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.
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
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
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.
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.