This is Guardianlies.com


Rough Guide to this Website

Main Index to all Sections

Introduction

This website is the product of research by my able colleague Malcolm Keith-Hill and myself, into a political controversy that dominated the British news in the 1990s - the so-called 'cash for questions' affair.
    The affair began in late 1994, when the liberal British newspaper, The Guardian, published a story accusing two Conservative ministers of taking bribes from London's leading lobbyist a decade earlier during the 1980s.
    Despite the severity of its allegations, The Guardian's story hung entirely on the unsupported testimony of just one of the lobbyist's clients - Harrods owner Mohamed 'Al' Fayed, whom the British Government had revealed in 1990 was a notorious liar, at which time The Guardian had castigated Fayed as a purveyor of 'cock and bull' stories.

Jonathan Boyd Hunt

    The story was false.  The Guardian had published it recklessly after Fayed had consented to the paper's request for a statement corroborating its long-held belief that the lobbyist bribed Tory MPs. But Fayed had given his blessing to The Guardian's invented tale out of malice, on the very same day that he had to pay an outstanding tax bill of £5 million to the same Tory government whose Prime Minister had recently spurned his demands for British citizenship.

When the lobbyist and one of the MPs sued The Guardian for libel, for which The Guardian was uninsured, its editors, journalists, and lawyers enacted a cynical cover-up in cahoots with Fayed, and, two years later, three of Fayed's staff. In parallel, The Guardian used its influence as the British media's favourite newspaper to prosecute a massive propaganda war of bluff and bluster, causing confusion throughout Britain's agency-dependent news industry as to what its story was actually about.
    As a consequence of these activities and the plethora of lies its political journalists disseminated, The Guardian succeeded in corrupting the nation's conscience; perverting the function of the nation's institutions; and destroying its innocent victims.

Malcolm Keith-Hill

Many people reading this will find it difficult to believe that they have not heard about our work from other sources, if what I am saying here is true.  But the British media's silence on our work has more to do with a reluctance to air evidence proving that the liberal Left's favourite newspaper is run by unethical journalists who mistakenly accused innocent people whose politics they opposed, and conspired to escape redress, than it has to do with any flaws in our analysis of the evidence that led us to that conclusion. 

How to use this guide to prove The Guardian's cover-up, step-by-step


First of all, print out this Rough Guide for reference (like all documents on this website, there is a text button at the top of the first page).  Then return to the "Main Index" page, and from there go to "Map of website and text documents" where every document on this website can be accessed. 
    Then, by referring to the printed version of the Guide, you will be able to select and digest the documentary evidence step by step, until you establish beyond doubt that The Guardian enacted an audacious cover-up to escape redress after publishing an unsupportable story accusing a lobbyist of bribing MPs.

A good place to begin is Section Six, focusing on Mohamed Al Fayed.  The document entitled "Extracts from early press reports on the Fayed brothers' wealth & past" shows how, following the Fayed brothers' bid for Harrods store combine House of Fraser in Nov. 1984 British newspapers reported Mohamed's lies about their background and wealth as fact (including, initially, even The Observer, which was owned at that time by Fayed's business rival, Tiny Rowland).  In Section Six there are also 56 newspaper articles on the Fayeds' purchase of Harrods.  These show how, following the deal, certain papers aired doubts about the Egyptians' claimed wealth only to fall silent upon being threatened with writs; while other newspapers continued to support the Fayeds even when hard evidence was later aired in The Observer showing how they had acquired the company fraudulently.
      The document entitled "Extracts from the 1990 DTI report on the Fayed brothers' fraudulent acquisition of Harrods" shows how Fayed told a plethora of lies to facilitate his purchase and then tried to hide his deception by telling scores of new lies to the government's inspectors.  Most importantly, the "10 Guardian articles on the DTI report" show how, following the publication of the inspectors' report, The Guardian's editor described Mohamed Al Fayed as a liar who told stories of the 'cock and bull' variety.

In Section Two there is a line-by-line study of The Guardian's original cash for questions article of October 1994 accusing the lobbyist Ian Greer of bribing MPs.  Entitled "The Guardian's original 'cash for questions' article - dismembered", this study reveals that The Guardian's article depended entirely on Mohamed Al Fayed's word.  This raises an obvious question: "Why would The Guardian accuse a lobbyist of bribing MPs, when the allegation depended on the word of a man whom The Guardian had castigated as a liar, who wasn't even privy to the supposed transactions and therefore in no position to prove anything anyway?". 
    To solve this conundrum digest the document in Section Two entitled "The concise true story of the 'cash for questions' affair".  In order to keep this document succinct there is necessarily reliance on interpretation from hundreds of facts and events.  These facts and events are laid out chronologically within the five-part, 22,000-word document, entitled: "The Brainwashing of a Democratic State".  This document proves that The Guardian's entire 'cash for questions' campaign was, in fact, an invention. 
    Also in Section Two is my letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, who investigated the affair.  (Downey dismissed all The Guardian's allegations but stated that the last-minute, evidence-free, 'corroboration' of three Fayed employees, who claimed to have processed cash bribes to one of the accused MPs, Neil Hamilton, amounted to "compelling evidence".  My letter reveals the perversity of Downey's reasoning and also provides a thumbnail sketch of The Guardian's conspiracy.)

Finally, in Section Three there are eleven "Guardian Lies".  These contain juxtaposed extracts from various documents that prove some of the principal lies propagated by The Guardian's editors and journalists.  These lies prove that The Guardian enacted a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice of two libel actions and a major Parliamentary Inquiry, to escape redress after printing its false story accusing a successful lobbyist of bribing MPs.

QED

Other documents in Sections One, Four, and Five, explain how The Guardian was able to use its influence over the British media to escape detection and have its false story accepted throughout the entire nation.

I hope that you find the facts and information posted on this website fascinating, and that you are appalled by what you learn in equal measure.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Boyd Hunt

Help promote this website with a donation from as little as £1 or $1 - and spread the word