pumpkinstrokemarrow

I cast my vote against. My story is that Greenpeace have a record of inappropriately peaceless protest. They have their view and they are fully entitled to peaceful protest within the law. This does not include flagrant disregard for the seaway code (when they are on whale hugging missions) or the vandalism of petrol stations. I am reminded of the occasion when a bunch of anti-GM people burnt down a field of GM maize and were acquitted by a Norwich jury. I never heard of the farmer concerned getting any compensation for the loss of his field, presumably a few thousand pounds worth. I don't suppose that, taking all the present circumstances into account, BP will feel able to throw the legal book at Greenpeace, which I imagine that, legally, they could.

I ought to declare some background here, in that as a youngster I used to protest, not altogether peacefully and not altogether within the law, although I still believe in the causes - nuclear disarmament and the Vietnam war. Rather more serious matters at the time than the fate of a few verminous foxes. And those who do not believe or condone might still euphemise the behaviour as youthful high spirits (or possibly low spirits), rather different to the corporate vandalism endorsed by the corporate suits of Greenpeace senior management.

On the other hand, BP have rather shot themselves in the foot with the package the DT claims that their about to depart chief executive will be getting. In the olden days one used to hear moans about civil servants who committed the most awful blunders resulting in much grief in the country at large and who were only sanctioned to the extent that they were retired early on grounds of limited efficiency. Possibly with pension pot made up to the full 40 years. Nowadays, similar arrangements appear to be made for those inhabiting the higher reaches of what was supposed to be a jungle, red in tooth and claw. Survival of the fittest and all that.

I dare say the chief executive concerned is only claiming what he is legally entitled to, but I think that he is wrong to insist on his rights in this way. BP and the world have had a major disaster on his watch and he should be seen to take a bit of pain - along with all those shareholders, widows who have trusted their widow's mite to him. Civil service pension pots used to be fairly modest; not that such that one likely to shout fat cat. But this chap is walking away with millions. Given that he probably already has millions, why does he not do a bit of public humble pie and waive most of his rights? Just keep enough to buy a new hair shirt from time to time? After a few years all will be forgotten if not forgiven and he will be able to get his poncy yacht out again.

Against all that, it used to be the custom in the olden days for defeated generals to be honourably pensioned off by the victorious generals. Never mind all the chaps that went down in the defeat. Part of the thinking being that if generals knew that they would get the chop if they lost, they might get a bit reckless with the lives of others when the going got rough.

Clearly time to visit the baker.