BP CEO at yacht race today

[B_VinylBoy]

Easy. The condemnation of Hayward for taking a day off comes from White House Chief of Staff Rahn Emanuel.

That is not accurate.
It was The Associated Press that broke the story. Rahm Emanuel merely made a comment about it on "The Week".

According to this article, all Rahm said was that Hayward "got his life back". Clearly not an outright condemnation, nor is it suggested that it was the overall opinion of the WHite House.

"Well, to quote Tony Hayward, he has got his life back,” Emanuel told This Week, adding that, "This has just been part of a long line of PR gaffes.” Meanwhile, Emanuel says that "bottlenecks" in the Gulf response are inevitable, but that the administration is hammering BP to collect "90%" of the oil seeping from the well by mid-July.

Additionally it was the White House that broke the story that he had been sighted aboard a yacht. The UK media did not pick up on it. Presumably someone who reports to the White House is following Hayward.

That I haven't heard. Is there any link you can provide to back this?

By the way he was yachting for a few hours about 90 miles from his London office, hardly out of circulation.

I already stated earlier in this thread that getting on Hayward's case for taking a day off, regardless of what he decided to do with it, was ridiculous. No further explanation for his actions is needed here.

 

[houtx48]

Queens are the last people who should be running on someone going to a party.

 

[FRE]

Queens are the last people who should be running on someone going to a party.

Homophobia?

 

[maxcok]

Just as a reminder guys, discussions are absolutely fine but if you are going to disagree with a member please do it in a courteous and adult manner. Lowering the tone of the discussion to petty spats is boring for other members and adds nothing to the discussion.

With all due respect flameboy, the poster that Vince and I referred to has, as of this writing, more than 70 posts and counting related to the Gulf oil spill, spread over several threads including your thread, The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis. In those posts he has for the most part avoided any honest "discussion". He has instead displayed a consistent pattern of deflecting any and all challenges to his position, while refusing to provide substantiation for it. Instead, he has used the forum as a platform to espouse a single-minded defense of BP and British pensioners, while he launches viscious verbal attacks on the US and our president. That coupled with his dismissiveness of the scale of the disaster, his lack of concern for the millions of victims and the developing economic and ecological catastrophe on our shores, his obsession over the potential for comparatively minor impact on the UK economy - all display an astonishing lack of sensitivity and compassion. His outrageous contention that the US brought this disaster on itself due to high energy needs and alleged lax regulation and oversight, and we therefore deserve what happened, is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively and neglecting to wear a chastity belt. His dredging up every past sin of big bad America is deflective, insulting and completely irrelevant to the discussion. His gross mischaraterizations of statements attributed to our president and continued restatements of other propagandistic rhetoric, even after it has been clearly disproven by other posters, demonstrates a stubborn unwillingness to engage in any honest discussion. All the foregoing is repeated over and over and over again in his posts, and with a heaping helping of sarcasm.

I think that I and other posters are entirely justified in taking great offense at this rhetorical onslaught and the unjustified verbal attacks on our country and our president. As Vince correctly stated, these "arrogant, petty, nationalistic musings are really unhelpful and are probably hurtful to anyone directly affected by the disaster Bp has brought down upon them." And these "musings" are repeated ad nauseum with no regard to substantial contravening evidence presented in response by myself and other posters. Hence, my "broken record" comment and the comparison to another notorious poster who follows a similar pattern. Compared to the very negative and very personal comments made by other posters throughout the board, even compared to some personal comments directed at me in your thread, these comments seem quite mild.

I think your objection here is misplaced and ought to be directed at the poster who inspired these comments. These are not ad hominem attacks on the poster. This is a commentary on the content the poster has presented and on the manner in which he has presented it. He has a well-established pattern of disengenous, self-serving demagoguery and incendiary rhetoric. There is a difference between attacking the poster vs. critcizing his argument and how it is presented. The difference should be clear to anyone who looks at this analytically and objectively. On the other hand, I do consider his astonishing lack of concern for the victims of this disaster, his unjustified verbal attacks on my country and our president, and his blaming all Americans for the bad behavior of previous administrations to be ad hominem and accusatory - in the sense that they are attacks on my country and all Americans, including all the Americans posting on this forum, including me. I am not a "my country right or wrong" nationalist, but I am a patriot. There is a difference. Speaking for myself and other posters, we take great offense at this poster's inflammatory rhetoric and his mindless repetition of the same spiteful insults again and again and again.

I had to withdraw from your thread flameboy, because I could no longer stand to see the same repetitive views of this poster and others, notably Jason, dominating the "discussion", such as it is. I also withdrew because the anti-American rhetoric espoused by the British posters who dominated the thread was starting to give me a generally negative impression of the British people, who I love. Though I begged for Brits with other views to step forward, there was little response, even from the OP. That was disappointing.

Some time back there was discussion of changes proposed for the Politics forum, to lower some of the vitriol that sometimes bursts forth. I warned in that discussion that if you focus on restraining 'bad language', or prohibit negative commentary directed at individual posters or how they present their arguments - you will just be giving free rein to certain notorious posters to repeatedly spout their acceptably 'packaged' but still highly infammatory views unchallenged, and they will come to dominate the "discussion" with a single provocative point of view. As more responsible members are increasingly inhibited from responding strongly to these provocateurs out of fear of being censured for "personal attacks", I already see this phenomenon manifesting as predicted, even in the absence of guidelines that never materialized. Since that time I have been spending less time here and more time in other forums, and I have observed many, many negative personal attacks elsewhere that make the Politics forum seem quite tame by comparison - that make the comments Vince and I made inconsequential by comparison. I really don't understand what the fuss here is about.

I, for one, have no interest in trying to counter the same repetitive points over and over, to engage in a "discussion" with a brick wall or a broken record, one who ignores all challenges to his position while spinning the same tired rhetoric again and again and again. Rather, I will just withdraw, as have many other quality posters who are disgusted by the latitude given to posters who engage at this level of "discussion". I wonder how many others will do the same, and what will be the end result. Probably not a more elevated discussion. I don't know if what this and other similar posters do constitutes the nebuously defined behavior of "trolling", but it certainly is destructive and disruptive to any meaningful discussion. It is in fact "boring" and "adds nothing to the discussion" - the very result you're trying to prevent. In light of the prolific, repetitive and provocative posts this user has presented, I don't think that the comments Vince and I made are at all "petty". In fact, in light of what prompted them, I think they are entirely reasonable, justified, and if anything, understated.

 

[FuzzyKen]

As much as I have great contempt for what BP and the rest of the corporations involved in this oil spill have caused, and as much as I want to see all of them finding themselves in the same unemployment line with those who they have caused to lose their jobs, the sad fact is that a pencil pushing idea man with nothing but bad ideas is going to be of no use at all in a situation involving two definite things.

The first thing he has no conception of is manual labor and or how or what it takes to do it. That makes him unqualified to do anything other than sit as a spectator. Since he has no conception of the damage his continued "oil fountain" is causing he serves no purpose at that location.

His next alternative would be to sit at his desk. Since the executive staff of most corporations only work Monday thru Friday he would be there alone and any orders worthless or not would have no one to listen to them.

OK, what can we expect this man who is watching his world crumble to do realistically? The best thing is to send this fellow to a place where he can do the least harm. Yep, the yacht races looks as good as any top me!

 

[FuzzyKen]

One other thing that we need to do is to spread the blame for this disaster to ALL of the men and corporations who have worked so hard and so diligently worked towards its creation. We have unfairly used the singular representation of BP as if they were the only ones with the responsibility for its creation. This was a combined effort at irresponsibility and attempts at a "cover up" on the part of numerous corporations involved in that loving and kind industry we call "big oil". We need to go out and purchase a much bigger caldron for heating the tar for the tar and feathering to come. The head of BP is only one of about a dozen individuals that need to be dipped into the boiling tar before the feathers.

 

[b.c.]

That is not accurate.
It was The Associated Press that broke the story. Rahm Emanuel merely made a comment about it on "The Week".

Frankly (my dear) I don't a damn who broke the story. Imo the story speaks not so much as a personal attack on Hayward as an indication of to what degree any of this oil spill, or the dire economic/environmental consequences, will (or apparently won't) affect the lifestyles (and no doubt, quite generous incomes) of those at the top.

Doubtful any of them will even miss a beat. It's just a glimpse of what "lives" they're all in such a hurry to "get back" to.

 

[Drifterwood]

Is there the worst joke of the week in here somewhere?

Can you guess it?

 

[houtx48]

Homophobia?............no realist

 

[Jason]

I had to withdraw from your thread flameboy, because I could no longer stand to see the same repetitive views of this poster and others, notably Jason, dominating the "discussion", such as it is. I also withdrew because the anti-American rhetoric espoused by the British posters who dominated the thread was starting to give me a generally negative impression of the British people, who I love. Though I begged for Brits with other views to step forward, there was little response, even from the OP. That was disappointing.

The other thread specifically has "the British backlash" in its title, and that backlash is as it is, and yes it includes anti-American rhetoric from senior British politicians and from British newspapers and the BBC. There has not been any significant dissent within the British press or among British politicians.

A message that many British politicians and the British media want to convey - and indeed many British posters on this board, me included - is that the UK is hurting over this. We feel our closest ally has turned round and kicked us. I don't think anyone is minimising the misery for people in the Gulf States or the wrong of BP - but many people in the UK (certainly including me) are saying that the response of the USA is hurting the UK. There were more diplomatic ways of achieving the best possible solution to the mess which would not have hurt the UK.

If we are going to discuss the British backlash - the thread title - we have to be willing to discuss the hurt Britain has felt, and yes this does include direct criticism of the USA. In an effort to be concilliatory maybe it is worth pointing out that my posts have (mostly) been in the spirit of "for your information this is the British view". I do think people in the USA who are taking an interest in the story need to be aware that the British view is as it is. I also think there are implications for the "Special Relationship" which both sides need to think about. It is going to be very hard for Cameron et al to go out on a limb to support the USA (on anything that might happen around the world) when there is a settled backlash in UK public opinion.

My intention has certainly not been to wind-up Maxcok or anyone else, but it has been to set out clearly that (as I see it) there is a pretty severe anti-American backlash in Britain right now. Part of doing that is saying why there is such a backash, and that involves reporting UK criticism of aspects of the USA (which I may or may not agree with, but the views are now there). I can't actually think of anything comparable in recent Anglo-American relations.

Both our countries need a way forward in this spat. And right now we don't seem to be getting one.

 

[Jason]

Is there the worst joke of the week in here somewhere?

Can you guess it?

Too gnomic for me, but this thread could do with a joke or two to lighten it.

 

[Drifterwood]

Too gnomic for me, but this thread could do with a joke or two to lighten it.

File:Huck Finn Travelling by Rail.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

uttahere:

 

[captain garbonzo]

His first day off in months and anyway he't not 'in charge' anymore. I don't understand why he should not have a day off like everyone else. People are really foolish to think he should not have some time off and do something he loves. Should he hang out in the ghetto on his day off???? It's just another case of taking out frustrations on someone, anyone the press can get ahold of.

Anyway, we are as much to blame for this as anyone. I see more and more cars on the road every day and not many carpoolers. Californians love their cars more than anyone and yet they don't want offshore drilling or anywhere in the USA for that matter and they have the nerve to act outraged about USA going into Iraq for oil.

Biggest fucking hypocrites in California. Let's see them put their talk into action and ride their bikes to work or carpool and trade in their oil guzzling SUVs and big V8 Mercedes. Fat chance.

 

[maxcok]

The other thread specifically has "the British backlash" in its title, and that backlash is as it is, and yes it includes anti-American rhetoric from senior British politicians and from British newspapers and the BBC. There has not been any significant dissent within the British press or among British politicians.

. . . In an effort to be concilliatory maybe it is worth pointing out that my posts have (mostly) been in the spirit of "for your information this is the British view". I do think people in the USA who are taking an interest in the story need to be aware that the British view is as it is. . . .

My intention has certainly not been to wind-up Maxcok or anyone else, but it has been to set out clearly that (as I see it) there is a pretty severe anti-American backlash in Britain right now. Part of doing that is saying why there is such a backash, and that involves reporting UK criticism of aspects of the USA (which I may or may not agree with, but the views are now there). . . .

The problem is that your reporting of the reporting has exclusively followed media sources that are right of center to uber right, including a heavy dose of the tabloids, and publications owned by ultra right-wing media giant Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox media in the US. There is no balance in what you present as being overwhelmingly "the British view". Despite this caveat: "I may or may not agree", you are clearly biased and agenda driven, just like the sources you're referencing.

The other problem with your reporting of the reporting is that you have repeatedly quoted (?), or paraphrased, or who-knows-what, out of context often without citing the source, never with a link to the full article. You don't even bother putting your "quotations" (?) in quotation marks to separate the media view from your own personal opinion. Therefore, everything you present, whether or not it's accurate, is hearsay at best.

An example of how it's done follows, with a link to the full article so readers can see the full context.

And here at last, a sensible perspective from the UK:

"The committee has been conducting an aggressive inquiry into the gusher, and called Hayward in to answer specific charges of suspected safety lapses and shortcuts in the design plan of the well in the days before the explosion on the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon rig. But Hayward, who had been carefully coached by legal and media teams and was testifying under oath, failed to satisfy.

The committee's search for answers was repeatedly frustrated by Hayward, who denied any involvement in or prior knowledge of the ill-fated decisions about the well that led to the blow-out. Hayward had multiple variations on the same theme: that he had no direct involvement or knowledge of problems on the Deepwater Horizon, even though engineers lower down in BP's hierarchy had spoken about a "nightmare well".

He clung to his argument that it would be premature to comment until investigations had run their course. His answers, all delivered in flat, impassive tones, infuriated committee members."

Tony Hayward Stonewalls Congress - The Guardian UK ​

That's taken from The Guardian, one of Britain's oldest and most respected daily newspapers and its third largest. Its website has, according to the editor, the second highest traffic of any English language newspaper in the world. Yes, thanks to the internet even Americans are quite capable of getting a balanced view from Britain all on their own. So are Britons, provided they're interested in a balanced view.

Another example of how one provides citation:

"The Guardian (until 1959 The Manchester Guardian) is a British national daily newspaper owned by the Guardian Media Group. Founded in 1821, it is unique among major British newspapers in being owned by a foundation (the Scott Trust, via the Guardian Media Group). It is known for its left-of-centre political stance. At the 2010 election it supported the Liberal Democrats.
The Guardian had a certified average daily circulation of 283,063 copies in March 2010, behind The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but ahead of The Independent. The website, guardian.co.uk, is one of the highest-traffic English-language news websites. According to its editor, The Guardian has the second largest online readership of any English-language newspaper in the world, after the New York Times.[3]
The Guardian Weekly, which circulates worldwide, contains articles from The Guardian and its sister Sunday paper The Observer, as well as reports, features and book reviews from The Washington Post and articles translated from Le Monde."

The Guardian - Wiki​

Both our countries need a way forward in this spat. And right now we don't seem to be getting one.

Perhaps the way forward will come when the British press, British politicians and some unknown percentage of the British public start to take an objective view of the situation, stop whining, stop blaming President Obama and America for their troubles, and put the blame where it rightly belongs - on BP.

 

[Jason]

Maxcok - I think we can agree to disagree.

I read or at least see a lot of newspapers. The Mirror (left, tabloid) has had very little to say on the matter. Socialist Worker (far left) has been critical of Obama. What other papers do we have that are left wing? Around the centre The Guardian and The Independent have mostly criticised Obama. You reasonably quote an occasion when The Guardian criticised Hayward - as indeed most of the press did - but they still have managed to criticise Obama. The Times (right), The Mail (right), The Sun (right) are all critical of Obama. The UK now has a centre-right government.

I am reporting that based on my reading of the UK press there is a UK backlash against Obama's handling of this affair. The opinion poll in The Times suggests there is popular awareness of this backlash.

This is a discussion board about large cocks not an academic essay. Referncing from me and from most posters is pretty hit and miss.

 

[freyasworld]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian​

Perhaps the way forward will come when the British press, British politicians and some unknown percentage of the British public start to take an objective view of the situation, stop whining, stop blaming President Obama and America for their troubles, and put the blame where it rightly belongs - on BP.

[/QUOTE]

As much as Hayward is culpable, it is a fact that right now he won't be able to actually do anything right in the eyes of the US government. Unless he personally swims to the bottom of the sea and plugs the leak, performing mouth to mouth resuscitation on endangered sea life at the same time...he is going to get it in the neck. I suppose nobody at the white house has a day off since Bhopal? They have all been working hard to put things right.
They have cancelled all their holidays whilst their brave soldiers are dying in Afghanistan by their command.
Is the US going to ask us to believe all of these folk have put their normal lives on hold until this incident is resolved?

So what if the guy goes sailing in order to spend some time with his son, I wonder how many other people have worked solid for eight weeks in a different country without seeing their family. I can't understand why it is that only BP that are coming in for criticism. What about the transocean, the company that actually owned and operated the Rig..the MMS, Haliburton et al.
By all means hold bp accountable responsible and culpable and if it is proven they are to blame they should be prosecuted and stripped of their assets. If individuals were responsible for cutting corners - then a prison sentence should be expected and demanded.
Of course Hayward is the CEO it happened under his command, same as Obama is the US CEO and it happened on his watch.

 

[Jason]

I can't understand why it is that only BP that are coming in for criticism. ..... Of course Hayward is the CEO it happened under his command, same as Obama is the US CEO and it happened on his watch. [/QUOTE]

Easy!

Obama has wonderful PR. He has managed to deflect all criticism from him and from the USA onto BP. He has done it so well that the British backlash is met in the US as some sort of unreasonable assault on the USA. He has done it so well that some US posters on this board get very hot under the collar at anyone even reporting the British backlash. The whole thrust of the response to the disaster has been dictated by Obama's PR. We have wrong decisions for the UK, the USA, the environment and cleaning up the mess - but the right decision for Obama's PR. PR RULES OK!

 

[B_crackoff]

:smile:

I can't understand why it is that only BP that are coming in for criticism. ..... Of course Hayward is the CEO it happened under his command, same as Obama is the US CEO and it happened on his watch.

Easy!

Obama has wonderful PR. He has managed to deflect all criticism from him and from the USA onto BP. He has done it so well that the British backlash is met in the US as some sort of unreasonable assault on the USA. He has done it so well that some US posters on this board get very hot under the collar at anyone even reporting the British backlash. The whole thrust of the response to the disaster has been dictated by Obama's PR. We have wrong decisions for the UK, the USA, the environment and cleaning up the mess - but the right decision for Obama's PR. PR RULES OK![/QUOTE]

We all know Obama went & played golf! Just like Bush!

One would expect the rules of conduct to be less stringent for private individuals.:smile:

 

[dandelion]

That's taken from The Guardian, one of Britain's oldest and most respected daily newspapers

The paper suggested Hayward was going in for dumb insolence, which had the effect of infuriating his interrogators. Whats you point in quoting it? They seem to be saying he was defying the committe as best he could. Made me smile.

 

[b.c.]

I can't understand why it is that only BP that are coming in for criticism. ..... Of course Hayward is the CEO it happened under his command, same as Obama is the US CEO and it happened on his watch.

Easy!

Obama has wonderful PR. He has managed to deflect all criticism from him and from the USA onto BP. He has done it so well that the British backlash is met in the US as some sort of unreasonable assault on the USA. He has done it so well that some US posters on this board get very hot under the collar at anyone even reporting the British backlash. The whole thrust of the response to the disaster has been dictated by Obama's PR. We have wrong decisions for the UK, the USA, the environment and cleaning up the mess - but the right decision for Obama's PR. PR RULES OK!

I would say BP has some wonderful PR too.

Who else do you think is behind the effort to turn the failings and blatant violations of drilling and safety procedures on the part of BP and their associates into some "US vs. UK" issue? BP itself, of course - and those who have a vested interest.

They seek to hide their callously negligent drilling operations behind the skirts of the UK by nationalizing the issue. No doubt about it.

Instead of being angry at U.S. citizens seeking reparations for damages, you should be angry at BP for the shoddy way in which they represent you, if you are suggesting that they do.