Excuse me?

[anysia]

BRITISH Petroleum telling AMERICANS they can't photograph the damage in the US? Having local police turn photographers away from taking pictures of dead animals on the beach in a piss poor attempt attempt to cover up the damage? Maybe they need a reminder about what happened in 1776.

Comments

[ariaflame]

I'm not denying that this is reprehensible behaviour on the company's part. I don't know if they particularly think of the company as british these days though. I do admit I'm not entirely sure of who currently owns how much of it but I would be astounded if it was 100% Brit.

Would it be any less reprehensible if it was a company that was wholly and identifiably American? Is it likely that if it had been such a company which had caused this fiasco that they would have acted any differently with regards to coverups?

[anysia]

That's not the point I was making. A British company telling Americans that they can't photographs of an American shoreline.

Also, I wonder how those in charge in England would have put up with another country's rather hack handed attempts at obfuscating (BP dithering about how much oil was spewing in an attempt to mitigate law suits by inventing 'reasonable doubt, trying to keep US photographers away from the shorelines to record proof of how extensive the damage is,)at improperly using oil clean up items that don't really work all that great to begin with (using light bamboo polls to hold the oil absorbing booms in place, which of course can't because the first waves of incoming tide move or break thin bamboo poles), using methods that didn't work 31 yrs ago, in shallower water knowing full well they wouldn't work as a stalling tactic while lying about how much oil was spewing out. etc etc.