posts: 138
    Mods, please close my thread!

    I only wanted to find out why [email protected] was closed, now I'm receiving over 85 emails as people have "posted in my thread"

    This was never intended to be a Greenpeace debate. I'm sure there are much better places to waste your time doing that.

    So please, CLOSE MY THREAD!

    Thanks!

    @Huw‌ @atkinsar @Matthew @bluemoose @drdavewatford‌

    ShibBOBJACK_JACKBOB
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    ^ Just go into your profile and uncheck 'Notify me when people comment on my discussions.'
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,458
    ^^ Done...
    david325Shib
This discussion has been closed.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.