(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:
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??