You Read It Here First

In the midst of my treatise on the 80s (June 2) I had a little dig at the sainted Barack Obama (the man who who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for no better reason than that he was not called Bush) and it seems that for once I was mildly ahead of the game in my unease at his sanctimonious attitude to the BP oil disaster. Let's get this straight - BP should pay for the damage they have caused, not least the eleven deaths on the oil rig, deaths which seem to me to get overlooked when the environmental 'tragedy' is being discussed. But have BP (or 'British Petroleum' as Obama has mischievously chosen to call them - they have not been called that for years, not in fact since they merged with the decidedly American Amoco) at any stage asserted that they will not be doing this? In the world's most litigious society would they have a prayer of doing so? Of course they bloody well wouldn't. If BP are doing such a lamentable job of trying to stop this calamity, why hasn't the federal government intervened to take over the operation? Well, because like it or not it is the oil companies who have the technological skills to operate in these waters.
This is a financial catastrophe for BP - does anyone seriously imagine that they don't want to stop the bleeding of money as quickly as possible? So it is not the business of American politicians to pontificate about whether or not BP should pay a dividend to its shareholders. There are already comprehensive regulations about the lawfulness of dividends without smug politicians grandstanding on the subject. BP employs 80300 people. There seems to be an unpleasant desire to see them punished.