Tony Hayward Watch

Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 8 years ago
#81
(Original post by vnupe)
For whatever reason? That is a mighty huge caveat... with so much at stake, isn't it their duty to find out why? And if the one failed and they were designed by the same company, why would you 'think' or 'believe' the other to be operational? Again isn't the onus on them, as 75% stakeholders to find out?
I don't see why I would have to be arguing this fact... and not to see their culpability is truly remarkable... Again I don't care it is a British company ( I also find it funny that people state it is approx. 50% US, like that would make the matter any less bracing) or an American company... they caused this mess they have to pay... simples...

Also if there are two, then one must be a fail safe for the other one, meaning that one should work independently of the other, so the first failure should not have caused the second, unless both were faulty and should not have been used... either way ignorance is no excuse, BP should have done their due diligence and rectified the matter before proceeding...

Yup it needs to be found out, but eitherway, thats a matter for the company who produce and provide maitenece on it too answer. Nothing to do with BP. BP had a 70% stake in the drilling, the well has been found to be intact, so that was fine.

Your US law makes it legal to operate with one valve not 2, or I am sure BP would have replaced the first if it was not. So blame your **** laws first.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#82
Report 8 years ago
#82
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Yup it needs to be found out, but eitherway, thats a matter for the company who produce and provide maitenece on it too answer. Nothing to do with BP. BP had a 70% stake in the drilling, the well has been found to be intact, so that was fine.

Your US law makes it legal to operate with one valve not 2, or I am sure BP would have replaced the first if it was not. So blame your **** laws first.
if the law states that one is enough then fine. But one has to be tough enough to withstand the pressure caused by the suppression of the oil... Again you seem to gloss over negligence and liability... If BP knew the BOPs were faulty and used them, then they are at fault...

Example:A company can make faulty brake shoes for a car and send out the faulty parts, which dealers then put on the vehicles... if the dealer was advised of the faulty brake shoes and stills put them on the cars, and if an accident occurs then the dealer is liable because he knowingly and willfully put lives in danger.

Its the same principle for BP and the BOPs, if they knew they were faulty and went ahead and used them, then that shows not only negligence but gross negligence.

Why do you try to obfuscate the drilling with the BOP... BP owned the well, leased the rig and therefore were the owners of the oil... If BP knew the BOPs were faulty and still used them, they are liable... this makes sense as they owned up to the spill from the get go... as stated this is unusual... they are spinning it as being good corporate citizens now, but good corporate citizens do not but profits over people and safety... as their record (even under Hayward's watch) indicated...

Also beware the gloating now (as Hayward and BP seem to be doing), turnabout is fair play, and all it takes is one whistleblower or one overzealous reporter to start digging and asking questions...

I believe this is far from over and BP is in a precarious position... I am not actively wishing bad upon them, but when a company or individual takes such a smug attitude... well we all know what they say about karma...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 8 years ago
#83
(Original post by vnupe)
if the law states that one is enough then fine. But one has to be tough enough to withstand the pressure caused by the suppression of the oil... Again you seem to gloss over negligence and liability... If BP knew the BOPs were faulty and used them, then they are at fault...

Example:A company can make faulty brake shoes for a car and send out the faulty parts, which dealers then put on the vehicles... if the dealer was advised of the faulty brake shoes and stills put them on the cars, and if an accident occurs then the dealer is liable because he knowingly and willfully put lives in danger.

Its the same principle for BP and the BOPs, if they knew they were faulty and went ahead and used them, then that shows not only negligence but gross negligence.

Why do you try to obfuscate the drilling with the BOP... BP owned the well, leased the rig and therefore were the owners of the oil... If BP knew the BOPs were faulty and still used them, they are liable... this makes sense as they owned up to the spill from the get go... as stated this is unusual... they are spinning it as being good corporate citizens now, but good corporate citizens do not but profits over people and safety... as their record (even under Hayward's watch) indicated...

Also beware the gloating now (as Hayward and BP seem to be doing), turnabout is fair play, and all it takes is one whistleblower or one overzealous reporter to start digging and asking questions...

I believe this is far from over and BP is in a precarious position... I am not actively wishing bad upon them, but when a company or individual takes such a smug attitude... well we all know what they say about karma...
BOP's are designed so one valve can take the pressure if it closes, it never closed thats the issue.

BP did not do the maitenece, and the BOP was passed as fine when it was inspected in its last inspection before the event, therefore the company who does them and does the BOP should be the one with the bad press.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#84
Report 8 years ago
#84
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
BOP's are designed so one valve can take the pressure if it closes, it never closed thats the issue.

BP did not do the maitenece, and the BOP was passed as fine when it was inspected in its last inspection before the event, therefore the company who does them and does the BOP should be the one with the bad press.
Who does the buck stop with... in other words who reaps the benefits in good times... BP... not the maintenance company... so therefore who ultimately bears the blame when there are bad times... BP... they can not just hold their hands up and say... wasn't me they did the maintenance logs... ok then who was supposed to check their maintenance logs to make sure they were complaint... BP or a representative of BP.. either way, the buck stops with BP... why is this so hard for you to understand.. Ignorance is no excuse...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report 8 years ago
#85
(Original post by vnupe)
Who does the buck stop with... in other words who reaps the benefits in good times... BP... not the maintenance company... so therefore who ultimately bears the blame when there are bad times... BP... they can not just hold their hands up and say... wasn't me they did the maintenance logs... ok then who was supposed to check their maintenance logs to make sure they were complaint... BP or a representative of BP.. either way, the buck stops with BP... why is this so hard for you to understand.. Ignorance is no excuse...
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So if someone comes into your home and installs a new gas system, you know **** all about gas installations... which is why you use professionals who are licensed to do so. If the pro signs it off as good, you believe that.

A week later if blows up and kills the people next door.

Because you were the one that uses the cooker, you are responsible? Not the person who did the poor work?

Reaping the benefits =/= at fault.

Please stop speaking stuff which is personal opinion, and not viable in a court room.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#86
Report 8 years ago
#86
(Original post by vnupe)
To those that want to neg rep under the cover of darkness... I chuckle at you.. you obviously do not agree with my opinions but do not have the conviction to statement why or sign your name...

I suspect this type of mousy, mealy mouth behaviour will continue later on in life. Grow a pair and stand up for your convictions in an adult matter... I as a rule to not neg rep, as I find it a non-intellectual cop out... and very childish... I can not compete with his ideas so I neg rep as retribution.... I shake my head and chuckle at you...

I also suspect it to be that rogue Elipsis, or someone of that ilk... so sliver back in that cave/hole or yours... COWARD!!!
I negged you 14 days ago so i've got another 14 days to go, and I signed it. When I signed it you still cried like a baby. If you don't like being negged stop making ill informed statements about stuff you know nothing about. You try and write and act intelligent but the truth is you're as dumb as a brick. You've already left one thread because you got hammered, now I suggest you save us some time before it takes you another 30 odd pages to realise you're wrong.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#87
Report 8 years ago
#87
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So if someone comes into your home and installs a new gas system, you know **** all about gas installations... which is why you use professionals who are licensed to do so. If the pro signs it off as good, you believe that.

A week later if blows up and kills the people next door.

Because you were the one that uses the cooker, you are responsible? Not the person who did the poor work?

Reaping the benefits =/= at fault.

Please stop speaking stuff which is personal opinion, and not viable in a court room.
Your analogy does not hold water... you as the novice dealing with gas will be liable to a certain extent... it would still be your due diligence to vet the gas company... yes they would be vicariously liable as well, but again ignorance is no excuse... you have subcontracted someone to do the work, therefore it is your obligation to make sure the work is done to a certain standard.

Prove me wrong if I am not correct... Also we have gone over these analogies before and you have been proven wrong, so why are we rehashing this?

I still find it very hard to believe that you are defending a company and a man that let a known terrorist/murder free in a deal for oil... this is the type of company/corporation I despise... It would not matter if it was an American or British company.
0
quote
reply
Student2806
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#88
Report 8 years ago
#88
(Original post by vnupe)
I still find it very hard to believe that you are defending a company and a man that let a known terrorist/murder free in a deal for oil... this is the type of company/corporation I despise...
You know this for a fact do you?
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#89
Report 8 years ago
#89
(Original post by Elipsis)
I negged you 14 days ago so i've got another 14 days to go, and I signed it. When I signed it you still cried like a baby. If you don't like being negged stop making ill informed statements about stuff you know nothing about. You try and write and act intelligent but the truth is you're as dumb as a brick. You've already left one thread because you got hammered, now I suggest you save us some time before it takes you another 30 odd pages to realise you're wrong.
NO one cried like a baby, but your revisionist history positions have been well documented, through the 30 odd pages in that last thread... As far as making ill-informed statements, again I refer you back to the other thread, I answered all your biased and ill stated questions with documented fact, you chose not to believe them, which is your right. You continued to obfuscate without reasoning... a reasonable person would walk away, when a discussion is turning into lunacy... I tried for 30 pages.

Insanity is ding the same thing over and over and expecting a different result... after a while I realised that debating with you yields the same result, idiocy. It is you that got hammered and whined about the expert and the data... The more info I gave the more you tried to move the goalposts to fit your argument... SMH

I truly chuckle at you... I write the way I think, if you chose to call that intelligent or unintelligent , hey that is your prerogative... your comments mean nothing to me.. I am very confident and comfortable in who i am and what I can do... so please go sell your crazy somewhere else... SMH

Its funny, if I am so dumb, why do you continue to seek me out as a measuring stick... heheheh (that is me chuckling again)
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#90
Report 8 years ago
#90
(Original post by Student2806)
You know this for a fact do you?
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...005268,00.html

http://www.aolnews.com/politics/arti...lease/19555218

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6814939.ece

The last one is a British publication, less you say that the US publications are biased...

An excerpt from that article:

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.
I await your reply...
0
quote
reply
The G Doctor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#91
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#91
BP are not only eco-terrorists they are mass murderer sympathizers


the organisation is rotten to the core
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 8 years ago
#92
(Original post by vnupe)
Your analogy does not hold water... you as the novice dealing with gas will be liable to a certain extent... it would still be your due diligence to vet the gas company... yes they would be vicariously liable as well, but again ignorance is no excuse... you have subcontracted someone to do the work, therefore it is your obligation to make sure the work is done to a certain standard.

Prove me wrong if I am not correct... Also we have gone over these analogies before and you have been proven wrong, so why are we rehashing this?

I still find it very hard to believe that you are defending a company and a man that let a known terrorist/murder free in a deal for oil... this is the type of company/corporation I despise... It would not matter if it was an American or British company.

If the company is registered with the correct authorities and you use them and it ***** up, it is them who is liable 100%. Stop making things up I am getting sick of it.

And **** me lol, if it was written in the media that BP was behind 9/11 you would believe it.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#93
Report 8 years ago
#93
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
If the company is registered with the correct authorities and you use them and it ***** up, it is them who is liable 100%. Stop making things up I am getting sick of it.

And **** me lol, if it was written in the media that BP was behind 9/11 you would believe it.
I.F. believe what you want... it is apparent that you currently are anyway...

Also as stated, this is not personal for me, especially not to BP... they caused this mess Gulf oil spill) they need to fix it and pay for it... simple as that... Also it is clear that their hands were all over the transfer of the Lockerbie bomber back to his home country of Libya... for 'medical reasons'. According to the medical experts (which ones and where are they now) he had only months to live... it has been a year and he is thriving and is considered a hero in his homeland... miraculously cured of all his life threatening ailments... coincidentally BP received 500 million dollars (plus) in contracts to drill in Libya for oil... a deal that had been stonewalled for an indefinite period before the bombers release... hmmm coincidental... I chuckle at you...

I just don't get why and how you could be blinded by some ideological and cultural identification with a MNC that could care less about you... and is only interested in profits... this was clear in the Gulf, and this was clear in Libya... all I might add under Hayward's watch... SMH
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#94
Report 8 years ago
#94
(Original post by vnupe)
I.F. believe what you want... it is apparent that you currently are anyway...

Also as stated, this is not personal for me, especially not to BP... they caused this mess Gulf oil spill) they need to fix it and pay for it... simple as that... Also it is clear that their hands were all over the transfer of the Lockerbie bomber back to his home country of Libya... for 'medical reasons'. According to the medical experts (which ones and where are they now) he had only months to live... it has been a year and he is thriving and is considered a hero in his homeland... miraculously cured of all his life threatening ailments... coincidentally BP received 500 million dollars (plus) in contracts to drill in Libya for oil... a deal that had been stonewalled for an indefinite period before the bombers release... hmmm coincidental... I chuckle at you...

I just don't get why and how you could be blinded by some ideological and cultural identification with a MNC that could care less about you... and is only interested in profits... this was clear in the Gulf, and this was clear in Libya... all I might add under Hayward's watch... SMH

When the UK and Scotish justice ministers both say it was a decision taken by Scotland.

When Scotland have released all files related, except files which contain contact with the US (Because the US don't want them released :rofl:)

When the UK say they will make any files needed available.

That is perfectly fine, we do not answer to your courts, the Scotish are there own nation and are not part of the US, you can not summon them to ******* court. If the decision was right or wrong is a different question but it is conclusive that BP played no part in the deal.

You are deluded, and paranoid. And you have not replied about the leagality of someone who does work for you being liable, which I presume is another point you are missing out now it has been proven wrong as usual for you. Get shot down and move onto the next load of rubbish.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#95
Report 8 years ago
#95
[QUOTE=Idiot-Finder]
When the UK and Scotish justice ministers both say it was a decision taken by Scotland.
WHo was the PM at the time, where is he from? Can you show me other instances when the Scottish Government has acted in a similar fashion without some sort of British involvement.



When Scotland have released all files related, except files which contain contact with the US (Because the US don't want them released :rofl:)

When the UK say they will make any files needed available.
Do you have a link to the files that you are discussing... and as skeptical as you seem to be, when have you ever taken something that the government has said at face value?

And what information does the US not want released? Please provide a link for that statement...

That is perfectly fine, we do not answer to your courts, the Scotish are there own nation and are not part of the US, you can not summon them to ******* court. If the decision was right or wrong is a different question but it is conclusive that BP played no part in the deal.
They were not summoned but asked to come... if there is nothing to hide, why not travel to the US at the US expense and answer a few questions... unless you have something to hide

You are deluded, and paranoid. And you have not replied about the leagality of someone who does work for you being liable, which I presume is another point you are missing out now it has been proven wrong as usual for you. Get shot down and move onto the next load of rubbish.
I will ignore your delusion and paranoid comment... as it is spoken out of anger and emotion... as far as the legality of someone working for you:

Vicarious Liability:

The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity.
There is your legal definition and proof... I will also ignore your last statement about getting shot down and moving onto the next load of rubbish... again I can see you get excited and emotional...

I await your response...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#96
Report 8 years ago
#96
I tell you what, how about for once, you get off your ass, and research some stuff yourself instead of writing absolute rubbish which is totally wrong?

It emerged yesterday that the US government told Scottish officials that the bomber’s release on compassionate grounds was “far preferable” to his transfer back to a Libyan jail.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Art...2776/?UserKey=

He argued an inquiry had already been held by the Scottish parliament, and there was no point holding an inquiry when he said it was known the decision was wrong. "I don't currently think that another government inquiry is the right way to go, frankly. I don't need an inquiry to tell me what I already know, which is that it was a bad decision."

David Cameron tells Barack Obama he will release Lockerbie files
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ju...ockerbie-files

First Minister Alex Salmond has called on the American government to give him permission to publish all of the official documents relating to the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/188373-s...ckerbie-files/

There you have the files being released, the US not wanting theres released.

The scotish and Uk ministers wrote letters saying why they would not be coming, in short... there is nothing that is not in the files that they can add.

It's not a joint or collective activity, if someone installs a gas system they are the only one involved.. Like Toyota car's that had the bad brakes, it is the company who made them, not the people who used them and crashed who are liable.

Now please, the next time you make so many inaccurate points I will just not reply.
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#97
Report 8 years ago
#97
Oh and for your first point

Scotland

The Scottish legal system permits compassionate release for terminal illness. There are only a few applications per year, and most are granted. A prominent case was that of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, released on 2009-08-20 because of prostate cancer.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass...lease#Scotland
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#98
Report 8 years ago
#98
[QUOTE=Idiot-Finder]I tell you what, how about for once, you get off your ass, and research some stuff yourself instead of writing absolute rubbish which is totally wrong?


Yeah here is an excerpt from that Article:

Mr Salmond said yesterday: “I think a fair description of the American government’s position is that they didn’t want al Megrahi to be released. However, if he was to be released, they thought it was far preferable for compassionate release as opposed to the prisoner transfer agreement.


Proving my point that they did not want him released...

He also said this opposition was probably because the so-called “deal in the desert”, signed by Tony Blair, which paved the way for the prisoner transfer agreement, was signed at the same time as an oil deal with Libya.
Proving there was a 'quid pro quo' arrangement by the government and libya... why, because of BP... and their half a billion dollar deal to drill for oil, which was deemed to be in the interest of the UK...

Mr Salmond said his government made public all of its own documents relating to the release, but the UK and US governments had refused to grant permission for some of the correspondence they had with the Scottish Government before Megrahi's release to be published.

The American ambassador to the UK, Louis Susman, said the US had “strongly objected” to any type of release. He said the US was examining if its correspondence over the issue could be released.

He said: “It is quite clear the US government was strongly against the release of Megra-hi. We had a mutual understanding with the British Government that if he was tried and convicted he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland. The fact the justice minister made a decision on compassionate grounds to release him was something we were not in favour of.”
Funny how the Scottish minister took it upon himself to release this prisoner, something that would not only affect Scotland, but the whole of the UK and they would make such a decision in such a cavalier manner... don't past the smell test for me...

Calls for the decision to release Megrahi to be re-examined grew in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and reports that BP had lobbied for the bomber to be freed.

The US Senate foreign relations committee revealed plans for an inquiry into the release, but Mr MacAskill and former foreign secretary Jack Straw have both rejected calls to give evidence in person.

Yes you can refuse to give evidence, but if you are telling the truth thn why such recitence? Again smells very fishy... the fact that two governments (Scottish and English) are covering for a MNC is very sad indeed...


Mr Salmond repeated yesterday the Scottish Government had no contact with BP in the build-up to Megrahi’s release. He also insisted estimating life expectancy for terminal cancer sufferers was not an “exact science”.
Then why this prisoner? Why not release other prisoners that have asked for leniency for similar reasons? And why at that [articular time, he was in the Scottish jail for about 19 years, because Lockerbie happened around 1988 I believe...

Surprised

But one of the cancer specialists who examined Megrahi did not endorse that view.

Professor Jonathan Waxman, one of the world’s leading oncologists, visited Megrahi in prison a year ago but said he was not surprised to see him alive today.

Prof Waxman said: “The Scottish Government took its own advice, not mine.

“I did not say three months and I am not at all surprised to see him alive.

“The problem with a prognosis like this is that there is no such thing as an average person.”
Funny how the medical professionals account differs from the Scottish government's account. He says he never said 3 months, so why would he lie now?

You said:
I
t's not a joint or collective activity, if someone installs a gas system they are the only one involved.. Like Toyota car's that had the bad brakes, it is the company who made them, not the people who used them and crashed who are liable.
The Toyota example holds no water... using your previous example.. you as the owner of the house, used a contractor that caused the damage. If the contractor used shoddy equipment or did a horrible job... then you are liable:

As in evidence from this:

Employer Liability for Work Related Injuries of an Independent Contractor

A cosmetologist designated as an independent contractor by written agreement, injured his back lifting a 5-gallon water bottle and his employer was ordered to pay workers' compensation benefits. In California, an actor who obtained a stunt man to fall off of a horse was found liable for benefits for the stunt man's injuries because the actor dictated what type of fall to make. A circus clown and trapeze artist were both found to be employees because without them there would be no circus. A food salesman was killed in a car accident after attending a dinner meeting and his family collected benefits. A carpenter hired to help remodel a garage was found to be an employee of an unsuspecting homeowner. Still in another case, in New Jersey a court decided that an insurance sales staff is the employee of the insurance company employer despite the contractual designation as independent contractors, their professional autonomy and the highly independent nature of their work.

All of these plaintiffs had one thing in common - their employers considered them to be independent contractors. Whether there was a contract or not, the courts disagreed with their designation and ordered payment of workers' compensation benefits. This area of law is difficult to navigate and employers must beware. Liability for injuries to those designated as independent contractors is extremely common, most often unintentional and almost always very costly.

I await your reply...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 8 years ago
#99
None of those examples are linked in the slightest.

Find me a case where a professional company, with the correct documents has carried out work and tested it and said it is ok. For it to then not work, and the person they did the work for is liable.

Find me a case, until then I won't bother replying to your junk.

Your whole argument for them being linked is it is "fishy", and half your arguments for it being fishy are just you being a paranoid person, people are released every year from Scotland with terminal illnesses and you expect that to stand up in court, please...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 8 years ago
#100
This shows you are actually taking the piss now, no offense but what your saying is with such little background knowledge of the situation and you know it.

Scotland have full control over there justice system and there justice minister is the one that always gives permission for someone to be released on those grounds.

He was released at that time as that was when doctors said he had 3 months to live, thats why it was that time out of the 19 years.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (132)
18.38%
No (436)
60.72%
Not really bothered about them (150)
20.89%

Watched Threads

View All