• home • about • twitter • archives • subscribe • email •

Fears are mounting for the mental wellbeing of the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. According to an unnamed source*, many people are alarmed at Mr Clarke’s increasingly passive aggressive behaviour towards the victims of the July 7 bombings and their families. “It’s like that Earth, Wind and Fire song, ‘After The Love Has Gone’,” one is thought to have said.

Relations between Mr Clarke and the victims and survivors began cordially enough. On the eve of the vote on the Terrorism Bill in November 2005, the Home Secretary had coincidentally attended to the memorial service for the victims of the bombings. He spoke of how moved he had been and how the families’ wishes were paramount. “It was very powerful,” he said. “I talked to a lot of families afterwards. They made it clear that we must back the police.” He also said that liberals’ attempts to undermine the demands of the victims’ grief was “pathetic”.

Soon after, however, it was apparent that something was amiss. After having listened so assiduously to the victims’ demands for 90 days detention for terrorist suspects and spoken so forcefully on their behalf, Mr Clarke’s warmth dissipated somewhat. While admitting that victims of terrorism deserved to be given special laws he admitted that he saw being injured in a terrorist outrage in much the same light as being “stabbed outside a pub“.

The victims’ opinions, so vital in drawing up anti-terrorism legislation and in selling the case for the new laws, were regarded as less important when it came to actually finding out why and how the bombings took place. In December last year, when refusing to instigate a public inquiry into the events of July 7, Mr Clarke said with pre-emtive reassurance (it was revealed three days later that MI5 had deemed two of the bombers to be no threat), “Certainly, there is no question of a cover-up of any kind.”

This see-sawing behaviour towards the victims reached an alarming conclusion last week at a clergy meeting at Norwich Cathedral in his constituency. Mr Clarke was approached after the meeting by a parish priest who happened to be the father of one of the survivors of the bombings, who asked:

Congratulations on fixing the meeting so that nobody can ask questions! You will have heard about Rev Julie Nicholson who is so angry she cannot forgive the bombers who killed her daughter on 7th July, well, I have a question, my daughter was feet away from the 7/7 Kings Cross bomb, and she and some other surivors have said they are not angry with the bombers, but with the Government, because there was no public enquiry. Why is there no public enquiry?

Mr Clarke is said to have looked at the priest “in a very nasty way”, and replied: “Get away from me, I will not be insulted by you, this is an insult“.

A nutritionist suggested that Mr Clarke might have been hungry. Famous for his double lunches, Mr Clarke may simply have been too long away from the table. His low blood sugar level may have excerbated his “weakness, mood swings, headaches, nervousness, irritability, or nausea” as well as his “visual disturbances, shaking, sweating, confusion, palpitations, anxiety, dizziness, aggression or severe fatigue”.

Psychologists, however, say** Mr Clarke’s behaviour may be symptomatic of deeper problems. “The passive agressive man protests that others unfairly accuse him rather than owning up to his own misdeeds,” said one. “To remain above reproach, he sets himself up as the apparently hapless, innocent victim of your excessive demands and tirades.” It’s also possible that Mr Clarke is “feeling put upon when he is unable to live up to his promises or obligations,” the psychologist added. “He retreats from pressures around him and sulks, pouts and withdraws.”

A tragic fear of intimacy may also be fuelling the Home Secretary’s increasingly eccentric public displays. Mr Clarke, suggested the psychologist, may be “out of touch with his feelings, reflexively denying feelings he thinks will ‘trap’ or reveal him, like love. He picks fights to create distance.”

This inability to love or form lasting bonds was also echoed by a relationship counsellor*** who added that Mr Clarke’s behaviour was often seen during the break up of short-term relationships. “This is classic behaviour from a promiscuous alpha male after a one night stand,” she could have said. “He’s had his fun, these people are no longer any use to him, and now he’s not returning their calls.”

Unnamed medical sources**** also expressed concern about Mr Clarke’s “epidermal density”. “Such a thin skin coupled with obviously enormous internal pressures could be nothing short of disastrous,” a doctor might have said.

Voiceover: If you or a member of your family been affected by any of the issues mentioned in this post, then Charles Clarke would very much not like to hear from you.

*Am I peddling unattributable gossip or making it up here? You decide. If you read newspapers regularly, are you even bothered?
** Maybe.
***See *.
****And again.

(Why don’t you write to the Home Secretary and ask him why he refuses to hold an public inquiry into the July 7 bombings? It’s a game for all the family and couldn’t be simpler. First you write to the Home Secretary and ask him why he refuses to hold an public inquiry into the July 7 bombings. Then, a month later, you write to the Home Secretary and ask him why he has failed to reply to your letter you sent to ask him why he refuses to hold an public inquiry into the July 7 bombings. Then, a month later…

Or, you could sign the petition)