Main Index to all Sections

Index to:
The Little Book of Bell

When he woke up the next morning of Monday 7 April, 1997, Martin Bell was a troubled man. He recalled his feelings as being akin to a fugitive's, as the enormity of it all began to dawn on him. 'What am I doing?' he again asked himself. But the bandwagon was already rolling and it had picked up far too much speed by then for Bell to get off.
    So Bell made more phone calls to the Labour and Liberal Democrats, who between them gave him some of his most important advice of the campaign. He was told that, if he made clear that he was standing for one term only, the Conservative voters in Tatton who were inclined to believe that there was 'no smoke without fire' would be far more likely to switch. It was speculated that this pledge alone would be worth an extra 10,000 votes.
    Then, just four days after his intervention was prompted by Stoddart over a meal; with little or no idea of what the allegations against Neil Hamilton were; and with absolutely no idea of what Hamilton's explanations were, Martin Bell made his way to the Institute of Civil Engineers, Westminster, where the Labour Party had booked a room for his Press conference.
    As the cameras stared; as his misgivings made him almost nauseous, Martin Bell announced before a packed room that he was to stand in the general election as an 'independent' anti-corruption candidate against Neil Hamilton. A journalist pointed out that the £375 it cost to hire the room had been paid for by the Labour Party. Bell promised to pay them back. The airing of his links with the Labour Party made him feel worse.
    Meanwhile, The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, knew that, as Downey's Report into the allegations against Hamilton had not been released, neither Martin Bell, nor the opposition parties would be able to cite The Guardian's 'cash for questions' allegations in their battle against Hamilton and the Conservatives. In fact, few of the allegations under consideration could be cited prior to Downey's report being released.
    In master-class propagandist style, The Guardian set aside a whole page of the next day's issue for a feature against Neil Hamilton. In order to create an impression that Hamilton had already admitted serious 'wrongdoing', Alan Rusbridger authorised that other matters, which Hamilton had disclosed freely, should be twisted and misrepresented to create all sorts of 'misdemeanours' to which The Guardian then claimed Hamilton had 'admitted'.
    These were then mixed together with other untrue and misleading statements and barefaced lies. In total, thirteen 'individual' charges were produced, which were concocted by Rusbridger's brother-in-law and 'Sleaze' author, David Leigh. The item in question can be found on page 17 of the 8 April 1997 issue of The Guardian, titled: 'Neil Hamilton: the evidence'. If there is ever a Public Inquiry into the 'cash for questions' affair, it will be interesting to see Alan Rusbridger and David Leigh held to account for this article, for it must be one of the worst examples of peacetime journalism ever.  That they had intended to mislead can be ascertained from the way that two quotations had been juxtaposed of at the top of the page. The one on the left had been taken from Mohamed 'Al' Fayed's secretary, Iris Bond, whilst the one on the right was ascribed to Neil Hamilton. They were placed side-by-side and typeset surrounded by white space as laid out below. They are reproduced exactly (i.e. the square brackets are The Guardian's):

From their content and position, any rational person would deduce that Neil Hamilton regretted not registering Fayed's cash. Well, it would certainly seem so from the two statements. Except that they relate to totally different issues.
    The statement on the left, by Fayed's secretary Iris Bond, supposedly 'corroborates' the allegation that Hamilton had taken 'cash in brown envelopes'.
    The statement on the right, supposedly by Neil Hamilton, does not refer to cash for questions at all - Hamilton has denied vigorously all such allegations from the start. Hamilton states that this quote, if it is genuine (he is not sure whether The Guardian has simply invented it), could only have related to two commission payments he received from lobbyist Ian Greer, which a Parliamentary Committee had concluded in 1990 were perfectly in order.
    In fact, the only actual event that The Guardian could cite to damage Hamilton was his stay at the Ritz, which he and Christine had taken in September 1987 as part of Mohamed 'Al' Fayed's invitation to tour of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's home outside Paris. So, to put the worst possible spin on it, Rusbridger and Leigh used their favourite description: 'all-expenses-paid free holiday'.  No mention was made of the fact that Neil and Christine had stayed there only to augment their historical tour of the Windsors', nor that they had driven there when touring France on a motoring holiday. The impression given intentionally by The Guardian was that Fayed had flown out the Hamiltons for a holiday at the Ritz as an end in itself.

No mention was made either of the fact that, in 1987, MPs simply did not register private hospitality. No mention was made that many other MPs had visited the Windsors' and the Ritz two years later in December 1989, none of whom had registered their visits either.
    The fact is, when the Hamiltons stayed at the Ritz in 1987, MPs were not even required to register their remunerated outside business interests - still less private hospitality. Though it is true that MPs were encouraged to register their paid directorships and consultancies, this was entirely voluntary and left up to each individual MP, whilst private hospitality was not even an issue.
    If Hamilton had registered his stay, it would have been the first registration of private hospitality since the Register was set up in the early 1970s. However, following the negative Press coverage about the matter, so many MPs rushed to register hospitality that the Registrar had to publish an extra issue (the late Labour MP Bernie Grant, for example, registered seven previously-unregistered overseas trips, but this did not attract any Press comment even though the hospitality he received involved expensive flights to the West Indies).
    The fact that registration was deemed to be voluntary was acknowledged by The Guardian itself in an article written by hard-Left journalist Mark Hollingsworth published on 11 January 1990 - i.e. three years after Hamilton's stay - in which Hollingsworth stated, correctly: 'The Register for Members' Interest is voluntary and there are numerous loopholes'.

The Guardian concocted seven other 'charges' by the most tortuous and spun-out interpretation of the two commission payments Hamilton received when he introduced a client to lobbyist Ian Greer in 1987 and Greer was engaged by another, partly through his endorsement, in 1988. And every allegation had sub-clause after sub-clause to pad them out as much as possible. By the time Rusbridger and Leigh had finished repeating them in different forms, Hamilton's two commissions totalling £10,000 had been made to look like a veritable catalogue of corrupt payments totalling around £40,000 plus 'free' flights, 'free' garden furniture and a 'free' painting; plus related false allegations that Hamilton had lied to Michael Heseltine and fiddled his income tax.
    Meanwhile, as Bell's allies worked their black magic at The Guardian, Bell packed his bags and made his journey north again to Cheshire.

Chapter One

Chapter Two, Part Two