SNAPS ON SUNDAY

Ah Yes... the blokey from BP made a personal statement, not on behalf of BP,
saying that he would worry about doing business in an independent Scotland.
He somehow feels that this would be worse than doing business in Libya and Nigeria.
Odd that!

Then there was this poisonous ignorant old bat, the egg woman
(the one that thinks Alex Salmon (sic) was a Labour MP), who weighed into the debate
 on food banks and poverty. Someone should probably remind her we can't
 all sleep our way into a job and then write a kiss and tell book
 about what a tart we have been and whose pants we've been in,
 wrecking marriages on the way to make even more money.
Shut up you silly toxic old fool.
 Go and dribble somewhere else.

Dave's first draft. Someone thought that talking about the
History of England was a better bet. Duh! Spads these days huh!

Add the personality of a wet weekend in Cleethorpes and you sum the man up

What was it Ozzy said about uncertainty stopping investment? Liar?

They were wrong about every single one of their predictions of gloom.
THEY LIE PEOPLE. Either that or they are some extra special kind of thick.

Nah, right enough, it was lying.

Damn, a paper that tells the truth about money, and Oh, look, it's the FT.
Now what would they know about financial matters?

We are heading back to the Victorian days. You have to be rich to get any justice.
Justice isn't for ordinary people on the minimum wage
who don't have £12 to spare never mind £1200.

Goodness: What a shock.

Competition Caption...

Incidentally, I've just noticed that Stewart Campbell has posted about the amazing number of page hits that he has been getting. 

Of course first and foremost it is attributable to the fact that his blog is quite simply brilliant.

He gets the stories, he researches, he links, he writes in a flowing, informative, amusing style, and he's bang on. Although he has come to verbal (or written) blows with people in positions who could easily take him to court, he is sure of his facts and he stands his ground... then they back off. Or (I think I'm right here) they never even broach the subject, pretending they haven't seen the story (Ian Smart).

But of course the Daily Mail has to take some of the credit for Stewart's record breaking figures.

In an attempt to put him (and us) down with their pathetic front page feature on Cybernats (the one which all but ignored the fact that there were equally as many Britnats saying equally repugnant things), they insisted on highlighting Wings over Scotland on a couple of occasions.

Well... for all its faults, the Mail has the third largest tabloid circulation in Scotland... and

there's no such thing as bad publicity, Mail. Thank you for helping us to spread our message. What would we do without you?

Oh come on, they ask for it...

RANDOM THOUGHTS FOR FRIDAY NIGHT

A BP guard shot a polar bear in Alaska, in error because he thought he was shooting “beanbags” and did not know he had live bullets in his gun. OK... that is very sloppy; if, as part of your job you are going to fire guns, it’s probably a good idea to know what you are firing. But the thing that makes me utterly sick is that BP staff monitored the bear until she died 11 days later. What kind of sick people does BP employ?

Royal Mail has been cutting costs... And coincidently around 10% of first class (well, what THEY laughingly call first class) mail failed to get to its destination on time. Among other things that were to blame for this was...wait for it ...Iceland and its volcano. Yes, not only did the last prime minister label little Iceland “terrorists”, but it’s now their fault that the Royal Mail doesn’t know its bottom from its armpit. I was told that if I wanted to guarantee a next day delivery of a letter to Glasgow (from Dundee, about 80 miles away), it would cost me £5.50. You get brilliant service if you can afford a first class stamp at that price.

You remember Iris Robinson, wife of Ulster’s first minister, devout fire and brimstone Christian, hater of anything divergent from the word of the good book... oh, and incidentally, the 60 year old granny who was having it off with a 19 year old kid behind her husband’s back? Yes, surely you remember her... No? Well, she was also a local councillor, an MP and an AM... not bad money (especially if you add her husband’s many and various incomes and the fact that they were both a bit heavy handed on the old expenses)... Coming back to you now? She had a nervous breakdown when it turned out that she was a bit of a cradle snatching old woman... A contributory factor to that mental illness might have been that she was accused of using her position in the council to secure her teenage lover boy a catering contract, without disclosing her interest (well she wouldn’t, would she?) and of getting him a big fat loan from another “friend of the family”, of which, I seem to recall, despite her 3 salaries and numerous expenses, she wanted a slice. Is it coming back to you? Yes. That’s it; that’s her. Well, you’d never be guessing (as they say in Ireland) but she’s been completely exonerated. And she’s been cured too. That’s a bit of luck the two coinciding like that. Or maybe it’s because she’s in a close relationship with God or something...who knows? In other news a bloke who stole a t-shirt from the Armani shop in Birmingham during their riots was jailed for 20 months... I say 20 months... Funny old world, ain’t it?

I had to laugh tonight at the BBC news about Al Megrahi. It seems that the Little Blue Man, Nick Clegg, is calling him to be returned to Scotland to jail. Al Megrahi has broken the terms of his licence you see. He has moved house without informing his parole authorities and hasn’t kept in touch by telephone. Hmmm. Now I wonder why that would be. Oh yeah, I’ve heard they are having a spot of local bother... a riot or two, this time supported by Cameron and his puppet. (I wish they’d make their minds up.) Maybe the phones aren’t working too well; maybe his house isn’t secure any more... He was a friend of Gaddafi and as such is likely to be in hiding, but just as likely to be dead by the end of next week, wonder drug or no wonder drug. In the mean time, does anyone know what gets blue paint out of Armani suits?

CAMERON REDEFINES SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THEY ARE SPECIAL AND WE ARE NOT!

The prime minister, David Cameron, has described Britain, in an interview with Time Magazine, as the junior partner in the special relationship between the UK and the US. The prime minister topped that by saying that Britain should not be too "needy" of America. The article was published on the eve of Mr Cameron’s first visit as prime minister to the United States.

Cameron defended the notion of the special relationship and called it "essential", but nonetheless injected a sense of hierarchy. He said: "I believe in the special relationship. I think Britain is, of course, the junior partner, but I think it is an important and long-standing relationship and I hope that we bring things to that relationship." So there you are we are America’s lickspittle: its official!

Cameron has previously said Britain was obsessed with Europe and the US. In particular, he criticised his predecessor Tony Blair's unquestioning loyalty to the US. He also said Britain must look at where its strategic interests lie, by possibly having more than one special relationship. Oh really? And how does that fit in with wee Willie Hague waiting to hear what Hilary Clinton thought of the Israeli hijacking of that aid ship before actually having an opinion? Maybe he should have employed that great Tory tactic, perfected by the last Tory PM, of hiding in a cupboard and avoiding TV cameras till he got the call. Oh and the BP phone call? Read on!

Cameron was accused of being insufficiently patriotic and has risked the wrath of many in his own party, recently for not challenging President Obama when he appeared to sanction anti-British sentiment in criticism of BP, as it struggled to get to grips with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Which it has now apparently got to the bottom of, so we can all go back to calling it a great “British” institution. Answers on a postcard for what you thought the “B” stood for in the interregnum!

The Tory blogosphere, press, blue rinse brigade and outraged of Royal Leamington Spa and Royal Tumbridge Wells were jumping up and down at that upstart Obama for referring to BP as “British”. But that was because it had done something wrong, as is always the case with these people it’s anything but British when it destroys the entire Gulf of Mexico. Despite the B historically standing for British. Doubtless if it had developed a cure for cancer or sent a man to Mars it would have been welcomed as British in spades by the same people.

The usual suspects had wanted a stern assertion of Britishness when Cameron got the call from Obama. After all we may have a special relationship (Ha!) but they are still foreigners and there is nothing the gutter press like better (it sells papers you see) than an anti-foreigner rant. Shame they didn’t get it from our spineless PM. And now he is telling Americans that we are their junior partners. And we should not expect anything back in return? And Tony Blair was unquestioningly loyal to the US and this isn’t? I feel the “H” word coming on as it does so often when referring to the Tories and their monkeys on the barrel organ of state.

"President Obama and I have a very good relationship, we get on very well," said Cameron. "Of course we will discuss BP. It is an important company, not just for Britain, but for America as well. It employs tens of thousands of people in the US, as it does in the UK."

Cameron spoke warmly of his own associations with the US. "When I think of America I think of all sorts of things. My grandfather going ashore at D-day with the Americans in support of the British and everyone working together. I also think of fantastic holidays I have had – from Florida to Texas (not the Gulf of Mexico side of course) to California. I think of American culture. It is an incredible relationship between our countries." I mean pass the sick bag or what. I’m assuming this gushing dross is intended for the American market. Certainly not cosying up to the Americans then?

Obama piles on the anti-BP pressure despite Cameron's efforts to defend Britain in "warm" phone call.

President Barack Obama has again vowed to "make BP pay" for not only the multi-billion dollar clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico but also the restoration of the region's economy, undertaking to force the British oil giant to set aside the money he believes it owes as "a result of [its] recklessness.". So much for the “warm” phone call with David Cameron.

In his fiercest rebuke against the company in the 58 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, he promised to get tough with BP and to ensure that it meets all costs he believes it should pay.

In a direct attack on the company's dividend policy, Obama said that the money needed to cover the as-yet unquantifiable costs must be deposited in an independent "escrow" account. "This fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party." "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness," he continued.

The strong words, which came in Mr Obama's first national address from the Oval Office in the 18 months since he took office, came ahead of his crucial meeting with Carl-Henric Svanberg, BP's chairman (pictured), and Tony Hayward, its chief executive, at the White House later today.

Mr Obama also used the speech to make public the appointment of Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, as his new "oil tsar" for the region, charged with developing a "long-term Gulf Coast restoration plan as soon as possible." The plan, which will be designed by states, local communities, conservationists and fishermen and funded by BP, is aimed at reviving the "beauty and bounty" of the Gulf region and co-ordinating how that will happen.

Likening the spill to an "epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years," he went on to detail the government's involvement in the clean-up to date.

In an 18-minute speech replete with military metaphors, he referred to the "battle" the US is "waging against an oil spill that is assaulting" its shores and citizens, and spoke of the "battle plan" of action to clean up the growing slick.

At the weekend the President supposedly reassured Prime Minister David Cameron that his frustration over the mammoth oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is not an attack on Britain.

Cameron's Downing St. office said the two leaders had held a "warm and constructive" telephone conversation for more than 30 minutes.

Cameron is under pressure to get Obama to tone down the rhetoric against of a major British company, fearing it will hurt millions of Britons who hold BP stock in investments and pension plans.

Cameron's office said the prime minister "expressed his sadness at the ongoing human and environmental catastrophe," but stressed BP's economic importance to Britain, the U.S. and other countries.

It said Obama recognized that BP – which he has pointedly referred to in public by its former name, British Petroleum – is a multinational company, "and that frustrations about the oil spill had nothing to do with national identity." Obama said he had no interest in undermining BP's value. The company's stock has lost 40 percent of its value since the oil rig fire on April 20 that unleashed the United States' worst oil spill.

Downing Street said the two men agreed that BP should continue "to work intensively to ensure that all sensible and reasonable steps are taken as rapidly as practicable to deal with the consequences of this catastrophe."

But when the White House finally released its official statement, only one of the 10 sentences referred to the oil spill. It said the two men discussed the impact of the spill, "reiterating that BP must do all it can to respond effectively to the situation."

Later, a senior Obama administration official, speaking anonymously, described the private conversation and confirmed that the president had told Cameron "that our frustration has nothing to do with national identity" but focuses instead on "ensuring that a large, wealthy company lives up to its obligations."

The official said Obama told Cameron that BP "must meet its obligations to those whose lives have been disrupted," and that the administration "will insist everything be done to cap the well, capture the oil, and pay for the cleanup, the environmental damage done and the tens of thousands of economic claims as a result of this disaster."

Downing Street also said Cameron and Obama reaffirmed their belief in "the unique strength of the U.S.-UK relationship." It announced that Cameron will visit Washington July 20, his first trip there since taking office in May.

How naive of those pro-British, pro-conservative bloggers, columnists and commentators to expect Cameron to stand up to Obama and protect those supposed vital British interests. But in actual fact it's a multi-billion pound international corporation that cut corners and precipitaed a monumental natural disaster. The fact of the matter is that the xenephobic British press whipped this up to sell papers. I for one never though for a second that Cameron would do anything other than what he was told.

Was there ever a small hope that the pro-US tories would stand up to Obama? Not a chance. The only sop that Obama made was to allow Cameron’s office to release its view of the phone call first. One which as you see is starkly different from the US version. And has Obama toned down his anti-BP rhetoric as a result of the call? No of course not. The best our dishwater PM could do was to get Obama to stop using the word “British”. How ridiculous of people to have expected Cameron to have done anything other than what he was told to do by the President. Now Mr Cameron is going to trot off to America because butt licking is so much more effective in person.

WHAT KIND OF TACTLESS MORON IS BP BOSS?

To be fair there are many instances of corporate leaders getting it wrong when their companies are in the news for all the wrong reasons. Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein, for example, thought for some weird reason that his company’s contribution to the recent financial crisis was “doing God's work." Right! Weird god he has.


But BP’s Tony Hayward has outshone even Blankfein with his tactlessness since the company's Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew up on April 20, killing 11 people and sending oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying natural habitats and devastating the economy for fishermen and tourist related industries, possibly for decades into the future.


BP initially estimated that between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels of oil were escaping into the Gulf each day. However the current consensus is that it's between 12,000 and 19,000 barrels per day. After 44 days, it is the biggest spill in America and there are no signs of a end to the disaster.


According to MSN, here are some of the idiot Hayward's bizarre statements since the accident:


On April 29, The New York Times reported that Hayward, apparently exasperated, turned to fellow executives in his London office and asked, “What the hell did we do to deserve this?" A possible answer might be the company's 760 safety violations over the last three years.

On May 14, Hayward attempted to persuade The Guardian that "the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume."


Only a few days later, he told Sky News that "the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest." Tell that to the birds as they say. Many scientists consider it to be an environmental disaster the full extent of which remains unknown for the moment.


On May 30, Hayward was less bullish and decided to play the sympathy card. He told the Today show that "there’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I would like my life back." Bless... If he wasn’t his life back, I’d suggest that all he needs to do is resign. The 11 people his accident killed don’t now have that option.


On May 31, he told the world that ecosystem-threatening underwater oil plumes—consisting of droplets of partially dissolved oil suspended in water that many scientists have observed—do not exist. He said simply, "There aren't any plumes."


On June 1, Hayward responded to claims that cleanup workers were being sickened by the fumes from the oil they were exposed to by suggesting another possible, non-oil-spill cause. When nine workers fell ill, according to Yahoo News, he told CNN that "food poisoning is clearly a big issue."


But Hayward is not alone in his manful struggle to spin the news in the face of daunting factual evidence. His colleague Bob Dudley, managing director of BP, told NBC's Meet the Press on May 30 that "I think Tony's doing a fantastic job." To paraphrase President George W. Bush during another poorly managed Gulf Coast disaster: heckuva job, Tony.

THE EVER GROWING COST OF FILLING UP YOUR TANK

Life just goes on getting better and better in this country, doesn’t it?

Despite the fact that we are told there is no inflation at all and that our money in building society and bank accounts earns no interest to speak of, it’s interesting that the cost of petrol in the UK has risen by 26% over the last year. In short it costs a quarter more to fill up your tank than it did last year.

Petrol is expected to reach £1.10 a litre before Christmas, an astounding £5. 0s. 0d a gallon for those who prefer old money and imperial measures. The blame is being laid on the increased cost of oil and the falling value of the pound (thank you Gordon).

The amazing thing is that, the last time that petrol cost this much, the cost of crude oil was $100 a barrel; at the moment it has remained between $75-$80 a barrel, prompting criticism that oil companies are fast to raise prices when the cost of crude goes up, but slow to reduce them when it comes down.

Interestingly BP has just announced bumper quarterly profits, during this recession, of £3 billion, a rise of 60% on the previous quarter. I wonder if the two are connected.

As if all of that wasn’t enough to put a damper on your evening, the VAT reduction that Darling introduced last year in a desperate attempt to encourage Christmas spending, will disappear in early January, adding on average £1.50 to a tank of petrol.

I find that strange in an oil rich country. One of the benefits of the union, I guess.