It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America's ALWAYS tried to do down Britain

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


We deal with some US based telco's and, from my experience, they tend to very adherant of process and do not like to waver. They always seem very concious of what their management think or have told them to do and not what their "gut" tells them to do.

This can cause problems when trying to prove a fault as they are not very flexible and are less prone to taking a punt, whereas here in the UK, despite our loggerheads with the suits, we tend to be somewhat trusted and can waver from the beaten path if the situation demands it.


Thanks for your reply
that helps. My cousins in the US are engineers so wanted to run some scenario's by them to give me an idea why we tend to clash with US on these types of issues. Since similar debates on apportioning responsibility tend to go in circles on ATS.




posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


I'd hazard a guess and say our American counterparts are more fearful and obedient towards their management because they can be fired sooo much easier than we can.

Over here in the UK, you really do have to do something bad to get an instant dismissal, whereas in the US it would seem that merely wearing the wrong tie can get you the sack with no comeback. This probably engenders a more adversarial attitude here in the UK and a much more compliant one in the US.

That is my opinion from dealing with Americans at work, anyway. It seems there is little protection with regards to employment law, when compared to us anyway.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Here try this:

Robert Kaluza “declined to testify in front of a federal panel investigating the deadly oil rig blowout,” reports the Miami Herald. Kaluza told the U.S Coast Guard he was invoking his constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.

There can be only one reason why Mr. Kaluza decided not to testify and that is there may be a chance of criminal liability against him and BP. As we reported yesterday, a witness has testified BP’s “company men” decided to fill the well with salt water instead of mud as then cement, which is the standard procedure.




if one goes by the testimony from Truitt Crawford, it is clear as he explained that the explosion occurred because BP decided to save money by ignoring warning signs -unusual pressure and fluid readings on the rig — and to remove heavy drilling fluid from the well and replacing it with lighter-weight seawater that was unable to prevent gas from surging to the surface and exploding.

Platform workers testified that previous to the explosion, they heard a verbal fight over the decision to ‘take shortcuts’. The workers say the argument was of the kind commonly experienced when multiple parties involved in offshore operations cannot agree on how things should be ran. The consequence of that disagreement was the resulting deadly explosion.

The Herald reports that one employee who was worked for Transocean, warned they would have to rely on the structure’s blowout preventer if they went the way BP’s ‘company men’ wanted to go. ”He pretty much grumbled, ‘Well, I guess that’s what we have those pinchers for,” the rig’s chief mechanic, Doug Brown, said of Jimmy Harrell, the top Transocean official on the rig. The word “Pinchers” probably referred to the shear rams in the blowout preventers, the tools of last resort used to stop the explosion.

Decisions related to the drilling process were in the hands of BP, and sworn testimony by Doug Brown included a quote from a BP high up who ultimately said that: “This is how it’s going to be.” He ignored the warning signs from the mechanism as well as those from the platform’s crew and let the explosion happen. During the hearing, Brown was asked if he remembered the name of the BP official who made the decision, but he said he could not remember it.



"I recall a skirmish between the company man, the OIM (offshore installation manager), the tool-pusher and the driller," said Doug Brown, one of 115 rig workers who survived the April 20 disaster. "The driller was outlining what would be taking place, whereupon the company man stood up and said, 'No, we'll be having some changes to that.' It had to do with displacing the riser for later on. The OIM, tool-pusher and

driller disagreed with that, but the company man said, 'Well, this is how it's gonna be,' and the tool-pusher, driller and OIM reluctantly agreed." Smith testified that there is an inherent conflict on any drilling rig between the company that's leasing the rig and oilfield and the drilling operators. He said the "company man" represents a firm that leases the rig and often pays $500,000 a day to drill for the oil, so is concerned about speed and cost. The crew, meanwhile, is generally more concerned about safety and controlling the well, he said.

"That's a natural point of conflict that I've seen," Smith said. "Some (company men) have become outright adversaries, but they're the people paying the bills. They control helicopters, the boats, what's going on and off the rig. But I have to say, most of them are safety conscious."


I have worked for a large contract company, and believe me when the client tells you the way its going to be done, that is how it ends up being done. They are the money, and the contract company will very seldom go to the defense of their employees in those situations. Only if the company feels that it has more to lose then the money they are making from the client will they side with their personnel rather then the guys footing the bill. Sure they want you to follow safety procedures, and sight any concerns, as long as it does not cost them any time or money.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


I'd hazard a guess and say our American counterparts are more fearful and obedient towards their management because they can be fired sooo much easier than we can.

Over here in the UK, you really do have to do something bad to get an instant dismissal, whereas in the US it would seem that merely wearing the wrong tie can get you the sack with no comeback. This probably engenders a more adversarial attitude here in the UK and a much more compliant one in the US.

That is my opinion from dealing with Americans at work, anyway. It seems there is little protection with regards to employment law, when compared to us anyway.


I guess that puts those in Transocean employees in a very poor position to stand by/defend what they feel is the right safe course of action to take.. and explains the cyclical arguments I have on these types of topic.

Besides now I know why the suits dislike me sooooo much



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sed Non Credo

to give a set of DVDs to any national leader is utterly disgraceful. And nothing short of unforgivable.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Sed Non Credo]


Ok so now we can all see what type of person you are? A set of Dvd's would be welcome to me and my family from the richest man in the world if that was the gift he wanted to give me...

Does being a leader make you invinsible to cheaper gifts? Or are you suggesting that he should be baught something very valuable to reflect his status?

This is exactly what is wrong with the human race...

If someone gave me a christmas card and no gift at christmas (close family/friend) i would be just as grateful as getting a Ferrari from them if not more so because at least i would know they were sincere and werent buying me something to impress me or make me happy...because thats not why you should buy someone something.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Ah, so the BP man was an American citizen, working for a multi-national firm in conjuction with two US firms (with their own histories of poor ethics and safety) but BP is British Petroleum all of a sudden and the Yanks get shirty with the Brits about the spill?

See why we're defensive about this whole mess? Seems the US media and Government are very keen to point the finger of blame across the Pond, but wherever you look you find American firms and managers are behind it all. The only connection to the UK is the B in BP.

[edit on 12/6/10 by stumason]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


There can be only one reason why Mr. Kaluza decided not to testify and that is there
I have worked for a large contract company, and believe me when the client tells you the way its going to be done, that is how it ends up being done. They are the money, and the contract company will very seldom go to the defense of their employees in those situations. Only if the company feels that it has more to lose then the money they are making from the client will they side with their personnel rather then the guys footing the bill. Sure they want you to follow safety procedures, and sight any concerns, as long as it does not cost them any time or money.


I have 20 years of running some pretty large projects that have covered up to £3bn in revenue.. ranging from construction to IT deployments, from the Banking sector to big pharma, to more recently EU Environmental projects..

So from my experience, as a professorial in all those areas is that it is my arse, not the customers on the line when things go wrong. So it is in my favour (as much self interest) when I tell those suit to take a running jump when they make stupid and dangerous requests.

Now I understand *that* is perhaps different in the US, if it is, then perhaps that is one of the fundamental issues that needs to be addressed to prevent a repeat of this desperately sad and tragic event. Placing responsibility on the drillers would at least give them the power (even for just self interest) to say "no"..

An important weapon when dealing with Big Corp Suits who know little of the real world.


[edit on 12/6/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


No I worked in IT/IS as well, and they left us alone pretty much alone to make decisions. I believe this is because IT/IS stuff is normally something of a techy mystery to upper management, its not normally the primary focus of the business itself. Now when you go work for somewhere like an airlines, or somewhere like an Oil Company, their managers know the field and the equipment, they often feel that they are more the experts then the lowly contractor that has been brought in, and they often get to make the important choices. For example, if your IT company had been contracted out of IBM or Intel, would their heads have listened to your advice the same as other companies did?

I am tired, I hope that made sense.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


No I worked in IT/IS as well, and they left us alone pretty much alone to make decisions. I believe this is because IT/IS stuff is normally something of a techy mystery to upper management, its not normally the primary focus of the business itself. Now when you go work for somewhere like an airlines, or somewhere like an Oil Company, their managers know the field and the equipment, they often feel that they are more the experts then the lowly contractor that has been brought in, and they often get to make the important choices. For example, if your IT company had been contracted out of IBM or Intel, would their heads have listened to your advice the same as other companies did?

I am tired, I hope that made sense.


It really does make sense, and I do appreciate your responses, as an aside, I am a project manager first and foremost.. and spent 20 years running complex projects (not just IT) in most industries (except oil, but my partner works in the airlift side of the oil industry)

I am coming to the conclusion that it is a cultural difference in how responsibility is perceived on each side of the pond that is the root cause of us bumping heads..

[edit on 12/6/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I'm not really grasping why people seem to be making this into a UK vs. US conflict..

the fact of the matter is, BP screwed up, we've established BP simply stands for BP as both sides of the pond own roughly the same shares in the company.

At the end of the day, it was an extremely tragic accident, and fingerpointing is going to get everyone very far into nowhere. Focus less on the blame, and more on what is being done to help is what I think.

Ps, i'm English and don't really think that we're being 'bashed'..



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


She is all well and good, as far as I've heard the supply chain of favoured meal.. children is still in big supply. She has been resisting the 1 child per family limit like a trooper.


reply to post by Teknikal
 


That was a very brave post mate, and here I was thinking I put myself in the firing line! You raise perhaps the best point I've seen as well. The point that a lot of us and our politicians seem to be focusing on the wrong points in or our leaders case bending over backwards to ensure they keep favour.

When we should deal with the situation, stop the finger pointing and points winning and get on with making those accountable pay for the mess.


reply to post by defcon5
 


With all due respect mate, as myself and many others have tried to state throughout the post the bashing is not the problem. The way in which it seems to be getting increasingly directed towards the British is the issue I've attempted to discuss.

reply to post by catwhoknows
 


I can't wait, it's going to be great playing you guys. There's nobody else in the World Cup I think would be a more fitting opening match.

Im just praying our guys really go for it, because you guys have a very good team now. I don't want to say too much in all honesty, I'll reply in full when we've won or lost


reply to post by stumason
 


Hah, yeap the Scots would really rip him a new ... for that 'little' mistake. I'm not all sure we've laid the internet wires down for them yet though!




[edit on 12-6-2010 by Sed Non Credo]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
i wanted to ask what jobs the English posters who were commenting on bashing heads with ceo's and such hold? i myself work mainly as a skilled laborer however i'm getting more qualifications for heavy machinery J.C.B's etc as well as just having been accepted onto a computer technicians course (god knows you need a h's form to sneeze on site in england now -_-). i have had allot of first hand experience of bosses wanting stuff done faster and safety regs disregarded even though they just hired a guy to enforce them. from the way i see it they hire the safety guy to make it look like they are safe and responsible but then cut corners to make it go faster. i have refused to work on a number of occasions because i wasn't provided with proper p.p.e (which the employer by law has to provide. some of these h&s rules are worth having) so if i was told by some suit to remove something that is preventing a major disaster ie a pipeline burst id tell him to shove it were the sun doesn't shine. now he may find a way to fire me and hire another guy who will bend the rules for him but i know in my head that im not going to put myself and everyone else at risk for a pencil pushing suit who knows how to do business not how to build a football stadium or a hotel. i think the real issue is why arrant those guys getting the blame and why isn't the clean up and fixing top priority for obama who for those who a few weeks ago watched Michal more's new documentary on capitalism allowed these off sure oil drilling projects go through. im not much of a fan of m.r more but he did raise some very interesting points one being that throughout the whole election obama was against off shore oil drilling then a few weeks/months after he then about turned and said more oil drilling off sure, as well as some of the appalling decisions made by the us government when it came to banking regs ie they gave the banks the regs who then ripped them up and ran the economy into the ground. now this oil spill is just the same some guy has come over taken control and run it into the ground and now like money from the tax payers hands oil is leaking out every wear. when i made my first post on this thread i made clear my views on america and how this situation was being handled but now it has gone beyond that now i think that bp really needs some scrutiny bp is the real enemy here just like golden sacks and the rest of wall street was the enemy of the tax payer. we need to stop pointing fingers at one another and point them at the ex-ects of bp and those who are responsible for this whole disaster.

so please forget this world cup nonsense (i have always seen football and many sports to like that of the roman collecium a pretty distraction for the masses that are too engrossed to see what is going on around them) and see that this bp problem needs to be addressed also someone with at least half a brain needs to go to bp and show them how to fix a leak me when i find a leak on a pipe (and seen as i do allot of plumbing i do) i turn off the water supply and bleed any remaining water from the pipe then cut out the blown out section of pipe put in a new length of pipe with a couple of straight couplings solder it up test it then put the water back on and watch it for further leaks. surely something such as that could be managed? from what i understand its a coupling pipe connecting to the source? well if a "box of some variety could be made to encase the affected area of the pipe then have it cut then cap the source end whilst the blown out section is removed then a new section installed and re-attached within the "box" that may limit the oil leek and remove and outside pressures that would affect the cutting equipment surely? i mean im no engineer and i don't know everything about the stresses and such involved but i came up with that in less than a minuet.
also as an Englishman i couldn't care less about the football scores i never have been or will be a fan of football


[edit on 15-6-2010 by crimson tears shini]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

You can talk smack about America as soon as I see you cleaning some tar balls off some beaches.

No, on second thought, don't ever talk about America again.

Better not start mentioning the two illegal wars you dragged us into then.


Bush and Blair want hauling in front of the Hauge. Bush for starting them, Blair for following like the lap dog he was and is. Must keep that oil flowing though, eh?
Oh, speaking of which...


[edit on 11-6-2010 by mirageofdeceit]


Wars we dragged you into? You are a sovereign nation. My Mom told me something when I was 5, and still applies: "No one can take advantage of you with out your consent"



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Sed Non Credo
 


Our President is dumb, yes he hates or dislikes all Anglos, that showed when he recently checked Black on the census form instead of Multi-Racial or even American.... Sorry but we have another dummy in the white house.

I should also add, that we do indeed have a very good standing with the British Army. But no one really pays attention to the fact that our two nations are so intertwined that an Insult to the British People is an Insult to American People....

[edit on 11-6-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]


One question please: May I ask how you know what he checked on his census?



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauch1

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Do you think this isnt a serious matter? Do you know the MESS that company caused in the gulf?? Have you seen the pictures? You know some people lost their lives as the result of this spill? And all you come down and say to us here is that 'accidents happen' 'criticism to BP is criticism towards Britain'. People like you are just unbelievable, and meanwhile we have people on the rightwing complaining and crying that the president isnt saying or doing enough.



That isn't what this is about. It is about how despite the fact that the British government constantly supports the US nothing is given in return.


And all you come down and say to us here is that 'accidents happen' 'criticism to BP is criticism towards Britain'.


That is not what people are saying. They are saying that it is wrong for people to criticise the British for BPs mistakes, not that it is wrong to criticise BP.




Originally posted by arbiture
If an American based company peed in your territorial waters you'd be screaming to.


The people and some of the media yes. However considering the way the British government has acted in the past it is doubtful that they would attack the US, they'd be more likely to say how it isn't the US's fault. Then again there is a new government, so I suppose there is always a chance that they would act differently.


Britain has always had a raw deal out of this "special relationship". I don't see why the British government continuously supports America for so little in return.

I did like your suggestion though Majic
.

-Cauch1


The constant comments about the US/UK "relationship" not being "fair", or "equal", before I make a few observations, I just have ask: "What do you want?" "What do you expect and why"? And last, "Have you mentioned this with anyone outside of your own nationality"? And for the big money... Have you told this to anyone who can actually do(helps if also "wants to and will") anything about what ever "it" is? But still I want to know if this can even be defined. And for other Americans, please don't hate the British because of BP because a corporation at a certain size becomes a transnational entity. It will be based where ever its advantageous, regulations accessibility of markets and workforce. Regarding the relationship in hyper-thin detail, will expand later. Allow me to point out some areas as I see them.


This special relationship does exist in one sense as cooperation with common goals. First and foremost that means mutual protection, Then commerce, finance, broad application industry innovation. The first in part, and only in part, is under the auspices of NATO, but is a much more comprehensive arrangement, and the framework established before there was a NATO. This was the understanding reached between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. This beginning and almost constant communication in 1940-41 was what became "The Arrangement"(1) It's amazing that both men talked to each other for hours on a single dedicated line from their respective office's. By 1940 England was broke. We could send certain things immediately, like destroyers, fuel, but many in the country were isolationist. A poll in 1940 had 80% of Americans believing England would fall in a year. It wasn't anti-British, just what they honestly believed. In congress we had fascist near communists, and those we just couldn't label at all. But lend lease got passed and the rest is history. Kind of.(2) Behind the scenes its hysterical and boils down to a quote by Truman when talking about FDR. "Basically, he lies"

One way it affects us today.
That arrangement was much more then defense, in fact the military systems (as in systems design) are somewhat minor when it comes to daily impact. Also you can't separate systems like military, corporate, intelligence. Is any of this relevant to the UK today, and what do you get from us in this arrangement. It's blunt, but the US can throw more then most of the world combined information, money, or steel at any thing we want. One way that can manifest is through acquisition, processing, and packaging of SIGNIT or signals communications intercepts. The obvious and most important use for this is defensive. However that doesn't mean we sit around all day waiting for a tank to roll by. By far the most valuable is information on technical, scientific, industrial, trade, factors on economies/industries, economics, currency trading. Anything published, as well as relevant HUM INT, human intelligence (spy on the spot). The UK gets through its secret services, data and product necessary for its protection obligations and goals. The benefit to the public in the UK is information in these networks gos to companies they work for hopefully resulting in increased profitability, job retention. Starting point is collection coordinated by NSA national security agency US. GCHQ government communications headquarters, UK. and Pine Gap, just pine gap, Australia. There a number of sites that are involved in SIGINT in countries that want it kept internally/externally secret.
The commercial information optimization side of this was called TEMPEST, very recently ARGYLE. current name not publicly available. re:# 1,2 will post later.

[edit on 24/6/10 by arbiture]

[edit on 24/6/10 by arbiture]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
waw there are so many things wrong with what you just said last poster that i cant even remember them all. mainley the point about military support? ok for 1 america put guns in the hands of the ira/ Irish republic army, these bombed the hell out of our capital and my local city of Manchester which my mum was in on one of the days they bombed us. you put guns in the hands of the Iraqi's who have been shooting us down for years. oh and here is the kicker more English troops have died by friendly fire under your brilliant troops. yea military support thanks for that one. as for intelligence what intelligence?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
and to think july 4th was to celebrate being rid of the british- and yet they still darken our shores. bp is a wretched collection of slimy limeys. now the miserable liar tony hayward to be replaced by top notch liar tony blair, so i hear.
hayward, having sold shares before the sabotage of the rig..as they
recklessly drilled- having paid off all the right people.
halliburton had a hand in the cement work- and in preparing the fema camps-
so they make out very slick too.
and now the un small arm treaty can be brought in
to disarm the rebellious colony. you see the nwo troopers are ready
to kickass in toronto- eh? subjects of the queen..
so remember - it's just britain- nothing great about it.
bp has hundreds of abandon wells in the gulf -
will be drilling in the mediterranean for col. kadaffi of libya.
spews all over the arctic as well.







[edit on 9-7-2010 by p51mustang]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Longy4eva
 

it was no accident- it was an act of sabotage- its not a spill or a leak-
it's a volcano of oil.



new topics




 
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join