The nation's favourite newspaper is having a tee-hee moment about the misuse of photoshop by BP. Photoshop, it then says, has been used to commit "some outrageous crimes against fact-based photography," offering us some more examples.

View full article here

Where does BP imply the helicopter was flying at the time the photo was taken? The caption for the photo is correct - it was the view from the cockpit of a PHI helicopter. Someone has incorrectly assumed that the aircraft was flying. The company have photoshopped out the distracting view of the deck the aircraft was on - so what?

They really have got it in for BP haven't they?

The Daily Mash are on to it:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/envi ... 007222936/

BP photoshopped an image of a Gulf pelican giving a thums up!

Thanks for pointing out this MSM hypocrisy; at least it keeps them from writing more AGW trash. The hysteria concerning the Macondo blowout is getting beyond a joke. BP is the new CO2 for Ecotards.

If one cuts through the MSN and Ecotard crap and looks at the facts, BP has done as well as they could have in the circumstances. Fact is the Transocean & BP guys on the rig screwed up the job - sh1t happens. Transocean didn't maintain their drilling equipment well enough, nor did their operators read the warning signs of a reservoir kick. BP should have stopped the operation, but didn't. Nothing will bring the dead men back, but BP will pay more compensation than a US supermajor would if faced with the same circumstances.

The well is shut in and under control. The new mini-BOP will hold the pressure. The wild well will be killed within two weeks, maybe sooner if the weather holds; top kill followed by relief well intersection and cement plug. There is no subsurface rupture or leak 2 miles from the wild well; the cracked seabed tale could have been written by the IPCC. From an engineering point of view, the BP team has done a fantastic job so far. Would love to see a journalist take on a task like killing a well that begins 1500m below the sea surface.

Oh no, Richard!...No!...just tell me it isn't true!
....and while we're talking about double standards,( what standards?) I see Nick Griffin was effectively (photo)shopped out of Betty's garden beano...word has it that they would rather remove all the bird-slicers from the countryside than let Mr.Griffin anywhere remotely near HRM.
As Mr. Griffin is patently the only political leader who gives an airborne copulation about Betty's Turf & Serfs she would more than likely be very pleased to entertain him but, as I have mentioned here before, she hasn't the gonads to ignore protocol once in a while. I'm sure she's fed up to her back teeth with her traitrous Gumments & would gladly call it a day were her intellectually challenged son not kicking his eco-shoed heels in the wings...perhaps it's all she can do to spare us even worse. She may even outlive him...now there's a thought which brings seldom comfort.

Permanatexpat,

Nice one, liked the comment about big ears. It does seriously worry me that Prince Charles might one day become King. His words of un-wisdom on on many things, "Defender of the Faiths", organic food which I cannot afford and is not worth the price anyway, his support for wind farms all give rise to wonder just how far he will go if in power.
We now have the most anti British government ever and they seem proud of it, so we would have both parties, Monarchy and government against us. Ouch!

I don't understand why more people have'nt accepted that we don't really have a Monarchy anymore, we've got a sort of family

of public entertainers that bring in a few quid from tourism.

Surely all the rights and powers that the royal family had were signed away, when we became members of the Socialist

Republic of Europe, or is there some sort of fiddle going on there as well.