Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Neil Hamilton: "It must have been quite a wallop." 
Show More
He's only confirming to everyone that their opinion of this piece of filth is correct.
Two toerags brawling overseas yet Hamilton is the classless, scummy filth?
Controversy and legal cases[edit]
BBC libel case (1984 to 1986)[edit]
On 30 January 1984, a Panorama programme, "Maggie's Militant Tendency", was broadcast. The programme made a number of allegations regarding Hamilton's past and more recent activities. These included his attending and giving a fraternal speech in 1972 to the Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI) an Italian neo-fascist party led by one of Benito Mussolini's ex-ministers, Giorgio Almirante,[38] Hamilton's membership of the Eldon League, and his involvement with the Powellite faction of the Monday Club and the far-right activist, George Kennedy Young, the former Deputy Director of MI6 and Chairman of the Society for Individual Freedom. The programme also made the claim that Hamilton gave a Nazi salute in Berlin while 'messing around' on a parliamentary visit in August 1983. A Nazi salute is a criminal offence in the Federal Republic of Germany.[39] In October 1986, Hamilton and his fellow MP Gerald Howarth (one of his closest friends), sued the BBC for libel along with Phil Pedley, a former chairman of the National Young Conservatives, who had appeared on the programme.[40] The Guardian newspaper, highlighted Hamilton's admission in The Sunday Times in an article he wrote after the court case that he did give "a little salute with two fingers to his nose to give the impression of a toothbrush moustache."[40]
The prosecution was financed by Sir James Goldsmith[41] and Taki, The Spectator columnist. David Davis, then a director of Tate and Lyle, persuaded that company to donate a sum to the cause. Lord Harris of High Cross (who helped to finance Hamilton's failed libel action against Mohammed Al-Fayed 13 years later), also raised approximately £100,000.[42]
During the case, Hamilton said he saw himself as being "the Mike Yarwood of the Federation of Conservative Students" [43] and that he frequently did impressions of public figures such as Frankie Howerd, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, Charles De Gaulle and Enoch Powell. Hamilton claimed he had coloured himself black in 1982 to look like Idi Amin and dressed as Canon James Owen on a boat on the River Cam.[44] He claimed he would have twenty character witnesses: "My main character witness was going to be Norman St John Stevas."[45] In a Sunday Times article, Hamilton denied there was any malicious intent behind the salute. He also pointed out that one person present at the incident, Julian Lewis, was a Jew and that a "number of his relatives were killed by the Nazis during the war".[45]
BBC collapse
In mid-trial and without cross-examining Hamilton, the BBC capitulated on 21 October 1986. The Director-General, Alasdair Milne, stated he was instructed to do so by the Governors of the BBC. The corporation was directed to pay the men's legal costs. Hamilton and Howarth were awarded £20,000 each and in the next edition of Panorama, on 27 October, the BBC made an unreserved apology.[46] The settlement of the case raised serious concerns regarding political pressure and the intimidation of witnesses. Before the BBC defence lawyers had an opportunity to interrogate Hamilton, the Board of Governors met during the trial and instructed the BBC Board of Management to settle the case. "...the BBC executives at this meeting expressed serious doubts about the decision. It was pointed out the BBC had not even begun to put its case".[47]
The National Young Conservatives hinted at a stitch-up at the BBC. The chairman, Richard Fuller, told the Eastern Area Young Conservatives:
"I find it strange that they have apparently decided to settle now, when things appeared to be going well."[48]
Attention focussed on the actions of Malcolm McAlpine, a cousin of Alistair McAlpine, the treasurer of the Conservative Party. "He denied yesterday that he had promised Mr Hamilton that he could "deliver" the governors behind a settlement."[48]
Witness allegations
In the immediate aftermath of the BBC settlement, allegations of witness intimidation abounded. A BBC internal memorandum to the Board of Management claimed some 17 witnesses had been intimidated to change their testimony.[49] A BBC source stated:
"Nearly all the defence witnesses have had a quiet word in their ears. Only two or three people connected with Tory politics who would have given vital evidence for us now stick to their testimony. Some previously expressed disgust at incidents they had witnessed. Now they claim to have witnessed nothing."[50]
Howarth and Hamilton said the case against Pedley would not be dropped and Pedley said he would not be joining the BBC decision. The Financial Times reported, "A solicitor for Mr Hamilton and Mr Howarth said later that their linked libel action against Mr Philip Pedley... would continue. Mr Pedley indicated that he intends to continue the case." [51]
The media began to focus on the remaining unsettled case. The Guardian reported that "The spotlight had swivelled to Phil Pedley, the Tory defendant who remained adamant he would fight on alone, backed by independent funds and, he claims, a wide range of Conservative supporters."[52] Pedley did not name the supporters but the then chairman of the Young Conservatives, Richard Fuller, pledged financial support to the fight and in a meeting with Jeffrey Archer, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, Fuller resisted Archer's demand to back down.[53]
Labour accused Conservative Central Office of organising a cover-up over claims that Hamilton had given a Nazi salute on a visit to Berlin and sought to question the then party chairman, Norman Tebbit.[54] Dale Campbell-Savours claimed he had evidence in the form of a letter from Pedley to the former Party Chairman, John Selwyn Gummer, demonstrating Conservative Central Office (CCO) had contacted witnesses.[55] Tebbit confirmed one witness had been in touch with CCO. "I am aware that one potential witness sought advice from Central Office but was told that no advice could be given..." Tebbit accused Campbell Savours of making his accusations behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege and left the chamber to make his reply.
"My staff are appalled and disgusted. They are filled with contempt for a man who can make these sort of accusations of a criminal offence against a member of staff, who, Mr Campbell-Savours knows damn well, is not guilty of it." [56]
On 25 October, the press reported new evidence of inappropriate witness contact.[57] Later that day, Hamilton announced that he was dropping the action against Pedley. However Pedley reaffirmed he, "had no intention of withdrawing from the case."[58] Hamilton's announcement failed to quell demands for an enquiry and Campbell-Savours denounced Tebbit's tactic of making his statements outside the House of Commons chamber, accusing him of "a deliberate ploy to avoid placing himself in contempt by misleading the House in a personal statement". He invited Tebbit to make a statement in the House.
"If he refuses, then the country will know that a conspiracy of silence is being engineered by senior figures to hide the truth."[59][60]
More information appeared in the press alleging witness interference, including the Hogan Memorandum, the internal BBC document listing the witnesses who had changed their account.[61] The Independent revealed the existence of a taped conversation of a Tory witness being 'shaken rigid' by Central Office's suggestion that the Berlin events had not happened and "no other witness would substantiate or give evidence about those alleged incidents" and the witness was told no other witness would back his account. The witness, said "this was like a bad dream."[62] Campbell-Savours claimed this was proof of BBC nobbling and announced that he was sending his evidence to Sir Michael Havers, the Attorney General.[63] In the Commons, Campbell-Savours stated:
"Central Office set about an elaborate attempt to interfere directly with potential witnesses. Attempts were made to manage and rig statements by Mr. David Mitchell. I repeat what I have said previously, but additionally I am able to say today that there is a tape in existence that confirms the nature of the conspiracy to hide the truth, and which identifies persons. Today I have sent a transcript of that tape to the Attorney-General. I have to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that it is but one of two tapes. I await a transcript of the second tape." [64]
Statement contradictions
Press interest turned to Hamilton's past statements about the Berlin visit, over which Tory witnesses were alleged to have been pressured to say that they had not seen goose-stepping or Nazi-style salutes. Hamilton had given a categorical denial he had made a Nazi salute in Berlin to John Selwyn Gummer, the Party Chairman, in January 1984:
"Dear John... I make it absolutely clear that, whilst in Berlin, I did not do any goose-stepping nor did I at any time give Nazi salutes. Indeed, I have always thought the latter was a criminal offence in the Federal Republic."
But, writing in the Sunday Times, Hamilton admitted making "a little salute" in the Reichstag.[65] Hamilton's admission had the effect of reaffirming the testimony of the two witnesses who alleged he had given a Nazi salute in Berlin and exposing those witnesses who had reversed their position.
Dropping of libel action against the Young Conservatives
Hamilton and Howarth reversed their earlier position and dropped their libel action against Pedley. They said that extracting an apology from Pedley was not "worth the bother".[66] On 3 December 1986, Pedley refused the offered settlement terms and asked for a hearing in open court. Justice Simon Brown ruled that Hamilton and Howarth be debarred from alleging Pedley's words were libel and should pay Pedley's costs.[67]
Pedley made a statement from the steps to say he stood by his words in the Panorama programme and restated he had never said the MPs were Nazis, rather their behaviour was part of a pattern that would harm the Party and in the case of Hamilton's Berlin behaviour, the Final YC Report accused Hamilton of 'batty eccentricity.' On the more substantive allegations Pedley said he reiterated the points made in the YC Report had been called into question.
'I consider I have the responsibility to vindicate the good work done by the members of that committee. Several have endured abuse and hate mail following publication of their names in the Young National Front paper Bulldog and other extremist papers. I hope this will now cease, together with set-ups and the surveillance and harassment of other witnesses; in my case by private security companies.' [68][69]
In December 1986, Hamilton was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to David Mitchell.
Cash-for-questions[edit]
Main article: Cash-for-questions affair
On 20 October 1994, The Guardian published an article which claimed that Hamilton and another minister, Tim Smith, had received money, in the form of cash in brown envelopes. It claimed the money was paid to the men by Mohamed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods. In return, the men were to ask questions on behalf of Al-Fayed in the House of Commons. Smith admitted his guilt and resigned immediately. Hamilton claimed innocence but was forced to resign five days later, on 25 October 1994.
The action against The Guardian[edit]
Hamilton brought legal action for libel against The Guardian. Hamilton joined Ian Greer, a parliamentary lobbyist, as a co-plaintiff. In the process, the Bill of Rights 1689 was amended by the Defamation Act 1996 to allow statements made in Parliament to be questioned in court.[70]
On 30 September 1996, the day before the start of the trial, Hamilton and Greer settled, citing a conflict of interest and lack of funds. The Guardian greeted the Hamilton collapse with the headline 'A Liar and a Cheat'. Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, said, "The decision by Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer must be one of the most astonishing legal cave-ins in the history of the law of libel" and called for the issues to be examined by Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the Inland Revenue.[71] They each paid £7,500 towards the paper's legal costs. All the "cash-for-questions" evidence was sent to Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.[72] On 1 October 1996, Hamilton appeared on the evening television program, Newsnight, and engaged in a live debate with Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian.
The cash for questions enquiry[edit]
The "cash for questions" parliamentary enquiry took place in 1997, led by Downey. Hamilton vowed that if the "Downey report" found against him, he would resign.
Edwina Currie, a former health minister, gave evidence. She told the inquiry that, in May 1988, Hamilton had been unmoved by a set of photographs that depicted smoking related cancers; that is, harm to young people which might be caused by a product (tobacco) that he promoted.[73] Hamilton argued the pictures were irrelevant. Both Hamilton and Michael Brown had received a £6,000 honorarium and hospitality from Skoal Bandits.[74] In December 1989, the sale of Skoal Bandit products was banned in the UK by the Secretary of State for Health, Kenneth Clarke.[75]
Downey reported that he found the evidence against Hamilton in the case of Al-Fayed "compelling". Hamilton received over £25,000 and had deliberately misled Michael Heseltine, then President of the Board of Trade, in October 1994, when he said he had no financial relationship with Ian Greer. In a phone conversation, Hamilton gave an absolute assurance to Heseltine that there was no such relationship. In fact, he had received two payments from Greer in 1988 and 1989, totalling £10,000.[76] Hamilton had asked for payment in kind[clarification needed] so the money would not be taxable. He also failed to register his stays at the Hôtel Ritz Paris and at Al-Fayed's castle in Scotland in 1989.
On 3 July 1997, the enquiry found Hamilton guilty of taking "cash for questions". The Independent wrote, "Sir Gordon, contrary to Hamilton's confident expectations, had no compunction about concluding that he did indeed take cash in brown envelopes" and called the new Party Leader to "expel the miscreants".[77] Hamilton, Smith (also found guilty), Brown and Michael Grylls were harshly criticised. If Hamilton and Smith had remained in parliament, Downey said he might have recommended long periods of suspension for both. Hamilton rejected these findings, whereas Smith, who had stood down, accepted them, apologised for his conduct, and retired from politics altogether.
The libel action against Al-Fayed[edit]
Hamilton also brought a legal action for libel against Mohamed Al-Fayed. On 16 January 1997, Al-Fayed appeared in an edition of the Dispatches documentary series on Channel 4.[78] He claimed that Hamilton had demanded and had accepted cash payments of up to £110,000,[79] Harrods' gift vouchers and a free holiday at the Hôtel Ritz Paris in 1987, in return for asking questions in Parliament on behalf of Harrods. While Hamilton did not deny the holiday, he continued to maintain that he was innocent of improper conduct.
On 31 July 1998, Hamilton's action was approved for a court listing. Funds for the action were donated by Lord Harris of High Cross, the Earl of Portsmouth and Taki, who raised £50,000.[80] Other contributors to the fund included Simon Heffer, Norris McWhirter, Peter Clarke, Lord Bell, Gyles Brandreth and Gerald Howarth (Hamilton's co-plaintiff in the BBC action). Some Tory MPs (approximately 40 of the 165) also made contributions. In total, approximately £410,000 was raised.[81]
The jury trial commenced in November 1999. Hamilton and his wife were cross-examined by George Carman QC. Carman put to Hamilton that he had acted corruptly to demand and then take £10,000 from Mobil Oil in 1989 for the tabling of an amendment to a finance bill. At the time, Hamilton was a member of a Commons select committee on finance.[82] Al-Fayed said Hamilton had taken the money either in brown envelope cash payments or through Ian Greer. Hamilton said in his own evidence: "I have never received a penny from Mr Fayed; I have never asked".[83] His counsel, in the closing comments, argued that Al-Fayed's assertions had destroyed his client's reputation.[84] On 21 December 1999, the jury unanimously decided in favour of the defence.[85]
A year later, Hamilton lost an appeal against his loss of the libel case.[86][87]
Appeals[edit]
On 14 October 1997, Hamilton made an appeal to a new committee. On 6 November, the committee only partially endorsed Downey's report, but still criticised Hamilton's behaviour whilst an MP.
In April 2001, Hamilton was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords. On 22 May 2001, unable to pay his legal fees and with costs amounting to some £3m, Hamilton declared bankruptcy. He was discharged from bankruptcy in May 2004.
False rape accusation[edit]
On 10 August 2001, the Hamiltons were arrested by police who were investigating an alleged rape. The Hamiltons claimed they could not have been present at the alleged rape scene because they were hosting a dinner party and produced alibis including Derek Laud.[88] The investigation against the couple was dropped when it became apparent that the accusations were entirely false. This event was recorded on film by Louis Theroux, who, at that time, was embedded with the Hamiltons for an episode of his documentary series When Louis Met....[89]
In June 2003, the woman who had fabricated the accusation of rape, Nadine Milroy-Sloan, was sentenced to three years in jail for perverting the course of justice.[90][91] In February 2005, the publicist Max Clifford, who had acted for Milroy-Sloan, settled, paying Hamilton an undisclosed sum.[92]
BBC libel case (1984 to 1986)[edit]
On 30 January 1984, a Panorama programme, "Maggie's Militant Tendency", was broadcast. The programme made a number of allegations regarding Hamilton's past and more recent activities. These included his attending and giving a fraternal speech in 1972 to the Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI) an Italian neo-fascist party led by one of Benito Mussolini's ex-ministers, Giorgio Almirante,[38] Hamilton's membership of the Eldon League, and his involvement with the Powellite faction of the Monday Club and the far-right activist, George Kennedy Young, the former Deputy Director of MI6 and Chairman of the Society for Individual Freedom. The programme also made the claim that Hamilton gave a Nazi salute in Berlin while 'messing around' on a parliamentary visit in August 1983. A Nazi salute is a criminal offence in the Federal Republic of Germany.[39] In October 1986, Hamilton and his fellow MP Gerald Howarth (one of his closest friends), sued the BBC for libel along with Phil Pedley, a former chairman of the National Young Conservatives, who had appeared on the programme.[40] The Guardian newspaper, highlighted Hamilton's admission in The Sunday Times in an article he wrote after the court case that he did give "a little salute with two fingers to his nose to give the impression of a toothbrush moustache."[40]
The prosecution was financed by Sir James Goldsmith[41] and Taki, The Spectator columnist. David Davis, then a director of Tate and Lyle, persuaded that company to donate a sum to the cause. Lord Harris of High Cross (who helped to finance Hamilton's failed libel action against Mohammed Al-Fayed 13 years later), also raised approximately £100,000.[42]
During the case, Hamilton said he saw himself as being "the Mike Yarwood of the Federation of Conservative Students" [43] and that he frequently did impressions of public figures such as Frankie Howerd, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, Charles De Gaulle and Enoch Powell. Hamilton claimed he had coloured himself black in 1982 to look like Idi Amin and dressed as Canon James Owen on a boat on the River Cam.[44] He claimed he would have twenty character witnesses: "My main character witness was going to be Norman St John Stevas."[45] In a Sunday Times article, Hamilton denied there was any malicious intent behind the salute. He also pointed out that one person present at the incident, Julian Lewis, was a Jew and that a "number of his relatives were killed by the Nazis during the war".[45]
BBC collapse
In mid-trial and without cross-examining Hamilton, the BBC capitulated on 21 October 1986. The Director-General, Alasdair Milne, stated he was instructed to do so by the Governors of the BBC. The corporation was directed to pay the men's legal costs. Hamilton and Howarth were awarded £20,000 each and in the next edition of Panorama, on 27 October, the BBC made an unreserved apology.[46] The settlement of the case raised serious concerns regarding political pressure and the intimidation of witnesses. Before the BBC defence lawyers had an opportunity to interrogate Hamilton, the Board of Governors met during the trial and instructed the BBC Board of Management to settle the case. "...the BBC executives at this meeting expressed serious doubts about the decision. It was pointed out the BBC had not even begun to put its case".[47]
The National Young Conservatives hinted at a stitch-up at the BBC. The chairman, Richard Fuller, told the Eastern Area Young Conservatives:
"I find it strange that they have apparently decided to settle now, when things appeared to be going well."[48]
Attention focussed on the actions of Malcolm McAlpine, a cousin of Alistair McAlpine, the treasurer of the Conservative Party. "He denied yesterday that he had promised Mr Hamilton that he could "deliver" the governors behind a settlement."[48]
Witness allegations
In the immediate aftermath of the BBC settlement, allegations of witness intimidation abounded. A BBC internal memorandum to the Board of Management claimed some 17 witnesses had been intimidated to change their testimony.[49] A BBC source stated:
"Nearly all the defence witnesses have had a quiet word in their ears. Only two or three people connected with Tory politics who would have given vital evidence for us now stick to their testimony. Some previously expressed disgust at incidents they had witnessed. Now they claim to have witnessed nothing."[50]
Howarth and Hamilton said the case against Pedley would not be dropped and Pedley said he would not be joining the BBC decision. The Financial Times reported, "A solicitor for Mr Hamilton and Mr Howarth said later that their linked libel action against Mr Philip Pedley... would continue. Mr Pedley indicated that he intends to continue the case." [51]
The media began to focus on the remaining unsettled case. The Guardian reported that "The spotlight had swivelled to Phil Pedley, the Tory defendant who remained adamant he would fight on alone, backed by independent funds and, he claims, a wide range of Conservative supporters."[52] Pedley did not name the supporters but the then chairman of the Young Conservatives, Richard Fuller, pledged financial support to the fight and in a meeting with Jeffrey Archer, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, Fuller resisted Archer's demand to back down.[53]
Labour accused Conservative Central Office of organising a cover-up over claims that Hamilton had given a Nazi salute on a visit to Berlin and sought to question the then party chairman, Norman Tebbit.[54] Dale Campbell-Savours claimed he had evidence in the form of a letter from Pedley to the former Party Chairman, John Selwyn Gummer, demonstrating Conservative Central Office (CCO) had contacted witnesses.[55] Tebbit confirmed one witness had been in touch with CCO. "I am aware that one potential witness sought advice from Central Office but was told that no advice could be given..." Tebbit accused Campbell Savours of making his accusations behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege and left the chamber to make his reply.
"My staff are appalled and disgusted. They are filled with contempt for a man who can make these sort of accusations of a criminal offence against a member of staff, who, Mr Campbell-Savours knows damn well, is not guilty of it." [56]
On 25 October, the press reported new evidence of inappropriate witness contact.[57] Later that day, Hamilton announced that he was dropping the action against Pedley. However Pedley reaffirmed he, "had no intention of withdrawing from the case."[58] Hamilton's announcement failed to quell demands for an enquiry and Campbell-Savours denounced Tebbit's tactic of making his statements outside the House of Commons chamber, accusing him of "a deliberate ploy to avoid placing himself in contempt by misleading the House in a personal statement". He invited Tebbit to make a statement in the House.
"If he refuses, then the country will know that a conspiracy of silence is being engineered by senior figures to hide the truth."[59][60]
More information appeared in the press alleging witness interference, including the Hogan Memorandum, the internal BBC document listing the witnesses who had changed their account.[61] The Independent revealed the existence of a taped conversation of a Tory witness being 'shaken rigid' by Central Office's suggestion that the Berlin events had not happened and "no other witness would substantiate or give evidence about those alleged incidents" and the witness was told no other witness would back his account. The witness, said "this was like a bad dream."[62] Campbell-Savours claimed this was proof of BBC nobbling and announced that he was sending his evidence to Sir Michael Havers, the Attorney General.[63] In the Commons, Campbell-Savours stated:
"Central Office set about an elaborate attempt to interfere directly with potential witnesses. Attempts were made to manage and rig statements by Mr. David Mitchell. I repeat what I have said previously, but additionally I am able to say today that there is a tape in existence that confirms the nature of the conspiracy to hide the truth, and which identifies persons. Today I have sent a transcript of that tape to the Attorney-General. I have to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that it is but one of two tapes. I await a transcript of the second tape." [64]
Statement contradictions
Press interest turned to Hamilton's past statements about the Berlin visit, over which Tory witnesses were alleged to have been pressured to say that they had not seen goose-stepping or Nazi-style salutes. Hamilton had given a categorical denial he had made a Nazi salute in Berlin to John Selwyn Gummer, the Party Chairman, in January 1984:
"Dear John... I make it absolutely clear that, whilst in Berlin, I did not do any goose-stepping nor did I at any time give Nazi salutes. Indeed, I have always thought the latter was a criminal offence in the Federal Republic."
But, writing in the Sunday Times, Hamilton admitted making "a little salute" in the Reichstag.[65] Hamilton's admission had the effect of reaffirming the testimony of the two witnesses who alleged he had given a Nazi salute in Berlin and exposing those witnesses who had reversed their position.
Dropping of libel action against the Young Conservatives
Hamilton and Howarth reversed their earlier position and dropped their libel action against Pedley. They said that extracting an apology from Pedley was not "worth the bother".[66] On 3 December 1986, Pedley refused the offered settlement terms and asked for a hearing in open court. Justice Simon Brown ruled that Hamilton and Howarth be debarred from alleging Pedley's words were libel and should pay Pedley's costs.[67]
Pedley made a statement from the steps to say he stood by his words in the Panorama programme and restated he had never said the MPs were Nazis, rather their behaviour was part of a pattern that would harm the Party and in the case of Hamilton's Berlin behaviour, the Final YC Report accused Hamilton of 'batty eccentricity.' On the more substantive allegations Pedley said he reiterated the points made in the YC Report had been called into question.
'I consider I have the responsibility to vindicate the good work done by the members of that committee. Several have endured abuse and hate mail following publication of their names in the Young National Front paper Bulldog and other extremist papers. I hope this will now cease, together with set-ups and the surveillance and harassment of other witnesses; in my case by private security companies.' [68][69]
In December 1986, Hamilton was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to David Mitchell.
Cash-for-questions[edit]
Main article: Cash-for-questions affair
On 20 October 1994, The Guardian published an article which claimed that Hamilton and another minister, Tim Smith, had received money, in the form of cash in brown envelopes. It claimed the money was paid to the men by Mohamed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods. In return, the men were to ask questions on behalf of Al-Fayed in the House of Commons. Smith admitted his guilt and resigned immediately. Hamilton claimed innocence but was forced to resign five days later, on 25 October 1994.
The action against The Guardian[edit]
Hamilton brought legal action for libel against The Guardian. Hamilton joined Ian Greer, a parliamentary lobbyist, as a co-plaintiff. In the process, the Bill of Rights 1689 was amended by the Defamation Act 1996 to allow statements made in Parliament to be questioned in court.[70]
On 30 September 1996, the day before the start of the trial, Hamilton and Greer settled, citing a conflict of interest and lack of funds. The Guardian greeted the Hamilton collapse with the headline 'A Liar and a Cheat'. Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, said, "The decision by Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer must be one of the most astonishing legal cave-ins in the history of the law of libel" and called for the issues to be examined by Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the Inland Revenue.[71] They each paid £7,500 towards the paper's legal costs. All the "cash-for-questions" evidence was sent to Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.[72] On 1 October 1996, Hamilton appeared on the evening television program, Newsnight, and engaged in a live debate with Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian.
The cash for questions enquiry[edit]
The "cash for questions" parliamentary enquiry took place in 1997, led by Downey. Hamilton vowed that if the "Downey report" found against him, he would resign.
Edwina Currie, a former health minister, gave evidence. She told the inquiry that, in May 1988, Hamilton had been unmoved by a set of photographs that depicted smoking related cancers; that is, harm to young people which might be caused by a product (tobacco) that he promoted.[73] Hamilton argued the pictures were irrelevant. Both Hamilton and Michael Brown had received a £6,000 honorarium and hospitality from Skoal Bandits.[74] In December 1989, the sale of Skoal Bandit products was banned in the UK by the Secretary of State for Health, Kenneth Clarke.[75]
Downey reported that he found the evidence against Hamilton in the case of Al-Fayed "compelling". Hamilton received over £25,000 and had deliberately misled Michael Heseltine, then President of the Board of Trade, in October 1994, when he said he had no financial relationship with Ian Greer. In a phone conversation, Hamilton gave an absolute assurance to Heseltine that there was no such relationship. In fact, he had received two payments from Greer in 1988 and 1989, totalling £10,000.[76] Hamilton had asked for payment in kind[clarification needed] so the money would not be taxable. He also failed to register his stays at the Hôtel Ritz Paris and at Al-Fayed's castle in Scotland in 1989.
On 3 July 1997, the enquiry found Hamilton guilty of taking "cash for questions". The Independent wrote, "Sir Gordon, contrary to Hamilton's confident expectations, had no compunction about concluding that he did indeed take cash in brown envelopes" and called the new Party Leader to "expel the miscreants".[77] Hamilton, Smith (also found guilty), Brown and Michael Grylls were harshly criticised. If Hamilton and Smith had remained in parliament, Downey said he might have recommended long periods of suspension for both. Hamilton rejected these findings, whereas Smith, who had stood down, accepted them, apologised for his conduct, and retired from politics altogether.
The libel action against Al-Fayed[edit]
Hamilton also brought a legal action for libel against Mohamed Al-Fayed. On 16 January 1997, Al-Fayed appeared in an edition of the Dispatches documentary series on Channel 4.[78] He claimed that Hamilton had demanded and had accepted cash payments of up to £110,000,[79] Harrods' gift vouchers and a free holiday at the Hôtel Ritz Paris in 1987, in return for asking questions in Parliament on behalf of Harrods. While Hamilton did not deny the holiday, he continued to maintain that he was innocent of improper conduct.
On 31 July 1998, Hamilton's action was approved for a court listing. Funds for the action were donated by Lord Harris of High Cross, the Earl of Portsmouth and Taki, who raised £50,000.[80] Other contributors to the fund included Simon Heffer, Norris McWhirter, Peter Clarke, Lord Bell, Gyles Brandreth and Gerald Howarth (Hamilton's co-plaintiff in the BBC action). Some Tory MPs (approximately 40 of the 165) also made contributions. In total, approximately £410,000 was raised.[81]
The jury trial commenced in November 1999. Hamilton and his wife were cross-examined by George Carman QC. Carman put to Hamilton that he had acted corruptly to demand and then take £10,000 from Mobil Oil in 1989 for the tabling of an amendment to a finance bill. At the time, Hamilton was a member of a Commons select committee on finance.[82] Al-Fayed said Hamilton had taken the money either in brown envelope cash payments or through Ian Greer. Hamilton said in his own evidence: "I have never received a penny from Mr Fayed; I have never asked".[83] His counsel, in the closing comments, argued that Al-Fayed's assertions had destroyed his client's reputation.[84] On 21 December 1999, the jury unanimously decided in favour of the defence.[85]
A year later, Hamilton lost an appeal against his loss of the libel case.[86][87]
Appeals[edit]
On 14 October 1997, Hamilton made an appeal to a new committee. On 6 November, the committee only partially endorsed Downey's report, but still criticised Hamilton's behaviour whilst an MP.
In April 2001, Hamilton was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords. On 22 May 2001, unable to pay his legal fees and with costs amounting to some £3m, Hamilton declared bankruptcy. He was discharged from bankruptcy in May 2004.
False rape accusation[edit]
On 10 August 2001, the Hamiltons were arrested by police who were investigating an alleged rape. The Hamiltons claimed they could not have been present at the alleged rape scene because they were hosting a dinner party and produced alibis including Derek Laud.[88] The investigation against the couple was dropped when it became apparent that the accusations were entirely false. This event was recorded on film by Louis Theroux, who, at that time, was embedded with the Hamiltons for an episode of his documentary series When Louis Met....[89]
In June 2003, the woman who had fabricated the accusation of rape, Nadine Milroy-Sloan, was sentenced to three years in jail for perverting the course of justice.[90][91] In February 2005, the publicist Max Clifford, who had acted for Milroy-Sloan, settled, paying Hamilton an undisclosed sum.[92]
Ukip backer Arron Banks slams ''creature from the gutter'' Neil Hamilton and threatens to leave party
.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-backer-arron-banks-slams-8993558
.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-backer-arron-banks-slams-8993558
no Banks no UKIP they cannot run on the membership fees alone.
I presume the gist of that wall of text posted by bigmo is that Hamilton is a tnuc. Nobody disputed that!
How him and his wife ever got into ukip is a joke.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539