Main Index to all Sections

The Press Association
Sub Index:

On 21 December 2000 Neil Hamilton lost his appeal to have quashed the jury's verdict in his failed (second) libel action the previous December.  It was the most recent setback for the former MP, in a saga that began with an article carried by The Guardian newspaper six years earlier.  The appeal had been mounted as a consequence of revelations in The Mail on Sunday of 13 February 2000 that, during the trial, Hamilton's adversary Mohamed Al Fayed had secretly purchased reams confidential legal papers stolen from the rubbish bins of Hamilton's barristers. 
    Following the announcement of Hamilton's failed appeal, the Press Association issued a bulletin purporting to chronicle the key events from 'The Hamilton affair'. 
    Below Jonathan Boyd Hunt analyses this bulletin with particular regard for three aspects: a) factual accuracy; b) completeness; and c) absence of bias.  Clearly, these should be essential components of any news bulletin, but especially one covering such a high-profile political controversy, issued by the news agency upon which Britain's news organisations depend.
    It is up to the reader to decide whether this bulletin bears out the Press Association's claim to provide accurate and impartial news on political issues; and whether the British media's dependency on this organisation serves the cause of justice and democracy; or whether instead George Orwell's nightmarish vision, in which the nation's conscience is manipulated by an institution called 'The Ministry of Truth', has indeed come true, but without anyone noticing.

The Press Association bulletin begins by omitting from its chronology one of the most significant events of the 'Hamilton affair':
    On 19 September 1994, the Egyptian proprietor of Harrods department store, Mohamed 'Al' Fayed, lost his appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to have quashed the 1990 Department of Trade & Industry report into his & his brothers' acquisition of Harrods.  This had been such a damning indictment of Fayed's character it prevented him thereafter from achieving his life-long quest for British citizenship.
    Within days of the announcement of his defeat in the ECHR, Fayed approached Prime Minister John Major through the editor of the Sunday Express, Brian Hitchen, and threatened to make corruption allegations against a number of ministers unless Major withdrew the DTI report and granted him a British passport.  John Major refused to accede to either of Fayed's demands. 
    Two of the ministers whom Fayed subsequently targeted were the two ministers who had dealings with the same DTI report that he had just failed to quash: Michael Howard and Neil Hamilton.  [Howard was the former Minister for Corporate Affairs who, in April 1987, recommended the appointment of the DTI Inspectors; Neil Hamilton inherited Howard's job in April 1992 and with it the responsibility for the report.  However, instead of responding to Fayed's calls to help his appeal against the government, Hamilton delegated responsibility for the DTI report to another minister.]
    The first event listed in the PA's chronology is actually the publication of The Guardian's cash for questions' article on 20 October 1994, four weeks after Fayed's defeat in the ECHR.  The lack of any mention of either: a) the ECHR ruling, b) Fayed's attempted blackmail of the Prime Minister, and c) Hamilton's ministerial position, leaves the reader ignorant of the very events that Hamilton claims had caused Fayed to develop an immense grudge against him.

Note 1: For a full understanding of these events digest the document in Section Two entitled "The concise true story of the 'cash for questions' affair".

Note 2: J B Hunt's analysis of the PA bulletin begins below.  The text in the large, bold typeface is that which is reproduced exactly from the bulletin, with certain words highlighted in red that are the subject of comment.  The analyses are written up beneath in the small, different, typeface.  'Important Events' that the PA has omitted from its chronology are inserted in square brackets, in small, italicised text.

Former Tory MP Neil Hamilton today lost his appeal against last year's crushing cash for questions libel defeat.  The cash for questions drama has dogged disgraced Hamilton for more than six years.

      Analysis:
      The use of the word 'disgraced' is pejorative and implies justification. 

October 20: The Guardian reveals that Hamilton, then a Department for Trade and Industry minister, had taken thousands of pounds from Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed in return for asking questions in the House of Commons. 

      Analysis:
      The use of the word 'reveals' is pejorative and implies that factual information had been brought to light about payments to Hamilton, rather than hotly disputed allegations unsupported by any evidence.  Furthermore, and in any event, The Guardian's story did not state that Hamilton had been paid by Fayed.  Indeed, the whole focus of the Guardian's story of 20 October 1994 was the lobbyist Ian Greer, whom The Guardian claimed Fayed had alleged had bribed MPs Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton to table questions; and that the lobbyist had recovered his outlay by invoicing Fayed between £8,000 and £10,000 per month depending on the number of questions tabled (the Guardian article is reproduced in Section Two of this website).  These allegations were hotly denied by Ian Greer as well as Hamilton, and would eventually be dismissed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, who cleared Hamilton, Greer and Smith of all the corruption allegations in The Guardian's story. 
      The PA bulletin also fails to mention that The Guardian's story voiced an allegation by Fayed that Hamilton and his wife had enjoyed 'free shopping' at Harrods.  Downey subsequently dismissed this charge too.
      The bulletin also fails to mention that there existed copious evidence, including discussion in Parliament, that Fayed had developed a massive grudge against the Conservatives over his blocked passport, and had a particular grudge against Hamilton for not helping him, and therefore a motive for inventing the allegations against Hamilton out of spite.

Junior Northern Ireland minister Tim Smith also took cash from Al Fayed in return for asking questions about his long-running financial battle with rival Tiny Rowland, the paper reports.  Smith resigns, saying he received money and did not declare it at the right time. Hamilton receives Downing Street backing to remain in office while he fights to clear his name.

      Analysis:
      The use of the word 'also' is pejorative and implies that it was an undisputed fact that Hamilton had done what Tim Smith had admitted to doing, which is not so.  Furthermore, Fayed did not claim that Hamilton had taken cash from himself until six weeks later on 5 December 1994; and when Fayed made these new allegations Hamilton denied them with the same fervour that he denied The Guardian's original allegations that he had taken money from the lobbyist Ian Greer. 
      Most importantly, it was also wrong to state that The Guardian had reported that Smith had taken 'cash from Al Fayed'.  Though Smith had indeed taken cash from Fayed, The Guardian's story did not allege this.  As with Hamilton, The Guardian had actually alleged that Smith had been paid by the lobbyist Ian Greer.  Smith denied being paid by Greer and Downey subsequently cleared Greer of paying Smith, and Hamilton, 'cash for questions', and cleared Greer of all allegations that he had given corrupt payments to MPs.  Though Smith actually resigned because he had taken cash from Fayed, The Guardian did not learn about this arrangement until late November.
      The comment 'Smith resigns, saying he received money and did not declare it at the right time', is therefore accurate, but juxtaposed to the preceding statements strengthens the false impression that The Guardian's story was true and that Smith had taken cash from Greer as alleged.  This false impression is bolstered by the bulletin's failure to mention the fact that Ian Greer and Neil Hamilton had issued libel writs against The Guardian within hours of the offending issue hitting the news stands.

The PA's unseen influence grows

Continues overleaf