Bilderberg.org

[TonyGosling]

Lord Browne - Privacy, and the perils of secret justice
6th May 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=453034

BP is Britain's biggest company, the fifth largest in the world. It employs 17,000 people in Britain and contributes £1.3 billion every year in tax revenue.

Everyone who owns a car buys BP fuel, and everyone who has a pension fund is likely to be a shareholder.

Asked in a recent interview whether there was anyone in Britain more powerful than him, Gordon Brown named four men, all businessmen.

First on his list was Lord Browne, until this week boss of BP, ennobled by this Government in 2001 and dubbed the Sun King for the way he had built BP into an industry giant.

But BP also has problems. After a decade of seemingly unstoppable growth, its board has been riven by differences over who should succeed Lord Browne, and heavily criticised in two major inquiries which blamed management cost-cutting for a refinery disaster in which 15 people died.

Four months ago, this newspaper was approached by Lord Browne's former lover, a young Canadian called Jeff Chevalier. We were told by him that, despite being honoured in public and befriended in private by the Chancellor, Lord Browne thought the Government's taxes on business so damaging that he had to consider drastic changes in the way BP operated.

According to Mr Chevalier, Lord Browne threatened to move BP's headquarters abroad. If carried out, such a move would be devastating, not only for the Government's tax revenues but for the tens of thousands of highly-paid jobs an international business such as BP sustains when headquartered in Britain.

This was a business story of great significance - but obviously Mr Chevalier's account had to be checked, and calls were put in to BP, outlining what he was saying.

The first response came from a public relations consultant working directly for Lord Browne. He told us that while Mr Chevalier had been Lord Browne's lover, it was completely untrue that Lord Browne had made the alleged threat, and in any case Lord Browne never, ever discussed business matters with Mr Chevalier.

At 10am the following morning, The Mail on Sunday's Political Editor took a phone call from BP's highly respected public relations chief.

His message was the exact opposite: of course BP had looked at the problem Mr Chevalier outlined, nor should we forget that at the time of Lord Browne's threat the Government was contemplating a windfall tax on North Sea oil profits.

NEITHER PR man made any issue of Lord Browne's homosexuality, which was well-known in the world of business and politics. Neither was it to be the focus of our story beyond sufficient reference to explain how a 27-year-old Canadian had been privy to such information.

We cleared space for a story which would report Mr Chevalier's claims, reflect the fact that there appeared to be conflict within BP over how to respond and include information on other major companies facing the same problem as BP and considering meeting it in the same way.

What we did not know was that someone had advised Lord Browne to go to a firm of showbiz lawyers called Schillings, who represent, among others, Caprice, Naomi Campbell and Wayne Rooney, and who have built a lucrative industry in attempting to suppress embarrassing stories with Saturday afternoon injunctions.

Just before 4pm we received an email from Schillings demanding that we pull our story or face an emergency hearing before a High Court Judge.

Lord Browne had reverted to the position that he had never made any threat. But he was now also claiming that his relationship with Jeff Chevalier was private, an issue which had not been raised in either of the earlier briefings.

The reason for this new approach was given away in a footnote to Schillings's letter referring to the case of McKennitt v Ash. This was highly significant - it meant that the Human Rights Act would be brought into play.

Like much European legislation the Human Rights Act is badly framed and contradictory - which is why lawyers like it, as it gives them room to make law themselves. Article 10 enshrines freedom of expression, therefore a free Press. Article 8 guarantees an individual's right to privacy.

Neither defines where freedom of expression ends and the right to privacy, begins. In this gap lawyers such as Schillings have built a lucrative business.

Loreena McKennitt is a Canadian folk singer; Niema Ash a one-time friend and confidante who wrote an autobiography containing, inevitably, a raft of detail about her life with the folk singer.

McKennitt sued and at the end of a trial held in secret, the book was injuncted and its author was made to pay £5,000 damages. Many in the literary world believe this ruling may make it impossible to publish any but the most anodyne biographies.

For lawyers, Article 8 has triumphed over Article 10, and a whole new way of preventing the public knowing the truth about the rich and famous has opened up.

Others argue that while individuals clearly have a right to privacy it will not be long before people in public life use it to suppress information that is not private at all, but on the contrary affects the lives of everyone.

Schillings clearly saw the value of this case to Lord Browne. BP's original argument that Mr Chevalier had lied about Lord Browne's threat to relocate BP headquarters had been undermined by their own contradictory briefing. So now they would argue that, because Lord Browne's relationship with Mr Chevalier was private, anything that passed between them was also private.

Lord Browne then set about trying to destroy the credibility of his former lover as a witness. It was this which would lead to his sexuality being revealed by the courts, and to his resignation.

In a statement to the court, made under oath, he said he had first met Mr Chevalier during morning exercise in Battersea Park, thus making a liar of Mr Chevalier, who said they met through an escort agency. He said Mr Chevalier had an alcohol problem, for which he had refused proper treatment. He said it was untrue that he had given BP laptops to Mr Chevalier, or that he had given him access to the BP intranet.

For the moment the tactic worked and an injunction was granted.

But in each case it was Lord Browne who was lying. Mr Chevalier spoke to his escort agency and they confirmed that it was through them that he had met Lord Browne. He retrieved his medical notes, which showed no evidence of an alcohol problem. He produced a laptop Lord Browne had given him, opened it up, and sure enough it declared it was the property of BP and contained three months of Lord Browne's confidential company email traffic.

Lord Browne was forced to concede that he had lied to the court; too embarrassed, he said, to admit to lawyers with whom he had never previously spoken the truth about how he had met his former lover.

Presented with this evidence, Mr Justice Eady was outraged. He ruled that the lie, and the allegation of Lord Browne's misuse of BP assets, should be made public.

But at the same time he chose to believe Lord Browne, supported by statements from two of his employees, over the threat Mr Chevalier said the BP boss had made about relocating BP. He made no allowance for the fact that Lord Browne had lied to the court on other issues.

HE ALSO ordered that his ruling should not be reported before the appeal procedure had been exhausted, with the result that the public remained in ignorance for another ten weeks.

The US Chemical Safety Board reported on the Texas City refinery disaster without knowing that BP's boss was a man who was prepared to lie on oath to discredit an opponent. Despite widely reported misgivings, shareholders at BP's AGM approved Lord Browne's pension package.

Now Lord Browne's lie has been made public, and a number of important questions are raised.

Many have sympathy with this business titan, forced to bring forward his retirement in circumstances that can only be regarded as ignominious.

At the same time it was neither wise nor edifying for one of the most powerful men in Britain to hire from an escort agency a vulnerable and damaged man 30 years younger than himself, install him in a life of luxury, then cast him adrift when he lost patience with his problems.

If Jeff Chevalier had been a Latvian call girl no one would have had a shred of sympathy for Lord Browne.

Nor should it be forgotten that it was Lord Browne who decided to make his homosexuality the central issue of the case he initiated, to lie to the High Court and, in the words of the judge, to 'trash' the reputation of the man who had shared his life for four years.

And this in turn raises points of profound constitutional importance.

The first is that secret justice is always bad justice. How many other rich and powerful people will be tempted to tell lies to judges in secret hearings on Saturday nights?

The second is that - although in this case the courts found in favour of free speech - it should not be for judges to decide that the public should be told or not told about issues that affect their lives.

A free Press means just that. The principle of prior restraint - or what others would call censorship - was demolished in this country 200 years ago.

Finally we should ask whether it is right that, piece by piece, a law of privacy should be constructed by judges sitting alone, in private, without reference to Parliament, where law is supposed to be made.

[Harpo_Marx]

Dear All,

A few comments on the oil company BP reorganization of European refineries.

BP´s biggest European market is ADO Automotive Diesel Oil, and to fuel the home market better they sold an bought a few shares slash refineries.
And with Chevron Texaco pulling out of the European market, the biggest European refinery NeRefCo Netherlands Refinery Company was a doddle slash cheap to buy making them the European leaders in manufacturing ADO fuel.

To make this work in the worlds refinery market, they had to sell a few Gasoline Petrol making refineries/think American export/, and which where conveniently enough bought by PetroPlus, and who both them well all know!

All these refinery changes didn´t souly take place England, but all over Europe.
Alot of these refineries are currently in TA Turn Around, or will be with in a few year to able big changes on the refineries.
Changes to make a feed stock change possible, thus a different crude supplier!?

Won´t go into to much details, but trust me when I say the oil & refinery world in changing.
Thus with it the world and governments!


Regards,

Harpo_Marx

[Harpo_Marx]

Dear All,

Through various meeting with refineries in Europe, it once again strikes me as odd, that at least two European refineries are making large amounts of the special grade called Navy fuel.
And will be doing so for at least four to six weeks, and they aren´t to change this special production strategy till further notice!?

Makes you think doesn´t it, or worry!?


Regards,

Harpo_Marx