Gay BP Ex-CEO Featured in Times

[Frankly Rich]

It's gay pride month, and the NY Times today has a feature about the lack of openly gay CEOs. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/28/business/john-browne-former-chief-of-bp-on-being-a-closeted-executive.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

The paper features Lord John Browne, the former head of BP, and how he has landed on his feet after losing his job when his boyfriend outed him. The story of the outing is linked in the beginning of the article and is itself a fascinating read as Browne led the life of the super-rich and took his young boyfriend everywhere. (Okay, here's that link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452983/The-TRUE-story-Lord-Browne--ex-rent-boy-lover.html )

 

I am happy to see the Times write on the topic. The follow-up though on Browne might have included a follow-up on the boyfriend, who was left penniless. Did he land on his feet?

[bigvalboy]

Having just read both articles, I'm a little shocked that Lord John Browne could be outed. He had Mr. Chevalier at his side and on display for the world to see. How it is that the board at BP didn't know, is more than a little baffling. He suggests as much in the article. That being said, I am strictly opposed to anyone outing another person. When a person gets knocked down in his life, it's how he get's up that's important. In my opinion, Mr. Chevalier got what he deserved. Perhaps he should have taken the silver upon his departure, or sought out the advice of 'robberbaron4u'

[Frankly Rich]

Well, you and I often agree, but here I think that you are harsh. These two were not evenly matched, and the Lord had all of the power. His young lover had to adapt his life to fit his partner's, there was no reciprocity. Yes, it was a pretty heady life, but I think it was made clear how difficult it was for the younger guy to adapt to it. I am sure he gave up his friends, not the other way around, and probably had no one who was his peer to talk to. Money and high-living interest for a time, but in the long run deeper considerations have to prevail, and Lord Browne just wasn't going to do that.

[bigvalboy]

All of what you say is true, and there is no dispute from me. No doubt Chevalier was not equipped to navigate the social circles he was asked to be part of, and in many respects felt manipulated, however what I think is important here, is the outing of Lord Browne. How does Chevalier repay the immense generosity of his lover? He tries to destroy him by outing him, which he most likely knew would be devastating. He used the relationship to his advantage until it no longer suited him. Regardless of the particulars of their relationship, which we really aren't privy to, outing someone is unforgivable in my eyes. Mr. Chevalier did not have the right to decide how someone else should live their life. It was a vindictive act, meant to destroy someones career.

 

We all feel differently about outing. You will find many who disagree with me. I happen to find it disgraceful. I'm curious if you feel the same way, or do you feel that at times it is justifiable? It appears that Lord Browne has survived all of this, and when all is said and done, his life is richer for it. I'm reminded of that old saying, "Living well is the best revenge"...

[+ Gar1eth]

All of what you say is true, and there is no dispute from me. No doubt Chevalier was not equipped to navigate the social circles he was asked to be part of,

 

I was brought up middle class- probably middle middle class -we were definitely higher on the social scale than say- Archie Bunker's Family- maybe a bit lower than Maude's-however, I'm sure I couldnt handle those social circles either.

 

We all feel differently about outing. You will find many who disagree with me. I happen to find it disgraceful. I'm curious if you feel the same way' date=' or do you feel that at times it is justifiable?[/quote']

 

Thinking hypothetically- although it's possible there might be some real life situation where I'd consider a lower standard- in general I don't think outing someone should be done unless it is to thwart some nefarious plan against humanity/children/etc.

 

One real life situation I could think of where I wouldnt mind outing someone would be if I found evidence that the Sultan of Brunei was gay.

 

Gman

[+ FreshFluff]

Well, you and I often agree, but here I think that you are harsh. These two were not evenly matched, and the Lord had all of the power. His young lover had to adapt his life to fit his partner's, there was no reciprocity. Yes, it was a pretty heady life, but I think it was made clear how difficult it was for the younger guy to adapt to it. I am sure he gave up his friends, not the other way around, and probably had no one who was his peer to talk to. Money and high-living interest for a time, but in the long run deeper considerations have to prevail, and Lord Browne just wasn't going to do that.

 

If you're turned on by a man who's older, wealthy, and powerful or want to enter into such a situation for the perks, then the power differential comes with the deal. Chevalier is an adult, and no one stopped him from saying no to Browne and dating a guy his own age instead.

 

And I agree, there's no excuse for having outed Browne. Chevalier should be ashamed of himself.

[+ WilliamM]

If you're turned on by a man who's older, wealthy, and powerful or want to enter into such a situation for the perks, then the power differential comes with the deal. Chevalier is an adult, and no one stopped him from saying no to Browne and dating a guy his own age instead.

 

And I agree, there's no excuse for having outed Browne. Chevalier should be ashamed of himself.

 

I am a few years older than Browne. Browne was an adult when he chose a profession that had no tolerance for gay employees in top jobs, and that lack of tolerance did not change many years later. No one was stopping Browne from changing professions for a job where he could live his life openly as a gay man.

 

I am opposed to outing in general. But, I am not prepared to say on an Internet chat site that Chavalier should be ashamed of himself based on two newpaper articles.

[+ ArVaGuy]

Speaking of outing CEOs, CNBC inadvertently outed Tim Cook at Apple on air recently. However, I'm not so sure Cook was in the closet. I recall reading about him being gay before he took over from Steve Jobs.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnbc-panel-goes-awkwardly-silent-when-host-outs-apple-ceo-as-gay/

[bigvalboy]

I am a few years older than Browne. Browne was an adult when he chose a profession that had no tolerance for gay employees in top jobs, and that lack of tolerance did not change many years later. No one was stopping Browne from changing professions for a job where he could live his life openly as a gay man.

 

I am opposed to outing in general. But, I am not prepared to say on an Internet chat site that Chavalier should be ashamed of himself based on two newpaper articles.

 

Agreed WilliamM, Browne certainly had a right to choose a profession that was more accepting, but I would argue that those jobs are few and far between. To climb to the level of success he had as an openly gay man, was most likely not possible. He also has a right to live his life privately and professionally anyway he choose to. It is certainly not our right to judge him for deciding it was more comfortable to remain in the closet to the board a BP. Socially he was clearly out. I remained comfortably in the closet most of my professional life until I was outed by a colleague, but that was my choice and right to live that way. No one has earned the right to tell me otherwise.

 

My condemnation of Chevalier is because his actions were purely vindictive, and not for any reason of social importance. He outed Lord Browne when the bank closed. In my eyes, there is no justification for that. There's a reason they call it 'hustling'....

[Newly]

"Hustling"? To play devil's advocate, let's look at the other side of this. Here's an adult who is rich and powerful; imagine a relationship between him and Cook, for example. It would be an adult relationship between people with equivalent wealth, power and status. But Browne has fallen into the same game that so many gay men fall for, youth and looks are all that count. We all laugh at old straight men who have trophy wives, this is the gay equivalent. We may think that people suddenly become adult at 18, but that's not how it works, maturity is a life long process and people are not as mature at 23 as they are when they're middle aged. So this old dude buys a young guy with money and is surprised when the money is cut off and the young guy acts impulsively - wow, I would never expect a kid to act that way! I see where Browne has a new boyfriend who is also half his age. I'm sure that relationship will work out great because they have so much in common. I can see marital bliss when his 40 year old boyfriend is taking care of him in the nursing home when he's 80. How about seeing Browne as a dirty old man who is looking for lost youth and thinking that he can buy it with his money and power?

[+ FreshFluff]

I am a few years older than Browne. Browne was an adult when he chose a profession that had no tolerance for gay employees in top jobs, and that lack of tolerance did not change many years later. No one was stopping Browne from changing professions for a job where he could live his life openly as a gay man.

 

I am opposed to outing in general. But, I am not prepared to say on an Internet chat site that Chavalier should be ashamed of himself based on two newpaper articles.

 

That's true, but when Browne chose a job, what options did he in the 1970s and 80s if he wanted to live openly as a gay man? There weren't many in the corporate world back, even if he was willing to stay at a more junior level to avoid the closet.

 

I'm pretty set against outing, but maybe you're right that the articles aren't being fair to Chevalier. But unless Chevalier has contested those facts (I don't know if he has), we won't know either way.

[Newly]

Why should Chevalier have to contest anything? A rich, privileged old fart used him while it amused him and cast him off when he was tired of him. Not saying that Chevalier is a model of virtue, but Browne sounds absolutely repulsive. I guess he was surprised that his pet poodle bite back. If Chevalier has any smarts he'll move to the US where there's a lot more freedom of speech than in GB and write a tell all book where he'll be able to tell exactly how the mighty and privileged act and treat the "commoners". He'll make a zillion bucks and get the last laugh.

[bigvalboy]

"Hustling"? To play devil's advocate, let's look at the other side of this. Here's an adult who is rich and powerful; imagine a relationship between him and Cook, for example. It would be an adult relationship between people with equivalent wealth, power and status. But Browne has fallen into the same game that so many gay men fall for, youth and looks are all that count. We all laugh at old straight men who have trophy wives, this is the gay equivalent. We may think that people suddenly become adult at 18, but that's not how it works, maturity is a life long process and people are not as mature at 23 as they are when they're middle aged. So this old dude buys a young guy with money and is surprised when the money is cut off and the young guy acts impulsively - wow, I would never expect a kid to act that way! I see where Browne has a new boyfriend who is also half his age. I'm sure that relationship will work out great because they have so much in common. I can see marital bliss when his 40 year old boyfriend is taking care of him in the nursing home when he's 80. How about seeing Browne as a dirty old man who is looking for lost youth and thinking that he can buy it with his money and power?

 

Now that made me laugh this morning. You weren't kidding about playing the devils advocate. We could most likely argue this all day, but in the end, given the 'very limited' information we have, I still side with Lord Browne. Chevalier was a common street hustler, who knew the rules of the game, and played it well until it no longer suited him. I just don't see chevalier as the victim. We call him a 'kid' and 'immature' when it fits the argument. Maturity aside, there is no excuse for the reprehensible act of outing another person. Chevalier got his due, and I rather doubt that any level of maturity or years on his part would have changed the outcome.

 

However....should Lord Browne ever find himself in the need of another "trophy wife"...I would quickly volunteer, and you wouldn't find me bitching about, oh let's see, the private jets, the house in Venice on the Grand Canal, the compound in Barbados, limousines, jewelery, clothing, parties with heads of state, the opera in Salzburg or clinking glasses with Elton John. And please don't refer to my next ex-husband, as an "old fart".....

[zeyfur]

I might have had some sympathy for Chevalier had he gone to a newspaper other than the odious Dailymail. It is a known rag that has opposed gay rights at every step. It made a big song and dance when a gay couple were given adoption rights over a straight couple and one of it's columnists, Melanie Phillips wrote, " An attempt to be tolerant towards a minority lifestyle has now descended into full scale tyranny"

[+ quoththeraven]

Oh boy, do I have a different view of this than everyone else. I wasn't going to read the linked articles or comment on the thread until I saw all the conflicting views of the people involved (mostly Chevalier) and felt compelled to check it out for myself I'm puzzled that there's been no direct mention of the fact that Lord Browne first met Chevalier in Chevalier's capacity as an escort. He went from being an escort hireable by whichever men had the cash to hire him to the live-in companion of a single wealthy and powerful man. It looks like he didn't work or have outside interests or friendships. This social isolation may have been at Browne's behest or in response to Browne's expectation that he accommodate Browne's schedule and interests. One reason a man like Browne doesn't engage in a relationship with a man like Tim Cook is that both of them have demanding schedules that would likely be impossible to coordinate. People at the top of the ladder need relationships with people whose schedules are less hectic than theirs are (or who are in the same field and who they'd see all the time anyway, which has its own pitfalls) or they'll be relegated to seeing each other once in a blue moon.

 

Lord Browne was the author of his own downfall, and much of it revolved around things not directly related to his sexual orientation. In pound and pence terms, all the outing did was accelerate his departure from BP by three months. He was already leaving early because of the fallout from company missteps in the US, including a fatal explosion, that many believed were due to an overly aggressive, get ahead at all costs corporate culture inculcated by Browne. It boggles my mind that Browne thought he could socialize and vacation with Chevalier at his side without people realizing the nature of their relationship. A more reasonable assumption would be that since those people needed him as much as he needed them and understood the kind of pressures he was operating under, they wouldn't out him.

 

Since Chevalier was dependent on Browne financially, breaking things off with him without providing some sort of financial safety net is a risky business and also a shitty way to treat someone after four years. It's not like Browne simply didn't have the resources to give Chevalier a separation agreement and severance package and to tie it up with a bow with a confidentiality clause. (Yes, I realize that the agreement might not actually be enforceable because of the sexual services aspect, but the whole point of the agreement is give Chevalier the incentive not to want to attack its terms.) Perhaps Chevalier should have returned to escorting. Perhaps he should have gotten a job in retail or some other endeavor not requiring prior experience or much in the way of education, since it's likely he didn't go to college. Perhaps he should have gone on the dole. But it's economically rational of him to try to exploit the asset with the greatest value: his relationship with Browne, and why Browne didn't realize that and act to prevent it is beyond me.

 

Most likely the Mail was the only newspaper willing to pay or it offered the highest price. It's a despicable rag, and if it was willing to pay the highest (or only) price, its editorial policy has a lot to do with that. But once again, going to the source of the most cash is economically rational.

 

Some other points: Browne's resignation was assured because he lied under oath about the start of his relationship with Chevalier and because the Mail, based on Chevalier's say so, alleged misuse of corporate funds. It's impossible to tell whether Browne would have resigned when he did if he hadn't lied under oath, and while BP later cleared him of corporate malfeasance, its statement actually says that the allegations involved were "insubstantive," which is a way of saying they were de minimis enough that they didn't rise to the level of misuse of corporate funds -- which may be the equivalent of an accountant saying something is non-material and need not be disclosed. It's in BP's interest not to find corporate malfeasance, so without knowing the details and the actual amount involved, I don't feel that means there was no misuse of corporate funds, just that it was minor enough not to be worth pursuing. And Browne was guaranteed to land softly; he was already a life peer, he had all that successful business experience behind him, and his resignation didn't result in losing his pension or anything else he had coming to him other than conditional bonuses.

 

Would Browne not have had to resign if he'd not been gay and Chevalier had been a woman but all the other facts were the same? I'm not sure. I think there's a more than 50/50 chance he would have been pressured into resigning then as well because of lying under oath and the allegations of corporate malfeasance.

 

I am philosophically opposed outing someone other than in clear cases of hypocrisy (gay clerics toeing an anti-gay line, extreme cases of politicians acting against the interests of gay folk). But Browne was out socially, just not at work, and his outing came as a response to actions of his own that he easily could have ameliorated if he'd shown some humanity. I'm glad the ordeal he undoubtedly suffered when he was outed enabled him to be more open and less stressed. Maybe he learned something from his experience. But to hold him up as some sort of role model? No, I don't see it.

 

As for Tim Cook: he has not publicly acknowledged whether he's gay or not, although it seems to be an open secret. That may be as much if not more for reasons of keeping his private life private and out of the papers and avoiding hate mail as fear of the business consequences. I have to think, though, that coming out would have zero impact on him functioning as CEO of Apple.

[Newly]

Sorry Bigvalboy, no disrespect meant towards your ex! Zeyfur, yes it is a rag but most English journalism is - we get a strange viewpoint here since we tend to only see Masterpiece Theater stuff in the US, most English TV and papers are rags. That being said, Browne sounds like a pretentious ass. I'm actually thrilled to see him get screwed and I have no doubt we'll be hearing from his new boy-toy in the near future with the same type of story. Serves him right for being head of the company that set the Gulf coast back ten years.

[Frankly Rich]

Nice post, quoththeraven. Well done!

 

http://www.oddman.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/41140614.gif

[jawjateck]

Yep.....QTR nailed it.

 

I feel no sorrow for either of these men, because.....they are men. This is life. Good things happen. Bad things happen. Put on the big boy pants, and be ready to make a new decision, set a new course, learn from the past, and move on.

 

And I agree that Browne revealed his sexuality to everyone around him. If he believed otherwise, he has some serious intellectual blindnesses/flaws for which I would not want him to be the CEO of a company whose stock I owned. I have no problems with a gay CEO, closeted or out, but if he assumed no one knew, even though he flaunted his young hireling lover everywhere, then he's missing some marbles up top. I would question his decision-making capacity as a CEO.

[bigvalboy]

Nice post, quoththeraven. Well done!

 

http://www.oddman.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/41140614.gif

 

+1 Impressive, informative..had to read it a couple of times. I still have some issues, but I'm not following that post!

[+ FreshFluff]

So here's another side of the Chevalier/Browne story from a man name Trickey, who dated Chevalier before and after Browne. (Chevalier, Trickey, Lord Browne: Was this written by some Victorian novelist?) The following incident happened before Chevalier met Browne, according to the Trickey.

 

'He [Chevalier] took me to the balcony of my 12th-floor apartment and told me to jump,' he claimed. 'When I refused, he screamed abuse and tried to push me over. It wasn't a serious attempt to kill me but it wasn't pleasant.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452343/How-rent-boy-charmed-Browne---wealthy-men.html

 

Trickey clearly has an axe to grind, but this suggests that Chevalier wasn't the easiest person to be with.

[Frankly Rich]

And will you be posting Chevalier's side of the story too? Or shall we just assume that Trickey has nothing up his sleeve? Granted, it's likely that Chevalier suffered some emotional damage from his relationship with Browne, and perhaps entered that relationship with some, but Trickey tells the story and then admits it wasn't a serious attempt to kill him. What are we to make of any of it? Chevalier even paid back the big loan Trickey made, so I do wonder who is saying what for the publicity.

[+ FreshFluff]

things off with him without providing some sort of financial safety net is a risky business and also a shitty way to treat someone after four years. It's not like Browne simply didn't have the resources to give Chevalier a separation agreement and severance package and to tie it up with a bow with a confidentiality clause. (Yes, I realize that the agreement might not actually be enforceable because of the sexual services aspect, but the whole point of the agreement is give Chevalier the incentive not to want to attack its terms.) Perhaps Chevalier should have returned to escorting. Perhaps he should have gotten a job in retail or some other endeavor not requiring prior experience or much in the way of education, since it's likely he didn't go to college. Perhaps he should have gone on the dole. But it's economically rational of him to try to exploit the asset with the greatest value: his relationship with Browne, and why Browne didn't realize that and act to prevent it is beyond me.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that there are other issues. Once the (hypothetical) payments to Chevalier stopped, the only leverage Browne is the threat of taking Chevalier to court. But there's no real incentive for Browne to do that, and Chevalier would know it;more tawdry details about the relationship would be spilled, and there's no way to collect from Chevalier.

 

Also, because the agreement is unenforceable, Murdoch or someone else could always beat Browne's offer, especially near the end of the income stream.

 

So money or not, Browne still has to rely on Chevalier's willingness to keep his word.

[+ FreshFluff]

And will you be posting Chevalier's side of the story too? Or shall we just assume that Trickey has nothing up his sleeve? Granted, it's likely that Chevalier suffered some emotional damage from his relationship with Browne, and perhaps entered that relationship with some, but Trickey tells the story and then admits it wasn't a serious attempt to kill him. What are we to make of any of it? Chevalier even paid back the big loan Trickey made, so I do wonder who is saying what for the publicity.

 

The balcony story, according to Trickey's account, happened before Chevalier met Browne.

 

As I said, Trickey appears to have an axe to grind, but I found no response to Trickey's story. So either I missed something, the papers weren't interested (doubtful, since it was a hot story), or Chevalier wasn't willing to contest the story publicly.

[Frankly Rich]

We're dealing with a real cast of characters here, and each may/does have his own agenda. It's too hard to figure the truth from this distance and after so many years. I think if I met any of the three, I'd plead a proctologist appointment and leave.

[+ quoththeraven]

I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that there are other issues. Once the (hypothetical) payments to Chevalier stopped, the only leverage Browne is the threat of taking Chevalier to court. But there's no real incentive for Browne to do that, and Chevalier would know it;more tawdry details about the relationship would be spilled, and there's no way to collect from Chevalier.

 

Also, because the agreement is unenforceable, Murdoch or someone else could always beat Browne's offer, especially near the end of the income stream.

 

So money or not, Browne still has to rely on Chevalier's willingness to keep his word.

 

I'm not completely up on the chronology, and I'm loath to try to look at the NYT article from 2007 again because I've used up my free access, so I don't know exactly when Browne broke things off (if we're told that at all) and whether he gave Chevalier anything after that, but I'm fairly certain this all came up after Browne had announced he was leaving BP, in which case all he needed to do was keep Chevalier from going to the press until then. I find it hard to believe he couldn't have done that.

 

Also, I did not state that such an agreement was out and out not enforceable, just that it might not be enforceable. It's possible to file under seal and to ask that case records be kept under seal. In this case, where Chevalier going to the press despite an agreement not to would look a lot like blackmail, it isn't fanciful to think such a filing might be made. That's also ignoring the effect that entering into an agreement itself might have on Chevalier. Also, in order for any agreement to be enforceable, Chevalier would have had to have the opportunity to consult his own lawyer, presumably at Browne's expense. If Browne's lawyer had any sense, s/he would make sure that Browne had nothing to do with recommending or suggesting such a lawyer and that the lawyer was competent and her/his advice not tainted by a conflict of interest.

 

As for Trickey (you're right, the names are beginning to sound like something out of a Victorian melodrama), I don't know what to make of what he says. I'm not sure it's fair to ascribe magical powers to Chevalier because he managed to get two well-off men to take care of him. What's most interesting to me is that he helped Chevalier with school. If that happened before Chevalier met Browne, then that seems like a good fallback for him after their falling out. It's also interesting that Chevalier repaid him the loan in full, suggesting he's not as complete a golddigger as he's been suggested to be.

 

The allegations about the altercation on the balcony may well be true, but Trickey let Chevalier back into his life later on and didn't report it to the police. People are complicated, but for Browne to have kept Chevalier in his life, apparently happily until Chevalier no longer met his expectations (and as far as we know, Browne didn't fall in love with Chevalier the way Trickey did), for four years suggests Chevalier's behavior was not an issue as long as he felt his living situation was secure. And Trickey's own depression when his business wasn't going well could have been a trigger as well. Whatever one's opinion, lashing out when one's future becomes insecure is a human failing that isn't unique to Chevalier.