BP Chief - is he quitting because he's gay?

[tkingdoll]

I assume there's more to this story than the beeb are giving me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6612703.stm

Lord Browne said he had stepped down to save BP from embarrassment over the news that he is gay and had had a four year relationship with Jeff Chevalier.

I fail to see why his being gay is 'an embarrassment' or any reason to resign. Am I missing something? In fact, being a position where you feel forced to resign because you are gay is grounds for constructive dismissal. So what's going on here that's any different?

There's more on the story here but again I fail to see why any of it means he can't do his job.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2069807,00.html

Is 'sex scandal' really a justified reason for forcing a man from his position as Chief Executive of BP? Or is there some doubt over how he funded his lover's lifestyle? If there was, presumably he'd be being prosecuted for fraud, which I don't see happening.

If the culture at BP is that it's not OK to have a gay lover, then something is very wrong. Does this sort of story really rock shareholder confidence? I hope not.

[Araneus]

The wording must have been changed, I can't find any reference to the word "gay" in the article. It seems to be more a case of allegations of improper business conduct, possibly made by the "lover" himself.

[tkingdoll]

Interesting!! My quote in the OP was directly from the BBC article. Well, good. I hope whatever idiot journalist that wrote that was fired.

Yes, it seems that there are some 'pillow talk' allegations regarding confidential information about BP. Which is a totally different story to the BBC's ridiculous "he's quitting cause he's gay" tabloid-style bollocks. I am very glad they've changed it because I was about to fire off an angry email. The last edit of the story was at 17:10pm, nearly an hour after my OP. Doesn't take them long to realise they've nearly got a libel suit, obviously.

[Araneus]

I have actually noticed a slight deterioration in the quality of writing on BBC articles -- not significant or pronounced, just the odd phrase which jumps out as being "un-news-like", either because it is clearly opinion or speculation in a non op-ed article, or due to its more novel-like style ("the squat figure behind the desk said...").

EDIT: Just some minor examples from the current front page article

Mr Brown has, meanwhile, heaped praise on Mr Blair in an article to mark his 10 years in power.

Hyperbole and interpretation.

And - in a further sign of an impending Brown coronation - EU Trade Commissioner and key Blair ally Peter Mandelson predicted the chancellor would succeed Mr Blair in Number 10.

Opinion and interpretation.

The prospect of a Cabinet-level challenge to Mr Brown has all but disappeared but he could still face a contest with either John McDonnell or Michael Meacher from the left of the party.

Interpretation and speculation.

These are obviously minor examples, and debatable to an extent, it is however interesting that such language seems to be increasing in the news content (or maybe I just never noticed it before).

[Admin]

Nope - I really don't get this one.

I can understand someone not wanting his private life details published (whether gay or not) but I can't understand the requirement to resign and thus lose millions in pension payments etc. - we all know about it now anyway!

Would anyone have lifted an eyebrow in this day and age?

I can only surmise that there's more to this than meets the eye.

[Cuddles]

The first thing to note is that he has not made a sudden descision to resign, all he has done is resigned two months earlier than he was going to anyway, which seems a lot less dramatic. It also seems that the problem is nothing to do with his sexuality (which is still mentioned implicitly in the BBC article, although not explicitly) but is to do with the nature of his relationship with Jeff Chevalier. We are certainly not being told everything, but there seem to be allegations of threats and possibly dodgy money dealings, as well as lies about the nature of the relationship and how it started. I suppose it's just sad that "Man quits because he is gay" sounds a better headline than "Another scandal causes troubled executive to leave slightly earlier than he was going to anyway".

[tkingdoll]

The first thing to note is that he has not made a sudden descision to resign, all he has done is resigned two months earlier than he was going to anyway, which seems a lot less dramatic. It also seems that the problem is nothing to do with his sexuality (which is still mentioned implicitly in the BBC article, although not explicitly) but is to do with the nature of his relationship with Jeff Chevalier. We are certainly not being told everything, but there seem to be allegations of threats and possibly dodgy money dealings, as well as lies about the nature of the relationship and how it started. I suppose it's just sad that "Man quits because he is gay" sounds a better headline than "Another scandal causes troubled executive to leave slightly earlier than he was going to anyway".

That's exactly it. I'm really saddened that the Beeb are reducing themselves to such tactics, albeit temporarily.

Sign o the times?

[Cuddles]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6614291.stm
This article seems to clarify things a bit. The problem is not the relationship, the problem is that he lied about it in court and will probably now be facing perjury charges, which is not really a good thing for the head of a major corporation.