Most recent Comments |
| Wader Kargar |
| posted on 28 February 2010 |
| This is why Britain will collapse, if we dont help out those in need but those who come through the borders instead the country will no longer be pro British.
its a shock how the govt will serve all but those who deserve it, and in your case the oil companies turning over billions of pounds |
| |
| forever21 |
| posted on 23 November 2009 |
| Ian,
I have began studying Buncefield. I was just wondering what the latest on this issue is? It is absolutely disgusting that they have not accepted responsibility and paid compensation.
I wish you the best of luck,
|
| |
| Rik Day |
| posted on 14 November 2009 |
| Good news indeed that Total UK have been found guilty, lets hope Ian gets closure on this soon.
I will be interested in the sentancing next year, I guess we have to wait for all the other comapnies trials to finish before anything concrete happens.
|
| |
| Steve Bratt |
| posted on 14 November 2009 |
| Hi Ian, was the news as good as it sounded yesterday with TOTAL UK admitting responsibility?? |
| |
| Intoto |
| posted on 17 September 2009 |
| This is getting to be a Total disgrace we are in 2009 and Buncefield residents like Ian Silverstein are still waiting for compensation from Total |
| |
| steve |
| posted on 07 July 2009 |
| Ian, hows it all going? Have you had any news yet?
I hope you get the compo you so rightly deserve not just for the loss of your home but for all the psychological trauma you've gone through since.
Take care.
Kindest Regards, Steve. |
| |
| Karen |
| posted on 13 May 2009 |
| Hey Ian, sorry for no contact but things just got too much to deal with. I feel saddened and angry that we have been treated so badly, to the point that Barry and I have almost become recluses. I watched your video and saw in the background our home, our beautiful bungalow being demolished and it ripped my heart out. I'm back in counselling still trying to deal with the trauma.
I wish you well for the future
Karen |
| |
| Adrian and Susan in Dubai |
| posted on 11 May 2009 |
| Susan and I have just watched you video,and can only say how shocked we were. It puts into perspective our loss which was purely financial, your's is something completely different ,and the way you are dealing with it is to be admired. We both wish you all the best for your continued quest for justice, and I do hope that this is reached in the near future. Regards and all the best Adrian +Susan
|
| |
| Lindsay Fry |
| posted on 10 May 2009 |
| I would like to send sympathy for the way you have been treated since the Buncefield explosion. My grandparents had High Grange built in 1914
and our family enjoyed the house and grounds until my mother sold it in 1975. I can hadly bear to see pictures of the ruins. Hope the dreadful
oil companies stump up the money eventually.
regards
Lindsay Fry
|
| |
| Beverley |
| posted on 20 April 2009 |
| I am so appalled, like you say, you pay all your taxes, insurance premiums, coucil tax and the like and this is how you get treated. As I'm sure many others feel, we wish we could fix this for you, I wish I was a multi millionaire I'd hand it to you tomorrow. How dare they (the oil company responsible) make such huge profits (the real Multi Millionaires) and not pay their debts, it is robbery and they should be penalised / jailed, like we would be if we didint pay a council tax bill. I am so angry I cant even find the right words. Why cant Gordon Brown resolve it - he has the power for cryin out loud - the government need to get their priorities right as well as the insurance companies - what the hell do we insure our properties for - a laugh!!!! Gordon Brown get your finger out you idiot! Apsley. |
| |
| Steve Neill (Denver, CO) |
| posted on 13 March 2009 |
| You may remember me from the days when your fledgling business shared the same offices with CAL Property in Rickmansworth. For some weird reason I happened to think of you today.
I'm shocked at how you've suffered at the hands of the local authorities in this case. I can only imagine what you're going through.
I left the UK almost 13 years ago and moved to New Zealand and then on to USA. I feel the UK has lost its soul as a country. I feel more at home in USA than UK. My hope for you is that you will find a meaningful resolution to this nightmare, and that those involved will find it in their hearts to see that justice is done.
As it happens, part of my work (www.coaid.org) involves travel to parts of the world to visit people whose homes and lives have been stolen from them. My work with refugees as victims of natural disasters and wars allows me to see sides of life no-one want to really hear about. I can appreciate your anger and frustration -- you're entitled to feel that way. |
| |
| Andrew James Davies |
| posted on 13 March 2009 |
| The news that BP have now started storing fuel on the Buncefield site again this week has come as quite a shock to me, I would say more so to the residents who live on its doorstep, I live in Stevenage and was awakened on that sunday morning by a thud on my bedroom window which I thought was a bird losing its way, little did I know that when I woke, I would see the images of such destruction on the TV and see the cloud of smoke all these miles away, The fact that the storage of such a volatile substance is happening in the middle of a residential area quite honestly seems like a bad idea in the first place, I feel cautious living next to a petrol station, a few years ago that same petrol station was the victim of arson and someone set the bins on fire at the back of it, who knows what would have happened but I ran in and told the attendant of the situation and he hit the stop button and we evacuated the facility, this is just a station Buncefield was a storage area but should not be !! |
| |
| Vicki Bennett |
| posted on 24 February 2009 |
| The PTB are psychopaths. There is no other explanation for letting a big corporation blatantly get away with this devastation. If you are under any illusion that the Police, Council and Government are there to help you, it is time to WAKE UP. I have been trying to post the link that shows you this in black and white, but it has been blocked. Interesting.
|
| |
| Vicki Bennett |
| posted on 24 February 2009 |
| Now i am really angry because i have seen the "art" put up at the site of the explosion, which cost 360,000 POUNDS OF TAX PAYERS MONEY!!!
www.cpexposed.com |
| |
| Alison |
| posted on 24 February 2009 |
| OMG,your house was so beautiful I had no idea. So awful. Any new developments ?
|
| |
| Steve Judson |
| posted on 20 January 2009 |
| What can I say, after watching your plight following the Buncefeild fire !.I am still in shock, seeing how despicably you have been treated.You have put together an amazing documentary informing the world of your fight for justice.I have come across this attitude towards us ordinary everyday hardworking people now on many occasions from my research for my studies. I am researching issues of injustice towards people of this country whether it be individuals or groups of people, following disasters, whether they are human error, natural disasters, or large scale accidents, I am looking into how people are treated by departments of government, local authority, officialdom, bureaucracy, and general lack of help in dire situations (such as yours and many others). I am currently studying for a BA in photography, but as the course has panned out I find myself veering down the road of documentary/photojournalism, I am keen to bring to my viewer and inform them through my work of predicaments of individuals and their struggles to get back to where they were before such disasters or problems occurred. As my work progresses, I am turning up more and more stories of disdain show by those who we look to for help in times of need.I wish you and your family good luck for the future, and hope for you all that you can at least get back to where you were on the previous day of 11th December 2005. |
| |
| Barrie |
| posted on 19 January 2009 |
| Just thought i would let you know you are not alone in this.
The explosion took my business of twenty years, my lovely canal-side home, my wife and kids and now every penny i ever earnt.
Like you Ian, three years on I have had nothing, except ongoing lawyers fees!.
I get annoyed at people saying, "Surely you must have had something by now"
No we have not and it gets harder as time moves on
My legal team tell me it will come right, what they dont seem to understand is its to late, how are we supposed to rebuild twenty years?
|
| |
| Judith Treaddell |
| posted on 19 January 2009 |
| One of the more emotional moments for me was seeing Buncefield up in flames like that, for years it was a part of our lives because my Dad practically built it. As soon as i found out what had happened I rang him just so I could hear he was ok. I just thank the fates that it happened on Sunday at 6am, otherwise there would have been so many injuries and deaths, I've seen photos of the aftermath and its just like a war zone. |
| |
| Ben |
| posted on 16 January 2009 |
| Hi Ian we all know what you've been through and the unimaginable loss you have experienced. Keep working at it and I am sure you will prevail. You're always welcome to take refuge out here! |
| |
| Louise Palmer-Thompson |
| posted on 10 January 2009 |
| I am so sorry-i didnt even know about your situation! This is outrageous.Can you go to the Europeon Court of Human Rights? Get a petition going and send to Parliament. Stay strong - they want to grind you down so you give up but DON'T give up the fight Ian.If you need a banner or signs then i will donate them to help you out!
Just call Louise - Utopia Signs 01442 264600 or email:sales@utopiasigns.com |
| |
| Stacey Jane Wonfor |
| posted on 03 January 2009 |
| I think its disgusting that this whole thing has just been swept under the carpet when it was such a serious incident. I remember being really scared looking out and seeing the huge cloud in front of my house that sunday so I can't imagine how scared the close residents must have felt. I really hope that you all all get some compensation eventually. Best of luck
|
| |
| Rik Day |
| posted on 03 January 2009 |
| Hello Ian, just watched your film on youtube, and lost for words mate, that you are still waiting 3yrs later for this to be resolved, makes me feel ashamed to be British mate.Take care Mate :).".
|
| |
| Ricky Day |
| posted on 02 January 2009 |
| An excellent insight into what I can only imagine must be a living nightmare for you since that eventful morning Ian.
Im totally disgusted that people are still vandalising and looting your property, im even more disgusted with the companies responsible and the fact that you are still waiting 3 yrs later for this to be resolved.
Disgusting!
No support from any of the authorities or companies involved.
Take care mate
|
| |
| Steve Bratt |
| posted on 26 December 2008 |
| NO MORE BUYING TOTAL / CHEVRON PETROL!!! |
| |
| Colin Watts |
| posted on 26 December 2008 |
| A horrific story however you look at it. Even those that criticise cannot explain why there has been no compensation for the difference in losses occurred. A major incident the likes of which not seen in Europe since WW2 was indeed a tragic accident, but does not mean that the then operators of that site should be allowed to get away with it. For one, I say no more buying petrol from Total or Chevron garages as an absolute minimum, and let the media bear pressure on the oil companies involved. One of the most shocking stories I have ever heard. Good luck Ian - we are all behind you. |
| |
| Kerry Staniforth |
| posted on 14 December 2008 |
| Comment to Born yesterday ? You really are an idiot.
Ian, Good luck, you're doing a fantastic job highlighting the injustice that has happened to not only you, but all the other victims.
You deserve a medal.
K x |
| |
| Laura Brainwood (Ashlyns School) |
| posted on 14 December 2008 |
| I live in berkhamsted, a neighbouring town
i remeber the expolision well, we heard a load bang and everybody rushed to the windows, we could not see anything as the trees were in the way!!, seeing the news later on, we realised how close it was and how lucky we were to be far away. thoughout the day we got many phone call conserning our safety. know we where quite lucky, i hope you are able to restore you house to its former glory |
| |
| Steve Bratt |
| posted on 13 December 2008 |
| Have known of your story since the explosion, and just cannot believe you have still not been compensated. Anything I can do - please let me know.
|
| |
| Marie Cowell |
| posted on 13 December 2008 |
| i remember that day sooo well also!! i live in apsley and felt it, my sister lives in tring and it also woke her up!! to imagine you went through this so close does not bear thinking about! my friends used to live in a cottage in punchbowl lane and had moved out some time before but i remember when we used to drive to their house that we used to pass by the perimeter fence right next to one of the storage tanks and had they still been living there they would of certaintly been killed as the cottage was flattened by the blast!! i had no idea that ppl were STILL living this nightmare and i wish you and all the other ppl waiting for compo all the luck in your fight and the future!!! THESE PEOPLE MUST PAY FOR THEIR NEGLEGENCE..... |
| |
| Ali Clarke Coomber |
| posted on 13 December 2008 |
| Everyone in the vicinity has their own personal story, this was Ian's. I'm sure he doesn't think he was the only one affected. There are other groups detailing the suffering of others and they have been shown on the major TV networks many times. |
| |
| Diana |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| Good documentary, I wish you luck. BUT! this does seem to be a rather one sided outlook instead of how Buncefield has torn apart hundreds of lives with you simply one of them…..
It would have been more powerful, dramatic and honest, if you included the plight of others who equally, if not more so, were affected by Buncefield explosion. You mention how this has affected your family, yet in the documentary you say only you and a girlfriend in your house no frightened children or elderly or disabled.
One family I know of has 7 lovely children, they have gone out and worked hard all their lives providing for their children giving them a safe and secure childhood and now I hear they have spent a year in a hotel with happy carefree childhood memories tarnished forever all down to this disaster.
You should be including people like them in your story standing united against the capitalistic companies who put dollars before people…not standing alone as if its simply just your life in tatters….
|
| |
| Chris Evans |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| A really powerful documentary. I hope it helps get some resolution to your Buncefield nightmare. |
| |
| Claire Eyles |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| I have just finished watching your documentary on my lunch break. Congratulations on putting together such a powerful piece. You’ve done an amazing job. I was lost for words after watching it. I have passed on the link to your facebook page to everyone I know and asked them to watch, comment and join. I just wanted to wish you all the very best. You have put up an amazing fight and I can only hope and pray that you get the results your looking for.Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
|
| |
| Claire Eyles |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| Here's hoping for nothing but the best result. Good Luck Ian. |
| |
| Michael Fitzpatrick |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| It is a distressing story and I hadn't appreciated the enormity of your loss and suffering. Neither had I fully appreciated the total lack of action in support of your case from those people who have some responsibility for the tragic event. Unfortunately we increasingly face situations in which we as individuals are often let down by the authorities that we look to for support and to whom we give our hard earned money in taxes. I am especially disappointed to hear of yet another major company unwilling to accept responsibility for events that took place on their watch. Good luck and continue to fight these faceless and uncaring companies, authorities and individuals.
|
| |
| Michael Penning MP (Shadow Minister, Health; Hemel |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| Today is the third anniversary of the Buncefield disaster in my constituency and I know that the Leader of the House will not be surprised that I am raising it with her. Today, Lord Newton will conclude his inquiry, which has been conducted behind closed doors. The Department for Work and Pensions has washed its hands of the explosion, yet we still have problems, with people who will never be able to return to their homes and thousands of workers, at this difficult time, with businesses that are just not safe enough to return to. Which Department will take responsibility from today onwards, and may we have a statement from a Minister from whichever Department that happens to be?
|
| |
| IAN SILVERSTEIN |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| We now have over 570 Facebook 'Buncefield Three years on' Group members. |
| |
| BBC NEWS24 |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| Buncefield blast could cost £1bn
More than 40 people were injured in the explosion
The cost of the explosion and fire at the Buncefield oil depot could reach £1 billion, according to a final report by the Major Incident Investigation Board. The report was published on the third anniversary of the blast at the depot near Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, which injured 43 people. It was caused by an overflowing fuel storage tank at the depot. The report said much of the expected costs were made up of compensation claims against the site operators. Earlier this month, it was announced that five companies would be be prosecuted over the incident, which forced 2,000 people to leave their homes. Criminal proceedings. The Major Incident Investigation Board (MIIB) chairman, Lord Newton of Braintree, said the final report brought together 78 recommendations. He said: "This includes some new elements, for example information on economic impact and the mechanism that produced such a severe explosion at Buncefield." Lord Newton said the decision to prosecute the five companies over the incident was "an important milestone". Health and Safety Executive chairwoman Judith Hackitt welcomed the report and said: "The work of the MIIB has already had a major impact on the way safety and environmental risks are controlled at similar sites and in ensuring improved resilience." The Environment Agency said earlier this month that criminal proceedings had now started against Total UK, Hertfordshire Oil Storage and the British Pipeline Agency. TAV Engineering and Motherwell Control Systems 2003 are also being prosecuted. The case is due to begin on 23 January at West Hertfordshire Magistrates' Court in Watford. |
| |
| Rev''''d Simon Cutmore |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| As an Advent community, on this Buncefield anniversary weekend of all weekends, we need to continue seek justice and judgment and to call for closure for our community. Part of this justice and closure must come through a full and transparent public inquiry, not so that the finger of blame can be pointed at particular people because their job was not done properly, but so that the community can know stage by stage what happened and why it happened. God’s advent justice for this community is also about our insurance companies acting with a single voice and acting as one and acting now. God’s advent justice for this community is also about those who have the power to ensure that as far as possible this sort of event doesn’t happen again, make sure that it doesn’t. |
| |
| Buncefield Investigation Board publishes final rep |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| The Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board has publishing its final report and announced the conclusion of its work.
The incident, which occurred at the Buncefield Oil Depot in Hemel Hempstead on 11 December 2005, dramatically affecting surrounding local residents and businesses.
Lord Newton of Braintree, the chair of the Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board, said: "This final report captures all of our important work over nearly three years in a single publication for the public record. It provides an authoritative summary of the incident and of the Board's role and work, and brings together for the first time our 78 recommendations into one place. This includes some new elements, for example information on economic impact and the mechanism that produced such a severe explosion at Buncefield. We trust it will prove an invaluable reference document about this major and very serious event."
The final report is available at http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/index.htm
|
| |
| Rev''d Simon Cutmore |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| Today marks the third anniversary of the Buncefield Oil depot blast in Hemel Hempstead. Below I enclose my sermon from the Sunday of the first anniversary.
A year ago at 6.01am all of us were woken by the largest explosion in peace time Europe. For a large number of us, the damage to our homes, lives and livelihoods has been small, and in most cases anything that needed attending to in terms of counseling, building work, and employment have all been resolved one way or another.
For a significant minority of people though in this village, the Buncefield blast lingers on in more than just the memory due to wrangles with the insurance company, incomplete building work, ongoing unemployment, children’s inability to sleep, and unresolved post traumatic stress. As Mike Penning rightly said on Friday night - those members of our community have become a forgotten people and and their struggle has become a forgotten story. So on this anniversary weekend I feel that it is absolutely right that bring to mind the almost biblical events of last year that affected us all to a lesser or greater degree, that we remind ourselves of the ongoing struggle for some, and that we commit ourselves to walking with them into the future. |
| |
| Adam |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| hope you are well Ian and good luck, i cant imagine what you have suffered, i live a few miles away so i was more of a spectator,
|
| |
| Joe Brown |
| posted on 12 December 2008 |
| Hi Ian
I have to say im shocked by your story it saddens me that these big oil companies cant even be bothered to try and compensate you.
Even the cost to rebuild your house to its former glory would be a drop in there wells compared to the wages the fat cats get at the top.
I cannot begin to imagine the stress you are going through. Like many others have already commented I only hope you get this sorted soon. |
| |
| Sadia Shabir |
| posted on 11 December 2008 |
| Very sad and up-setting I wish u all the best in getting some results (hope)
All the best and takecare:-) |
| |
| A. Wills, Dulverton Road, Ruislip, Middx. |
| posted on 11 December 2008 |
| SIR, - I'm relieved to read that five companies will face criminal proscecution charges for the Buncefield explosion. It was the biggest peacetime explosion in Europe since World War Two. I'm concerned about the possible long-term health effects. Short-term breathing problems were caused by pollution particles.
The long-term threat comes from chemicals such as benzene and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. When breathed in they can cause changes in the body, releasing free-radicals which can cause cancer. Benzene is proven to cause cancer, blood diseases and DNA changes. No one should be exposed to these.
I hope these possible adverse health effects on local residents will be taken into account when charges are made or compensation is discussed.
|
| |
| Marc Webb |
| posted on 11 December 2008 |
| iv just watched it about 10mins ago, ross did a fine job on production and you telling the story. this cant be the end and im sure you will end up with another dream home someday.
|
| |
| Joshua |
| posted on 11 December 2008 |
| Ive just watched it. I'm deeply saddend by your story, the buncefield disaster, didnt take lives physically, but took lives mentally.
I will support you and your story ALL the way.
With greatest respect with how far you've got.
|
| |
| Aaron Hawes |
| posted on 11 December 2008 |
| Ive added some pictures, my thoughts are with those who have been left rather out of pocket over this. |
| |
| Ali Clarke Coomber |
| posted on 11 December 2008 |
| Heartbreaking. Have no other words except good luck and take care |
| |
| Janine Townson |
| posted on 11 December 2008 |
| Ian, I've just watched the full documentary. I'm devastated for you. Remembering the day after mine and Richard's wedding sitting in the beautiful garden, watching the dvd in the kitchen, then the football in the lounge before you took us to the airport. And the numerous other occasions we were there. Unfair doesn't even cut it. Keep doing what you're doing, don't let them get away with it. I'm with you all the way. All my love Janine
|
| |
| Lee Yule |
| posted on 07 December 2008 |
| hi ian, don't give up someone must be responsible and you will get there eventually. good luck with it all. |
| |
| Daniel Romano |
| posted on 05 December 2008 |
| Lo voy a escribir en español para que no queden dudas: LAS EMPRESAS QUE GENERAN ESTOS DESASTRES DEBEN SER CASTIGADAS PENALMENTE, NO SOLO AL BOARD SINO TAMBIEN A SUS RESPONSABLES DE MANERA PERSONAL. NO ES POSIBLE QUE SE ESCUDEN DETRAS DE SUS LOGOS, QUE SEAN "NADIE" SOLO UNA EMPRESA.
MERECEMOS VIVIR EN PAISES DONDE QUIEN COMETE ESTOS DESASTRES PAGUEN.
IAN, lo siento, espero que pronto se solucione. |
| |
| toffgirl67 |
| posted on 03 December 2008 |
| my brother was one of the drivers and he hasnt had any help with what happened that day. It has effected alot of people and now maybe you will all get the help you need. |
| |
| James ''Robbo'' Robertson (Uni. Reading) |
| posted on 02 December 2008 |
| My dad was pretty lucky, his office was pretty much destroyed from the blast (Northgate tld)...my claim to fame!
Very sorry to hear about ur house...hope everything works out 4 u |
| |
| Helen Curtis |
| posted on 02 December 2008 |
| Im so sorry to hear your story. I live less than a mile away and was completely unaware that anybody was in your situation. Not only does this shock me because it happend three years ago and surely should have been dealt with by now, but it also shocks me because i know people who had work done to there houses that, lets face it, needed to be done before the explosion yet payed for because of the explosion. How on earth HOSL have got away with not paying out is beyond me. And a absolute disgrace. |
| |
| Nicki |
| posted on 01 December 2008 |
| I lost the best job i ever had thanks to buncefield and the damage it did to our offices and factory. Keep fighting and hopefully they will eventually listen and put the situation right. |
| |
| d.osborne |
| posted on 01 December 2008 |
| keep fighting mate and dont stop until you have what you want from this situation |
| |
| Ollie McC |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| I haven’t known Ian for a long time, but it certainly did not take very long for me to see the effect this Buncefield saga is still having on himself and his life - three years on since the explosion. I think if the ‘big guns’ of Chevron and Total took but just a minute out from their luxurious lifestyles to understand just a snippet of what Ian has had to endure as a result of one of their huge mistakes, then this saga would have been concluded a long time ago. They should take a step back for a minute and imagine themselves or someone close to them in the same situation, then this would be a no-brainer – but instead they distance themselves from the problem, carry on with their fancy lifestyles, and hope the problem will just fade away. I sincerely hope this documentary and all the relative Internet sites and groups make this impossible to just disappear and as a result you get your long and overdue compensation for what you have had to endure. Good luck. |
| |
| Mandy Lim |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| My greatest sympathys, as someone who formerly lived in Hemel (during the Buncefield explosion) I think what has happened to you is disgusting.
I'm not sure about things so I could just be making a silly/stupid statement, so sorry about that.
But considering you're getting alot of hits on Youtube/Your website/Facebook group, would a petition have the power to change anything?
If it would, then consider you're getting thousands of hits. That could be thousands of valid signitures, that no-one has the right nor ignorance to dismiss.
I'm not sure if this was a valid or helpful suggestion or not, but either way, best of luck to you, I'll be watching that documentary |
| |
| Gillian Hall |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| It sickens me somewhat that people can claim compensation for accidents at work that were their own doing, and yet someone having their house destroyed is denied any kind of reparations.
I don't know if it was a case of negligence on the part of HOSL or not, but regardless, if something that they own causes that kind of damage they should at least be partially responsible. |
| |
| Jasmine Smith (Roundwood Park) |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| I sincearly feel awful for you I know my empathy doesnt solve anything but I really hope you get some form of compensation. Its horrible to think that they can live with the fact that they've shattered someones life and destroyed their pride and joy.
Good Luck,
Jasmine |
| |
| Kathleen Lovatt |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| I really feel sorry 4 u i hope you get something i cant believe they arent going to pay out what are you ment to do not live anymore?
Good luck
Kath |
| |
| Wendy Cockburn (Bridgeport / Stamford, CT) |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| My thoughts go out to you and your family, Ian. I remember that December morning all too clearly and thank God that at least it didn't occur on a week day. The carnage in that industrial estate would have been completely devastating for Hemel and the surrounding communities to handle. All the best, will look out for the documentary. |
| |
| steven1974 |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| ‘Nice of a few oil company representative to post comments on the site! This unfortunately seems to summarise a multi-billion dollar oil companies outlook on a situation where even presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary - cant see to grasp the basic humanitarian issue in front of their eyes. This cynicism and lack of understanding has been what Ians been up against for the last three years... |
| |
| baz |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| lol the 99 words for boobs in the related videos of you video blog is 100 time better then any of your drivel mate |
| |
| chris m |
| posted on 30 November 2008 |
| no offence mate but why did you not have insurance for your house?
maybe because they didnt give it to you because you lived next to a oil depot?
you should have taken the hint mate
no sympathy |
| |
| Ioanna Hatzigianni (Greece) |
| posted on 28 November 2008 |
| me and my family wish u good luck!!!! |
| |
| Raphaele Moura (Greece) |
| posted on 28 November 2008 |
| Don't give up they have to pay! They could have killed you! Good luck |
| |
| VICTIM OF BUNCEFIELD |
| posted on 25 November 2008 |
| I to am a VICTIM OF BUNCEFIELD - NOT A PENNY FROM TOTAL OR CHEVRON in COMPENSATION! |
| |
| Texasranger |
| posted on 24 November 2008 |
| Buncefield Victims like Mr Silverstein are the ones being mugged of. Total Chevron put an end the misery of the Buncefield Victims pay these people their compensation. |
| |
| IAN SILVERSTEIN |
| posted on 24 November 2008 |
| In answer to the comment 'Born yesterday ?' I have not received a 'Penny' in compensation from Total or Chevron my home stands in ruins three years on. Ignorance is bliss and you should beleive everything you read in the papers. |
| |
| Debra Flauden |
| posted on 24 November 2008 |
| Born Yesterday.Or should we call you HEARTLESS! You need to direct your questioning to:
[TOTAL & CHEVRON] not to Mr Silverstein who did not ask to be blown up on the 11th December 2005, he was a VICTIM were you? |
| |
| Grindell |
| posted on 24 November 2008 |
| Total & Chevron are in the High Court NOW because they have not settled & paid compensation to Victims. This action should not have been needed. Negligence has already been established.
|
| |
| Born yesterday ? |
| posted on 23 November 2008 |
| Guy, come on - get real. Ask yourself why his chap is making these claims. Anything to do with his desire for self publicity and fortchcoming "documentary" ?
Is this normal behaviour ? "Everyone" has failed him - there's usually a reason for that. Is everyone wrong & this one individual is right - or could there be another side to his story ?
His building insurance has paid out, he admits that once he realises he cannot sustain that particular lie on here. If it covered rebuild, why didnt they rebuild it ? Maybe he didnt want them to - pay off the mortgage and get some compo off the oil companies and promote himself as the worlds biggest "victim" for publicity by any chance ?
I wonder, did he only have building insurance or also contents insurance, did that pay out too ? How about alternative accomodation cover ?
Have the companies really not paid him ONE PENNY in compensation - the television last week said the oil companies had just paid out interim payments, the oil companies themselves say they have paid out millions.
Ask youself who is telling the truth here - could this just be someone who whilst clearly having suffered a terrifying ordeal (and I dont decry that one bit) but that he is seeking to milk the situation to fuel some warped self publicity hungry desire ?
Don't be mugged off by this bloke.
|
| |
| nicksmarsh |
| posted on 21 November 2008 |
| It's completely beyond me how something like this can happen without anyone taking responsibility. Take a minute to think about how you'd feel if your HOME was suddenly taken away in such a traumatic way - all you'd ever worked for. Someone, somewhere MUST step forward. It's shocking, sad and totally unexceptable!!! |
| |
| Geraldine Moss |
| posted on 20 November 2008 |
| 'No TOTAL in my TANK'
Do not give up Ian! 100% behind you & the Buncefield victims. Have you contacted Total's CEO Christophe De Margerie in France, yet? |
| |
| Topsparkie |
| posted on 20 November 2008 |
| I can't believe that these companies are making billions from oil and they can't afford to pay compensation, when clearly it's their fault. You have my total support and i will never by from Total fuel garages again. Good luck in your quest Ian and look forward to the documentary. |
| |
| Sarah Mac |
| posted on 19 November 2008 |
| It is abhorrant that the Ian and the other families have not been compensated for the loss of their homes. The emotional trauma of losing photos, and personal possessions that can never be replaced, letters, childrens drawings all the memories that they evoke are lost.... it is unimaginable to me and to have the added insult of suffering financially is beyond comment.
The government need to get behind Ian and the others involved and insist that Total put their hands in their pockets and pay the compensation that is long overdue.........
Good luck.... |
| |
| Francis Brewster |
| posted on 19 November 2008 |
| No more Total fuel for me & my family!
If this was France they would have started to blockade the Total sites before now! |
| |
| Gwyn |
| posted on 19 November 2008 |
| Will not be purchasing 'Total' fuel until 'Total' sort this mess out! I urge all other motorists to do the same. Same goes for Chevron. |
| |
| Rachel |
| posted on 19 November 2008 |
| Dreadful. Really feel for you, obviously they should stump up appropriately. |
| |
| Mike Saxton |
| posted on 19 November 2008 |
| It is scandalous that those who have had their homes and arguably their lives ruined by Buncefield are still waiting compensation. How on earth this has slipped into a legal blackhole whereby liability is still in doubt beggars belief. Clearly, Ian is someone who invested considerably in creating a beautiful home that now lies in ruins. He and those also affected deserve the full weight of the government's support to put an end to this farce. Good luck Ian and all concerned |
| |
| rokusho63 |
| posted on 19 November 2008 |
| heard about this on the radio this morning. good luck to the victims.
i'm not totally sure where i'll be buying petrol in future.. |
| |
| Francesca Carpanini |
| posted on 19 November 2008 |
| This is an absolute disgusting situation for someone to be facing and to be seemingly forgotten about for 3 whole years! Especially as other people affected have received compensation.... something surely must be done! Fingers crossed that this documentary will show the truth and you will get the recompense you obviously deserve! |
| |
| Ryan Ziegelmeier |
| posted on 18 November 2008 |
| I saw on the news last night that people have recieved compensation for there damages. If you have not recieved any then there is something very wrong with the law! |
| |
| Rachel |
| posted on 18 November 2008 |
| Its a disgrace that nothing has been done after 3 years. I really hope this documentary and the publicity it creates finally lays all the stress of the past years to rest and somebody owns up to their mistakes.
|
| |
| Nico&Noelle meyer |
| posted on 18 November 2008 |
| IAN,
I try adain as yesterdays message dit not go!!
Try to do everything you can to convience the
public oppinion about the surprising behavior
of the Oil Campanies!!It is a real scandal!!
Good luck to you |
| |
| IAN SILVERSTEIN |
| posted on 18 November 2008 |
| There appears to be some confusion regarding insurance and I thought I would clarify the situation. I was fully insured and the buildings and contents policies were paid in full within 6 months of the explosion. The only problem is this went straight to the Building Society to pay off the mortgage ! The Building Society saw their was no asset and demanded the mortgage was paid off with a £25,000 early redemption charge. In the UK you cant insure the value of your home just the rebuild value and this represents a small part of the actual value of a house. This left me with a huge unisured loss. I trust this clarifies the situation. |
| |
| Flag in the Sand |
| posted on 18 November 2008 |
| When you first told me about this Ian I was gob smacked to say the least. I find it utterly scandalous that you have not neen compensated. You have the patience of a saint - I think I may have hired a hitman for revenge!! Good luck with your documentary and let's hope that someone is made to pay very quickly. |
| |
| Harriet |
| posted on 18 November 2008 |
| This company has to take responsibility, it is a shocking situation and I can not understand how compensation has not been awarded. I hope the documentary does justice. |
| |
| Steve Qatar |
| posted on 18 November 2008 |
| Ian , good luck with your documentary. I am afraid we here in Qatar see the obscene amount of money that Oil Companies generate, but to whose benefit?
The compensation you rightly claim is a few minutes gas and oil production. They are a disgrace and know they are a disgrace. Hope everything turns out for the good |
| |
| Brent |
| posted on 18 November 2008 |
| I am appauled by this companies complete lack of regard for an individual and for a community which it lived in. This mans life has been destroyed by this oil company. They need to act now and do the right thing and compensate him properly. I am sure they will have to eventually, what they need to do is do the right thing and get on with it now... Come on Chevron pay up! |
| |
| Sue |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I am truly appalled that Ian is being totally ignored! Surely the company should take responsibility for what it has taken from Ian both in terms of possessions and his mentality. When it comes to our homes and families, there is nothing more important and that matters more to us. It is the heart of all that we are and all that we do.
Ian, just look forward to the massess of compensation that will come to you. All good things come to those that wait! Big hug |
| |
| SJRNWT |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| How could something like this even happen???
Furthermore, how could he not have gotten a lawyer and won a case yet? |
| |
| InThrees |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| It is appalling that "we didn't predict this would happen" could be considered a valid defense in any society that even pays lip service to the concept of 'justice.'
It shouldn't matter what they thought the worst case would be - the fact (as I understand it) is that as a direct result of an incident involving and caused by their facility and employees, this man lost his home and and other property.
"The accident was just too freakish so we shouldn't have to pay."
Seriously?
Disgusting. |
| |
| A_Random_Me |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| > Well, that's what you get when you live 452 meters from a refinery!
Storage Depot, not a refinery.
Speaking as a local it used to be all fields around there, but then they began to shrink the exclusion zone to build other things there, despite the protests from the Depot to the contrary. Apparently the HSE only expected a fire, not an explosion, but mysteriously I don't recall their investigation touching into why they allowed things to be built so close. I'm sure the fact that the local council was able to sell the land for a million pounds an acre had nothing to do with it... And yet they still try to cut back on services - so it's just as well there were no casualties.
Much the same as why Fuji were allowed to have a generator slapped next to the place.
No great shock that various nearby things suffered, an explosion in an open space is bad, in amore enclosed space is much worse.
We were lucky enough to live far enough away to only need roof work and suchlike, being just outside the evacuation zone. Which was done by our insurance company - the company they hired wasn't very good, but then a lot of extra ones had been drafted in because of the volume of places needing repairing.
It did, however allow lots of interesting studies into human nature, such as people driving for miles towards the explosion to turn up with video cameras, parents complaining about how their children didn't feel too well after playing outside in the smoke - ignoring the fact that people were told to stay indoors, and other such stories.
Anyway, ignoring all that, you'd think they'd fix it and then it's a fight between insurance companies to get their money back. Or maybe I just have an idealistic view on what the insurance company should be doing. |
| |
| MichaelBrazell |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I know that this is the greedy oil companies and so a different logic applies, but wouldn't your home owners insurance cover this? If my house is next to a restaurant and a spark ignites in the kitchen (ala Vessuvio in the S1 of the Sopranos), burning down the restaurant, my house, and so on, the damages in my house are covered by my home owners insurance, not the restaurant owner.
not that I'm trying to defend Chevron for being dicks and probably making this more difficult ... but ... rationale should still apply even if this is something related to oil. |
| |
| Lucy Parker |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| This is truly moving and shocking and I can only congratulate on you for being so damm determined to fight to the bitter end Ian!. When you believe in justice as much as i see you do in , youll get there mate!! |
| |
| Petra |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| This is awful! I couldn't imagine losing everything and then having the responsible parties AND your insurance refuse to lift a finger to help. I really hope this man's documentary reaches millions and either shames (or softens the hearts of...good luck with that) those responsible into doing the right thing and giving this man back what he lost, plus interest! |
| |
| Valhawk |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Where is his insurance on this one? It seems like they should be paying him first, and then they go after the oil company. |
| |
| bohemian |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Unless homeowners insurance works different in the UK, his insurance should have compensated him. Then the insurance company goes after the oil company to recoup the losses from paying the claim.
See subrogation.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Why his insurance company has not paid him or otherwise dealing with this is the 200,000 dollar question. |
| |
| ohiomensch |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| And Exxon is getting a sweetheart deal courtesy of the supreme court that is going to give each of the victims less than $7500 each before the lawyers take their cut. Sign me up. |
| |
| LiC |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Exxon still hasn't payed up for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. That just got appealed last year, I believe. |
| |
| Crabby Cakes wants some Dance Biscuits. |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Well, that's what you get when you live 452 meters from a refinery!
/Sarcasm
//Lives near a refinery, but doesn't know how far in meters or feet. |
| |
| kwsventures |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Homeowners insurance and/or get a nice ambulance chasing lawyer to take the case. |
| |
| humphrmi |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Lets not forget this is GB. Or UK. Or England. Or whatever they're calling themselves now. Whatever.
They are not a litigious society, like we are here in the US. Which means that when something probably should be litigated, the weight of proof is on the plaintiff and against the actual litigation, until proven otherwise. The distance from the explosion site seems to be the catch point.
It sucks in this instance, but in many cases the tort-averse court system in the UK makes our (US) joke of a court system look like a bunch of yahoos.
Hopefully this guy gets some relief, but I can't imagine he doesn't expect this sort of interim result. |
| |
| Corbin123 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| That's their strict liability theory, doesn't necessarily mean the court will accept it.
For all the bad things people say about the American civil trial system situations like this wouldn't happen. |
| |
| Red_Flag |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I'll do you one better. "I closed my eyes, so I'm not responsible for anything that happened beyond the actual barrel of the gun." |
| |
| Oranges w/ Cheese |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| That shit makes me angry.
I've decided I am only going to accept liability for the 6" beyond the end of my gun because anything farther away than that is completely unforseeable. |
| |
| shorty63136 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Dear God, man! NOTHING???
That house was definitely beautiful! I hope this guy makes them all bend over for this... |
| |
| innout3x3 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| If that was an actual picture of his house on the far left, i really feel sorry for this guy. It was beautiful. |
| |
| wickedpixel |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Not sure how insurance companies in Britain operate compared to in the US, but wouldn't his home owner's insurance (if he had it) cover him and the insurance company would be the one looking to collect from the oil company at fault? |
| |
| Gokuhouse |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Watch the video after the link. It shows the house before and after.
There is no disputing the house is destroyed after seeing it. |
| |
| Skipweasel |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I have friends who live about two miles from the site, and when I was a driving instructor I often used to drive round it. What was really bizarre was that it wasn't marked on any maps "to stop terrorists blowing it up"! You could see the damned tanks from the M1 and everyone knew where it was.
Look on Google Earth to see what it was like before, and on MultiMap's aerial to see what it looks like now - it's in the north west quadrant of the junction between the A414 and the M1 to the east of Hemel Hempstead, a few miles north of London. |
| |
| edebaby |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| ...and his insurance company is saying (?)... |
| |
| BrianDaBrain |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Hopefully he gets something out of the greedy and asinine oil companies. |
| |
| ferg |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| This is a real shame. The UK is too small a country for such depots to be built completely away from housing. Companies should be held responsible for all damage caused by their facilities. All we can do is make sure that enough bad publicity will cause sufficient loss of profit to make them regret their legal wrangling. |
| |
| Robin |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| @ Matt
There is a link to http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4861235.ece
Read that before you draw ignorant conclusions making you appear like a complete asshat. |
| |
| Tim |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Thats insane. How can this happen. Someone has to step in. |
| |
| matt |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| “nothing has been done to help him with his situation.” dude. sue? i mean i imagine you have, but there’s no indication of it in this write-up. makes it very hard to feel bad for you. makes it seem as though you’re hiding something, like maybe the fact that you got the house cheap in exchange for bearing the risk? |
| |
| Harry Cichy |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Ian Silverstein home destroyed by the Buncefield explosion and blast in 2005. I am pleased to have been off some asststance in Ian’s fight for justice. It is a ‘Total’ disgrace that ‘Buncefield Three Years On’ residents find themselves in this position. |
| |
| Johnboy99blue |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| heads should roll for this!! |
| |
| daisychains2005 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| The video doesn't make it clear if Ian was insured? Surely it is someone's job to help! |
| |
| adamthorneycroft |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| The house was amazing and you had put so much time and money into it. It was a real shame that you lost it but we are all so lucky your still with us fella. Its so unfair what this has made you go through without any support from anyone above the friends and family around you. Fingers crossed this video will make them listen to you! Hope to see you soon Adam and Shelley. |
| |
| CHLOELEEKS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Can't believe HSOL have not compensated you for this. What a disgrace! Good luck and hope you get what you rightly deserve soon. |
| |
| LunnyBoy |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I cannot believe what I have just seen. It's a disgrace. Why aren't the govt & council looking after this guy??
Once again it looks like big business is trampling over people's lives.
Is there a No.10 Downing Street petition open for this guy and the others affected?
18 Billion Euros!! |
| |
| raokesamz7 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| It's criminal torture ! Not just your house, any asset you have made worthless but also your business and sanity. Good luck mate |
| |
| newman1604 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| You faced a bleak and life changing period in your life due to this dramatic and unfortunate incident.
UK PLC sort it out for goodness sake...Ian's a good old boy and deserves a fair settlement!
PS: Your a bright spark, make sure your back yard doesn't face a big ol tank filled with 'boomy' stuff next time Big Fellah!
PPS: You didn't invite me to the barbie!!
|
| |
| richardl74 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| It didn't take the most valuable thing that night, you are still with us cous.....I'm grateful for that.
You know my views on the companies responsible for this, it's about time they stood up and treated you fairly.
Accidents do happen but the real tragedy is the way they have dealt with you since.
I know how much of you went into High Grange, you deserve more........I'm behind you (as always)......keep smiling :-)
|
| |
| speartv |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Unreal. We will get this settled when this video gets viewed a million times. |
| |
| Xy12ze4ds |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I am gobsmacked. Not at the callousness of this oil company...or of any oil company for that matter, but that the British Government and British legal system has stood idly by. This is an insult to the sense of justice and "fair play" of people everywhere and I am not only disgusted...but deeply ashamed. |
| |
| pambryan1954 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| It is unbelievable that this travesty is allowed to happen in England, a country that prides itself on being the birth place of much that is good in legal systems around the world. For the sake of justice and fair play, British birthrights, or so I thought!, this cannot be allowed to continue. |
| |
| OOF966 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| c'mon the Govt. Times are tough - even tougher when you ain't got a home!
So much for these oil companies advertising they're investing £millions in eco-friendly initiatives at the moment when they can't get their own backyard or doorstep in order!! |
| |
| jiambbc |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Ian, it's great how you've moved on. I'm proud of you and you should feel happy with what you have now, your our friend and we will help you out whenever you need. Your buddy Jamie. |
| |
| blowitt1 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Excellent Buncfield shots of the 11 December 2005 look forward to seeing the complete Documentary. Its a Total Disgrace what Ian Silverstein has suffered. |
| |
| JOHNST |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Just to clarify something about libel in the UK.
There is no law on libel. It is a civil matter i.e. a tort. A case is bought by one who fears their reputation has been damaged and they are seeking damages. If they prove their case either a jury or a judge decides what the damages are and then awards them. Libel is based on common law - i.e. based on decisions by judges (precedent).
The only defences [are] justification, where the truth of the allegations had to be proved, fair comment on a matter of public interest, which protected only comment and not imputations of fact, or qualified privilege, which protected statements of fact where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social, or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made.
and recently
[a] reportage defence, according to the judges in the Searchlight case, is that a journalist has a good defence to a claim for libel if what he or she publishes, even without an attempt to verify its truth, is the neutral reporting without adoption or embellishment or subscribing to any belief in its truth of attributed allegations of both sides of a political and possibly other kinds of dispute. (www.irr.org.uk/2008/march/ha000023)
The case of Mosely v News of the World, involving the reporting of sado masochism activities was not a libel case but a case of breach of privacy. (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7523034.stm).
However the important element in libel is when a libel is committed what the damages might be. In a notorious case in 1964 Dering, a German doctor sued Leon Uris who had written in his book Exodus that the doctor had performed a particular number of 'operations' on people in a nazi extermination camp without anaesthetic.
Uris had got his detailed facts wrong and the case was found against him but the doctor from his evidence was clearly a nazi and had committed serious war crimes. The doctor was awarded a half penny damages and had to pay both his and Uris' legal costs. |
| |
| XOPHER |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Also, it should be a Norwegian Blue parrot. Because then the lawyer for the guy with the trebuchet could argue not only that his client wasn't at fault, but that the bird is not dead. "It's pinin' for the fjords," he would say. |
| |
| XOPHER |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| And in your example, I think the guy who left the birdbath in the trebuchet is responsible. Of course.
Silly. Do you realize that someday we'll talk about trebucheting birdbaths and no one who wasn't in this thread will know WTF we're talking about? |
| |
| XOPHER |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| MDH, the point of the birdbath analogy was to illustrate a case in which it was NOT reasonable to hold the owner accountable for the damage, because the damage was not foreseeable.
The explosion of the fuel depot WAS foreseeable, as you point out. I was just trying to show why foreseeability makes a difference, a point some in this thread didn't seem to get.
Fuel depots explode with some regularity. Birdbaths do not. The damage from an exploding fuel depot is foreseeable; the damage from an exploding birdbath is not. That was my point. |
| |
| MDH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| errr, this story - http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_296233018.html |
| |
| MDH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Comparing a volatile fuel depot to a concrete birdbath is both unnecessarily pedantic (I know, on Boing Boing, who knew?) and misleading at the same time.
Now, if you leave your concrete birdbath on a cocked trebuchet overnight, and it launches into your neighbors house because a neighbors cat pees on it, and kills your neighbors prize african Gray parrot, who is liable? The cat? The urine itself? the person who left their valuable in the flight path of a flying birdbath? Or is it the fault of the guy who owns the trebuchet and the birdbath - for failing to turn the trebuchet away from their house before neglecting the constant danger it poses when loaded?
But hey, if you want to blame the parrot for not moving, or pick on the cat owner for letting the cat out, you can have at it.
Fuel depots DO explode. It DOES happen. it IS foreseeable, if not predictable to the day. The default position for people who work with fuel has to be "this stuff is gonna explode if I let my guard down", or those people will be dead.
and to be fair, if this happened in the US, it would likely play out much like this story has.
Good Luck Ian. |
| |
| ZIKZAK |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| @bugs #31: You might be interested in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclibel
There's a documentary about it which breaks down the nature of UK libel laws much better than I could explain. The upshot is that McDonalds sued two british activists for passing out a pamphlet which McDonalds claims told lies about the corporation.
Because of the structure of UK libel law, the activists were forced to try to positively prove that every point made on the flyer was true. Because they could not present enough evidence and witnesses to convince the judge of the truth of every single point, they were very heavily fined. |
| |
| COOL PRODUCTS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Man, it really sucks to be that guy. He should find a way to get back at Chevron and the other company, Street Justice FTW. |
| |
| MARTHAM |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Also not a lawyer, but...
Regarding the 451 metre thing, it's like the bird bath analogy that Xopher used - you can't be sued for damage that your concrete bird bath caused when it exploded, because it wasn't foreseeable. Similarly, if you buy a small firework and keep it in your shed, and it goes off, sets your shed alight, and the neighbours adjoining fence too, I would guess you're liable for the fence, but if it goes off in one massive explosion that decimates two entire blocks, you would probably still only be liable for the neighbours fence - damage was foreseeable, but not that extent of damage. And its about being foreseeable, not about being foreseen. If you're an idiot, that shouldn't help you. |
| |
| SIMON GREENWOOD |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| For a bit of background: Hemel Hempstead is a commuter town about 20 miles north-west of London. The Buncefield explosion was the largest in Europe since WW2. The plume from the explosion was visible across the south of England: my sister told me that she could see it from Croydon, and that the sky was dark by about 2pm that day. I didn't realise it was three years ago though. |
| |
| ANONYMOUS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| if you buy a cement bird bath from a cement bird bath store, and one day it explodes, you're not negligent (supposing it wasn't advertised as an EXPLODING bird bath)
Was it a Johnson? |
| |
| HAMISH KUZMINSKI |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| /451/ metres
Farenheit /451/
Synchronicity, anyone?
K |
| |
| CLOCKWORK |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| would it not have been cheaper for the company just to build the guy a new house and slip him a little extra to keep quiet and for his trouble than use up a sizable portion of the legal retainer fund and make this heartless company look even more heartless?
i wonder if that even came up in the cost-benefit analysis of how to deal with this disaster... |
| |
| SOUPISGOODFOOD |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| That's the problem here, these big corporations are so inconsiderate that it all comes down to lawsuits, insurance, and technicalities for them to actually take responsibility for what they did. They should have fixed this by themselves because it's obvious they were responsible for it, no matter what the law says. |
| |
| PATJ33 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| How about Home Extreme Makeover branches out to England. Seriously this guy deserves something like this just as much as any other family on the show. |
| |
| RICK |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Wouldn't it amount to communism to help this guy? |
| |
| CHAPT11 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Mrs Palsgraf says she knows just how he feels.
/B. Cardozo |
| |
| MDH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| editz, sorry if you took offense.
It seemed from the first post that you were arguing from the position that the victims should have known better than to move in near an oil depot, or someone should have known better than to build a house there.
That may be a reasonable argument relative to the stink of a farm, or the noise from a nightclub, or the erosion of a shoreline - but I don't think it's a reasonable argument that the residents should have seen a huge fireball coming as a plausible scenario when even the industrial facility owners themselves did not.
When the house was built is much less relevant than when the tank farm last changed hands and was re-insured and re-permitted.
Because those houses certainly were around then.
Besides, I'm pretty certain you can't be grandfathered out of public safety laws. |
| |
| EDITZ |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| @MDH
"My second comment expressed that I found Editz attitude to be both heartless and soulless. I stand by that assertion. It's not meant to be a character assassination."
Huh? I think you're reading waaay too much into my statement.
Reading these comments, I see we still have conflicting information on what was built first - the homes or the facility.
My point was that if Total plopped a fuel depot into a residential area, it would seem they have an obligation to provide some darn good protection. But like you say, perhaps the figures were fudged for the sake of saving/making money.
If the depot came first and residents were allowed to build around it, I would suppose the town officials would have some kind of responsibility to ensure citizen safety. But they could have simply taken Total's word for it when trying to determine a safe minimum distance due to lack of funds for an independent study, laziness, etc.
As it stands, it all appears to be moot and now the argument is simply on how much money is to be awarded. In my opinion it sounds like there were screw-ups on both sides.
I'm sorry the guy had his house destroyed but I don't see how you can possibly interpret my attitude as "heartless". |
| |
| MDH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| They can't very well claim spontaneous combustion occurred at his house at the same moment the explosion occurred.
Making everyone outside a given radius prove their case is exactly equivalent to what the company/their insurers are saying.
"It can't be OUR fault, it was outside this radius!!!!" IS the working model for the lawsuits.
Still apples and oranges? |
| |
| DAVID BRUCE MURRAY |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| The WR Grace/Union Carbide comparisons are apples to oranges.
There you have thousands of people trying to prove their health issues/deaths etc. were caused by a company's neglect.
That's much more difficult to prove than this case, were you have very obvious damage to a piece of physical property, and the source which caused the damage isn't being disputed at all. They can't very well claim spontaneous combustion occurred at his house at the same moment the explosion occurred. |
| |
| BUGS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Xopher
I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that damaging revelations published in the UK must be "in the public interest".
As an example, a famous sport/business figure was recently reported (truthfully) to be engaging in BDSM orgies which involved the women dressing up in Nazi uniforms and shouting in German accents. A quick google should bring up the original stories (I think it was in the Daily Hate) if you want that in your search history ;).
Anyway, it was ruled that the paper shouldn't have published this because, although true, it was harmful to that individual but none of anyone's damn business; the public wasn't made and safer, wealthier or whatever by learning the details of this guy's sex life.
In your example, identifying a criminal is absolutely in the public interest, as you can claim that the information is making a community safer. This tends to be interpreted pretty broadly: weakly-sourced gossip about, say, the Royal Family and various Government ministers' families, hairdressers, etc is generally fair game as it could conceivably affect the running of the country.
IIRC, it's actually harder to press a libel case here than in the USA. I think here the claimant has to prove that damage was done and to put a suitable monetary figure on it (e.g. lost earnings), whereas in the US the onus is on the newspaper (or whatever) has to prove that they didn't cause any harm, which is much more difficult. This is part of the reason that our tabloid papers are much more vicious than yours: they're presumed to be acting in the public interest until someone hires a very expensive team of lawyers to prove otherwise. All this is a pretty vague memory though - any actual lawyers want to correct me? |
| |
| MDH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| "@MDH: No, in the US they would have sued in civil court and won."
Yeah, we all know how quickly the WR Grace asbestos lawsuits, the GE PCB site suits, the Union Carbide Bhopal suits have all been paying out huge sums and were resolved within a couple dozen months. None of those civil suits based on unacceptably risky corporate operations were tied up for decades in the courts. Nope. None. (that's sarcasm, fyi)
However I think you DO make the most salient point, which is that his gov't has also failed him - at least by not providing that outlet.
The part in this where each additional person has to prove their loss in court is really a form of barratry against people who have had a catastrophic loss on that scale. It's a means test for environmental justice.
Ultimately it's about having the right not to let the big bad wolf blow your house down because you couldn't afford brick. |
| |
| SUBTLEBLADE |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| @ 18. Xopher re 'reputation'
IANAL. I believe that about half way through this article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/11/humanrights-privacy
your asertion is refuted.
Just remember that in any country the law can be, and offten is, an ass. |
| |
| SEANBOING |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| @MDH: No, in the US they would have sued in civil court and won. |
| |
| PHIKUS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Total devastation. Totally unconscionable!
That's it, I'm never buying that cereal again. |
| |
| VALDIS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| People have been getting all up in arms about the "451 meters" and "predictability" thing, apparently without bothering to actually *think* about it.
That's a good chunk over a quarter mile away. Visualize that for a bit.
It's quite likely that the logic was: "There's a computable chance that it could, in fact, go ka-boom, and with X number of gallons of Y ka-boomable stuff, that will make a ka-boom of Z size. That's probably going to totally trash the tanks, and most stuff within 100 meters/yards. A quarter mile away, it will probably just break some windows and similar damage, but any buildings not on our depot property should survive without major issues".
The standard to meet there would be "Could/should they have known that if it went ka-boom, yeah, it really *could* create a ka-boom THAT FRIKKING BIG". |
| |
| TAKUAN |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Dear Ian:
Best wishes and best of luck in your fight. What happened to you could happen to any of us.
Also, please don't type in capital letters since that means you are shouting - not that shouting isn't justified in your case. |
| |
| PADSTER123 |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I'm going to drive down a freeway with a blindfold on until I hit something, and then cop a plea that I couldn't have predicted what I hit. Car full of kids? Petrol tanker? A tree? I just don't care! Not my fault!
On a more serious note - you'd expect that the government would wade in here. |
| |
| ROBIN_HOOD |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Dear Ian:
Best wishes and best of luck in your fight. What happened to you could happen to any of us.
Also, please don't type in capital letters since that means you are shouting - not that shouting isn't justified in your case. |
| |
| PHEAD |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| However, it has only accepted liability for properties within 451 metres of the blast on the grounds that damage to property beyond that could not have been predicted.
This is now incorrect, they gave up on the 451 point, the ONLY issue of liability now is the share of the costs between the two companies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7655961.stm
>Which came first? The surrounding houses or the fuel facility?
FYI the depot came first, they did want to keep a protection zone around the plant, but the council built on it anyway. That doesn't mean they are not 100% liable for the damage they caused though.
If it had happened 24 hours later on the Monday instead of the sunday theres a good chance I would be dead, my office was totally trashed by the shock wave. |
| |
| CERONOMUS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| The limitation on what could be foreseeable is strange. I would think that anyone who built AFTER the plant, in an area of foreseeable risk? Well, they would be seen as assuming that risk, knowing that there was a plant there. Anything before or OUTSIDE the foreseeable zone, I would think would be covered.
I mean, "Terribly sorry we didn't know that we could blow up your house" doesn't seem like a logical defense. |
| |
| ALDASIN |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| "since the court case hasn't concluded"
You don't need a legal judgment to do the right thing. |
| |
| ANTINOUS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Seems to have been some hearing loss. |
| |
| XOPHER |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I am not a lawyer, let alone a UK lawyer, and I don't know about forseeability, though that sounds like a criterion for a charge of negligence; the phrase "knew or should have known" comes up a lot in these kinds of cases. So if you keep lots of explosives in a residential neighborhood, and one day they blow up, you're negligent (at least), even if you didn't know they might explode, because you SHOULD have known they might; on the other hand, if you buy a cement bird bath from a cement bird bath store, and one day it explodes, you're not negligent (supposing it wasn't advertised as an EXPLODING bird bath).
So the issue of forseeability comes in as part of the determination of whether the company "knew or should have known" and should have taken steps to prevent this from happening. Much as we'd like it to be otherwise sometimes, the legal system doesn't compensate people just because something bad happened to them; the party they're suing has to have done something wrong (in a legal sense: criminal or tortious).
It's unsatisfying, when such a wealthy company doesn't have to pay and someone has suffered so terribly. The trouble is that if you DON'T structure things that way, then your neighbors can sue you for the death of their dog when your birdbath explodes. After all, your birdbath killed their dog, and if you have money why shouldn't they get some of it? After all, they lost their dog.
However, dividing up the blast radius seems pretty weird. Like I said, IANAL, and maybe that sort of thing happens all the time, but ISTM that either the company was liable for the explosion or not, and if they were they should be liable for all the damage it caused. I mean, give me a break.
All that said, the UK does have some crazy-ass laws. Their libel law, for example, includes the prohibition against the publication of TRUE information that damages someone's reputation. I'm not sure how far that goes; if I know that my neighbor is torturing ten-year-olds in her basement, and I write about it in the local newspaper, can she sue me for libel even after the torture chamber is found, with her in flagrante, and she's arrested? I'm not sure. But it's crazy enough to cast a chill over calling people (and companies) on their evil behavior. Which, I'd submit, is why a company even tries to get away with the kind of shit posted here.
As I've said repeatedly, I Am Not A Lawyer and This Is Not Legal Advice. |
| |
| IAN SILVERSTEIN |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| MANY THANKS TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR KIND WORD AND SUPPORT.
I WILL KEEP AN EYE ON THE POSTS AND TRY AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I CAN.
MY HOME WAS BUILT IN 1911 AND THE OIL DEPOT WAS BUILT IN THE 1960'S !
THANK YOU
IAN SILVERSTEIN 'THE MAN WHO'S HOUSE BLEW UK' UK |
| |
| JOHNST |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| The Buncefield explosion at the Hemel Hempstead oil depot was caused by negligence, a High Court judge has ruled .
Mr Justice David Steel ruled that oil giant Total UK's negligence had led to Britain's biggest peacetime explosion in December 2005.
Compensation claims worth hundreds of millions of pounds have been filed.
A third company, Chevron, involved in the legal action, has denied negligence.
Further court proceedings are due to take place in October.
If no settlement is reached prior to the court date, the judge will rule on liability and the size of any damages.
Although Total UK will admit the incident was due to negligence the oil giant will argue it should not be liable for damages as it could not have foreseen that it would cause the destruction that it did.
A report in 2006 by an independent investigation board found human error and faulty safety equipment were responsible for the explosion.
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/2294668.buncefield_fire_negligent/ |
| |
| MDH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| MDH, your first post is completely wrong, and your second post completely fabricated something to be upset with another commenter about.
See New Orleans. See Galveston. See where the site of a disaster becomes off limits with armed enforcement. In the UK the police don't have guns and private security firms aren't hired for civilian law enforcement.
My second comment expressed that I found Editz attitude to be both heartless and soulless. I stand by that assertion. It's not meant to be a character assassination. Glad you stood up for him though.
And I HAVE dealt with insurace claims that affect thousands of neighbors, for 500+ million dollar policies. I have consulted even as the lead - on the purchase of factories and powerplants and whole city blocks. It's amazing what gets buried. |
| |
| DCULBERSON |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| MDH, your first post is completely wrong, and your second post completely fabricated something to be upset with another commenter about. Chill out, man.
In the US, the company's insurance would be bending over backwards to replace the house, provided he promised not to sue. In the US, tainted tap water has let to AEP buying an entire town, after having provided many gallons of bottled water every day for consumption and bathing.
I've not dealt with insurance claims on quite this level, but I have dealt with large claims. And they certainly didn't involve someone pointing a gun at me. I have no idea where you got that screwed up idea. |
| |
| TAKUAN |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster |
| |
| THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| "Can someone fill me in on why "predictability" matters here?"
I wondered the same thing. Usually, if a consequence is not normally predictable, it becomes very difficult to prove negligence.
But they are admitting (or are unable to deny) predictable consequences withing a smaller blast radius.
Perhaps it's because the companies only purchased liability insurance for damages within that smaller blast radius, and any further damages would have to be paid out of their own pockets? |
| |
| JASONCLOCK |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| The house was "destroyed three years"? How slooow was this explosion? |
| |
| JONATHAN_V |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| The defense seems to me like the most ass-backwards logic ever. Can someone clarify ?
ie: The gas firm claims that it is immune because the damage was not forseeable, and that claimaints would have to prove that damage was forseeable. But if damage was forseeable, its a case of their mitigating systems not working correctly -- and if the damage wasn't forseeable, it just means that the company has bad analysts. I don't understand how liability can only lay when the outcome is forseeable. |
| |
| ANTINOUS |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| hich came first? The surrounding houses or the fuel facility?
Besides agreeing with mdh, even if the houses came later, the government would have to duke it out with the company over liability.
Things like this make living in litigious California seem a little more reasonable. He would have had an appropriate settlement check two years ago. |
| |
| EDITZ |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Is that right? Total is denying liability because it wasn't forseeable that there would be damage beyond 451 meters? What does forseeability have to do with the issue at all? (I'm not yelling at you, I'm just nonplussed.)
So Total is arguing that since the result of their negligence was so surprisingly bad, they're not liable for all of it? They're only liable for the part that was unsurprisingly bad?
Isn't this a plain case of negligence? Can't the guy simply sue them and be done with it? Aren't there lawyers eager to take easy cases like this on spec? |
| |
| EH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Can someone fill me in on why "predictability" matters here? |
| |
| JJasper |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| In the US, he'd certainly have a really good court case if he sued. I have no idea what the UK is like in that respect. Can anyone in the know in the UK explain? |
| |
| MDH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Which came first? The surrounding houses or the fuel facility?
Which came first? the loss of your heart, or your mind?
I'd say that the burden rests upon Total to inform the populace just how far a potential blast radius could reach.
I'd say the burden rests on Total to insure the populace that lays within their potential blast radius against such avoidable accidents.
I'd also say the burden rests on Total to not be such terrible neighbors to people who have lived in mortal danger in the name of the corporate bottom line.
As Emerson once said, good blast walls make good neighbors. |
| |
| EDITZ |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I'd say it's too early to say nothing has been done since the court case hasn't concluded. Interesting bit from that article:
"Earlier this year, Total admitted in preliminary hearings that the blast was the result of negligence by the supervisor on duty at the time. However, it has only accepted liability for properties within 451 metres of the blast on the grounds that damage to property beyond that could not have been predicted.
Claimants whose properties lay further than 451 metres from the site of the explosion will have to prove that damage to their properties was foreseeable. That includes more than 170 local residents and small businesses."
Which came first? The surrounding houses or the fuel facility? I'd say that the burden rests upon Total to inform the populace just how far a potential blast radius could reach. |
| |
| BROKEBUTSTILLDRINKING |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I was waiting for the "Feed the Children" host to step out and say, "There are people all over the world suffering from home explosions tonight. Can you take a minute to help Ian have a beautiful home once again?"
I would have sent some change since I already sponsor a child. I have room in my heart for Ian. |
| |
| MDH |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| If that had happened in the US there's a good chance it would have gone exactly the same way with one exception. In the USA someone would probably have pointed a gun at him at some point and told him he was trespassing in his own house. |
| |
| Chris Evans |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4861235.ece |
| |
| Paul Shield |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Good Luck Ian. What a total bunch of w@nkers. Once the group starts to build momentum why not post the addresses of those concerned and some draft letters and ask people to print them off and send them on. Might just help the cause.
I have forwarded the link on to everyone I know on facebook - I hope they all do the same.
Once again best of luck. |
| |
| Janine Townson |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I'm with you 100% Ian. xx |
| |
| Alison Gulliver |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| How appalling that no one is helping you. Hope our support can make a difference. Let us know what else we can do. God Bless and Good Luck. XX |
| |
| Jay Wilson |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Good luck Ian,a David & Goliath struggle! I wish you well with this campaign for justice! |
| |
| Lisa Babmbridge |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Absurd that this has not been resolved three years down the line and that it happened in this country! Ian and his neighbours should not only be compensated properly, but are owed a huge public apology by HOSL and whoever is controlling the puppets in charge too. Disgraceful! |
| |
| lisa |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| bloody cunts they put the petrol up over the past 7-8 months so y shouldnt they give him the money they make and help rebuild his life |
| |
| Chris |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Total and Chevron should be seriously black-listed by everyone who has posted a comment - I for one will never buy petrol from one of their stations again.... |
| |
| Tess |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I wish i could say, i cant imagin the horror of it all, but i can! Iv seen what Ian has been through over the last 3 year and just how much was taken from him on that night. What the hell are these multi million pound compaines doing with the millions they are still generating, if not trying to help those whos lives they destroyed and restoring public faith. |
| |
| simon |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Hi Ian. Ive seen you stressed by all this in the office so I know the day to day toll something like this takes on a person. I assume by dragging the process for out for years they hope to make you settle for peanuts. Its funny how they dont realise the longer this goes on the more damage to their reputation there is. In my mind there name is mud. Get what you are due. |
| |
| Sarah |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Feel for you Ian, I can't even begin to imagine what it is like to lose a whole house which held all your memories.
Hope you get what you deserve, i'll be looking out for the full documentary. |
| |
| Nick |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| You can have all the support you need from me Ian.
Good luck is an unsuitable phrase, as you dont need luck, just perseverance and strength to fight!
|
| |
| Lynn |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
|
Ian, good for you for making a stand, we are behind you and hope you get the compensation you deserve, stay positive ! |
| |
| Pam Bryan |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| Unbelievable that this could take place in Great Britain - the birthplace of the model for modern legal systems the world over. SHAME on UK law for letting this travesty of JUSTICE (does anyone remember that word?) continue. |
| |
| Paul Dedman |
| posted on 17 November 2008 |
| I hope to god you can get some closure on this Ian - what happened was devastating, what's happened since has been disgraceful.
I can not understand how this is still unresolved after 3 years. I wish you all the best. |
| |
| ablestmage |
| posted on 16 November 2008 |
| Amazing! I get around 3500-5000 hits/wk on my blog -- I'll make a post to help spread the word. Quite possibly one of the largest peacetime civil issue to be AVOIDED by the courts! |
| |
| Chris |
| posted on 16 November 2008 |
| Have you though about writing an e-mail to the big ceo guy. I E-mailed my ceo of my retail store and he forced my store to buy $66,000 in brand new shopping carts. |
| |
| StunnedSpectator |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Response to Bustang Betty's post on 15 November 2008 "That video stops every few seconds and has to be restarted manually. Too much effort is needed for watching a trailer."
The video worked fine for me. Problem's either been resolved or is on your end. Bottom line is Big Oil Fat Cats won't pony up the dough the fix this guy's house. Just like the Exxon Valdez spill. At least, in that situation, the court found Exxon liable, to some extent.
Best of luck to you, Ian. Having endured two house fires before the age of 5, I feel your pain. If I had money, I'd send it. |
| |
| JohnCoctostin |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Hey shinseiromeo, proving something "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a requirement for criminal trials, not civil, which this clearly is. Here the standard would be the "preponderance of the evidence" which is much lower, say 51% vs 80% to put it in mathematical terms. And I gather that the 451 meter distance was derived for computing what the reach of a forceable explosion would be. Since this was the largest peacetime explosion in the history of the UK they are apparently claiming that they could not have foreseen it and are therefor not negligible and therefor not responsible. Best. |
| |
| Quilt |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Is there no insurance company involved with this? |
| |
| Bustang Betty |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| That video stops every few seconds and has to be restarted manually. Too much effort is needed for watching a trailer. |
| |
| BrianDaBrain |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Hopefully he gets something out of the greedy and asinine oil companies. |
| |
| Gokuhouse |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Watch the video after the link. It shows the house before and after.
There is no disputing the house is destroyed after seeing it. |
| |
| nnout3x3 |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| If that was an actual picture of his house on the far left, i really feel sorry for this guy. It was beautiful. |
| |
| lpranal |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| In this corner, we have a hulking monolith and dictionary definition of the term "mega corporation", bursting at the seems with profits going to ridiculously overpaid executives.
And in this corner, we guy who did absolutely nothing wrong and lost everything. The injustice is off the charts here, folks.
If one of us "accidentally" torched a chevron station, think we'd get away with it? |
| |
| shorty63136 |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Dear God, man! NOTHING???
That house was definitely beautiful! I hope this guy makes them all bend over for this... |
| |
| Oranges w/ Cheese |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| From the article linked:
Earlier this year, Total admitted in preliminary hearings that the blast was the result of negligence by the supervisor on duty at the time. However, it has only accepted liability for properties within 451 metres of the blast on the grounds that damage to property beyond that could not have been predicted.
Claimants whose properties lay further than 451 metres from the site of the explosion will have to prove that damage to their properties was foreseeable. That includes more than 170 local residents and small businesses.
"Oh sure, it happened because our plant exploded.. but um.. we didn't THINK the shit would fly that far, so we aren't responsible! |
| |
| TrustUs |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| If he wants to move to the US, Condi Rice's house in the Washington DC area should be available soon. There used to be a Chevron tanker named after her, since she was a Chevron board member. Maybe the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could contact her for him, since I believe she works somewhere in the US government. |
| |
| StanFlouride |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
-Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) |
| |
| dweebster |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| I wonder if a house blew up next to a Chevron/Total refinery or offices and wiped them out Chevron/Total would be so quick to move on?
That "451 meter" liability nonsense is really amusing - will they agree that if you hold up one of their gas stations they won't prosecute if you get more than 451 meters away? |
| |
| shinseiromeo |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| This could be a hot topic (no pun intended), but what was the reason for the explosion? Was it the oil company's fault or was there some other cause? I won't pick sides until I see all of the facts, and by his small story and video, I see no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it's the oil company's fault. |
| |
| GoVegan |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Is there not a court system in Britain for him to take Chevron to and sue or is George running that country to |
| |
| LENNY61 |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| Unfuckingbelievable. To not get any compensation whatsoever after his goddamn house was blown up, what is this world coming to? Do I really need to spell it out for them? PAY THE DAMN PERSON! |
| |
| Tim |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| It's a shame. I'd love to see this documentary and hope it airs on some channel at some point. I'm curious about the run around and hopefully the bad publicity this should generate. |
| |
| Shaun |
| posted on 15 November 2008 |
| I, unfortunately, feel that these things won't stop until the blood of those responsible is spilled. I know, especially here in America, that if stupid shit like this continues, it won't be resolved without a blood-filled revolution. Just sayin'. |
| |
| funkright |
| posted on 14 November 2008 |
| totally reprehensible behaviour on the part of the oil companies involved... their plant blew up.. it damaged and hurt the surroundings.. they are responsible for the damages that occurred.. it really shouldn't be more complicated than that.. my best wishes in your quest to get them to make things right.. it's true what they say about corporations though.. see http://www.thecorporation.com/ you can say that a corporation is truly a clinically-diagnosed psychopath |
| |
| Dustin |
| posted on 14 November 2008 |
| I can't believe this ...
What is the insurance company saying?
**...sorry, we don't cover explosions?...**
Dude ... I want the documentary sooner. |
| |
| Tramp |
| posted on 14 November 2008 |
| Those dirty sonofbitches. They need to cough up
some cash now! How dare they deny you after
all you've been through. What the hell is wrong with the big ass corporations. Heartless pricks! |
| |
| ClueMan |
| posted on 14 November 2008 |
| Geez figures after something as herendous as that you'd have the lawyers circling the wagons and dragging some asses to court to pay up. What's being done to you is down right un-American dude! |
| |
| Cousin Tad |
| posted on 14 November 2008 |
| How truly awful. I can't believe nothing has been done to help you |
| |
| Elanor |
| posted on 14 November 2008 |
| Oh my gosh. Good luck. This is totally reprehensible! I hope they finally own up to what happened. |
| |
| superpie |
| posted on 14 November 2008 |
| You don't seem to be bad off despite your misfortune, but I do believe that yours is a cause worth fighting for, good luck. |
| |
| Chris |
| posted on 14 November 2008 |
| Forgive me as I'm unfamiliar with British law but isn't there some legal recourse to take on this? I'm assuming a claim has been filed or something? I would think that a simple damages suit would be appropriate? |
| |
|
|
