Sunday, November 14, 2010

"A liar and a cheat"


Black Dog, in the Mail on Sunday:

A new twist in the resignation from London’s Garrick Club of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger after he unsuccessfully proposed ex-Labour City Minister Lord Myners as a member.

Now Dog hears of a contretemps over an unpaid dinner bill. When chased by the club some months later, Rusbridger sent a photocopy of the cheque he paid with.

The Garrick could still find no record of receiving the original cheque, so he sent a second one bearing a serial number consecutive to the first. Times are hard at The Guardian.


Mr Rusbridger himself (editor of The Guardian newspaper) about the collapse of Jeffrey Archer's libel case against that newspaper, in an article titled "A liar and a cheat" (highlights mine):

"The Guardian has never doubted the truth of its original story. We would have produced damning evidence of Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer's lack of integrity if the case had proceeded. No doubt that is why they dropped the action."

This ultimately led to a trial of Lord Archer for perjury. He was found guilty and sentenced to four years in jail.


Wikipedia, on the philosopher and media personage C.E.M. Joad:

In April 1948, Joad was convicted of travelling on a Waterloo-Exeter train without a valid ticket. Although he was a frequent fare dodger, he failed to give a satisfactory excuse. This made front-page headlines in the national newspapers, and the fine of £2 (£54 as of 2010) destroyed all hopes of a peerage and resulted in his dismissal from the BBC. The humiliation of this had a severe effect on his health, and he soon became bed-confined at his home in Hampstead.

Joad died a few years later, a broken man.

Why were Mr Rusbridger's two cheques to the Garrick Club sequentially numbered? Is it really the case that he wrote no cheques at all on that account for the intervening months? This could easily be proved by revealing the dates of cheques written immediately before the first cheque to the Garrick.

One would think that the implications of Black Dog's article are potentially quite damaging for the editor of a national newspaper that, whatever its political inclinations, has built a reputation for truthfulness and integrity, qualities it seems to have found lacking in Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer.

I wonder what Mr Rusbridger may be prepared to do to combat the seeming innuendo of Black Dog's article?

No comments: