reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
I think 'angry' may be over-stepping the mark a bit. I'm British and have been paying close attention to this whole disaster since it began. I
think it's sometimes hard to communicate the 'feelings' of a nation, I just don't think you can unilaterally generalise. Such headlines are, IMO,
generally written to stir up animosity, sell content, and possibly sway markets and diplomatic games.
Don't believe the hype, most Britains are just as disgusted, shocked and devastated at the impact (ecological, human and economic) as anyone else.
But it is true that the UK economy is on the ropes just like everywhere else, and fighting for it's life, and it is also true that most Brits can see
(not least from reading ATS) that puzzlingly, whilst BP were not alone in this chain of events, which most certainly included the USA government
administrators/auditors who as it were drew up the parameters of operations/compliance, and also Transocean (Swiss) and Halliburton (USA), only BP
gets mentioned in the Whitehouse spin/soundbites, why?
Personally, I think that currently, whether this had happened to BP or not, the UK, and probably Euro/USA/Japan and other zones would all still be
heading to what looks more and more certain to be some kind of a double dip recession, and potentially disastrous chain of economic events anyway.
So if you think about it, although the BP collapse may well be seriously devastating news, a a collapse trigger, for the UK (first), our heads
would/are still on the block anyway in a way that I think would vastly over-shadow this issue/financial liability....in fact so is the US and everyone
So perhaps in that sense, this debate is something of a red-herring? I think that if BP collapses, sure it will massively hit the UK/pensions, and
probably throw us into double dip, probably triggering world-wide collapses across the Euro, Japan, and possibly subsequently not doing great things
for the USA either? But then, I think the collapse will be triggered somewhere, soon, anyway...