|
(Continued from overleaf)
George Gittos (continued)
Was this a significant view? Was it trivial, unimportant with no consequences? Clearly, any view that says our parliament is being misled - I cannot conceive of a more terrifying piece of information. I am a great lover of my country and a patriot, and I take enormous pride in our Parliament. I scratch about in history books trying to find the beginnings of that curious thing called the British parliament. As far as I can work out, it was some time during the reign of Henry III, who was short of a few bob and had to go to the Barons to get a few bob. They said, 'yes, but there are a few conditions.' From that moment on the English parliament grew. It is the root and the substance of our freedom, and any report of attack on it cannot be anything other than a significant view. Finally, there is the question of the period in which the controversy was active. It was active at the time when Jonathan was trying to get Granada Television to take account of his report that he had produced.
Let us look briefly at the report itself. I put the question, because clearly if it were some ne'er-do-well clown with some outlandish views you cannot reasonably expect Granada Television to be required to cover that. Was the piece of work thorough, and professional and competent? Well, there was, and there is a great boxful down there: six months' work by two journalists acting in tandem, and a further 12 months prior to the publication of the book, put in by Jonathan Hunt himself. Even if they got it wrong they spent time doing it.
Their work consisted of a detailed examination of the mass of documents from the first libel case. Originally the whole saga started with the publication by The Guardian, which made certain allegations; and the libel action by Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer. That had to be withdrawn for technical legal details that we do not have to go into. It produced a mass of documents. There is a further huge pile of documents produced by Sir Gordon Downey's Parliamentary inquiry, evidence from all sorts of people. They went through all that. They further went through every single - and I think it is 180 - different articles produced by The Guardian over the course of this time.
They went beyond what anybody else had done and interviewed a further nine interviewees who might have some contribution, but which Sir Gordon Downey's inquiry never saw fit to interview. He continued his investigation, and this is on the record in the book, in spite of intimidation. An employee was sent off to get the address of his partner's mother, who lived alone in Cornwall, and uncomfortable insinuations and threats - threats would be overstating it - statements were made to his partner who was then no longer in the country.
He himself was threatened by legal action by The Guardian; quite specifically: if you publish we will sue. At other times he was told that his career wouldn't go any further if he went ahead. On the day he published his book there was a deliberate smear published about him in The Guardian newspaper based on a mixture of false and partially true information about an unfortunate brush with the VAT people many moons ago. Clearly, this was a piece of work that continued over a long period of time, and I can only gasp at the persistence, determination and professionalism of the man that put it together.
Finally, a few notes about the author, rather than about the work. He was not a chap called George Gittos whom no-one has ever heard of; he was well known to Granada TV. He has reported and co-produced no less than 20 features for them. They knew him very well. For one of those features or programmes he was shortlisted, immediately prior to the publication of the book, as Granada TV Reporter of the Year. Clearly, he wasn't some hopeless bumbling clown who was going to make a shambles of it. He was highly thought of; indeed he was commended in glowing terms by Granada's Director of Programmes and endorsed by Granada's longest serving news anchorman. Jonathan Hunt is not some spare, noisy loudmouth outside, he was one of the most...or certainly a respected component - he wasn't directly an employee - within the Granada organisation. There is no evidence that I am aware of that he was or was likely to have been driven by any unworthy motive in bringing this complaint.
Finally, are there any mitigating circumstances? Did Granada know about the story? In these organisations, amazing things happen: 'we never knew about it?' In the appeal document, you will find on page 19 to 21 and also included in the original submission, a list of at least nine separate occasions - Jonathan Hunt was well known to them - that he brought his information to their attention and said 'this really is one hell of a story'. One of those was a full press conference.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt
Two.
George Gittos
Two.
Maybe they did not understand; maybe they did not grasp what they were dealing with? I put the question down, as I could not conceivably understand how anyone could not look at that information and grasp its importance. I am finally left with a rather uncomfortable feeling in my mind, and I end up wondering whether the company's strong links with The Guardian made them in effect and in some way a party to what one could only describe as something very close to a cover up. Many senior executives in Granada have strong links with The Guardian, and these are well known and on the record. Clearly, these sort of relationships are going to pose some sort of - well, you can't keep them out. They will have some role to play.
That is the end of my six points. We have looked at the nature of the complaint; I have gone through what the story actually is; we have gone over whether we think Granada has an obligation to cover the story; we have examined whether this piece of work was properly done, whether the author was a man of integrity and substance in his field, and we have wondered if there are any mitigating circumstances. I come back again to that obligation, which I quoted initially, that the Commission has an obligation to do 'all that you can' to ensure that the licensees observe due impartiality. I submit that we have shown that they have not in this case shown due impartiality. I respectfully submit that it is your task to require them to do so. It is not for me to say in what form you should do that; clearly, questions of a fine or smack on the wrist are not appropriate. If that damage has been done in the public arena, then the restitution must take the form of some kind of putting the record right. I would furthr submit that if you require such action from Granada, and that they do not conform, I would be tempted to conclude that they were not a proper person to hold a licence, and I would be tempted to exercise the authority that you have under the Act in that case.
That is my two penn'orth.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Chairman. George has set it out very clearly for me. I would like to go over a few points that I am sure you are not aware of about this political controversy, and that you should be aware of. The reason you are not aware is not because you as individuals are not intelligent, or not aware of the news, but because you have not been informed.
|
|
