No Words
-
Warning this is heart breaking. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html[^]
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
-
Warning this is heart breaking. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html[^]
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
Now words!!!!! :((
-
Warning this is heart breaking. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html[^]
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
:wtf:
-
Warning this is heart breaking. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_in_the_oil.html[^]
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
-
isn't that true of all companies, unfortunately. :((
Yusuf May I help you?
-
I doubt that very much. The "folks at BP" are working quite hard to clear up the mess for which they were only partly to blame. However Obama needs a scapegoat so he blames a 'foreign' company while keeping quiet about their US partners. Showing once again that a politicain will try and score points from anything and anyone regardless of the truth.
It's time for a new signature.
-
I doubt that very much. The "folks at BP" are working quite hard to clear up the mess for which they were only partly to blame. However Obama needs a scapegoat so he blames a 'foreign' company while keeping quiet about their US partners. Showing once again that a politicain will try and score points from anything and anyone regardless of the truth.
It's time for a new signature.
No, BP is entirely to blame. There may be others that are at fault, but seeing as it's BP's operation, and they're paying the bills, they are the one responsible. For everything. This isn't the first time either, BP was responsible for a terrible oil spill in Alaska in 2006, which they also tried to hide, then understated, then pretended to be doing all it could... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11958576/[^] BP hired those companies. Certainly, TransOcean and Haliburton are US companies, but they were just contractors. BP has the ultimate say over the work being done, and the responsibility to make sure it's done safely and correctly. Many of us work as contractors for large corporations. We are not "responsible" for the work we do. If our work kills someone, or causes aircraft to fall out of the sky, we will not be held responsible for it. The companies that hired us are. Granted, those companies could well try to sue us as well, but ultimately, they are responsible for whatever it is they sell.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
No, BP is entirely to blame. There may be others that are at fault, but seeing as it's BP's operation, and they're paying the bills, they are the one responsible. For everything. This isn't the first time either, BP was responsible for a terrible oil spill in Alaska in 2006, which they also tried to hide, then understated, then pretended to be doing all it could... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11958576/[^] BP hired those companies. Certainly, TransOcean and Haliburton are US companies, but they were just contractors. BP has the ultimate say over the work being done, and the responsibility to make sure it's done safely and correctly. Many of us work as contractors for large corporations. We are not "responsible" for the work we do. If our work kills someone, or causes aircraft to fall out of the sky, we will not be held responsible for it. The companies that hired us are. Granted, those companies could well try to sue us as well, but ultimately, they are responsible for whatever it is they sell.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
TransOcean and Haliburton are US companies, but they were just contractors.
Oh, that's OK then. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? Are you saying that, because they're contractors, they can take out machetes and hack pregnant women into bloody chunks, and it's BP's fault? To follow through with your logic: BP are only doing what their customers want, to fulfil contracts at the pumps, so they, too, can do whatever the Hell they like, because it's the guy filling his car up who's responsible.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
TransOcean and Haliburton are US companies, but they were just contractors.
Oh, that's OK then. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? Are you saying that, because they're contractors, they can take out machetes and hack pregnant women into bloody chunks, and it's BP's fault? To follow through with your logic: BP are only doing what their customers want, to fulfil contracts at the pumps, so they, too, can do whatever the Hell they like, because it's the guy filling his car up who's responsible.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Wow, talk about an irrational argument. First, there is no contract between the users at the pumps and BP. Further, consumers are protected by a host of consumer protection laws which prevent such responsibility. However, there is an argument to be made that those that buy a companies products are also responsible for that companies actions, particularly if they are aware of said actions. This is a moral argument though, not a legal one. BP had legal contracts in place with TransOcean and Haliburton. Those companies were doing the work at the behest of BP. It's like saying the US isn't responsible for the people killed in Iraq by Blackwater personel because they're a private company. Is blackwater (and Haliburton and Transocean) responsible for it's actions? Sure. But so is the employer, BP or the US Government. And ultimately the employer holds the majority of the blame, especially since they did not oversee the work and validate it's safety before putting it into production. Yes, if Haliburton started hacking pregnant women into bloody chunks while operating under a BP contract, BP is responsible for that. Haliburton may also be, and the actual employees doing it as well because there are specific laws (Murder) against the action. However, there is no law broken for shoddy work. Only the effects of the shoddy work, which the parent company is responsible for. To put it a little clearer. Suppose you hired a 10 year old kid to mow your lawn. And, while mowing the lawn, the kid mowed over your neighbors dog, flower garden, did damage to their car and house. Can you say "Well, it's not my responsibility, sue the 10 year old kid"? No, you can't. As his employer, you are responsible for his actions. That's the way employment law works, that's the way contractual law works.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Wow, talk about an irrational argument. First, there is no contract between the users at the pumps and BP. Further, consumers are protected by a host of consumer protection laws which prevent such responsibility. However, there is an argument to be made that those that buy a companies products are also responsible for that companies actions, particularly if they are aware of said actions. This is a moral argument though, not a legal one. BP had legal contracts in place with TransOcean and Haliburton. Those companies were doing the work at the behest of BP. It's like saying the US isn't responsible for the people killed in Iraq by Blackwater personel because they're a private company. Is blackwater (and Haliburton and Transocean) responsible for it's actions? Sure. But so is the employer, BP or the US Government. And ultimately the employer holds the majority of the blame, especially since they did not oversee the work and validate it's safety before putting it into production. Yes, if Haliburton started hacking pregnant women into bloody chunks while operating under a BP contract, BP is responsible for that. Haliburton may also be, and the actual employees doing it as well because there are specific laws (Murder) against the action. However, there is no law broken for shoddy work. Only the effects of the shoddy work, which the parent company is responsible for. To put it a little clearer. Suppose you hired a 10 year old kid to mow your lawn. And, while mowing the lawn, the kid mowed over your neighbors dog, flower garden, did damage to their car and house. Can you say "Well, it's not my responsibility, sue the 10 year old kid"? No, you can't. As his employer, you are responsible for his actions. That's the way employment law works, that's the way contractual law works.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Yes, if Haliburton started hacking pregnant women into bloody chunks while operating under a BP contract, BP is responsible for that. Haliburton may also be
Y'see, that's where your perspective falls down. If I hire someone to do a job, it goes without saying that I expect them to meet my standards and the requirements of any local laws. But you're saying that if I hire a plumber to fit me a new toilet, I am responsible if he murders my wife. For me to be responsible for such an action would require me to give direct instructions for him to carry out the murder. In the case you're trying to avoid US-firm responsibility for, BP would have had to directly instruct the US companies to cut corners, take risks, and work far below the standards of BP (which are issued to and signed by all contractors). I'm no fan of the petrochemical industry (having worked in it for several years), but I do know that the big European companies take safety, etc. extremely seriously, do not willfully take chances or cut corners where there is a risk of harming anyone, and are not afraid of spending money to decrease the risk of incidents that might harm people or the environment. US companies, on the other hand, only care about their profits and their listings, so rather than continually look for ways to avoid problems, they are constantly looking for ways to cut costs. This was not the first incident involving Haliburton's second-rate, corner-cutting work, but every time they screwed up, they made promises of "re-evaluating their processes" and shaking things up. But every time they screwed up was worse than the last, so their marketing department must have written the promises to cover for their suits, who were too busy looking for ways to save a few more bucks. And every time, their lawyers are ready with every loophole they can find in the contract terms & conditions, so that they can wheedle their way out of secondary action by the hirer for breach of contract in not meeting standards. You want to be an apologist for scum like that, or try to assign the blame for their deeds on someone else, carry on -- but throwing such genuinely irrational arguments around is really not the smartest idea.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
No, BP is entirely to blame. There may be others that are at fault, but seeing as it's BP's operation, and they're paying the bills, they are the one responsible. For everything. This isn't the first time either, BP was responsible for a terrible oil spill in Alaska in 2006, which they also tried to hide, then understated, then pretended to be doing all it could... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11958576/[^] BP hired those companies. Certainly, TransOcean and Haliburton are US companies, but they were just contractors. BP has the ultimate say over the work being done, and the responsibility to make sure it's done safely and correctly. Many of us work as contractors for large corporations. We are not "responsible" for the work we do. If our work kills someone, or causes aircraft to fall out of the sky, we will not be held responsible for it. The companies that hired us are. Granted, those companies could well try to sue us as well, but ultimately, they are responsible for whatever it is they sell.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?