No doubt it would reach more people if it was not banned - the Christmas TV adverts are exceptionally visible in UK. I think it was rejected by Clearcast (a com

No doubt it would reach more people if it was not banned - the Christmas TV adverts are exceptionally visible in UK. I think it was rejected by Clearcast (a commercial company) because its emotional punch was too intense: "There's a human in my forest, and I don't know what to do..." - Emma Thompsons delivery of this would have had hundreds of thousands of UK households sobbing and soul searching instead of watching the next segment. I would support strong limits on the emotional intensity of TV adverts if fairly applied, but Clearcast have allowed many other exceedingly emotional advertisements, sometimes visceral and disturbing, for subjects such as traffic safety. The reason they gave for rejection, that Greenpeace is a "political organisation" is a contentious accusation. Greenpeace does not admit to being such and is no more of a political organisation than WWF or Save the Children. In reality the UK supermarkets themselves make political donations and lobby to influence regulation and policy as most big companies do. Its a rhetorical accusation when it does not concern obvious party political organisations - which Greenpeace is certainly not.