Is Hatred Towards the British Justified for the Gulf Oil Spill?

[Ivan Seeking]

A lot has been in the news over the last couple of days about the perception in Britain that people in the US are blaming the British, and not just BP, for the oil spill. While that may be true in isolated cases, this story has been running 24-7, for 54 days, and I have only seen a spattering of references to nationalism; and even those weren't particularly hostile. People are obviously frightened and angry, but my perception of public attitudes is that BP is clearly the bad guy here, not "The British". Heck, 40% of BP stock is held in the US, and most of the people running those platforms are Americans.

There are some things for which I will never forgive the British - the brake system on MG Midgets, Graham Norton, Victorian morality - but not the Gulf spill.

 

[Proton Soup]

probably coming from the way they're handling the Louisianans and damages payments.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I think at 2:30pm EDT Saturday, there will be plenty of animosity in America toward the British.

Go USA!

 

[mgb_phys]

Interesting that the US news started calling it British Petroleum, it stopped being British Petroleum and became BP when it merged with the American Ameco.

Also BP only had the exploration licence, the rig was owned and operated by trans-ocean drilling (a US company) and the operation was being performed by Haliburton

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting that the US news started calling it British Petroleum, it stopped being British Petroleum and became BP when it merged with the American Ameco.

Also BP only had the exploration licence, the rig was owned and operated by trans-ocean drilling (a US company) and the operation was being performed by Haliburton

Still BP to me, but they are the responsible party. They are the general contractor.

Personally, the notion that this would become is "British" issue for Americans, seems silly. It is all big-oil. Plenty of Americans hate plenty of American companies, including and especially, Haliburton. That's already a done deal.

 

[Pengwuino]

I hate the British.

But it's more of a tea thing than anything.

 

[lisab]

I know of no animosity towards the British people because of the spill. BP...oh lots of animosity, definitely.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The media's just making the whole thing up to run another story. I swear, it's the only explanation

 

[jreelawg]

I don't like them (british media etc) for defending BP. If they weren't partially to blame before, they are now.

Actually though, it is normal, the British media is constantly bashing the U.S. If you've ever read the comments on a British news site, you get the perception that there is a high level of anti-americanism among british people. And now here we go watching them defend BP, and bashing Obama's criticism, meanwhile I think Obama has been way too soft on BP.

I think the current British media blitz is probably a political stunt capitalizing on british anti-americanism to win support.

 

[cristo]

I don't like them (british media etc) for defending BP. If they weren't partially to blame before, they are now.

Sorry, what are the British press to blame for? Who do you mean by the "etc" in your above post. Do you have any references to cite to back up your accusations, or are you just jumping on the "we hate the British" bandwagon?

 

[jreelawg]

Sorry, what are the British press to blame for? Who do you mean by the "etc" in your above post. Do you have any references to cite to back up your accusations, or are you just jumping on the "we hate the British" bandwagon?

They are to blame for being stupid for one. The etc, means plus the British people who are jumping on the let's side with BP against the U.S. bandwagon.

 

[cristo]

Actually though, it is normal, the British media is constantly bashing the U.S. If you've ever read the comments on a British news site, you get the perception that there is a high level of anti-americanism among british people.

Sorry, but one moment you are talking about the British media "bashing" the US, but then your evidence to back this up is some comments by the public writing in with their opinion.

And now here we go watching them defend BP, and bashing Obama's criticism, meanwhile I think Obama has been way too soft on BP.

To be honest, for all I admire Obama, I think he certainly assisted in this anti-British feeling by stating that "the American people will not pay a dime for the clean-up of the Gulf region and that BP will be held responsible for all the damages that have occurred". One could draw an implication from this that BP was completely disjoint from the US, but in reality that is not the case -- do the US people not realize that BP provides fuel to the US? I wonder what would happen if this was a predominantly US company, or if there was some other similar disaster on US soil. Would the president simply wash his hands of it and make said company pay for the entire clean up?

They are to blame for being stupid for one.

Wow.

Note that PF has rules that state you must provide references for claims. Now's the time for you to provide those references, or else your comments are nothing more than wild accusations. Specifically, I would like you to show evidence of the British media "being stupid".

 

[shoehorn]

There are some things for which I will never forgive the British - the brake system on MG Midgets, Graham Norton, Victorian morality - but not the Gulf spill.

I'm as willing to accept blame as the next Brit, but you can't lay responsibility for Graham Norton at our door. For that you'll need to look next door at the Irish.

 

[jreelawg]

Sorry, but one moment you are talking about the British media "bashing" the US, but then your evidence to back this up is some comments by the public writing in with their opinion.



To be honest, for all I admire Obama, I think he certainly assisted in this anti-British feeling by stating that "the American people will not pay a dime for the clean-up of the Gulf region and that BP will be held responsible for all the damages that have occurred". One could draw an implication from this that BP was completely disjoint from the US, but in reality that is not the case -- do the US people not realize that BP provides fuel to the US? I wonder what would happen if this was a predominantly US company, or if there was some other similar disaster on US soil. Would the president simply wash his hands of it and make said company pay for the entire clean up?



Wow.

Note that PF has rules that state you must provide references for claims. Now's the time for you to provide those references, or else your comments are nothing more than wild accusations. Specifically, I would like you to show evidence of the British media "being stupid".

They are required by Law to pay for the cleanup. Why should they not pay for the cleanup, and why do you think a U.S. based company wouldn't need to.

 

[jreelawg]

S
To be honest, for all I admire Obama, I think he certainly assisted in this anti-British feeling

Obama saying BP will pay for the cost of their oil spill is causing anti-british feeling? :rofl:

It seams to me, that what we are seeing are anti-American attacks coming from the British.

While arguing BP isn't even British, they also try and hold them under their wing. I guess I know how British BP is when the British are allying with an international corporation over the U.S. after they just caused the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

 

[cristo]

It seams to me, that what we are seeing are anti-American attacks coming from the British.

And it seems to me that you are posting speculative nonsense with no references to back up anything you have said, despite my requests.

While arguing BP isn't even British, they also try and hold them under their wing. I guess I know how British BP is when the British are allying with an international corporation over the U.S. after they just caused the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

Who is holding anyone "under their wing"? Where is the evidence of this allying?

 

[jreelawg]

And it seems to me that you are posting speculative nonsense with no references to back up anything you have said, despite my requests.

Where are the references for the things you said? Particularly the part about BP being held accountable because america is anti-british

 

[jreelawg]

Who is holding anyone "under their wing"? Where is the evidence of this allying?

CNN) -- British media have leapt to the defense of beleaguered BP following attacks by the White House over its handling of the Gulf Coast disaster.
President Barack Obama has taken a tough stance against the company and its response to the April 20 explosion, which killed 11 workers and has spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, threatening livelihoods and wildlife.

But now UK opinion formers have weighed in, attacking Obama's approach, warning of the threat to pension funds and questioning relations with the United States.
Barack Obama, David Cameron, to discuss BP
Cameron is told to "stand up for your country" by the Daily Mail, which backed the Conservative leader at last month's UK election. It points out while "British marines continue to die in Afghanistan -- fighting valiantly alongside their American colleagues," relations between the respective leaders means the phrase "special relationship" sounds increasingly hollow.
In a leader column the newspaper says Obama's attacks are "rank hypocrisy," coming only weeks after the president advocated deepwater drilling. Elsewhere it highlights oil disasters off the UK coast involving U.S. companies, including the Piper Alpha oil rig explosion of 1988, in which 167 people died.
Video: A look at BP leader's background history Video: Coast Guard critical of BP claims process Video: BP under fire Video: BP will open up its own city on the Gulf
RELATED TOPICS
Gulf Coast Oil Spill
BP plc
The Lex column in The Financial Times says that the manner in which the crisis is "moving into the diplomatic sphere is surely a positive for BP -- providing a much needed counterweight to Mr Obama's swinging boot."
Meanwhile Philip Stephens, also writing in the same paper under the headline "Some home truths for a president showing the strain", says that "Deepwater is only there because the U.S., with a twentieth of the world's population, consumes one-quarter of world oil."
The leader opinion in The Daily Telegraph points out that BP is a multinational company, 40 percent of whose shareholders are American.
"The long-term relationship between Britain and America should not be jeopardized by a presidential response that has been more petulant than statesmanlike," it continues.
The Telegraph says it is disappointed that Obama, "a politician whose reputation was built on his powers of persuasion should be so quick to inflame a difficult situation for his own political ends. We had thought better of him."
Obama is told to "stop ranting against BP" by the Daily Express, which leads with the headline: "Obama is killing all our pensions." Many British retirement funds, both public and private, invest in the oil company, which has seen billions wiped off its share price this week.
"Nobody disputes that an environmental catastrophe has taken place," the Express says. "But BP is only one of three major companies involved. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is being persecuted because its first initial stands for 'British' and Britain should not put up with that."
Malcolm Rifkind, foreign minister under the last Conservative government, asks in The Times whether "the great British love-in with Barack Obama may be coming to an end."
"While there has been deep understanding of the environmental catastrophe that has struck the United States and of BP's responsibility, there is also growing concern that the President's angry rhetoric is going over the top and risks dividing the United States and the United Kingdom.
"Mr Obama must understand," continues Rifkind, "that an American president does not just have a domestic audience. Whatever their political purpose for his own electorate, his words resonate throughout the world and, however unintended, can have serious and damaging consequences."
In The London Evening Standard Chris Blackhurst wrote: "There are three words to be thrown back at President Obama: Bhopal and Agent Orange. In both instances, the U.S. inflicted huge suffering on others -- and did precious little to remove the toxic pollution it left behind."
Nearly 4,000 died in the Indian city of Bhopal in 1984 following the escape of lethal methyl isocyanate at a plant owned by Union Carbide India Limited -- the now-defunct local subsidiary of the American chemical company.
Agent Orange was used as a defoliant during the Vietnam War -- but its toxins have been linked to thousands of deaths and illnesses.
"BP has not called itself British Petroleum for more than 10 years," adds Blackhurst. "It's not the only one to not use its full name. Barack Hussein Obama is another."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/11/uk.media.gulf.oil/

 

[Borek]

Actually though, it is normal, the British media is constantly bashing the U.S.

British media? Have you checked for example French & German (not to mention Iranian and Venezuelan ) news sites?

US is so large even when you stab blindly it is US that will most likely get hit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To be honest, for all I admire Obama, I think he certainly assisted in this anti-British feeling by stating that "the American people will not pay a dime for the clean-up of the Gulf region and that BP will be held responsible for all the damages that have occurred". One could draw an implication from this that BP was completely disjoint from the US, but in reality that is not the case -- do the US people not realize that BP provides fuel to the US? I wonder what would happen if this was a predominantly US company, or if there was some other similar disaster on US soil. Would the president simply wash his hands of it and make said company pay for the entire clean up?

This is no different than the attitude towards Exxon. Yes, the oil company is completely responsible for every dime of damage caused. As with Exxon, we will never see it all, but they are still responsible. At least, that is how things are supposed to work here. Were it a natural disaster, then the Federal government would pay.

After the Valdez disaster, laws supporting stiffer penalties for damages, were passed. And BP knew this when they signed the contracts for drilling.

 

[cristo]

This is no different than the attitude towards Exxon. Yes, the oil company is completely responsible for every dime of damage caused. As with Exxon, we will never see it all, but they are still responsible.

After the Valdez disaster, laws supporting stiffer penalties for damages, were passed. And BP knew this when they signed the contracts for drilling.

From what I gather, BP is liable for the first $75 million in clean up costs and not responsible for "every dime". However BP has agreed to cover "all legitimate claims".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From what I gather, BP is liable for the first $75 million in clean up costs and not responsible for "every dime". However BP has agreed to cover "all legitimate claims".

True. However, Congress is also changing the law retroactively because of the scope of the disaster. Apparently this is legal according to the contracts signed, but it was incredibly stupid to have such a low limit - no doubt a result of yet more corruption in our political system.

Just be sure that the anger and outrage would apply no matter what company was involved. And you can bet that if Haliburton or Transocean are partly to blame, we will be going after them like vultures as well.

We have no incentive to show bias. We own as much of BP as you do.

 

[cristo]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/11/uk.media.gulf.oil/

I'm not sure what to make of that, to be honest, it seems somewhat biased in their selection of which papers to cover. We can immediately ignore the mail, because every sane Brit does. The FT seems to have a point regarding the US use of oil (and implicitly that BP does not solely provide for the British market). The headline on the express is ridiculous, but they do make a good point that it's not solely BP involved. There doesn't seem to be anything crazy in the Times and the standard, well, I'll concede to your point on that one, apart from his point on the name of the company, which does not stand for British Petroleum and hasn't for some time!

 

[cristo]

Just be sure that the anger and outrage would apply no matter what company was involved. And you can bet that if Haliburton or Transocean are partly to blame, we will be going after them like vultures as well.

Well, I'll wait and see what happens, and hope that you are correct.

 

[jreelawg]

Transocean is also not a U.S. company for the record.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't see how it could be considered hate against Britons when the chairman of BP (the guy Obama has been yelling at) is Swedish and everything.

 

[Redbelly98]

This is the first I've heard anything about an anti-British sentiment over the oil spill (I'm in northeast USA, my main source of news is from NPR.) It sounds like the opinion of some minority fringe is probably getting blown out of proportion overseas.

There was a lot of outrage against Exxon 20 years ago, by the way.

 

[vertices]

So "Obama tells Cameron [the UK prime minister] that frustrations with BP have nothing to do with national identity".

Then why were you constantly emphasising the "British" in BP, Mr Obama? You're the one who allowed BP to lobby your government to recklessly erode safety standards...

 

[Buckethead]

To be honest, for all I admire Obama, I think he certainly assisted in this anti-British feeling by stating that "the American people will not pay a dime for the clean-up of the Gulf region and that BP will be held responsible for all the damages that have occurred". One could draw an implication from this that BP was completely disjoint from the US, but in reality that is not the case -- do the US people not realize that BP provides fuel to the US? I wonder what would happen if this was a predominantly US company, or if there was some other similar disaster on US soil. Would the president simply wash his hands of it and make said company pay for the entire clean up?

This is absolutely wrong that "one could draw and implication from this that BP was completely disjoint from the US". You have to realize that in America, Americans see themselves as being on opposite sides from any large company, US or otherwise, that put profits against environmental concerns or any other concerns that compromise the lives of Americans. Also, you have to understand that many Americans right now are very sensitive to taxes and any tax increases that are not completely justified. For Obama to state that the American People (in other words, taxpayers) would not pay one penny, he is indicating that no tax dollars will go to paying for cleanup which could result in tax increases. Be absolutely clear that we feel BP is responsible for all of the cleanup regardless of whether they are a US corporation or an international one. This is absolutely not an attack on the British! It is an attack against irresponsible corporations, US or otherwise!

 

[Evo]

I don't like them (british media etc) for defending BP. If they weren't partially to blame before, they are now.

Actually though, it is normal, the British media is constantly bashing the U.S. If you've ever read the comments on a British news site, you get the perception that there is a high level of anti-americanism among british people. And now here we go watching them defend BP, and bashing Obama's criticism, meanwhile I think Obama has been way too soft on BP.

I think the current British media blitz is probably a political stunt capitalizing on british anti-americanism to win support.

Please post links to the mainstream British news sources that back this up. CNN is not a mainstream British news source. My best friend lives in England and he's not aware of any "high level of Anti-Americanism among the British people".

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't hate the British. Hell, they let us use their language without asking for royalties.

I heard on the radio the other day, a little blurb that made me laugh.

"Americans being upset about the oil spill, is kind of like a drug addict being upset when his drug dealer spills crack in his lap"

Or something to that effect.

My Russian friend said that the spill was symptomatic of the "I don't want to see wind turbines from my back porch" mentality. We don't want to see oil rigs off the coast, so we push them further and further away, until eventually, dermo happens.

As I said, I don't hate the British, and I also don't hate BP. Though I do wish they'd call me back regarding the solution to the spill. They did say that with the flood of suggestions, that it might take them a few days to get back to me. hmmm... Will all those who are bombarding them with the "Just nuke the damn thing" suggestion, please STFU.

 

[chemisttree]

Transocean is also not a U.S. company for the record.

It's headquartered in Switzerland for tax purposes but it is based out of Houston, TX.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So "Obama tells Cameron [the UK prime minister] that frustrations with BP have nothing to do with national identity".

Then why were you constantly emphasising the "British" in BP, Mr Obama? You're the one who allowed BP to lobby your government to recklessly erode safety standards...

Nonsense, and nonsense. In fact the latter statement qualifies as crackpottery. Obama has only been in office for 17 months. In the mean time, we had the financial crisis, two wars, and the health care debate.

The name of the company is British Petroleum. You are complaining because he uses the proper name? That is absurd.

Like Redbelly, this was all news to me. The first that I heard of any actual anti-British sentiment from Americans, was from the British press. And I follow the news pretty much all day, every day.

What immediately struck me - my first thought - was that the claim is so ridiculous that it must be a ploy for political sentiment in Britain. Whoever started this nonsense almost certainly has alterior motives in British politics. At the least, this is a tempest in a teapot.

But, as mentioned earlier, what occurs to me now is that this issue may result in part from a difference in cultures and perception. As stated, in the US, we vilify companies all the time. Market pressure through public perception is viewed as a key tool in protecting the public's interest. The relationships between the public, and large corporations, are often adversarial and hostile. It is starting to seem that the British don't generally share this attitude, so the hostility here towards BP seems biased, or unfair.

Again, some of the people who have the most reason to be angry - those whose lives are being destroyed - depend heavily on BP for employment. Some of those folks are the ones who oppose the moratorium on drilling! They need BP in order to make a living. So those poor folks are doubly damaged.

Just to bring it home: As an independent contractor who has worked on and designed control systems for applications raging from thrill rides, to food products, to semiconductor manufacturing, to the production of aircraft parts, liablity is ALWAYS the biggest concern. In the US, if you screw up and cause serious injury or property damage, you are supposed to pay dearly for it.

Late edit and sidebar: The biggest system that I've ever started [the first time it was run] involved 4, 600 hp motors, that had to be started simultaneously. As I switched the key bit in memory from a 0, to a 1, my hand was shaking so badly that I almost couldn't hit the correct keys on my computer. A failure could have destroyed the building and killed everyone in it. And there is nothing more dangerous than the first few minutes, when a system like this is started. It you are going to see a catastrophic failure, if you've really screwed up, that is when you will probably see it. It was definitely one of the more memorable moments of my life! [heh, I freaked out a couple of the electricians by saying that I would be out in my car, in the parking lot, and to hit this "this key" when I'm out of here. ]

 

[mgb_phys]

The name of the company is British Petroleum. You are complaining because he uses the proper name? That is absurd.

The name of the company isn't British Petroleum, it was renamed when it merged with the American Oil Company who owned the Amoco Cadiz that caused the biggest oil disaster in europe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The name of the company isn't British Petroleum, it was renamed when it merged with the American Oil Company who owned the Amoco Cadiz that caused the biggest oil disaster in europe.

Haha, okay, I didn't even know that the name was completely dropped. Given that it was known as British Petroleum for over forty years - most of our lives - I hardly see any malice.

When the Brits figure out that Hoover isn't the only company that makes vacuum cleaners, we can talk.