The story that dominated all the papers yesterday is ripped by the front pages by all the papers this morning who revell in the downfall of a tycoon.
Lord Browne,now ex Chairman of BP is taken to the cleaners by the Mail on Sunday as he was proved to have lied in court to prevent the paper publishing details of his liasons with a gay lover.
Thus proving that when it comes to public figures,the public interest factor does remain at the heart of the courts judgement.
Roy Greenslade however suggests a certian amount of caution.He argues that we have to wait to see the story,is it merely tittle tattle and if it is in the public interest then why does Chevalier have to be paid for it?
Jeff Randle writing in this morning's Telegraph says
"John Browne is gay. It's not a secret. Even before his humiliation in court this week, the dogs on the street knew that the boss of BP was a homosexual. Newspapers alluded to it every time they described him as "a lifelong bachelor, devoted to his mother".
Browne didn't flaunt his sexual proclivity, but neither did he deny it. The son of a British Army officer, he is a Cambridge-educated physicist. As such, he has a precise manner and a well-ordered mind. He's not impetuous; he thinks things through. Which is why it never occurred to me that a scandal involving a gay lover would destroy him.
And yet, when faced with a kiss-and-tell story by a former boyfriend appearing in the press, Browne panicked. The prospect of his four-year affair with Jeff Chevalier being stripped bare in public was too much for him. He cracked."
Browne didn't flaunt his sexual proclivity, but neither did he deny it. The son of a British Army officer, he is a Cambridge-educated physicist. As such, he has a precise manner and a well-ordered mind. He's not impetuous; he thinks things through. Which is why it never occurred to me that a scandal involving a gay lover would destroy him.
And yet, when faced with a kiss-and-tell story by a former boyfriend appearing in the press, Browne panicked. The prospect of his four-year affair with Jeff Chevalier being stripped bare in public was too much for him. He cracked."
I do have some sympathy for Lord Browne in all this until we actually see the story, which I assume is on Sunday ,it is difficult to judge the public interest test.
What is certain however is that he lied in court.
Matthew Parris in the Times says on the public issue
The “public interest” aspect of these stories looks slim to the point of desperation: a fig-leaf to cover more prurient motives for relating a gossipy human story. Nothing in that story suggests anything less than a giant of a dealmaker, winner and business navigator, wholly focused on the interests of his shareholders (and Britain’s). There is not the slightest hint that the relationship got in the way of any of that.
The Mail makes the following statement this morning:
The Mail on Sunday welcomes the House of Lords ruling which means that, 15 weeks after the event, it is now possible to report the fact that the Chief Executive of Britain’s second-biggest company lied under oath to a court.
That Lord Browne should have felt free to lie deliberately and repeatedly raises deeply worrying questions about the system of secret court hearings which is increasingly being used by the rich and powerful to prevent the public knowing the truth about their activities.
It is also a matter of great concern that such hearings are being used to create a privacy law, made by judges sitting alone and in secret, without reference to Parliament.
The Mail on Sunday deplores the fact that, despite lying to the court, Lord Browne was granted an injunction suppressing information of great importance both to the millions of Britons who, through their pensions, are shareholders in BP, and to the tens of thousands who work for the company. It was in seeking an injunction to suppress this story that Lord Browne lied about his private life, thereby making it central to the case.
That Lord Browne should have felt free to lie deliberately and repeatedly raises deeply worrying questions about the system of secret court hearings which is increasingly being used by the rich and powerful to prevent the public knowing the truth about their activities.
It is also a matter of great concern that such hearings are being used to create a privacy law, made by judges sitting alone and in secret, without reference to Parliament.
The Mail on Sunday deplores the fact that, despite lying to the court, Lord Browne was granted an injunction suppressing information of great importance both to the millions of Britons who, through their pensions, are shareholders in BP, and to the tens of thousands who work for the company. It was in seeking an injunction to suppress this story that Lord Browne lied about his private life, thereby making it central to the case.
By exploiting the legal process to delay publication of his lie to the court, Lord Browne has prevented further important information about his stewardship of BP and misuse of company facilities from being made known either to the US Chemical Safety Board inquiry into the Texas City oil refinery disaster, or to shareholders challenging his pension package at the company’s recent AGM.
Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken went to prison for lying to the courts. The Mail on Sunday will be making its evidence in this case available to the Attorney-General.
We would like to reiterate that the story we originally sought to publish was a business story involving issues of great importance to shareholders and employers of BP.
Lord Browne chose to suppress this story by arguing to the High Court that, because the story was supplied to us by his former lover, Mr Chevalier, it breached his right to a private life under the Human Rights Act.
In doing so he tried to undermine Mr Chevalier’s credibility as a witness by saying in three separate statements to the court that Mr Chevalier had lied about how they met.
In fact we were able to show that it was Lord Browne who had lied. In doing so it was he who made his private life a public issue, not The Mail on Sunday.
Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken went to prison for lying to the courts. The Mail on Sunday will be making its evidence in this case available to the Attorney-General.
We would like to reiterate that the story we originally sought to publish was a business story involving issues of great importance to shareholders and employers of BP.
Lord Browne chose to suppress this story by arguing to the High Court that, because the story was supplied to us by his former lover, Mr Chevalier, it breached his right to a private life under the Human Rights Act.
In doing so he tried to undermine Mr Chevalier’s credibility as a witness by saying in three separate statements to the court that Mr Chevalier had lied about how they met.
In fact we were able to show that it was Lord Browne who had lied. In doing so it was he who made his private life a public issue, not The Mail on Sunday.
No comments:
Post a Comment