|
The
events listed in Part One show:
1:
How rumours began circulating in Britain's press that London's top
lobbyist, Ian Greer, bribed MPs. It shows how the rumours began in 1984; how they received a boost in April 1989, and again in November 1989; resulting in
The Guardian's David Hencke —
the author of The Guardian's
original 'cash for questions' article of October 1994 —
taking his first identifiable interest in Greer in mid-January 1990.
The chronology then shows how
The Guardian's suspicions about Greer grew over the following two years —
until, eventually, on 22nd June 1993
The Guardian published a leading article by its chairman and columnist Hugo
Young, alleging that lobbyists were corrupting public life, followed by a Commons debate on lobbyists
on the 28th during which Greer was lambasted over his refusal to name two MPs
whom he had granted commissions.
2:
These Guardian articles and events,
together with important evidence mentioned at the end of this Part One, expose as a lie
The Guardian's claim that its investigation into Ian Greer of July 1993 had begun as a consequence of allegations proactively made by Mohamed
'Al' Fayed on 14 July 1993 during a meeting with the editor of the Guardian, Peter Preston.
This aspect of The Guardian's deception is important, and goes to the credibility of
The Guardian's portrayal of Fayed as a conscientious 'whistleblower' on corruption, for there is a fundamental difference
of credibility between a) Mohamed Fayed eventually endorsing
The Guardian's longstanding suspicions about Greer in a fit of rage over his
passport, which is what the evidence shows actually happened; and b) Mohamed Fayed
approaching The Guardian to proactively blow the whistle on Greer over a year
before the passport had become an issue, which is what The Guardian claims
happened.
3:
This
Part One also contains summaries of the parliamentary activity that related to
Mohamed Fayed, during each of the years that such activity took place (i.e.
1985-1990 inclusive).
This documented activity of all MPs shows clearly
the lacklustre, sporadic support given to Fayed by Neil Hamilton, including the
stark fact that Hamilton had not spoken up to support Fayed once in the Commons,
including parliamentary debates on the Egyptian’s ownership of Harrods.
These statistics undermine The Guardian's story of 20 October 1994
alleging that Neil Hamilton had tabled 5 questions at £2,000 a time paid by the
lobbyist Ian Greer; and undermine further the allegations made by Mohamed Fayed
six weeks later that he himself had also paid Neil Hamilton £20,000 plus £8,000
in Harrods vouchers —
i.e.
a supposed bribes total of £38,000.
4:
In addition to the above, Part One also lists several other important events that provide an understanding of the issues surrounding
The Guardian's conspiracy.
|
|
