You just can't get the staff
I have been listening to the wireless again.
For those too lazy to click links, the item reported the threatening letter sent by animal rights activists to 50 shareholders in Glaxo telling them to sell their shares, or they'll tell on them on teh interwebs!
Can anyone spot the rather abundant Clarkson fuel in this argument?
Answer? Read the comments, it's in there.
For those too lazy to click links, the item reported the threatening letter sent by animal rights activists to 50 shareholders in Glaxo telling them to sell their shares, or they'll tell on them on teh interwebs!
Can anyone spot the rather abundant Clarkson fuel in this argument?
Answer? Read the comments, it's in there.
posted by Richard at 11:06 am
10 Vegetable peelings:
Not especially, sorry to be dim, but anything that fuels Clarkson is a good idea. Ideally, a long way away from me. Isn't he just Littlejohn for solicitors?
Richard, I hope you don't mind but I'd just like to point out that we call them radio's now. Would you like a biscuit with your cocoa, dear?
I'll let it run a bit before I spoil it. You're not dim, you just read and accepted it like 99.9% of the population would have done.
I don't mind at all, Tom. I'll have an Abernethy, thanks.
Tom. He lives in Crewe. You've been there. They still only have the wireless. Dolly tubs and mangles are still the latest technology.
Now apologise.
I'm stumped. What's the answer.
[I'm doing like the others and pretending I don't know so that Richard won't feel that he isn't cleverer than us after all]
OK, see if you follow me.
They picked 50 shareholders at random and ordered them to sell their shares in GSK as a protest at their involvement with Huntingdon Labs. The operative word here was SELL. They didn't ask them to publicly revoke or break their association, they asked them to SELL their shares - so somebody else could buy them and invest in a company that uses animal testing and presumably be the target of the next batch of hate mail. It just doesn't work neatly enough.
What on earth was the point other than to bring negative coverage to a movement whose most recent piece of publicity was the re-discovery of the old lady's remains they dug up last year. Were they hoping that their actions would frighten off investors in one of the world's biggest drug companies and force it back into private ownership?
And there was me thinking it was quite a clever move!
Well spotted.
The words 'animal rights movement' and 'bright' seem to have been mutually exclusive for about as a long as I can remember.
Pity. They've probably got a point, buried in the hysteria somewhere...
I'm sure they have a very good point, Mark, they're just lacking in decent leadership.
Post a Comment
<< Home