The
Observer newspaper (London) has slipped into the
habit of smearing David Irving . . .
|  Sunday March 25, 2001
Sikorski and
book pulping Richard Ingrams
The Observer EITHER you sue, or you shut up.
Many years ago Roy Hattersley MP, as he then
was, announced that he was going to take legal
action over an item in Private Eye. (So long ago
was it, that I cannot now recall what the offending
paragraph was about.) Despite the huffing and puffing, however,
nothing happened. But ever afterwards when
Hattersley's name was mentioned in the Eye it was
followed by the taunt: 'Where is your writ?' I was
reminded of this ancient story by the behaviour
last week of the Trade Secretary Stephen
Byers following publication of Tom
Bower's book, The
Paymaster. Byers let it be known that he was
considering legal action against the book and also
the Daily Mail, which had serialised it.
Solicitors' letters were sent out, threatening
this, that and the other. But to date no writ has
been issued. Meanwhile, Mr Byers has taken to threatening
booksellers, some of whom, including the courageous
firm of WH Smith, have withdrawn all copies of
Bower's book until further notice. This is a useful
ploy which has been used in the past by the likes,
for example, of right-wing historian David
Irving (see
last week's Observer ) who in addition to his
recent threats actually succeeded in getting a book
pulped which examined his role in the
Sikorski affair.[*] More recently, when Tom Bower published a book
about Robert Maxwell, the Fat Man instructed
his chief of staff Peter Jay to send out a
letter threatening all booksellers with a libel
writ unless they withdrew the book from sale.
Funnily enough the charge against Byers in The
Paymaster is that he suppressed a report about
Maxwell's payment of £200,000 to his colleague
Geoffrey Robinson. The net result of all
this toing-and-froing will be merely to increase
the general contempt in which the likes of Byers
are held and hopefully to increase the sale of
Bower's book. In the meantime, when Byer's name
crops up I shall repeat the mantra, 'Where is your
writ?' Related items on this website 
The Observer's
reluctance to publish letters of
correction-
The Observer's death wish
-
David Irving's
forthcoming libel action against The Observer
and Gitta Sereny
- British
release Ministry of Defence file on the General
Sikorski controversy | Mr
Irving's summary:
"I had to shorten the
front-line, and called off the libel suit
against Thompson, so that battle was never
fought. The real war was raging, as is apparent
from the documents now released, behind the
scenes." - "Churchill's
War", vol. ii: "Triumph in Adversity":
Appendix on Sikorski case
|  David
Irving writes:
CARLOS Thompson, an
actor with a brain problem (clinical), was hired in
1968 by the Churchill family to do a hatchet job on
me after William Kimber Ltd published my book
Accident,
the Death of General
Sikorski.
(Proof: Young Winston Churchill Jr describes
how they engaged Thompson in his otherwise
excellent book on his father Randolph.)
Thompson's book was called
The Assassination of
Winston Churchill. I
saw an advance copy, and it was deliberately
libellous, a well known trick of wealthy
antagonists. They try to force the impecunious into
a ruinous legal battle. My lawyer Michael
Rubinstein and counsel so advised me. The
libels were however of a clearly demonstrable
nature. E.g., Thompson's book says: "Mr Irving
taped his interview with Anthony Quayle,
without Quayle being aware that there was a hidden
tape recorder." (Quayle had been ADC to the
Governor of Gibraltar in 1943). But the opening
lines on the tape record (which I still have) are
as follows: "Mr Quayle, I have here between us a
tape recorder, as I prefer to record such
interviews. Do you have any objection to my
recording this interview?" "Not at all, Mr Irving."
And so on. I produced a 60pp list of the deliberate
libels. After the book went on
sale I issued a writ. The publishers (who were not
part of the plot), evidently on legal advice,
stopped selling the Thompson book pending the
action (there are serious financial penalties in
aggravated damages if you flout such a writ by
continuing to peddle the work, which is not
impossible: e.g. Lipstadt continued to sell her
libellous book throughout the recent action and
even now, pending the appeal). Unfortunately, we were
just entering on the appeal process in the
PQ.17
libel action at
that time (Captain Jack Broome had sued Cassell Ltd
and myself for libel) which soaked up my little
family's entire financial reserves, and I had to
abandon the Thompson action before it went the full
length, but for that reason only. I can understand
Richard Ingrams' dislike of the laws of
libel, as he is a journalist accustomed to smearing
people; for his targets, the law of defamation, and
journalists' fear of it, is our one protection.
I will not say more, as
Thompson is now dead and cannot protect himself or
answer. |
|
write
to David Irving