Talk:Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate
|WikiProject Myanmar (Burma)||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Did the Burmese receive any compensation? I am nearly enraged that not a single thought has been given to this idea in the wiki article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
This question is both uncivil and flawed. A single thought has been given to this, hence the reference to the War Damages Act. No compensation was paid. I shall amend to make this clearer.--Lucifer 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Where is the logic?
The article says something, but it is hard to make sense of it. The compensation requested probably wasn't too large, considering and comparing the somewhat primitive nature of oil industry pre-WW2 and the size of a 50-million people, much industrialized and capitalized british economy.
By paying like an officer and a gentleman, Britain have could expected that in any future conflict, private companies will have trust in the gov't and cooperate fully to deny resources to any enemy (i.e. russians and WARPAC), knowing spoils will be returned after V-day. By making a law to deny it, Blighty essentially incentivized capitalists to become traitors for the reds, because they know for sure the gov't of their own country will fsck them all over, but they still can have hope the enemy will be more generous. Not to mention the creation of any Retro-Active Laws is an absolute "fire alarm" in most company investments policy books, that mandates immediate start of capital flee. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)