|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is Guardianlies.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardian Lie No.9
(page one of two)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main Index to all Sections
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section Three Index:
The Guardian's liars and their lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guardian's failed theory rejected by parliamentary inquiry but editor then claims vindication in brazen act of bluff and bluster shock!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
Trust trustee and editor of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction to Guardian Lie No.9
As
explained in the foreword to "Guardian Lie No. 6"
(and in the profile of Andrew Roth in the document in this Section Three entitled
"The webs they weave" and as placed into context in the
comprehensive chronology of events entitled "The brainwashing of a
democratic state" in Section Two) The
Guardian's original 'cash for
questions' article of 20 October 1994 was based on Andrew Roth's
mistaken premise that commission payments, which the lobbyist Ian Greer had
given Tory MP Sir Michael Grylls and two other unknown MPs for introducing new
clients, were really bribes to reward those MPs for supporting his clients in
Parliament. The Guardian
had published the article recklessly with no evidence to support it, after
Mohamed Al Fayed had endorsed its invented tale accusing Greer in fit of pique
over a £5 million tax bill and his spurned demands for British
citizenship.
The
Guardian had adopted Roth's
theory four years earlier following the publication in October 1989 of Roth's
journal on MPs' outside interests and voting traits, Parliamentary Profiles.
In this book Roth implied with lurid juxtaposition that Michael Grylls had
supported Greer's clients in Parliament as a direct consequence of his receiving
commissions from the lobbyist for introducing new clients.
The evidence reproduced below and on the next page
includes: a) the original passage from Parliamentary Profiles; b) an
extract from the New Statesman of 28 October 1994 containing
Roth's reaction to the resignation of Tim Smith MP following the publication of The
Guardian's 'cash for questions'
article; c) several extracts from The
Guardian's submissions to Sir
Gordon Downey's parliamentary inquiry; d) extracts from Downey's summing up
rejecting The Guardian's
allegations; and e) Alan Rusbridger's dishonest representation of Downey's
report as being a vindication of The Guardian's reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Grylls: 'Outlook The smoothly handsome face of hard Right economics and politics… linked to Ian Greer… warned of consequence of GEC take-over of Plessey (his friend, Ian Greer, was its lobbyist) July '86; …urged speedy take-over of BCal by British Airways (to whom he recommended his friend Ian Greer as its lobbyist) July '87; …approved Lord Young's refusal to refer House of Fraser take-over to MMC but opposed GEC/Siemens bid for Plessey (for whom Ian Greer was lobbying) Jan '88; …allowed unprecedented presence of lobbyist Ian Greer at meeting of Tories' Trade and Industry Committee Apr '89; …Consultant: Unitary Tax Campaign.. '79; Beneficiary of Ian Greer Associates, in connection with Unitary Tax Campaign for which he had until Apr '89 a 'research assistant' and a percentage (5%?/10%?) of business recommended '84 - '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from Andrew Roth's Parliamentary Profiles of Oct. 1989, implying that Michael Grylls MP supported Ian Greer's clients as a direct consequence of receiving commission payments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'In 1989 I first disclosed that Tory MP Sir Michael Grylls was taking an unregistered commission from Ian Greer for referring business to him… During the [following] investigation Ian Greer admitted that, in addition to Grylls, he had paid two other MPs. We now know for sure that Tim Smith was one.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from Andrew Roth's column in the New Statesman,
28 October 1994, referring to the resignation of Tim Smith MP the previous week following publication of
The Guardian's 'cash for questions' article accusing lobbyist Ian Greer of bribing Smith and
fellow Conservative MP Neil Hamilton.
From his reaction to Smith's resignation it is clear that Roth had surmised
that a) Smith had received a commission from Greer and b) the commission was really a bribe to table questions. In fact, Tim Smith had not received a commission payment from Ian
Greer - though
The Guardian would not discover this until late September 1996, ten days before Neil Hamilton's and Ian Greer's libel actions were due to
begin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There is first of all the question of whether the £6,000 was in fact a commission… While undoubtedly convenient for Mr Hamilton (and also Mr Greer) to be able to present this payment as an "introductory commission" it is questionable if it was, indeed so… Even if it was a commission (which we dispute), it is downright dishonest of Mr Hamilton to say that he did nothing on behalf of UST in return for the fee he received or that anyone could imagine that his lobbying activities on behalf of the company were uninfluenced by the money he received… Despite this clear warning from the Registrar, Hamilton deliberately concealed from the registrar his cheque for £6,000 from Greer in July 1989. As we have seen he now maintains this cheque was an "introductory commission" (though we dispute this). Even if it was a commission, there was no question that it related to membership of the House."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from Alan Rusbridger's submission to Sir Gordon Downey's inquiry into
The Guardian's 'cash for questions' allegations, dated 10 February 1997.
Rusbridger read this into the record later that same day when he, David Leigh, David Hencke, and Peter Preston
testified to the inquiry, accompanied by solicitor Geraldine Proudler and barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC.
Four months earlier, just ten days before Hamilton & Greer's libel actions
had been due to begin,
The Guardian had discovered that Tim Smith had not, in fact, received a commission,
but that the third MP who had was Michael Brown, who hadn't had any involvement in Fayed's battle to retain Harrods. However, in the hope that he can make the charge stick Rusbridger presses Downey repeatedly to accept the contention that the support Hamilton had given another company, United States Tobacco (UST), was linked to UST's
subsequent decision to engage Ian Greer Associates as its lobbyist.*
*[Ian Greer Associates was one of three lobbying firms recommended to UST by Michael Brown with Hamilton's endorsement. When UST selected Greer from the three, Greer split a commission payment between the two MPs].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lie No. 9 concludes overleaf (absolute whopping lie coming up)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This web page is situated in Guardianlies.com/Section
Three: The Guardian's liars and their lies
Help promote this website with a donation from as little as £1 or $1 -
and spread the word
|
|