Main Index to all Sections

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

Scott Trust trustee and former editor of The Guardian, Peter Preston

The Guardian's original 'cash for questions' story of October 1994 - accusing lobbyist Ian Greer of bribing MPs - was supported by Mohamed 'Al' Fayed's word only and published at a time when there was copious evidence that the Egyptian was angry over the Tory government's failure to grant him citizenship.
    Hunt & Keith-Hill's investigation unearthed a draft of a second article, discussed below, which was published the next day and written by former Guardian editor PETER PRESTON, which shows that Preston knew full well about Fayed's rage over his passport and that additionally Preston was aware that Fayed's ire had hit even greater heights just days earlier when he had had to pay a £5 million tax bill.
    Preston withheld this draft article illegally from Neil Hamilton & lobbyist Ian Greer's solicitors and Sir Gordon Downey's Parliamentary Inquiry.  Then, in his witness statements and evidence to Sir Gordon's Inquiry, Preston denied that Fayed was angry about his passport and he concealed all mention of Fayed's tax bill.  With breathtaking audacity Preston then attached to his lying witness statement his censored, published article (with all mention of the passport issue removed) as being proof that the passport issue was not an issue at the time!

'He [Mohamed 'Al' Fayed] did not strike me as having any particular sinister motive in telling me what he told me and, indeed, he did not seem to think it was much of a story…  I cannot speak for Mr Al-Fayed's motives, although I did muse about them in an article The Guardian published on 21 October 1994.'

Extract from Peter Preston's witness statement, dated June 1995 (in defence of the libel actions brought by Neil Hamilton and the lobbyist Ian Greer). 
    The article Preston refers to, which he wrote, entitled 'Anatomy of a Scandal', was published the day after The Guardian's 'cash for questions' story.  However, though Preston's article focused entirely on Fayed's possible motivation for making allegations, it contained no mention of Fayed's recent failed quest for British citizenship.  Preston attached this article to his witness statement and cited it as proof that the passport issue was not a live issue at the time and so could not have motivated Fayed to make his allegations against Hamilton out of spite.

'Now there's a further indignity.  Ali Fayed, the youngest of the brothers, would like to be a British citizen.  He has a British wife and three British children.  He applied for citizenship more than 18 months ago.  Civil Service clearance came through at the beginning of 1994, but nothing has happened, nothing has moved.  Whitehall, asked the question, says that a ministerial intervention has frozen all progress. 
     "It is quite clear we are being discriminated against", says Mohamed al Fayed, "At a time when the Government is advertising to the world that anyone can have British citizenship as a formality, we are being treated as pariahs.  People in high places are settling old scores".
     This is not at all implausible.  The regiments of the Lonrho campaigns may have dispersed: but the old warriors are scattered throughout Government and the City and the fury of the fight clearly hasn't died away -- even though Mohamed and Tiny have kissed and made up in a theatrical reconciliation that might make them Nobel contenders.  A troubling question.  He can own Harrods without let or hindrance.  He can pay his taxes -- a personal cheque went to the Revenue for £5 million this week.  But he can't have a British passport.  Something odd here, surely?'

The extract above is taken from a draft of Preston's article.  Preston sent this to Harrods on 19 October 1994, together with a draft of David Hencke's 'cash for questions' article, for Fayed's authorisation prior to their publication.  Preston's draft shows that Fayed was indeed angry at the government for blocking his passport while at the same time requiring him to pay £5 million in tax. 
    Preston excised this entire passage a few hours before sending his article to press.  He did so after receiving libel writs from Ian Greer & Neil Hamilton following the publication earlier that morning of David Hencke's 'cash for questions' article.
    The Guardian and its lawyers then withheld Preston's draft article from Hamilton & Greer's solicitors in defiance of a court order requiring disclosure of all such matter, and implemented a strict silence thereafter about Fayed's rage about his passport and massive tax bill.

(Jonathan Boyd Hunt acquired Preston's draft article from a former Harrods employee)

(Comment: Preston's draft article is proof positive that at the time of the publication of Hencke's 'cash for questions' article Fayed was indeed angry about his passport, exactly as Neil Hamilton claimed, disproving Preston's signed statement to the contrary.  Preston is shown to have lied on a matter of fundamental importance to the question of whether Fayed corroborated The Guardian's story out of malice.)

Previous lie

Next lie