DIAL M FOR MORGAN

June 29, 2015

PIERS_MORGAN_part_4

FOR THE last four years Piers Morgan has been desperately trying to distance himself from the phone hacking scandal.

Twice he’s been interviewed under caution by detectives investigating phone hacking at the Daily Mirror when he was editor from 1995 to 2004.

Between 2001 and 2009 he made a series of incriminating statements widely interpreted as evidence he knew all about the practice.

Two of his protégés — Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks — have appeared in the dock at the Old Bailey.

Coulson went to gaol: Brooks was acquitted.

Morgan now insists he knew nothing:

“For the record … I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone.”

But a Press Gang investigation reveals 

— as early as 1997, the Daily Mirror was paying for “confidential enquiries” about telephone numbers

— in 1998 the paper was openly hacking the mobile phones of senior politicians

— a year later it spent nearly £6,000 on illegally obtained print-outs of calls made on individual phones 

The evidence suggests the “dark arts” of illegal news-gathering — including phone hacking — were at the heart of Daily Mirror editorial policy when Morgan was editor. 

♦♦♦

WHEN HE appeared on Desert Island Discs in 2009, Piers Morgan was challenged about phone hacking.

Presenter Kirsty Young asked him about dealing with people who listened to phone messages.

“People who tap people’s phones … how did you feel about that?”

Morgan didn’t deny the allegation:

“I’m quite happy … to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to …”

“I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do.”

But after the revelation in July 2011 that Rupert Murdoch’s journalists had hacked murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s mobile phone, he changed his tune.

BUGGERS PIERS MORGAN and his friends Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson at the height of their power in 2004. Morgan edited the Mirror, Brooks The Sun and Coulson the News of the World. All three tabloids were hacking phones at that stage. Coulson and Brooks — long-term on-off lovers — were tried at the Old Bailey in 2014. Brooks was acquitted but Coulson was gaoled for 18 months. Picture: Richard Young / REX

BUGGERS
PIERS MORGAN and his friends Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson at the height of their power in the early 2000s. Morgan edited the Mirror, Brooks the Sun and Coulson the News of the World. All three tabloids were hacking phones at that stage. Coulson and Brooks — long-term on-off lovers — were tried at the Old Bailey in 2014; Brooks was acquitted but Coulson was gaoled for 18 months. Piers Morgan was by far the most experienced of the three: he had been Coulson’s boss at the Sun’s show business column in the early 1990s and gave Rebekah Brooks her first big promotion while he was editor of the News of the World
Picture: Richard Young / REX

When the American Daily Beast website resurrected his Desert Island Discs comments in 2011, Morgan insisted:

“For the record … I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone.”

But, in fact, the Daily Mirror had printed an article based on phone hacking more than a decade earlier.

It was just as mobile phones were taking off — and Piers Morgan had been Daily Mirror editor for more than two years.

Early in 1998 one of the paper’s journalists in Dublin realised it was possible to access messages left on the mobile phones of senior Irish politicians.

Reporter Karl Brophy — based at the Irish Parliament — proceeded to listen to messages left on the phone of the Irish leader, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.

He also successfully listened to messages left on the phones of other Cabinet ministers.

Brophy’s article — published as an “Exclusive” on Saturday, 18 April 1998 — went into great detail about how phone messages could be hacked:

“The phone tap can be operated by anyone who knows the number of the mobile phone they wish to listen in to.”

The article explained that mobile phones were sold with a standard password for stored messages that most people never changed.

“That means that anyone can listen in to another person’s messages by simply phoning into their electronic mailbox and dialling the digits 0000.”

CAPTION THE FRONT page story proving the Daily Mirror knew how to hack phones as early as April 1998. Reporter Karl Brophy provided a blueprint on how to listen to messages left on mobile phones. The article did not appear in mainland editions of the paper …

SMOKING GUN
THE FRONT page story proving Piers Morgan’s Daily Mirror knew how to hack phones as early as April 1998. Reporter Karl Brophy provided a blueprint on how to listen to messages left on mobile phones. The article did not appear in mainland editions of the paper …

“Once they have done this the hacker has unlimited access to all the messages.”

The article was accompanied by an editorial.

This stated:

“If Richard Nixon had lived in Dublin he would have had no need for Watergate.”

“Instead of teams of bungling burglars all he would have needed was a mobile phone to tap into the thoughts of his political rivals.”

The piece continued:

“The Irish Mirror discovered this amazing security breach and chose not to keep it under wraps.”

“It is to be hoped the gap has been plugged before some unscrupulous eavesdropper has used it for sinister [purposes].”

There was to be no phone hacking scandal in Ireland. 

♦♦♦

NOT A word of the story appeared in the mainland editions of the Daily Mirror.

This was despite the fact that several million people of Irish descent live in Britain — thousands of them Daily Mirror readers.

And the implications of the story for the British political establishment were obvious.

If British mobile phones were anything like their Irish counterparts, there was a potential security problem.

There were also strong connections between the Irish edition and the paper’s headquarters in London’s Canary Wharf.

DOMINIC MOHAN THE SUN editor told Lord Leveson about the Irish Mirror phone hacking story in 2012. But the Inquiry team did not enter the article into evidence — and Piers Morgan was never questioned about it.

SNITCH
SUN EDITOR Dominic Mohan told Lord Leveson about the Irish Mirror story in 2012. But the Inquiry team failed to understand its significance and didn’t enter the article as evidence — Piers Morgan was never questioned about it.  Back in May 2002 Mohan was editor of the Sun’s “Bizarre” column when he sarcastically thanked Vodaphone’s lack of security for the success of Piers Morgan’s show business coverage in the Mirror Photo: PA

The man in charge of the Irish Mirror was Craig Mackenzie, brother of Kelvin Mackenzie, Mirror Group deputy chief executive.

Kelvin Mackenzie was editor of the Sun when Piers Morgan started on the paper in the late 1980s.

Both Mackenzie brothers were friends of Morgan’s. 

Press Gang spoke to Karl Brophy last week.

He said he wrote the story at a time when mobile phones were taking off.  

“When you got your phone in those days it clearly … told you to change your PIN immediately,” he said.

“The thing was that most older people didn’t bother.”

“So, one day, I just started phoning mobiles of politicians and seeing if they had changed their PINs.”  

“A lot hadn’t so I changed all the PINs of the ones who hadn’t to a single four digit number so nobody else could listen in.”

“I thought the fact that voice messages … of government ministers and advisers could be so easily accessed was rather serious – especially considering where we were in 1998 with the Peace Process …”

In fact, the historic Good Friday agreement had been signed a week earlier.

All the ministers Brophy hacked immediately changed their PIN numbers after he told the government what he’d done. 

♦♦♦

FIFTEEN MONTHS later the Daily Mirror in London were told about security problems with mobile phones.

Welsh sales manager Steven Nott rang the paper in August 1999 about a flaw in Vodaphone’s system.

He talked to Mirror special projects editor Oonagh Blackman. 

He told her that if people did not change the standard Vodaphone 3333 PIN number, anyone could dial in and listen to messages. 

Nott claims that, initially, Blackman was enthusiastic but after 12 days told him the paper wasn’t interested.

The paper later sent him a £100 cheque with a statement saying it was in relation to “mobile phone scandal.” 

Nott later told the Leveson Inquiry:

“I accused the Daily Mirror of keeping the phone hacking method for their own purposes.”

But, in addition to the Irish Mirror story, there’s evidence the paper’s journalists were already deeply involved in the “dark arts” of illegal news-gathering, including phone hacking.

♦♦♦

CENTRAL TO this operation was senior reporter Gary Jones and his dealings with a corrupt firm of private detectives.

Jones had been News of the World crime reporter when Piers Morgan edited the Sunday tabloid in 1994-1995. 

Jones won the Press Gazette Reporter of the Year award in 1995 for his scoops.

One of the most dramatic was a story about anonymous calls being made by Princess Diana.

This was also one of the key stories in Piers Morgan’s career — it impressed Rupert Murdoch who liked big, international controversies.

Especially if it also involved an attack on the British establishment he despised.

GARY “DARK ARTS” JONES THE SENIOR Daily Mirror journalist was the paper’s mastermind when it came to illegal news-gathering. He’d been the News of the World’s crime reporter when Piers Morgan edited the Sunday paper in 1994-1995. Jones — who has featured in many Press Gang articles —  does not answer our emails.  

GARY “DARK ARTS” JONES
A KEY LIEUTENANT throughout Piers Morgan’s editorship, Jones was the Mirror mastermind when it came to illegal news-gathering. He’d been the News of the World crime reporter when Piers Morgan edited the Sunday paper in 1994-1995. Jones — who has featured in many Press Gang articles —  does not answer our emails.

This worldwide exclusive was based on a leaked investigation report from Scotland Yard.

Press Gang — in the article Whodunnit? — revealed Piers Morgan almost certainly authorised an enormous payment to a recently retired senior police officer for access to the report.

The sum is believed to have been in the hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Piers Morgan was appointed Daily Mirror editor in 1995 and Gary Jones joined him the following year.

Documentary evidence shows that by October 1997 Gary Jones was responsible for organising much of the paper’s clandestine operations.

Jones was using the controversial detective agency Southern Investigations to illegally access information. 

The agency had also been working for the News of the World from the late 1980s — including the period Piers Morgan was editor.

The firm was run by private eye Jonathan Rees.

Rees had been a suspect in the murder of his partner Daniel Morgan in 1987.

JONATHAN REES THE PRIVATE eye who provided the Daily Mirror with a hoard of confidential information. He stood trial for the murder of his partner Daniel Morgan but the trial collapsed in 2011.  A fuller account of his activities can be found in the Press Gang series The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency.  Photo: PA 

CORRUPT DETECTIVE
THE PRIVATE eye Jonathan Rees who provided the Daily Mirror with a hoard of confidential information, much of it obtained from bent police officers. He later stood trial for the murder of his partner Daniel Morgan but the case collapsed in 2011.  A fuller account of his activities can be found in the Press Gang series The No 1 Corrupt Detective Agency
Photo: PA

Daniel Morgan’s place as Rees’ partner was taken by former Scotland Yard detective sergeant Sid Fillery. 

Fillery had been part of the homicide team investigating the murder until his superiors realised he was a friend of Rees.

Southern Investigations provided Gary Jones and the Mirror with one scoop after another.

The evidence comes from a secret operation — Two Bridges — mounted by anti-corruption detectives at Scotland Yard.

They bugged the offices of Southern Investigations and, in September 1999, raided the firm and many of its network of informants. 

From the files generated by this operation, Press Gang has already shown that 

— in September 1998 phone hacking may have played a part in an exclusive about news presenter Kirsty Young’s new relationship with millionaire businessman Nick Young. In our story Down In The Gutter we showed that Southern Investigations followed Young over several days. The paper’s reluctance to publish the story straight away suggests the original source of the story may have come from phone hacking ,,,

KIRSTY YOUNG WHEN THE presenter interviewed Piers Morgan in 2009, he appeared to admit the Daily Mirror had been involved in phone hacking. What Young didn’t know is that she had been a target of the Daily Mirror in 1998 when she began a new relationship. The story may have resulted from phone hacking …  Photo: PA

KIRSTY YOUNG
WHEN THE Desert Island Discs presenter interviewed Piers Morgan in 2009, he appeared to admit the Daily Mirror had been involved in phone hacking. What Young didn’t know is that she’d been a target of Piers Morgan’s paper in 1998 when she began a new relationship. The story may have resulted from phone hacking … 
Photo: PA

— in October 1998 Gary Jones and Oonagh Blackman published an article revealing the confidential mortgage details of members of the committee which set interest rates. In our article Assault On The Bank Of England we showed that Southern Investigations had illegally “blagged” the information from banks and building societies. The firm sent one set of doctored invoices to the Daily Mirror accounts department but Press Gang obtained a confidential statement sent to Gary Jones marked “For Your Information Only” which reveals the true nature of the operation.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Invoices generated by Southern Investigations were usually heavily disguised.

“Confidential enquiries” was the phrase used to cover up illegal activity ordered by Gary Jones on behalf of the Mirror.

Four of these invoices include parts of telephone numbers.

The first was in October 1997 — long before the Irish Mirror published its piece.

Southern Investigations was billing Jones for “confidential enquiries” relating to a telephone number showing just the dialling code 01480 (Huntingdon). 

In 1998 there were three more invoices — again with only part of the number given.

The sums involved — around £300 each — suggest these “confidential enquiries” involved print-outs of calls made from the numbers.

Southern Investigations had people inside phone companies who made copies of itemised phone calls.

Just how corrupt the relationship between Gary Jones and Jonathan Rees actually was is shown by a dramatic row which took place in July 1999. 

♦♦♦

IT’S TUESDAY, 6 July 1999 at the offices of Southern Investigations in Thornton Heath, South London.

Jonathan Rees is busy.

Some of his work is legitimate routine bread and butter stuff like serving writs and tracing people.

But increasingly his time is taken up with obtaining confidential information and selling it to newspapers like the News of the World and the Mirror Group. 

Unknown to him, every word he says today will be recorded.

A bug has been planted in the building by anti-corruption detectives from Scotland Yard as part of Operation Two Bridges.

Two Bridges has two aims.

One is to generate information about the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987.

The second is part of an attempt to prevent Southern Investigations from corrupting police officers.

An internal Scotland Yard document — later leaked to the BBC Home Affairs correspondent Graeme McLagan — spelt out the concerns.

Rees — and his partner, ex Metropolitan Police detective Sid Fillery:

“.. are alert, cunning and devious individuals who have current knowledge of investigative methods and techniques which may be used against them.”

SID FILLERY THE FORMER Scotland Yard detective — charged with perverting the course of justice in connection with the murder of Daniel —  was discharged in 2010. By then, though, Fillery already had a criminal record — he was convicted of making and possessing indecent images of children in 2003. He now helps run the Lion public house in the village of Thurne in the Norfolk Broads. Photo: PA 

“CUNNING AND DEVIOUS”
A CHARGE against former Scotland Yard detective Sid Fillery — perverting the course of justice in connection with the murder of Daniel Morgan— was dropped in 2010. By then, though, Fillery already had a criminal record — he was convicted of making and possessing indecent images of children in 2003. He now helps run the Lion public house in the village of Thurne in the Norfolk Broads.
Photo: PA

“They use some of the techniques in their own daily activities.”

“Such is their level of access to individuals within the police, through professional and social contacts, that the threat of compromise to any conventional investigation against them is constant and very real.”  

But on that Tuesday — 6 July 1999 — Rees is oblivious to the fact that his office is bugged.

When he rings Gary Jones at the Daily Mirror to discuss invoices, he believes the conversation is private.

Rees says he’s faxing through a full list of invoices for the work done for the Mirror Group (including the MirrorPeople and the Sunday Mirror) that year.

The total is £16,991 for the five months. 

The list includes nearly £6,000 for the illegal supply of itemised print-outs of calls made from phones. 

Rees says

“… when it comes through you’ll see the invoice, with lots of stars next to them, and roughly billed at about £300 odd — which is print-outs.“

Rees tells Jones there are 19 of these print-outs with the initials of the reporters who ordered them, with “G.J. being you.”

Later that day Rees and Jones have another discussion about the lack of detail on the invoices relating to these print-outs.

Jones is under pressure from the paper’s accounts department to provide more information on the Southern Investigations invoices.

Rees loses his temper:

“Well they are printouts …”

“ … this is tiresome, fucking tiresome …”

“ … we are not going to put the numbers in there because what we are doing is illegal …”

“ … I don’t want people coming in and nicking us for criminal offence, you know.”

When this conversation takes place, Gary Jones is sitting at his desk in the Daily Mirror newsroom on the 22nd floor of the skyscraper at Canary Wharf.

A few yards away is the editor’s corner office.

Can Piers Morgan have known absolutely nothing about Gary Jones’ illegal activities?

♦♦♦

OPERATION TWO BRIDGES comes to an abrupt end in September 1999.

The bug in Southern Investigations reveals Rees has a client fighting his estranged wife for custody of their child.

Rees agrees to organise a conspiracy with a corrupt police officer to plant cocaine in the wife’s car.

The plan is to saddle her with a drugs conviction — so proving her to be an unfit mother.

The police pounce on the conspirators.

Rees and the client are given seven year prison sentences.

The corrupt police officer is gaoled for five.

Sid Fillery is not involved. 

SURVEILLANCE OPERATION TWO BRIDGES officers photographed Jonathan Rees outside the offices of Southern Investigations in south London. Detectives were watching the building while others listened in on the bug secretly placed inside …  Photo: PA 

SURVEILLANCE OPERATION
TWO BRIDGES officers photographed Jonathan Rees outside the offices of Southern Investigations in south London. Detectives were watching the building while others listened in on the bug secretly placed inside … 
Photo: PA

When police closed in on the conspiracy, they also arrested many of those suspected of being involved in illegal news-gathering.

One of them was Doug Kempster, a reporter with the Sunday Mirror, part of the Mirror group.

An internal police report shows some senior police officers wanted a conviction:

“It is likely that journalists and private investigators who actively corrupt serving officers would receive a long custodial sentence if convicted.”

“There will be a high level of media interest in this particular investigation, especially when involving journalists.”

“The Metropolitan Police will undoubtedly benefit if a journalist is convicted of corrupting serving police officers.”

“This will send a clear message to members of the media to consider their own ethical and illegal involvement with employees of the Met in the future.”

Police submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service which decided not to charge the reporter.  

Kempster’s arrest sent shock waves around senior management at the Mirror Group.

But it did not stop illegal news-gathering at Piers Morgan’s Daily Mirror.

With Jonathan Rees in gaol, the paper turned to another private eye — Steve Whittamore.

By the time he was arrested for breaches of the Data Protection Act in 2003, the paper had spent at least £92,000 with the private eye.

In our article Whodunnit? we exclusively revealed that one of the Mirror reporters who apparently commissioned work from Whittamore was Tom Newton Dunn.

TOM NEWTON DUNN THE CURRENT political editor of The Sun, Tom Newton Dunn was a young Mirror reporter when he ordered an unlawful criminal record check. Photo: PA

TOM NEWTON DUNN
THE CURRENT political editor of The Sun, Tom Newton Dunn was a young Mirror reporter when he allegedly ordered an unlawful criminal record check.
Photo: PA

Today, he’s the political editor of The Sun.

In the early 2000s Dunn’s name was recorded by Whittamore as the Mirror contact for a criminal record check of a parliamentary candidate. 

This was Adrian Flook, who later became Tory MP for Taunton.

Newton Dunn does not answer our emails.

♦♦♦

IS IT possible Piers Morgan didn’t know what was going on at the Mirror when he was editor? 

During the Leveson Inquiry journalist James Hipwell gave evidence about phone hacking when he worked at the paper between 1998 and 2000.

Hipwell was a financial journalist and worked close to the paper’s showbiz reporters.

He said they hacked openly and frequently.

Hacking was “a bog-standard journalistic tool for gathering information.” 

He had no direct evidence Piers Morgan was involved but added: 

“I would say that it is very unlikely that he didn’t know it was going on …”

“The newspaper was built around the cult of Piers.”  

“He was the newspaper.”

‘Nothing happened at the newspaper without him knowing.”

When he gave evidence, Morgan was contemptuous of Hipwell.

Hipwell had been gaoled for six months for insider dealing in 2000 while working for the paper’s City Slickers column.

He bought shares in a company owned by Alan Sugar before they were tipped by the column.

JAMES HIPWELL A FORMER Daily Mirror financial reporter in the late 1990s, Hipwell says phone hacking was “bog-standard” among the paper’s show-business journalists. Piers Morgan claims Hipwell was not a credible witness because he had a grudge against him — but several judges preferred Hipwell’s testimony to Morgan’s …   Photo: PA

JAMES HIPWELL
A FORMER Daily Mirror financial reporter in the late 1990s, Hipwell says phone hacking was “bog-standard” among the paper’s show-business journalists. Piers Morgan claims Hipwell was not a credible witness because he had a grudge against him — but several judges preferred Hipwell’s testimony to Morgan’s …  
Photo: PA

The shares rocketed in value the next day.

Piers Morgan also bought shares but always insisted he didn’t know they were going to be the subject of a Mirror article.

In a statement to Leveson, Morgan wrote:

“I note that Mr Hipwell is a convicted criminal who changed his story on a number of occasions during the City Slickers investigation, in part to wrongfully implicate me.”

“I believe any testimony he gives to be inherently unreliable.”

Leveson, though, found Hipwell a credible witness:

“… the Inquiry does conclude that the practice of phone hacking may well have taken place at the Mirror titles at the time Mr Hipwell was working there …”

Leveson also questioned Piers Morgan about his comment after the 2007 gaoling of News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman for hacking royal phones.

Morgan had been Goodman’s editor at the News of the World in 1994-1995.

“… I feel a lot of sympathy for a man who has been the convenient fall guy for an investigative practice that everyone knows was going on at every paper in Fleet Street for years.” 

Morgan told Leveson he was talking about the “rumour mill” at the time — and that phone hacking wasn’t happening at the Daily Mirror.

Leveson was caustic:

“This was not, in any sense at all, a convincing answer.”

“Overall, Mr Morgan’s attempt to push back from his own bullish statement to the Press Gazette was utterly unpersuasive.”

♦♦♦

MORE AND more evidence is emerging about the “dark arts” at the Daily Mirror.

So far Operation Golding, the Scotland Yard operation into phone hacking at the Mirror Group, has seen 15 journalists — including Piers Morgan — questioned under caution. 

The investigation continues.

Scores of civil claims are also generating large amounts of information.

In May Mr Justice Mann ordered the Mirror group to pay eight victims a massive £1.2 million in damages.

MIRROR, MIRROR THERE ARE two Piers Morgans. Photo: PA

MIRROR, MIRROR
THERE ARE two Piers Morgans. There’s the brash tabloid editor with the big mouth who’s made a large number of comments making it clear he knew all about the “dark arts” when he was the paper’s editor. And then there’s the innocent journalist who claims he’s been misunderstood — he’s actually a high-minded, ethical editor. If these terrible things happened on his watch, he certainly didn’t authorise them …
Photo: PA / Graphic: Terry Evans, Wheelbarrow Studios

Six were victims of the Daily Mirror during Piers Morgan’s tenure — including the actress Sadie Frost and the footballer Paul Gascoigne.

The judgment also revealed that the Mirror papers:

“admitted paying over £2.25 million (in over 13,000 invoices) to certain named private eyes in the years from 2000 to 2007.”

Mr Justice Mann noted that the Mirror’s legal team acknowledged:

“that ‘an unquantifiable but substantial’ number of the inquiries made of the agents is likely to have been to obtain private information that could not be obtained lawfully.”

♦♦♦

© Press Gang
Published: 29 June 2015

♦♦♦

NOTES

1  Many of the examples where Piers Morgan is alleged to have made statements indicating he knew about phone hacking have been left out of this article. They are all well known and including them would have made the piece too long.

2  There are reporting restrictions in the recent civil case against the Mirror group. Mr Justice Mann ordered the names of several journalists should be redacted — apparently because they are the subject of active police inquiries.

3  A more detailed analysis of Mr Justice Mann’s decision will be included in a planned article — The Mirror: Crack’d From Side To Side — about the group’s disastrous management of the scandal.

4  Since the Mann judgment opens the way to everyone targeted by the Daily Mirror, a full list of all those whose names are included in the Southern Investigations invoices will be added to this post later. They include, for example, the environmental activist Daniel “Swampy” Hooper as well as scores of ordinary people …

♦♦♦

COMING UP 
A SLICKER FULL OF LIES
THE STORY of Piers Morgan’s involvement in the “Slickergate Affair” of 2000 makes sobering reading. There is evidence that Morgan sacrificed two of his journalists to save his own skin — and that senior Mirror Group managers were in on the plot. The attempt to spin the truth of what happened even involved lying to Lord Leveson …  Part five of A Pretty Despicable Man tells the story of a deliberate corporate cover-up  … 

 ♦♦♦

JOIN THE GANGBUSTERS …
THERE’S A need for a trustworthy website to expose rogue reporters. Press Gang is that outlet — fearless and fair. Join us by becoming a gangbuster and help pay some of our expenses. Just hit the button …

Donate Button with Credit Cards

CORRECTIONS
Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY
If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

Going spare

April 26, 2024

APR 18, 2024


NOTE
This article was originally published on the Press Gang Substack platform — to read posts as they are published you can sign up for a free subscription at
https://paddyfrench.substack.com

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Prince Harry is angry — and his latest legal move is a serious threat to Rupert Murdoch and former News of the World editor Piers Morgan. Did they pay a police officer for a sensational story about his mother, Princess Diana?

Rupert Murdoch has no love for the British royal family.

And Prince Harry hates Murdoch — he’s declared war on the press baron’s British empire.

In his autobiography Spare Prince Harry talks about the relentless pursuit of paparazzi throughout his life, especially two that he calls Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber.

Many of their pictures ended up in Murdoch papers:

They’d run alongside me, taunt me … Many paps wanted a reaction, a tussle, but what Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber seemed to want was a fight to the death.

They always seemed to know where he was. He discussed this with his brother William: “How do they know? How do they always know?”

Harry adds:

It was around this time that I began to think Murdoch was evil. No, strike that. I began to know that he was. First hand.

Once you’ve been chased by someone’s henchmen through the streets of a busy modern city you lose all doubt about where they stand on the Great Moral Continuum.

… I didn’t care for Murdoch’s politics, which were just to the right of the Taliban’s.

I couldn’t think of a single human being … who’d done more damage to our collective sense of reality. But what really sickened and frightened me … was Murdoch’s ever expanding circle of flunkeys: young, broken, desperate men willing to do whatever was necessary to earn one of his Grinchy smiles. 

And at the centre of that circle … were these two mopes, the Tweedles.

Last month the legal team representing Harry in his misuse of private information action against Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers, applied for permission to include articles from 1994 and 1995.

Up until now the court has only allowed articles published in 1996 and after.

One of the most significant of the new articles is a 1994 News of the World exclusive revealing the contents of a confidential Scotland Yard report confirming that Princess Diana had made anonymous phone calls to a friend.

At the time the paper’s editor was Piers Morgan and Rupert Murdoch was personally involved.

The story is important because the evidence suggests the report was unlawfully sold to the News of the World by a police officer.

If Harry is successful in persuading the court to allow this article to be included in the case, it may lead to new information revealing the name of the officer involved and the News of the World staff who authorised payment.

Even though the events are now nearly two decades old, there is no statute of limitations in relation to criminal offences.

It was a Press Gang article in 2014 that first drew serious attention to the story. This was Whodunnit …? — the first of a long series about the career of Piers Morgan called “A Pretty Despicable Man.”

What follows is an updated summary of this article, including new material. 

BATTLE ROYAL

In late 1993 the London art dealer, Oliver Hoare, a close friend of both Prince Charles and Princess Diana, reported a series of anonymous phone calls.

By January 1994 a police investigation discovered these calls were coming from numbers connected to Diana. The case was passed to Robert Marsh, head of the Metropolitan Police’s Royal Protection Squad.

Marsh’s wife Sandy Henney, a former Scotland Yard press officer, was assistant press secretary to Prince Charles.

Once he discovered that Diana was the source of the calls, Oliver Hoare declined to take the matter any further. The royal family were informed and the calls ceased.

All this took place in private. It was six months before the affair became public.

At the time, Charles and Diana were locked in an intense public relations battle in the wake of their separation.

In June 1994 Charles was interviewed on television by Jonathan Dimbleby. He admitted adultery.

In July Daily Express crime reporter John Twomey learnt about the anonymous calls and was preparing to splash the story.

The piece was spiked, apparently on the orders of Express chairman Sir David Stevens, a close friend of Princess Diana.

Almost immediately News of the World crime reporter Gary Jones got hold of the story. The detailed contents of the police investigation were read out to reporters.

Piers Morgan, the editor, ran the story as a “world exclusive”.

The day after the paper’s revelations, Princess Diana told the Daily Mail the story was false.

This sent Piers Morgan into a panic. In his memoirs The Insider he wrote that he couldn’t reveal that the paper’s story was correct “… without potentially exposing our source …” 

He added:

And what if the report is a forgery?

I felt sick to the pit of my stomach.

Almost immediately Rupert Murdoch was on the phone: 

Hi Piers, I can’t really talk for long but I just wanted you to know that your story is one hundred per cent bang on.

Can’t tell you how I know, but I just know.

The next day, the focus switched to the source of the News of the World story. Morgan wrote:

Everyone seemed to be blaming the police so I issued a statement saying it was categorically not a serving police officer, which is perfectly true.

Press reports suggested that at least a dozen officers had access to the report.

Met Commissioner Paul Condon ordered an internal probe into the leak but nothing was ever made public about the results.

Oliver Hoare, who died in 2018, spoke to Press Gang in 2014 on an off-the-record basis. 

He said he was told that there was only one copy of the report and that it was locked in a safe when not in use. 

BENT COPPERS

A month after the News of the World article, the Daily Mirror reported that Diana claimed the police report had been leaked to draw attention to her friendship with Oliver Hoare:

… humiliation heaped on the princess would counter any embarrassing revelations about Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles which might surface in a new book by Andrew Morton.

It was also clear she believed she was the subject of unlawful newsgathering: 

Even when no one knows where I am going in my car there are people waiting for me at the other end.

In October 1994 she voiced these fears to Scotland Yard’s deputy assistant commissioner, David Meynell, who was in charge of royal protection. 

Prince Harry, however, does not believe palace officials leaked the anonymous calls report to the News of the World.

In his recent application to include the article in his case, he says it “was based upon a police report that was unlawfully obtained” by private eyes. 

They acted as brokers between the paper and the police source. 

Allegations about bribing police officers have long been a feature of the unlawful news gathering scandal at the News of the World.

In March 2003 Rebekah Brooks — then Sun editor but previously features editor at the News of the World when the paper ran with the Princess Diana story — gave evidence before the Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport select committee.

Chris Bryant MP asked her if the Sun and the News of the World ever paid the police for information.

She replied:

We have paid the police for information in the past.

Two years later, in October 2005, another News of the World reporter — Mazher “Fake Sheik” Mahmood — admitted his involvement with corrupt detectives.

In a police interview he said:

I’ve got bent police officers that are witnesses that are informants.

Ends

RECOMMENDED

Article

Tom Lamont Prince Harry v the press Prospect, 2024

An inside account of the campaign that has shaped the legal actions against the Daily Mirror group and the Murdoch empire. It’s a long, 9,000 word piece focusing on the work of Dr Evan Harris, former Liberal Democrat MP turned press reformer. From a tiny office in Fleet Street, Harris and his associates marshal the information that helps to feed hundreds of legal actions.

Website

Byline Investigates 

Founded by former News of the World reporter Graham Johnson, Byline Investigates describes itself as “a team of journalists crowdfunded to cover stories that other media organisations won’t.” It specialises in stories about unlawful news gathering by the big tabloids — the Murdoch papers, the Mirror group and, increasingly, the Daily Mail

Book

Prince Harry Spare (Bantam, 2023)

A searing account of the royal renegade’s life, revealing his tortuous relationship with his father, King Charles, and his brother William, heir to the throne. A rare account of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of the ruthless tabloid press pack.

PRESS GANG

CORRECTIONS  Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY  If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

5 Likes

·

1 Restack

Comments

Top

Latest

Double standards 

A little known case reveals the full depth of Labour’s cynical treatment of Diane Abbott

APR 11

1

Scaremongers 

Gideon Falter and his Campaign Against Antisemitism are in the news this week for a publicity stunt that went wrong. They also claim two thirds of…

16 HRS AGO•

PADDY FRENCH

© 2024 Paddy French

Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice

Start WritingGet the app

Substack is the home for great culture

Scaremongers 

April 25, 2024

Gideon Falter and his Campaign Against Antisemitism are in the news this week for a publicity stunt that went wrong. They also claim two thirds of Britain’s Jews are considering leaving the country. The statistics tell a different story …

https://paddyfrench.substack.com/p/scaremongers?r=o41j8

This is the third of the new weekly Press Gang reports, published every Thursday evening.

Sign up to a free subscription to get the latest post as soon as it’s online. 

Double standards

April 19, 2024

A little known case reveals the full depth of Labour’s cynical treatment of Diane Abbott


NOTE
This article was originally published on the Press Gang Substack platform — to read posts as they are published you can obtain a free subscription at
https://paddyfrench.substack.com

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————

In a few weeks Diane Abbott will have been suspended by Labour for a year.

Her “crime” was to suggest that white Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience prejudice,” which she said is “similar to racism”.

“But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”

Abbott quickly withdrew the remarks and apologised.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, one of the groups which claims to represent many of Britain’s 300,000 Jews, said her remarks were “disgraceful”:

We have written to Keir Starmer expressing our deep concern and asking for the whip to be removed.

Starmer immediately suspended her from the Parliamentary Labour Party pending an investigation.

Abbott remains a party member but, like Jeremy Corbyn, now sits as an independent MP.

Now compare this draconian treatment with that of a Labour member who said of Abbott in December 2017 that “it’s about time she got put in a box with the lid fastened firmly”.

This story was broken by the Skwawkbox website.

The next day Skwawkbox reported that Andy Bigham, from Dudley in the West Midlands, had been suspended for making the comment .

What happened next, however, has never been reported in the mainstream media. 

The story began when a large number of complaints, starting in April 2016, were made about Bigham.

In December 2017, after these had been ignored by the party’s complaints team, there were new complaints about his “coffin” comment about Diane Abbott: 

One complainant argued that this “could be construed as a threat or instruction to carry out the threat”.

The previous year, in June 2016, fellow Labour MP Jo Cox had been murdered by a far right fanatic.

Despite the seriousness of Bigham’s comment, one complaints official initially noted:

“I don’t think this would be considered a death threat by the police or would warrant suspension”.

She added that “our advice would be a written warning and a reminder of our social media policy”. 

A more senior official then intervened: Bigham’s comment was “disgusting” — “leave it with me”. 

Bigham was then suspended.

The suspension lasted just two months. In February 2018, a complaints official lifted the suspension with a written warning. 

Over the following three months there were more complaints about Bigham’s apparent support for the Conservative Party. No action was taken.

In June 2018 there was another complaint which again included the Abbott “coffin” comment. An official said that, because this issue had already been investigated, the party would be “unable to look into this matter again”.

He added that the party does not

discourage members from posting their views or entering into healthy debates on social media.

It was not until a complainant went directly to general secretary Jennie Formby that action was taken. She said Bigham’s support for the Tories was grounds enough to withdraw his membership.

He was then auto-excluded.

(This account is based on the internal party report, The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2019which was leaked in April 2020. Pages 537-543.

Keir Starmer was asked if he accepted this version of events. He did not reply.)

Bigham’s “punishment” for calling for Diane Abbott to be placed in “a box with the lid fastened firmly” was a brief suspension and a written warning. 

Fast forward to March this year. When the Guardian revealed that businessman and Tory donor Frank Hester had said Diane Abbott “should be shot,” Starmer was quick to exploit the situation.

The Guardian quoted Hester’s comment in a meeting at the Leeds headquarters of his computer software company in 2019:

It’s like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV and you’re just like, I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she’s there, and I don’t hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot.

Hester has given the Tory party £10m, making him the party’s largest ever political donor. The Guardian calculated that government, NHS and local authorities had paid more than £440m to Hester’s companies since 2016. Hester, the sole owner, “collected dividends of £33.5m for the last five years for which accounts … are available.”

Hester told the paper he “accepts that he was rude about Diane Abbott in a private meeting several years ago but his criticism had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin”. The statement said Hester abhorred racism, “not least because he experienced it as the child of Irish immigrants in the 1970s”.

Hester’s remark caused a political storm. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak belatedly admitted the remarks were racist but refused to return the £10m Hester had donated.

When the issue was raised at Prime Minister’s Questions on March 13, Keir Starmer asked Sunak if he was:

… proud to be bankrolled by someone using racist and misogynous language when he said that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) ‘makes you want to hate all black women’?

Sunak replied that the “comments were wrong and they were racist. He has rightly apologised for them and that remorse should be accepted. There is no place for racism in Britain, and the Government that I lead is living proof of that.”

Starmer replied

Mr Speaker, the man bankrolling the Prime Minister also said that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington should be shot. How low would he have to sink, what racist, woman-hating threat of violence would he have to make, before the Prime Minister plucked up the courage to hand back the £10 million that he has taken from him?

However, despite nearly 50 attempts to catch Speaker Lindsay Hoyle’s eye, Diane Abbott was not allowed to speak.

This afternoon, a spokeswoman for Hoyle denied that his decision not to call Abbott was due to pressure from Starmer: 

No this is not true.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, the Speaker must select MPs from either side of the House on an alternating basis for fairness. This takes place within a limited time frame, with the Chair prioritising the 15 Members who are already listed on the Order Paper.

On 13 March 11 Opposition party members were drawn in the ballot, and four Government members. Due to limited time, there was not an opportunity for Members on the Opposition side who were bobbing to put their questions – and not everyone on the Order Paper was called.

Mr Speaker would have been open to a Point of Order being raised on this issue at the end of PMQs, but none was forthcoming.

Hoyle also denied that his actions were prompted by concerns that the Labour leader might deny him the peerage normally given to Speakers on retirement.

This tradition was broken when the previous Speaker, John Bercow, was refused a peerage. He had offended many Tories in the way he had handled Commons business. 

Hoyle’s spokeswoman said: 

This is untrue.

Starmer’s office did not reply to questions.

The Labour leader has also resisted calls to restore the whip to Abbott in the wake of the Hester affair.

Abbott has criticised Labour for sending out a fundraising email saying it was “fuming” about Hester’s remarks: “Hypocritical barely covers it,” she said.

She did not respond to questions.

Police investigations into Hester’s comments continue.

An Amnesty International study in 2017 found that Abbott, who was sent on average 51 abusive tweets a day, “receives an incredibly disproportionate amount of abuse and was the target of almost a third … of all abusive tweets we analysed”.

Ends

RECOMMENDED

Article

Rivkah Brown, How the Guardian editor in chief caved in to pro-Israel pressure, Novara Media, 12 March 2024

A fascinating account of how Guardian editor Kath Viner shapes the paper’s policy on the Palestine-Israel question and the alleged infuence of its powerful pro-Israel staff members.

Website

Skwawkbox

https://skwawkbox.or
@skwawkbox

It was Skwawkbox, run by Unite member Steve Walker, that first exposed the Andy Bigham case featured in this Press Gang article.

With 72,000 followers on Twitter, it’s an influential — and sometimes controversial — blog from a left wing perspective. 

Book

Asa Winstanley, Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How The Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn, (OR books, 2023)

The definitive account of how pro-Israel groups in the UK combined to play the antisemitism card against the former Labour leader. Even those who disagree with its thesis will find it a carefully researched and useful account of Corbyn’s leadership. 

CORRECTIONS  Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY  If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article

Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice

Start WritingGet the app

Substack is the home for great culture

NEW

April 18, 2024

Is the net closing in on Rupert Murdoch and Piers Morgan?

Did they pay a corrupt police officer for a secret Scotland Yard file on Princess Diana?

Prince Harry is on the warpath …

Going spare https://open.substack.com/pub/paddyfrench/p/going-spare?r=o41j8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Ware v French: Judgment

November 30, 2022

30 November 2022 

Today judgment was handed down in the Ware v French libel case. 

John Ware sued Press Gang editor Paddy French for £50,000 damages over his criticism of the 2019 Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?”

French withdrew from the case and did not take part in the trial which lasted an hour and 20 minutes on November 7.

Mr Justice Knowles awarded John Ware £90,000 in aggravated damages.

The judge also granted Ware a permanent injunction:

The Defendant must not, whether acting by himself or otherwise howsoever, publish or cause to be published any words to the following or similar effect: that the Claimant is a rogue journalist who had engaged in dirty tricks aimed at harming the Labour Party’s chances of winning the General Election by authoring and presenting an edition of Panorama in which he presented a biased and knowingly false presentation of the extent and nature of antisemitism within the party, deliberately ignoring contrary evidence.

Ware had told the court that French “had ‘thrown down the gauntlet’, which he would have been only too happy to have picked up, but, he said, the defendant had now ‘slithered away’ and behaved in a ‘cowardly’ fashion.” 

Mr Justice Knowles said he agreed with John Ware’s KC, William Bennett, that French’s “attitude to these proceedings … had been one of contempt”.

Paddy French said:

“This case raises serious questions about press freedom in Britain.”

“I believe I am the first journalist to be sued by a reporter working for the BBC for criticising a BBC programme that that reporter was involved in making.” 

“I am concerned that the Director General and the BBC board appear to have allowed the case to go ahead. “

“This raises the question of whether Ware v French is a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) action by proxy in order to smother debate about this controversial programme.”

“If it is, then it sets a dangerous precedent — Britain’s state broadcaster is permitting its reporters to engage in litigation against the Corporation’s critics.”

“If the action was not a SLAPP, it was certainly a breach of the long-standing tradition in the UK that journalists do not sue other journalists.”

“Journalists have other public platforms besides the courts to argue their case — and John Ware can command space in national newspapers when he chooses.”

“I am naturally disappointed that the case has ended in the way it did.”

“I would like to thank my legal team and the large number of people who have supported me in contesting it.”

“The judgment does not end the continuing examination of the Panorama programme.”

“I’m pleased that John Ware and his team have acknowledged that I am free to continue investigating the Panorama broadcast.”

“The full report on this programme will be published next year.”

John Ware v Paddy French

October 28, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Friday, 28 October 2022

IN DECEMBER 2019 I published the Press Gang pamphlet “Is The BBC Anti-Labour? Panorama’s Biased Anti-Semitism Reporting — A Case To Answer”. 

This was a detailed critique of the Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” based on a “charge sheet” that found the broadcast had breached key BBC Editorial Guidelines. 

Six months later John Ware began defamation proceedings against the pamphlet.

At that point I believed the case was an opportunity for a forensic examination of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party while Jeremy Corbyn was leader. 

However, John Ware then withdrew his complaint against the “charge sheet” element and concentrated on an article included at the end of the pamphlet. 

And, in February 2021, Mr Justice Saini ruled that this article meant that John Ware was a rogue journalist who engaged in “dirty tricks” by presenting “a biased and knowingly false presentation of the extent and nature of anti-Semitism within the party, deliberately ignoring contrary evidence” in order to harm Labour’s electoral prospects.

This was not my intention — my concern was about the quality of the journalism. I argued that Ware had authored and presented an edition of Panorama that was one-sided and strongly advocated the position that Labour was anti-Semitic. This was, in my opinion, rogue journalism.

But as a result of the court’s ruling I was not permitted to defend the case on this basis and could not present evidence that the broadcast was one-sided. 

However, much of the material I had hoped to explore in court has now been published elsewhere. 

In April 2020 Labour’s internal report into the workings of the party’s Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) was leaked to Sky News.

This long report supported the thesis set out in the pamphlet.

Sir Keir Starmer, who replaced Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, ordered an independent inquiry into the serious allegations made in the leaked GLU report.

Headed by Martin Forde KC, this report was published in July this year. 

Again, the Forde Report supported the general critique of the pamphlet.

Finally, the revelations of the Al Jazeera series “The Labour Files” in September this year provided further evidence that the Panorama programme was one-sided. 

These developments mean that Ware v French has become less and less relevant.  As a result, I have decided to withdraw from the case and will take no further part in the proceedings.

I will now concentrate on producing a full report into the Panorama programme.

This report will include new material that has yet to see the light of day. 

I want to thank all those — including my legal team at Bindmans and barristers Hugh Tomlinson, KC and Darryl Hutcheon — who have supported me in this case over the past two and a half years. 

Paddy French, Editor, Press Gang

NOTES

1

The convention that journalists should not sue other journalists is even more pronounced in broadcasting. If there is a precedent for a journalist working for the BBC suing a journalist for criticising a programme he / she was involved in, I have yet to find it. The BBC have declined to say if permission was given to launch these proceedings.

2

The leaked GLU report can be accessed here: 

3

The Forde Report can be accessed here:

4

The Al Jazeera Investigations series, “The Labour Files,” can be accessed here:

https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/

WARE v FRENCH GOES TO TRIAL

February 24, 2021

THE CASE of Ware v French continues.

John Ware is suing Press Gang editor Paddy French over an article which criticised the 2019 Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” 

The article appeared in the online Canadian magazine ColdType and was reprinted in the Press Gang pamphlet “Is The BBC Anti-Labour?” published in December 2019.

The libel trial is likely to take place next year. 

At a preliminary hearing on Thursday, February 18, Mr Justice Saini heard arguments from both sides about what an ordinary reader would have understood the article to mean. 

Representing Ware, William Bennett QC claimed the article branded his client 

… a rogue journalist who had engaged in dirty tricks by deliberately setting out to sabotage the Labour Party’s chances of winning the General Election by producing an edition of Panorama in which he dishonestly presented a biased and false portrayal of the case against the Labour Party for antisemitism.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, for French, argued the “natural and ordinary meaning” of the piece was that

… the Claimant [John Ware] produced a television programme which was one-sided and strongly advocated the position that the Labour Party was anti-semitic … as a result, the Claimant had engaged in rogue journalism

Mr Justice Saini’s version of the meaning was that John Ware

… is a rogue journalist who had engaged in dirty tricks by deliberately setting out to sabotage the Labour Party’s chances of winning the General Election by producing an edition of Panorama in which he dishonestly presented a biased and false portrayal of the case against the Labour Party for anti-Semitism.

The Judge also decided that the meaning was factual and not opinion.

The judgment can be read here.

Costs are yet to be determined.

In a statement, French stated:

I am disappointed by the decision.

However, I remain resolutely committed to defending this action.

My legal team believe I have a strong defence and the formal documents will be served within the next few months .

The overall cost of the full libel trial could rise as high as £1,000,000.

The Press Gang fighting fund, which has already raised nearly £25,000 from a thousand supporters, can be found here.

LABOUR’S LOST OFCOM COMPLAINT

September 2, 2020

BBC_series_head_8
THE BROADCASTING watchdog Ofcom is “assessing” a new complaint about the July 2019 Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” 

This admission — prompted by a Press Gang investigation — comes more than a year after the programme was broadcast.

And long after Ofcom’s deadline for making a complaint. 

The Press Gang investigation also confirms, for the first time, that the Labour Party submitted a detailed complaint about the programme to Ofcom in February this year.

This was an appeal against the BBC’s rejection of Labour’s complaint in August 2019.

Ofcom rejected the appeal in May this year.

Ofcom declined to say if the complaint currently being assessed has anything to do with the rejected Labour appeal.

The BBC told Press Gang it is unaware of any new complaint about the Panorama programme.

Labour declined to comment.

♦♦♦

AFTER THE Panorama broadcast in July 2019, Labour prepared a detailed complaint about the programme.

This 16 page document — a copy of which Press Gang has seen — was submitted to the BBC’s Head of Editorial Complaints in August.

The BBC’s response was a 35 page letter written by a BBC News Editorial Adviser and dated 2 September 2019. 

Press Gang has also seen this letter.

The BBC rejected all of Labour’s complaints: “Panorama’s research was robust and extensive”.

Labour had 20 working days to complain against the decision to Ofcom, the BBC’s ultimate regulator. 

Screen Shot 2019-10-06 at 13.40.34

This required Labour to submit its complaint to Ofcom by the end of October 2019.

The Press Gang investigation has learnt that the party did not do so.

At the time, the party’s priority was the imminent general election.

After December’s general election defeat, the party prepared its complaint.

Press Gang understands it was submitted in February this year —  and rejected by Ofcom in May.

Press Gang asked Ofcom to confirm it had received and rejected Labour’s complaint.

Ofcom declined to answer the question but then answered a question we had not asked — telling us it was “assessing” a new complaint against the Panorama programme.

The watchdog declined to say who had made the complaint — or if it was connected to Labour’s rejected complaint. 

Labour’s complaint was the most comprehensive Ofcom received about the Panorama broadcast.

In January the watchdog announced that it had rejected 27 complaints from viewers.

A spokesperson said:

We assessed complaints from viewers who felt that this programme was factually inaccurate and biased.

In our view, the programme was duly impartial.

As well as highly critical personal testimonies, it included the Labour Party’s response throughout, including an interview with the Shadow Communities Secretary.

All of these complaints were considered before the leaking of Labour’s dramatic report into how officials at party HQ in London handled anti-Semitism complaints.

This report was called “The Work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to anti-Semitism, 2014 – 2019”.

On April 10 — six days after Keir Starmer was elected Labour Leader — the result of this inquiry was leaked to Sky News.

The 851 page report blamed party officials for failing to deal with the anti-Semitism issue.

Some of these officials included some of those interviewed in the Panorama “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” programme.

In the wake of the leak, Labour’s National Executive Committee set up a panel to examine the report’s allegations and how it came to be leaked.

Headed by the QC Martin Forde, it also includes three Labour peers: Baroness Wilcox, Lord Whitty and Baroness Lister.

It is due to report by the end of the year.

♦♦♦

OFCOM IS reluctant to answer questions about the complaint it is now considering. 

Why is it assessing a complaint a year after the Panorama programme went out — and long after both the BBC and Ofcom deadlines had passed?

Ofcom told us:

We have a time limit for receiving BBC complaints based on when the complainant receives their final response from the ECU [the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit]. 

So if there was a delay in a complainant receiving their ECU response, as long as they referred the complaint to Ofcom within 20 working days of receiving it, we will consider the complaint, regardless of whether we have published the outcome of similar complaints and regardless of when the programme was broadcast.

This implies that the complaint currently being assessed has only recently been rejected by the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit.

However, a search of all BBC fortnightly complaints bulletins published this year lists no complaints rejected by the ECU.

Ofcom also declined to explain why it does not include Labour’s rejected complaint in its statistics.

Ofcom’s press office told us it had rejected 27 cases by January this year. 

With the case currently being assessed, the total comes to 28.

If Labour’s complaint was submitted in February and rejected in May, it cannot be included in Ofcom’s total of 28.

The mystery deepens when Ofcom’s own records are examined.

The watchdog’s fortnightly complaints bulletins show that a complaint against the Panorama anti-Semitism programme was rejected in May and another in July this year.

Neither of these rejections is included in Ofcom’s total number of complaints.

Ofcom declined to clear up the confusion.

The BBC’s Communications Manager, Philly Spur, told us: 

“The ECU [BBC Executive Complaints Unit] rejected all complaints and Ofcom didn’t find grounds to investigate.”

“We are not aware of anything further.”

Labour did not reply to our questions.

♦♦♦

ON JULY 22 Labour settled a libel action brought by John Ware, the reporter who presented the Panorama programme, and seven former Labour Party officials who appeared in the broadcast.

Labour had criticised Ware and the former staffers. 

The party agreed to pay undisclosed damages and costs. 

ware-3.png

JOHN WARE
The reporter who presented the controversial Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” is taking legal action against some of his critics — including Press Gang editor Paddy French.
Photo: BBC

Following the settlement, Jeremy Corbyn said:

The party’s decision to apologise today and make substantial payments to former staff who sued the party in relation to last year’s Panorama programme is a political decision, not a legal one.

Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence …

The decision to settle these claims in this way is disappointing, and risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations about action taken to tackle antisemitism in the Labour Party in recent years.

The same day Mark Lewis, the lawyer who represents John Ware, said his client had instructed him “to pursue claims”. 

At the time this article went to press, no writ had been issued against Jeremy Corbyn.                                                                                                                                                                                                

Jeremy Corbyn High Court ruling

JEREMY CORBYN
THE FORMER Labour Leader is facing a £100,000 libel action over allegedly “false and defamatory” remarks he made about the blogger and Jewish activist Richard Millett on the Andrew Marr Show in September 2018. Corbyn is defending the action which will now go to trial. There has been no crowdfunding for this case.
Photo: PA

A Labour Party member and Corbyn supporter called Carole Morgan then launched an appeal called “Jeremy’s Legal Fund” to raise funds to fight any action.

The appeal has to date raised more than £330,000 from more than 17,000 donors.

Carole Morgan is in the process of converting the appeal into a trust fund.

♦♦♦

LABOUR’S DECISION to settle with Ware means that the key legal action involving the Panorama programme is the one involving Press Gang editor Paddy French.

In December 2019 Press Gang published a 16 page pamphlet which criticised the Panorama programme.

The report — “Is The BBC Anti-Labour?” — was written by French.

In July this year Ware’s lawyer, Mark Lewis, issued a writ asking for £50,000 in damages.

Press Gang is contesting the action and has instructed the London libel specialists Bindmans to represent French.

A fighting fund has been launched to help pay legal costs — to date this has raised more than £20,000 from 800 supporters.

The target is £100,000.

The link is: 

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/fightingfund

Panorama_v_PG_04

A preliminary hearing is likely to take place in October or November.  

After Ware issued his writ against French, he also launched proceedings against the campaign group Jewish Voice for Labour. 

Ware is claiming a total of £80,000 in damages from the organisation and two of its officials.

♦♦♦
Published: 2 September 2020
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

CORRECTIONS  Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

WARE v FRENCH GOES TO COURT

July 6, 2020

BBC_series_head_7b

THE JOURNALIST John Ware has issued a writ for libel against Press Gang editor Paddy French.

Ware seeks £50,000 in damages.

Press Gang is contesting the action and has instructed solicitors to act for Paddy French.

The case will now go to court.

Ware’s action concerns the Press Gang pamphlet “Is The BBC Anti-Labour? — Panorama’s Biased Anti-Semitism Reporting: A Case To Answer” published last December.

This was a critical analysis of last July’s Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?”

John Ware was the reporter and presenter.

Labour called the broadcast an “authored polemic” by Ware and “an overtly one-sided intervention in political controversy by the BBC”.

The Corporation hit back: “the BBC stands by its journalism … we completely reject any accusations of bias or dishonesty”.

The Press Gang pamphlet came down on the side of Labour and was critical of John Ware.

Ware called our reportseriously defamatory”.

Press Gang has instructed the London solicitors Bindmans.

A crowdfunded appeal has been launched to help pay the legal costs of the action.

So far, more than 260 backers have donated over £8,000 to this fighting fund.

The link is here.

Panorama_v_PG_04

UPDATE 1

The fighting fund has reached £26,000 from more than 900 supporters.

The target is £100,000.

There will be a preliminary hearing in the next couple of months.

UPDATE 2

The preliminary hearing will take place on 18 February 2021.

This will be a half day session after which the judge will decide if the case should go to full trial.

JOHN WARE v PRESS GANG

April 15, 2020

BBC_series_head_6C

THE BBC Panorama reporter John Ware has threatened legal proceedings against Press Gang editor Paddy French.

Press Gang is contesting the action.

An appeal been launched to help pay the heavy cost of instructing solicitors to fight these potential libel proceedings.

BBC_cover_08_b

REPORT
OUR INVESTIGATION into the Panorama programme was published on December 7 last year — five days before the general election.

Readers can back the fighting fund here.

Ware’s action concerns the Press Gang report Is The BBC Anti-Labour? — Panorama’s Biased Anti-Semitism Reporting: A Case To Answer.

John Ware claims this publication is seriously defamatory.

And demands

 a full retraction 

 an apology

 a statement to be read out in open court and

 payment of substantial damages and legal costs.

Mark Lewis of Patron Law, who acts for Ware, has agreed a “conditional fee arrangement” where the firm acts for Ware on a no-win, no-fee basis.

In addition. Patron Law has taken out insurance which limits Ware’s exposure should he lose.

This means that if Press Gang fails to win, the website will also be liable for the cost of the insurance.

WARE 3

JOHN WARE
JOHN WARE was the reporter and presenter of the controversial Panorama programme “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” broadcast in July last year. The Labour Party complained about the broadcast but the BBC stood by Ware’s journalism — “we completely reject any accusations of bias or dishonesty.” The television watchdog, Ofcom, also rejected complaints about the programme.
Photo: BBC

Press Gang has instructed the London solicitors Bindmans to act for Paddy French.

In a statement, issued today (April 15) Paddy French said

“It’s clear John Ware feels our report is an attack on his professional integrity.”

Press Gang feels equally strongly that the report met the highest standards of ethical journalism — and we’ll be defending it strongly.”

“We’re confident it was a fair criticism of a contentious piece of broadcasting and that a court will agree with us.”

“But we cannot get to that point without your help.”

Press Gang asked the BBC if it was supporting John Ware’s action.

A spokesperson told us “the BBC won’t be commenting.”

♦♦♦
Published: 15April 2020
© Press Gang
♦♦♦

UPDATE
21 April 2020 

YESTERDAY OUR lawyers, Bindmans, replied to the letter from John Ware’s solicitor claiming the Press Gang pamphlet “Is The BBC Anti-Labour?” is “seriously defamatory”.

The five page Bindmans letter says editor Paddy French has “complete defences” under section 2 (Truth), section 3 (Honest Opinion) and section 4 (Public Interest) of the Defamation Act 2013.

Bindmans conclude:

“The defamatory allegations against your client are matters of opinion, based on the facts set out in the …. report.”

“Mr French is surprised that an experienced journalist like your client has threatened libel proceedings rather than joining in public debate and we invite you to withdraw the threat forthwith.”

“In the event that your client commences legal proceedings then the matter will be vigorously defended.”

John Ware’s solicitor, Mark Lewis of Patron Law, has acknowledged receipt of the letter and says he will reply by the end of the month.

The Press Gang appeal has now passed its initial £5,000 target.

“It’s often said that libel is a rich man’s game,” said Paddy French.

“In this case, the support of 200 people is helping to level the playing field.”

“It’s also a vote of confidence in the integrity of Press Gang journalism.”

♦♦♦

CORRECTIONS  Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY  If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.