Mr Davies lives near to Clapham Common and must be well aware, like a lot of
people who don't even live there, that this area is a well known meeting place
for homosexuals.From Mr Davies' accounts; it appears that he fancied a late night stroll and
whilst sauntering across Clapham Common became engaged in conversation with a
man who he had never seen before.
They obviously got on so well that when the man invited him for a meal he was
willing to take his new found friend off in his car to meet two of this
man's friends and take up his offer.
Unfortunately for dear old Ron, he became a victim of a heist, was robbed
and had his car stolen.
It appeared that, having got himself into this embarrassing position, Davies'
realised that there would be all sorts of allegations made about why he was on
Clapham Common in the first place ( as witnessed by the articles in the
following weekend's tabloid press ) and, because it was obvious that such
allegations would cause at least some embarrassment to the government; he
took the decision to resign from the cabinet.
In doing so he indicated that he, "Had made an error of judgement and had failed
to maintain the high standards required of a member of the cabinet".
Now I don't particularly care about Mr Davies' sexuality; but I am intrigued as
to why, if he has been a simple victim of circumstance which he can properly
explain away, then why does he feel the need to resign from his cabinet post ?
His resignation fuels the fire of suspicion more than anything else.
And, if, as he says, he has failed to maintain the high standards required of a
cabinet minister, how does he feel that he has maintained the high standards
that we, the public, require of all MP's and not just those in the cabinet ?
By taking this half-measure step he has placed himself in an ambiguous
position; if he's done nothing wrong then why resign at all ? If he has done
something wrong; then he should shut up shop, do the honourable thing and
clear out of parliament entirely.
The situation was confused even further as Davies, complaining about
subsequent newspaper coverage, refuted allegations that he was on Clapham Common
to procure sex or drugs claiming these to be complete fabrication and has
indicated that his decision to resign was because he feared that he could be
blackmailed.
If Davies had done nothing wrong; then why was he so worried about being
blackmailed ? It is ironic, if this was a genuine fear, that whatever
allegations he thought a blackmailer could make, have been made, as a result
of his resignation, by the national press anyway.
Later allegations made in the national press that government agencies had
been concerned about the possibility that Davies was a target for blackmail,
for over 15 years, have done nothing to expel rumours that there was something
improper about the incident that has lead to his resignation.
Davies' own statement to the Commons when he said, "We are all different. We
are all products of our genes and upbringing", has increased suspicion about
his activities even further.
The most incredible thing about the whole issue is that no one, apart from
Mr Davies and the person, arrested and later remanded for stealing his car, has
any idea whatsoever about what actually occurred on Clapham Common to cause
such a chain of events.
I, like others had hoped that the consequential court case would have revealed
what truly went on at that time, however, the Crown Prosecution Service has
dropped the case on grounds of, "Insufficient evidence".
This surprises me because I would have thought that the police scene of crime
officers would have fingerprinted the car and would have been able to tie those
finger prints to the man they had already arrested. I would have expected the
police to have done as much as they could considering this was a crime against
a government minister.
Whilst his resignation may keep Tony Blair's cabinet looking whiter than
white it is no good if the underlings, having resigned or not, have an air
of suspicion hanging over them; something that the previous government found
out the hard way.
At least the situation that Ron Davies found himself in wasn't so bad that
the only excuse he could offer was, "I was only bending down to tie up my
shoe lace when ...".
Interestingly, the final allegation that the car was not stolen but was left as
security whilst Davies went to get money to pay for a male prostitute ( at
which point he chickened out and cried, "Theft", I presume is alleged ) has not
been met with any denial.
Peter Mandelson, MP
During the same time that Ron Davies has been attracting the attention of the
British media, a chance remark on a BBC 2, Newsnight led to the outing
of Peter Mandelson, MP, President of the Board for Trade and Industry,
formerly Minister without Portfolio, and one of the masterminds behind Tony
Blair's general election victory.This accusation of homosexuality was widely reported and has not, so far, been
denied by Mandelson.
There appears to have been very little by way of backlash against Mandelson and
his choice of sexual orientation. This seems to be a typical case of, yes,
so what ?.
A complete contrast to the Davies' situation.
What this shows, I believe, is that most rational people are prepared to take
others for what they are ( even if they disagree with it ) providing that they
are honest about it.
George Michael got himself into an embarrassing situation with his sexual
orientation but has survived without too much damage. Hugh Grant has survived
an equally embarrassing, heterosexual oriented, incident. Paddy 'pants down'
Ashdown survived allegations against himself and David 'Chelsea Strip' Mellor
earned a quiet respect from many people.
Which is why Mandelson, having sailed through his outing was forced to
resign his cabinet post when it was revealed that he had accepted a huge loan,
from George Robertson the Paymaster General, which he had failed to declare.
What the public really hate is hypocrisy and lies. Those who are honest and
open about the situation they find themselves in are more often than not
given a sympathetic ear and, after an initial furore, are left to get on with
their lives.
Because Davies has not come clean about what happened on Clapham Common, and
why he was there in the first place, at least to the satisfaction of the
inquisitive people of Britain, he is going to be treated with suspicion and
innuendo will reign as fact.
Ron Davies can set the record straight; whether he chooses to do so in plain,
simple and factual terms remains to be seen.
The Millennium Dome
Now that Peter Mandelson's sexual orientation has been clearly stated; the
one thing that worries me, is that the wasteful expenditure of many millions
of GBP on the building of the Millennium Dome may have been
caused by a simple misunderstanding of his statement that he'd love to see
a massive erection in Greenwhich and he'd love to get it up before the start
of the next millennium.But that's just humorous conjecture.
Nick Brown, MP
Just to prove that everything happens in three's; Nick Brown, Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was also outed, this time by a Sunday
Tabloid.As with Mandelson; there was very little backlash against his, newly revealed,
sexuality but I must admit that I was more than a little disappointed that,
rather than proudly announce that, yes he was gay and so what ? he
chose the apologist's way out and declared himself to be deeply embarrassed by
the revelations.
Despite that, this case again demonstrates the tolerance of the British people
to those who do come clean about accusations made about them; what they hate
are liars, either perceived or real, who refuse to answer, fairly clean-cut,
allegations about themselves.
