Tony Hayward Watch

vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#101
Report 8 years ago
#101
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Oh and for your first point


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass...lease#Scotland

Her is something in response to your evidence about the letter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10769210

The article states:

It was claimed the US told Mr Salmond compassionate release was "preferable" to a transfer to a Libyan jail.

The letter confirmed this but it called for him to stay in Scotland if freed.


It said: "The US is not prepared to support Megrahi's release on compassionate release or bail.

"Nevertheless if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

The letter from August 2009 laid out two conditions which were important to the US administration and would "partially mitigate" the concerns of the 189 American victims' families.

It said: "The United States would strongly oppose any release that would permit Megrahi to travel outside Scotland.

"We believe the welcoming reception that Megrahi might receive if he is permitted to travel abroad would be extremely inappropriate given Megrahi's conviction for a heinous crime that continues to have a deep and profound impact on so many.

"As such, compassionate release or bail should be conditioned on Megrahi remaining in Scotland."

Security concerns

Welcoming the letter's publication, a Scottish government spokesman said: "Along with providing full information to the Senate committee on foreign relations, this position has been an important part of the Scottish government's co-operation and constructive engagement with the committee."

It comes after Mr Salmond told a US senate committee they "may wish to pursue" Barack Obama's administration to get inter-governmental correspondence published relating to the bomber's release.


The US government had raised concerns over Megrahi's welcome if released
Mr Salmond directed the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to Scottish government documents published online but said it could not breach the long-standing practice of holding in confidence government-to-government communications, by publishing other material without the permission of the US government.

Committee member Senator Robert Menendez had also requested any Scottish government documents "relating to BP's negotiations for or interest in oil exploration in Libya".

The first minister stated in his reply to Mr Menendez: "There are no such documents."

The Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on Thursday will examine the release, but invitations to give evidence to Mr Salmond, his Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill - who made the decision - and the former UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have been turned down.

The option of Megrahi remaining in Scotland after compassionate release had been rejected by Mr MacAskill at the time on the grounds of security and cost.
I await your reply...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 8 years ago
#102
(Original post by vnupe)
Her is something in response to your evidence about the letter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10769210

The article states:

It was claimed the US told Mr Salmond compassionate release was "preferable" to a transfer to a Libyan jail.

The letter confirmed this but it called for him to stay in Scotland if freed.




I await your reply...
It's not up to the US to decide if he was freed or not, it is up to the Scotish justice minister like it is for any compassionate release in Scotland.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#103
Report 8 years ago
#103
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
It's not up to the US to decide if he was freed or not, it is up to the Scotish justice minister like it is for any compassionate release in Scotland.

Funny, now who is avoiding the direct question asked to them... The US never decided whether he should be free or not, that was up to Scotland, but for the Minister to portray that the US was complicit in his freeing is abolutely ridiculous... when confronted with the answer to his 'ask the US/Obama administration about their involvement' and presented with the exact document which was sent to him.. he clams up... typical...

When asked for the document relating to the freeing of the prisoner in relation to the BP deal he states there is no document.. and then when invited to come to the US to explain any and everything, he declines... sure there is nothing to hide and he is telling the full story... I chuckle...

Look if he would have said or if you would have said.. hey its not my/our problem/issue... I would have more respect for him/you.. but to use kindergarten type diplomacy and expect people to believe it... really!?!
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 8 years ago
#104
(Original post by vnupe)
Funny, now who is avoiding the direct question asked to them... The US never decided whether he should be free or not, that was up to Scotland, but for the Minister to portray that the US was complicit in his freeing is abolutely ridiculous... when confronted with the answer to his 'ask the US/Obama administration about their involvement' and presented with the exact document which was sent to him.. he clams up... typical...

When asked for the document relating to the freeing of the prisoner in relation to the BP deal he states there is no document.. and then when invited to come to the US to explain any and everything, he declines... sure there is nothing to hide and he is telling the full story... I chuckle...

Look if he would have said or if you would have said.. hey its not my/our problem/issue... I would have more respect for him/you.. but to use kindergarten type diplomacy and expect people to believe it... really!?!
You never asked a question in the first place.

No one has said the US were happy for him to be freed.

What are you even on about? The UK have made the letter public that BP sent them. And have said files they have on the freeing of the guy will be sent if needed.

They believe there is no more to add and that it would be a wasted trip.

The UK has investigations into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, of possible torture of prisoners in Iraq etc, we are not like the US who hide it under the carpet.. We are an open country. If there was a case an investigation would have been set up by David Cameron, there has not been. End of story.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#105
Report 8 years ago
#105
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
What are you even on about? The UK have made the letter public that BP sent them. And have said files they have on the freeing of the guy will be sent if needed.

They believe there is no more to add and that it would be a wasted trip.
Committee member Senator Robert Menendez had also requested any Scottish government documents "relating to BP's negotiations for or interest in oil exploration in Libya".

The first minister stated in his reply to Mr Menendez: "There are no such documents."
SO which government are you talking about.. the Scottish government has denied any letter exists... so... And if you mean the British PM, then where is that document...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 8 years ago
#106
(Original post by vnupe)
SO which government are you talking about.. the Scottish government has denied any letter exists... so... And if you mean the British PM, then where is that document...
BP wrote to the UK Government not the Scottish, and so no wonder he said he didn't have any documents :facepalm2:
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#107
Report 8 years ago
#107
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
BP wrote to the UK Government not the Scottish, and so no wonder he said he didn't have any documents :facepalm2:
Why so frothy and bitter I.F. I am not calling you any names directly nor indirectly... I am simply using your logic against you...

Again why would BP write to the UK Government and not the Scottish Government, when Scotland is autonomous.. again makes no sense... what is the connection... If Scotland had him for 19 years and had not released him on compassionate grounds before why now? They said the doctor said he had months to live... the doctor refuted this vehemently... so what was the real reason?

It all comes down to oil in the British interest through BP and their contracts with Libya...

So please spare me your circular arguments... they are only proving my point...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#108
Report 8 years ago
#108
(Original post by vnupe)
Why so frothy and bitter I.F. I am not calling you any names directly nor indirectly... I am simply using your logic against you...

Again why would BP write to the UK Government and not the Scottish Government, when Scotland is autonomous.. again makes no sense... what is the connection... If Scotland had him for 19 years and had not released him on compassionate grounds before why now? They said the doctor said he had months to live... the doctor refuted this vehemently... so what was the real reason?

It all comes down to oil in the British interest through BP and their contracts with Libya...

So please spare me your circular arguments... they are only proving my point...

This shows how little you know, they wrote to the UK govermnent over a prisoner transfer agreement which never took place.

They released him when he was believed to have not long to live, this was 1 year after BP wrote, why did they not do it at the time if it was for BP :rolleyes:

You have no idea about the PTA, you didn't know about the Scottish justice system or how they are devolved from the UK. You are in position to judge anything and instead are forming opinions without reading the information at hand. Grow up.

Your using no ones logic against no one, you're failing totally.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#109
Report 8 years ago
#109
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
This shows how little you know, they wrote to the UK govermnent over a prisoner transfer agreement which never took place.
Who was the prisoner? And why write to the British Government if the Prisoner was held in Scotland... what was the purpose, why not petition the Scottish government directly?

They released him when he was believed to have not long to live, this was 1 year after BP wrote, why did they not do it at the time if it was for BP :rolleyes:
They released him and stated it was on the doctor's orders.. as I said previously the doctor refuted this claim... vehemently.. he never said that he had 3 months to live.. so where did the Scottish Government come up with the 3 month recommendation?

I quote the times 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.

You have no idea about the PTA, you didn't know about the Scottish justice system or how they are devolved from the UK. You are in position to judge anything and instead are forming opinions without reading the information at hand. Grow up.

Your using no ones logic against no one, you're failing totally.
Actually since I lived and studied in Scotland. I would know probably more about Scotland's Justice System than you... I chuckle at you... I know I can read the words on the lines and read between the lines as well... there was a "quid pro quo' relationship between BP, The British Government, and the Scottish Government... the Times pretty much spelled it out for all to see...

I await your reply...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#110
Report 8 years ago
#110
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

You know nothing about the proposed PTA that the UK government was planning to set up and then ask me questions on. Go and look it up yourself.

More than one doctor looked at him for a start.

Look up your own **** from now on instead of asking me, I am not your babysitter, I am fed up.. negged.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#111
Report 8 years ago
#111
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
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...
In Life timing and context is everything.. Her had been languishing in a Scottish Prison for 19 years... BP had a deal with Libya, Libya wanted the terrorist back... Libya most likely said that they would give the contracts to BP if they could gain the release of thsi terrorist.

BP petitioned the UK government... as stated in the Times of London... it is all there.. subsequently the Scottish Government released the terrorist under compassionate grounds.. the US vehemently protested, but wrote the conditions under which it thought his release was feasible... Scotland did what it always was going to do, it released him with the caveat that the terrorist only had months to live and they said they were told this by a particular doctor...

The doctor has strongly denied giving that time frame, totally contradicting the claim of the Scottish government... the Scottish have not responded to this claim except to say that the diagnosis of the illness is not 'exact'.

The Terrorist was flown home to Libya where he was given a heroes welcome, BP obtained the contracts to drill and everyone lives happily ever after... That is how it happened, and you can say I am being paranoid if you like.. I am not being paranoid, because how you and the Scottish Government are explaining it, do not make sense to a rationally thinking person...

As far as BP liability in the BOP problem:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...reventer-china

It is understood that lawyers for Cameron International, the manufacturer of the BOP, will argue the device was so significantly modified in China that it no longer resembled the original component, and that Cameron should therefore not be held liable.

Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, which bought the BOP from Cameron, has already told congressional hearings into the disaster that the modifications were carried out at BP's request and "under its direction" as the lessee of the rig. BP and Cameron declined to comment this weekend.
Therefore BP KNEW ABOUT THE MODIFICATIONS MADE IN CHINA... THEY REQUESTED THEM...

How about them apples, still think that they are not liable, and that the chinese manufacturer goes it alone????

The Chinese manufacture was carrying out a request made by BP, why would they modify it on its own... what do they gain from doing that??
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 8 years ago
#112
Like I said, you ask for something to be installed by a professional and they do it wrong, its the professional who is liable. Stop going round in circles and making up rubbish, for the last time.

And where is your case related to this I asked you to find? How ironic that you cannot find one?
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#113
Report 8 years ago
#113
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

You know nothing about the proposed PTA that the UK government was planning to set up and then ask me questions on. Go and look it up yourself.

More than one doctor looked at him for a start.

Look up your own **** from now on instead of asking me, I am not your babysitter, I am fed up.. negged.
More than one doc looked at him... really then why did they say they did it on the recommendation of this doctor? Why is the story changing? This doctor (which they themselves categorically stated gave them the 3 month diagnosis) states he did not give that diagnosis... and that their decision was not based on his diagnosis... neg all you want.. you can not escape the facts...

Why are you so in love with BP, do you or your family have a huge amount of money wrapped up in it, or are you simply defending it because it is a British Institution... if so you are exhibiting the same convoluted behaviour you are accusing me of displaying... Or is it your natural hatred for the US (which again i don't understand)... nevertheless who cares, the facts are the facts...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#114
Report 8 years ago
#114
(Original post by vnupe)
More than one doc looked at him... really then why did they say they did it on the recommendation of this doctor? Why is the story changing? This doctor (which they themselves categorically stated gave them the 3 month diagnosis) states he did not give that diagnosis... and that their decision was not based on his diagnosis... neg all you want.. you can not escape the facts...

Why are you so in love with BP, do you or your family have a huge amount of money wrapped up in it, or are you simply defending it because it is a British Institution... if so you are exhibiting the same convoluted behaviour you are accusing me of displaying... Or is it your natural hatred for the US (which again i don't understand)... nevertheless who cares, the facts are the facts...
:facepalm:

They said he was assesed by a set of prison service doctors.

You can find this out by using google, ******* use it.

The facts are you are getting totally destroyed, I have already recieved 2 PM's from people reading this argument telling me to give up because you are not worth arguing with.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#115
Report 8 years ago
#115
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Like I said, you ask for something to be installed by a professional and they do it wrong, its the professional who is liable. Stop going round in circles and making up rubbish, for the last time.

And where is your case related to this I asked you to find? How ironic that you cannot find one?
here is your proof:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...76/ai_6875364/

Excerpt from article:

In an emerging legal trend, employers are now being held liable for their employees' wrongdoing even when the crimes appear to have no connection with the workers' jobs.

Though courts traditionally have held employers liable for employees' misdeeds, generally it had to be shown that when the crime was committed, the employee clearly was acting within the scope of employment. But if actions were seriously criminal, the employer usually could argue successfully that the company was not liable because the crimes were not committed in connection with the job.

In recent years, though, courts increasingly have held the employer responsible for the employee's wrongdoing regardless of whether it fell within the scope of the job. Often, the injured party advances the legal theory of "negligent hiring," claiming the employer knew, or should have known, that the person hired was dangerous. The employer can be held liable, in effect, for failing to discover warning signs in the employee's past.

Many believe the trend is attributable partly to judges' and juries' increased emphasis on compensating victims in addition to determining guilt. Though the employer may be only remotely at fault in the employee's crime, the person with the "deep pockets"--most likely the employer--has to pay.

"It's a little easier to prove negligence than it was 20 years ago," says Richard Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago. Epstein says courts are requiring less evidence of actual knowledge of the risk, asking instead whether the employer should have discovered the risk.

The subtle change in interpretation has caught many employers unaware. "It's very difficult for people in business to recognize shifts in the law that are not marked by legislation," Epstein says. "It's hard for a firm to keep on top of it."
And before you state that is an employee employer relationship... the courts will deem you an employer...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#116
Report 8 years ago
#116
No proof that the company were dangerous as this has never happened with there BOP's before, unless you would like to go and find some cases.

And so that means absolutly nothing .

Would you like to try again?
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#117
Report 8 years ago
#117
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
No proof that the company were dangerous as this has never happened with there BOP's before, unless you would like to go and find some cases.

And so that means absolutly nothing .

Would you like to try again?
Clearly you do not know the law, the previous post was given to state how an employer/owner could be liable, not to completely illustrate the BP BOP case... but then I would not expect you to connect the dots... SMH
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#118
Report 8 years ago
#118
(Original post by vnupe)
Clearly you do not know the law, the previous post was given to state how an employer/owner could be liable, but to completely illustrate the BP BOP case... but then I would not expect you to connect the dots... SMH
It says if an employer knows of the employee being a hazard.

Bp did not, since the company has had no issues with other wells. Therefore it is rubbish Any other made up stuff you want to add while we are at it? Don't shake your head after the string of incorrect and made up information you have used in your "argument."
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#119
Report 8 years ago
#119
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
It says if an employer knows of the employee being a hazard.

Bp did not, since the company has had no issues with other wells. Therefore it is rubbish Any other made up stuff you want to add while we are at it? Don't shake your head after the string of incorrect and made up information you have used in your "argument."
According to Transocean, BP did know about the BOP, they say BP requested them from China as a cost saving measure:

Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, which bought the BOP from Cameron, has already told congressional hearings into the disaster that the modifications were carried out at BP's request and "under its direction" as the lessee of the rig. BP and Cameron declined to comment this weekend.
Therefore they knew about the modifications... they have no issues with the other wells because the BOPs from those wells were not from China... SMH... Reading Is Fundamental (R.I.F.)...

I said this earlier and you completely glossed over it then, as you will probably do now... BP not only knew about the modifications, they REQUESTED them... the requested modifications caused the BOP to under-perform, causing the Rig to blow-up causing the oil spill... Got it yet?
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#120
Report 8 years ago
#120
(Original post by vnupe)
According to Transocean, BP did know about the BOP, they say BP requested them from China as a cost saving measure:



Therefore they knew about the modifications... they have no issues with the other wells because the BOPs from those wells were not from China... SMH... Reading Is Fundamental (R.I.F.)...

I said this earlier and you completely glossed over it then, as you will probably do now... BP not only knew about the modifications, they REQUESTED them... the requested modifications caused the BOP to under-perform, causing the Rig to blow-up causing the oil spill... Got it yet?
You completely fail at arguing anything to do with this.

What proof is there that the company who did the modifications have a past record of this type of thing. Just because you use a company in China does not mean the work was done to a poorer standard, just that it was cheaper.

If there is none, BP could not anticipate it and so it is not negligent. The end.

Now would you like to try again and actually answer the question this time?
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

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

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (74)
27.51%
No (195)
72.49%

Watched Threads

View All