|
(Continued from overleaf)
Q. If there is evidence against the allegations The Guardian published, then why did:
a) Downey; b) the media; and c) the libel jury, all believe that Neil Hamilton acted improperly?
A.
I could write another book answering these questions, but I will deal with each in turn as concisely as possible:
a) Sir Gordon Downey has refused to explain how he came to make the judgements that he did against
Neil Hamilton. In October 1998 I wrote to Downey asking him a total of 43 questions under 25 headings
about his handling of the inquiry - such as why he had not taken evidence from witnesses who wanted to
testify against the three Fayed employees whose testimony against Hamilton he had deemed
"compelling"; and why he had found so severely against Hamilton on alleged breaches of parliamentary
rules that were far less serious than those of Labour Minister Geoffrey Robinson MP, which he
nevertheless did not think worthy of comment. Downey refused to answer any of these questions.
b) The media merely repeated, without any analysis, Downey's perverse judgements and
The Guardian's
misleading spin. For example, in the six months following the publication of Downey's report on 3 July
1997, The Guardian published fifteen stories quoting Downey's "compelling evidence" judgement against
Hamilton, whilst the Times published eleven such stories and the Daily Mail a total of seven.
Meanwhile, in the same period the Daily Telegraph published seventeen stories in which Downey's
'verdict' was repeated. Only one of these articles, published on 19 November, explained what that
"compelling evidence" actually amounted to. The piece in question was written by Boris Johnson and
entitled: "Hamilton was wronged: The most serious charge against him rests solely on the testimony
of a proven liar and his employees". Johnson did not acknowledge that his source of information was
a report compiled by Malcolm Keith-Hill and myself, which we had released to the press three weeks
earlier on 29 October. Despite the prominence of Boris Johnson's article, the Press Association did not
take on board the simple facts aired therein. Instead, the PA's bulletins continued to repeat Downey's
"compelling evidence" line uncritically - the upshot being that the simple truth was lost again in a welter
of unthinking condemnation. Which brings me round to...
c) It would have taken a jury with the constitution of the late Lord Denning to find in Neil Hamilton's
favour, after five years of media condemnation, aided by the Press Association's news blackout of our
work. In the event, none of our evidence against
The Guardian was aired in court. Only one Guardian
journalist - former editor Peter Preston - was allowed by the judge to give evidence, and Hamilton's
lawyers decided that to introduce our research would have opened up the case into other areas, which
was not an option in both time and costs.
Q. If you were elected as the MP for Tatton, what would be your first action?
A. I would seek to introduce a Private Members' Bill to make it a legal requirement for newspapers to identify when their stories contain information supplied by other news organisations. This would hopefully instil a responsibly among newspapers that currently does not exist. It would also allow the real worth of a story to be assessed, on those all-too-often occasions when British news organisations shout with one voice, after each and every one obtained their information from the same partial source: the omnipotent but unaccountable Press Association.
Such legislation would merely bring about a best practice that is well adhered to in the United States, for example, where major newspapers attribute their stories openly to the American Associated Press news agency. It might also help bring about an increase in the numbers of jobs for journalists in Britain's news industry, and reverse the steady decline in British journalism that has taken place over recent decades.
Q. Do you think you'll keep your deposit?
A. I really don't know - it depends on a number of factors. Among these will be whether the people of Tatton, once they learn how the British media manipulated them last time and kept them in the dark since, are motivated sufficiently to register their protest; or whether they're driven instead by loyalty to party.
Q. a) What made you write down all your evidence and get it published in a book?
b) Was it hard finding a publisher to publish the book?
A. a) My motivation has developed since first getting involved. My initial motivation was interest in Hamilton's protestations of innocence. I then became motivated to expose the many aspects of the 'cash for questions' story that had hitherto not been aired. Latterly, the British media's news blackout of our research has driven me to raise public awareness of this country's incurious, omnipotent, wire-guided media, and the dangers it presents our democracy.
b) It was indeed difficult finding a publisher. Eventually, a publisher, to whom I remain indebted, came to me via Neil Hamilton. He was rewarded for his courage by being smeared in some sections of the media - but that's another story.
|
|
