• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hayward's departure: 'Not if, but when'

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Link
BBC - Peston's Picks: Hayward's departure: 'Not if, but when'

Quote(Tony Hayward looks like a dead chief executive walking.

Having spoken to those at the top of BP, none can come up with a scenario in which Mr Hayward stays at the helm of the bedraggled oil company longer than the proper capping of the leaking well and some kind of quantification of the financial damage.)

From the first moment Mr. Hayward appeared on our TV screens it was fairly obvious that he was going to be the fall guy.
I believe that BP will hold onto him until such time as the spill is sealed and the clean up is well under way, in other words until all the BAD PR about BP decreases to more manageable levels.

Mr. Hayward must know all this, what puzzles me is he continues to put his foot (nay, both feet) in his mouth almost every day, he must realize that his chances of gainful employment by any Company after his abysmal showing during this disaster are severely diminished.

Perhaps he reasons his payoff from BP will sustain him.
 
Perhaps he reasons his payoff from BP will sustain him.

It'll be a miscarriage of justice if this guy isn't looking at some jail time for his role in this disaster.
 
Well, I guess we'll have to wait for a full investigation to see what criminal charges are filed, won't we?

Well jeeze - I think we must do a complete investigation and find out what our government knew, and when they knew it --- and see if Impeachment proceedings will be needed.
 
Well jeeze - I think we must do a complete investigation and find out what our government knew, and when they knew it --- and see if Impeachment proceedings will be needed.

Yeah, ok :roll: In reality you can't just blame everything on Obama just because you don't like him. As ineffectual as he may be, Obama isn't the one who was doing criminally negligent deepwater drilling off the Gulf Coast. I thought conservatives were supposed to be all about personal responsibility, it was something I used to respect about you guys. But now I see that it doesn't apply when it is at odds with you cherished free market dogmas or contains even the slightest hint of environmentalism. I am very disappointed at the gall of conservatives leaping to defend British Petroleum, seemingly not giving a care to the effects their criminal negligence has had on the United States economy. It's sad that rather than support the US you folks would rather just mindlessly pound the drumbeat of "business good, government bad."
 
Yeah, ok :roll: In reality you can't just blame everything on Obama just because you don't like him.
Whoa there - I'm agreeing with you on the BP criminal charges. And in the spirit of full disclosure we need a FULL investigation to find out what the government did and did not do, as well as what and when they knew it. If you call for full investigations and possible criminal charges - we need the full story, or are you saying you want to give our government a free pass? And let me be clear - I'm not laying blame about anything on anyone - I'm simply calling for a thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

If it's okay for BP to be investigated - you should have no problem with the Fed being investigated. They're both tied to this catastrophe. So what's the problem?
 
Mr. Hayward must know all this, what puzzles me is he continues to put his foot (nay, both feet) in his mouth almost every day, he must realize that his chances of gainful employment by any Company after his abysmal showing during this disaster are severely diminished.

Perhaps he reasons his payoff from BP will sustain him.

He has zero chance or zero need of finding another job after this is over.
 
Well, I guess we'll have to wait for a full investigation to see what criminal charges are filed, won't we?

I don't think the guy is going to go to jail, even if they prove criminal negligence on the part of BP. Unless there is some evidence that surfaces that Hayward directly did something to lead to the spill, he is not going to be fined or jailed.
 
Well jeeze - I think we must do a complete investigation and find out what our government knew, and when they knew it --- and see if Impeachment proceedings will be needed.

not a bad idea actually. I'll need to go find a source to back it up but isn't there talk that Obama might have just simply dismissed help from other countries that were offering ships that could barricade the oil (thus making it so we have a nice little area of spill instead of this ghastly amount that it covers right now). I also agree that BP should be fully investigated. There's a thread somewhere in here that has a link where one of the engineers of the oil rig had sent an e-mail cautioning some of the BP heads against the "Nightmare" rig that they had created by avoiding some regulations.
 
Exactly what crime is Hayward supposed to be guilty of?

He is guilty of the most god awful PR gaffes.

But these are not crimes in the accepted meaning of the word.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom