Main Index

This website concerns Granada Television's censorship of a substantial independent investigation into the so-called 'cash for questions' controversy.  The investigation was conducted by my able colleague, Malcolm Keith-Hill, and myself, following Labour's general election landslide of 1 May 1997, as part of our preparations for a TV documentary proposal.
    One major factor in the Conservatives' annihilation was undoubtedly the issue of "sleaze", and the alleged corrupt exploits of the Tory MP for Tatton, Neil Hamilton.  However, when we examined Hamilton's responses to the Guardian's allegations we found that they had plausibility, whereas the evidence that the Guardian had produced to support its charges against him did not stand serious scrutiny.

As our research deepened it became clear that the Guardian had framed Hamilton in cahoots with Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed and others.  In short, we had stumbled across a major cover-up enacted by the Guardian to escape redress after it had published a false story accusing a leading lobbyist, Ian Greer, of corrupting a particular group of backbench Tory MPs, among whom Hamilton had figured. 
    Aspects of our investigation - including some of the proof of the Guardian's conspiracy - can be examined on my website Guardianlies.com.  In particular I recommend a reading of Sections Two and Three. 
    Coverup.net deals with a different issue - that of Granada's censorship of our investigation and the ITC's handling of my subsequent complaint of July 2000.

There are bound to be many people reading this who find it difficult to believe that they have not heard about our work from other sources, if what I am saying here is true.  Well, it is true, as the thousands of visitors who have examined the evidence posted on Guardianlies.com can testify.  The British media's silence on our work has more to do with a widespread reluctance within it to air evidence proving that the liberal Left's favourite newspaper is run by people who conspired to destroy innocent people whose politics they oppose, than it has to do with any flaws in our analysis of the evidence that led us to that conclusion. 

First of all, print out this page for reference (there is a text option at the top of the 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. 

For those who need to grasp quickly the essentials of my complaint against Granada TV, "Document 4: Summary of events..." provides the basic facts (this is the first of four documents that make up my submission to the ITC).  For those who have more time on their hands, "Document 7: Full letter of complaint" covers many other facets of our investigation, including certain aspects of the evidence we uncovered, plus details of a smear campaign waged by the Guardian against Keith-Hill and myself.

For an understanding of my complaint's merits with respect to Granada TV's and the ITC's duties under the 1990 Broadcasting Act, I suggest a reading of "Document 10: appeal document" (which is only available as a downloadable text document). 

"Document 11: Transcript of the ITC Appeal Hearing" records the presentations my colleague George Gittos and myself gave to an ITC sub-committee.  George in particular gave an excellent, well-structured speech that not only provides an entertaining read but also imbues the reader with a comprehension of the gravity of the issues involved.

The exchange of letters between ITC chairman Sir Robin Biggam and myself, beginning with "Document 12: Sir Robin's letter of 21 August 2001", which followed the ITC appeal hearing, provides an understanding of the ITC's and my own final stances prior to my High Court action. 

"Document 15: submission to the High Court" lists the core issues, which provided the basis for the skeleton argument I used during the hearing of 18 January 2002, at which I obtained permission to apply for Judicial Review of the ITC's dismissal of my complaint.  "Document 16: Statement of new Ground" quotes word-for-word the subsequent Order made by the Honourable Mr Justice Burton granting Judicial Review; whilst "Document 17: Statement of Facts", which I supplied subsequently in support of this second Ground, details the chronology of the requests for sight of Granada's response to my complaint that were made both to the ITC and Granada, to no avail. 

"Documents: 19 & 20: Reports of the High Court hearing" by the Press Association and the Press Gazette both give a fair summary of the proceedings, whilst Stephen Glover's comment in the Spectator certainly strikes a chord.

"Document 21: Extract from the ITC Code on 'due impartiality' " needs no explanation, save that the key sections cited in my complaint and application for Judicial Review are 3.4 "Major matters" and 3.5 "News".

"Documents 22-27: Parliamentary debates on the 1990 Broadcasting Bill" are interesting because these were responsible for the strengthening of the Broadcasting Act's "due impartiality" requirement, which provided the framework that led to the precise wording of the ITC Code upon which my complaint against Granada is based.  In my view the most relevant and interesting contributions are those that were made by Lord Wyatt, Lord Orr-Ewing, Baroness Cox, and Lord Annan. 

Finally, "Documents 28-43: Selection of fifteen Guardian articles" are the articles published in the Guardian that shadowed the passage of the "due impartiality" amendments in Parliament.  They demonstrate lucidly  the Guardian's concept of freedom of speech, centring as it does on a freedom for (Left-wing) journalists and broadcasters to suppress speech they don't agree with.

Whatever your reasons for visiting this website, I hope you find the material posted here informative and interesting.

Jonathan Boyd Hunt