Lord Rodger, yesterday:
Just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.
Great ruling, though. And nice to see the government welcoming it, in a weird departure from precedent and stereotype.
Of course, the Sun had to spoil it: Gay illegals can stay. Err, no, you bigoted idiots, they aren’t illegals, they’re legitimate refugees – that’s exactly what the Supreme Court ruling has just determined…
So, on BP, let’s assume that it gets so busted by compo claims that its entire US business gets liquidated and sold to Exxon (as seems to be the current, insane narrative: “we’ll pretend BP are evil rather than the same as everyone else, so we don’t have to stop the drilling and the oil greed…”. I don’t think it’s an anti-British thing, by the way – I’m sure that if Exxon had been the unlucky chaps, they’d’ve got the whole take-one-for-the-team treatment.)
At that point, the American liabilities are ringfenced, and BP can continue to do as it does in the North Sea, Asia and Africa, bringing quantities of money that are undeniably copious, albeit less large than its shareholders pre-spill might have hoped.
At that point, British and Chinese BP shareholders are perfectly safe in their holding of the company. But what happens to American shareholders? Is there a mechanism by which the US government could appropriate US-held BP shares, and is it an ‘unprecedented, practically war’ thing or a ‘yeah, we do this’ thing if so?
…which brings the technical question: is there any divergence between movements in BP shares on the LSE, and BP shares on the NYSE? That would be an interesting indicator, if so…
Any self-professed ‘human rights group’ that criticises a decision to, erm, respect someone’s human rights is not actually a human rights group, so much as an opportunity for a bunch of vindictive tossers to further hone their already highly developed sense of victimhood and entitlement.
Yes, that was a really stupid thing to say in an interview.
On the plus side, it’s good to see the people of Liverpool dispelling their unfair stereotype as past-obsessed whiners by ignoring an irrelevant off-the-cuff aside about something that happened a generation ago.
The rule of thumb is that on any blog where posts regularly attract more than about 50 comments, none of said comments will be worth reading due to the preponderance of idiot trolls, clueless newbies, and the generally hard-of-thinking.
At Crooked Timber, this is not the case. Viz:
Newbie CT commenter:
I wouldn’t much care to live in a world where you can’t eat animal (including marine) flesh
Regular CT commenter:
Shocking. The men of the naval infantry may be rough, tough, sometimes even brutal; but it goes too far to class them amongst the animals. Unless you mean to place all humans in that category, of course, which would be biologically correct. In that case, though, your typical marine is a poor choice for the table. Lots of meat there, yes, but it will be tough and stringy; made palatable, if at all, only through long slow braising.
Update – we have a new winner:
A system where the England coach gets to release three lions per game would increase the current entertainment value of England games, if not their match-win chances. (As players from other lands would be taught, you don’t need to faster than the lion, you only need to be faster than Terry, Heskey, etc…)