Quote:
Who cares what Eddie Izzard "thinks"...

The editors of the Guardian.

Quote:
it's irrelevant...

No it's not irrelevant. The article pointed out, for example, that most of BP's violations relate to just one previous incident but you're still going on about it's "horrible history". If anything is irrelevant it's that because it has nothing to do with Deepwater Horizon.

Quote:
We DO know that BP didn't apply the 3rd mud plug...

We haven't heard BP's account of that yet so we can't draw any conclusions from the allegation.

Quote:
we DO know that they have a horrible history of safety violations...

Already dealt with - irrelevant.

Quote:
we DO know they could have had a better BOV if they were really concerned with safety - the ones REQUIRED on rigs in the North Sea that they have to use there.... geez wouldn't want the UK beaches covered in oil and polluted

No, they're just as concerned about the Gulf as the North Sea - obviously they need to have regard to the regulations wherever they operate and they're not necessarily the same from one place to another.

Quote:
There was a post on this site from some one who worked in the oil fields and he cited many red flags BP ignored in their rush to production and pad the bottom line..

That was tainted by bias - the authors were competitors whose attention to detail was such they couldn't even get the name of the company right - no credibility there whatsoever.

Quote:
AND their Federal application to drill and how they'd deal with spills was just company BS... they fabricated the whole thing ! They didn't have a F-ing clue and they LIED on it !

No you're inserting your own invective there and taking advantage of the benefit of hindsight... lying is what most of the pundits are doing as far as I can see - or let's put it this way: being highly creative with the facts they chose to discuss and those they chose to conveniently ignore.

Quote:
sorry if that's not deliberate negligence, I don't know what is.

No I think we need to leave that to the courts.

km