Main Index to all Sections

Section Three Index:
The Guardian's liars and their lies

'A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly.  Its primary office is the gathering of news.  At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted.  Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong.  Comment is free, but facts are sacred.  "Propaganda," so called, by this means is hateful.'
    So famously wrote The Guardian's celebrated editor, C. P. Scott, in The Manchester Guardian of Thursday 5 May 1921.  If only his words were still honoured, for the evidence discussed in the previous pages and elsewhere on this website shows that The Manchester Guardian has all but abandoned any pretence at factual reporting and instead has become the undisputed king of disingenuous spin, smear, omission, and falsehood.
    Even so, The Guardian still promotes itself as the natural organ of liberal conscience.  Indeed, since Hunt & Keith-Hill first released their interim report in October 1997 The Guardian has enacted a series of initiatives in an effort to portray itself as Britain's most honest, accountable newspaper.  They include the appointment of an Ombudsman and a Readers' Editor; the introduction of a "corrections column"; and the drafting of several journalists' ethical codes.  However, despite these initiatives, the stark, indisputable facts discussed here show that The Guardian is anything but accountable, and, moreover, that it acts as a nasty, dishonest, bully.  These are indeed the facts.  And, as C.P. Scott rightly said, "Comment is free, but facts are sacred".

'Mr Rusbridger said his paper had appointed an independent readers' editor and was to introduce a corrections and clarifications column in its quest for accountability… '

Taken from an article entitled 'Editor urges press honesty', which appeared in the Guardian-owned Manchester Evening News on 1 November 1997, just three days after the publication of a detailed report into the 'cash for questions' affair by Jonathan Boyd Hunt & Malcolm Keith-Hill (Five weeks earlier Keith-Hill had made three requests for interviews, all of which The Guardian stonewalled.)

'As you know, since May last year I have been investigating, with Malcolm Keith-Hill, the so-called 'cash for questions' affair…  Apart from yourself, I wish to interview: David Hencke; David Leigh; John Mullin; David Pallister; Peter Preston and Michael White…  I look forward to your reply.'

Taken from Jonathan Boyd Hunt's fax of 30 January 1998 to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.  Rusbridger replied the next day rebuffing Hunt's request for an interview.

'I reiterate my request for interviews with: yourself; David Hencke; David Leigh; John Mullin; David Pallister; Peter Preston; and Michael White…  I look forward to your early reply.'

Taken from Hunt's fax of 3 February 1998 to Alan Rusbridger.  Rusbridger replied the next day rebuffing Hunt's request.

'Once more, I reiterate my request for interviews with David Hencke; David Leigh; John Mullin; David Pallister; Peter Preston; and Michael White…  my book on the 'cash for questions' affair -Trial by Conspiracy -will be published later this year.  It is my view that you should not deny access to your staff thus preventing them from addressing certain issues.'

Taken from Hunt's fax of 5 February 1998 to Rusbridger.  Rusbridger did not reply.

'You should be clear that The Guardian does not consent to repetition of the original defamatory allegations made in your report…  We note, from a recent magazine article, that your book is to be published later this year.  We trust that the publisher is aware of our concerns.'

Taken from a letter dated 9 March 1998, from The Guardian's head of legal affairs, Siobhain Butterworth, to Jonathan Boyd Hunt.

'However, in the absence of any consent from The Guardian to give interviews, as far as I am concerned it then becomes just as important that I can demonstrate my many attempts to secure interviews prior to the book being published.  This being such an opportunity, I repeat my request to interview David Hencke; David Leigh; John Mullin; David Pallister; Peter Preston; and Michael White. 
    You may rest assured that my publisher is aware of The Guardian's concern about the allegations contained in early drafts of our report.  You may also rest assured that the allegations in my book will be no less severe.  ..they will be along the lines of:

"A major conspiracy involving the fabrication and misrepresentation of evidence, and the giving of false testimony both orally and in writing to the Downey Inquiry.. to create the false impression that Mohamed Al Fayed made his cash and gift voucher allegations against Neil Hamilton in July 1993, rather than at the time that the European Court of Human Rights rejected Mohamed Al Fayed's application to have the damning DTI report quashed, which was in September 1994.  The book will show that Fayed made his cash and gift voucher allegations against Neil Hamilton at the time of the ECHR ruling out of spite, because, as Minister for Corporate Affairs at the DTI, Neil Hamilton was perfectly positioned to help Fayed, but did not."  '

Taken from Hunt's reply to Siobhain Butterworth, dated 11 March 1998.

Previous lie

Lie No. 10 continues overleaf (yet another massive lie coming up)