SOUNDING THE WRONG BELL

Neil Hamilton submits his personal financial records as proof that he didn't take Mr Al Fayed's cash

DOES Martin Bell know that being shot down in Bosnia is as nothing compared to being hunted down by the British press? There is nothing the media hates more than hypocrisy — in others. They will seek to find it in him. I hope he is as squeaky- clean as he claims. The sole object of the press now will be to expose anything which could be represented or misrepresented as dodgy — unless, as a ratpack member, he enjoys some diplomatic immunity.

Why is Bell standing against me as an 'anti-corruption' candidate when I have consistently denied any allegations of cor- ruption? He should really be standing against Mohamed Al Fayed. But Fayed, of course, can't stand for parliament because he doesn't have a British passport — which is one reason why he has accused me of corruption.

British justice treats people as innocent unless proved guilty. How can Bell justify his corruption of British justice, inferen- tially denying me that presumption of innocence whilst popping up following a squalid, backstairs deal with Labour and the Liberals?

Bell's 'anti-corruption' candidature implies that I was corrupt. If I were, why has Fayed produced no hard evidence of his alleged cash payments? We know he has a penchant for secretly videotaping vis- itors to his office. Where are the tapes of me?

When cross-examined by Sir Gordon Downey, he indignantly denied any sugges- tion of bugging: 'This is bullshit, no disre- spect,' he told a raised-eyebrowed Sir Gordon. Yet, within days, he submitted his secret videotapes of Carla Powell as sup- posed evidence of his false claim that Michael Howard took bribes of £1.5 mil- lion.

Fayed hands out wads of cash — but keeps no documentary records whatever. Cross-examined, he was preposterously confused even on the most fundamental question of all. When asked how much he allegedly gave me, he replied unhelpfully: 140,000, £50,000, f60,000.'

So Fayed's evidence is full of inconsis- tency, contradiction and inaccuracy — lies would be a less polite description. But I could not rely only on him discrediting himself. As he was known to be perfectly capable of acts of dishonesty, I had to prove my innocence positively.

Frank Johnson suggested the mecha- nism in The Spectator on 19 October 1996 — divulge details of all bank and credit card statements, property transactions and tax returns of my wife and myself. Thus I could prove there had been no suspicious deposits or alterations in spending pat- terns indicating receipt of large cash pay- ments from Fayed.

I gave Downey all the surviving records from 1985. I even waived my right to tax- payer confidentiality to enable Downey's specialist forensic accountants to examine the Revenue's confidential files on me. There was an irony in all this — these Star Chamber methods were precisely what had irked Fayed in the DTI inquiry which had condemned him as a liar and a fraud.

Reversing the burden of proof was dan- gerous. Any unexplained deposits or gaps in the records could be damning and taken as proof that I had received cash.

I had, therefore, to identify and account for every single bank deposit — no mean feat. Deposits on my bank statements were often composite items. But the bank and I had discarded the pre-1990 paying- in slips. I had to do detailed detective work to plug the gaps in documents up to ten years old.

More than once I nearly had heart fail- ure after some inexplicable discovery. For example, Barclaycard produced my credit card statements from 1985. I went through 'An orgasm pill and a cigarette, please . . them all late one night, checking the monthly payments due against debit items on my bank statements.

I had to correlate them all to avoid the inference that I paid the monthly bills with Fayed cash. Horror of horrors! Only one in 60 payments tallied with any of my cheque debits. At 2.30 a.m., after hours of worry- ing, I was feeling quite sick. How on earth was I going to explain this?

I could not bottle the problem up any longer. I woke my wife to share the burden. As she emerged groggily from slumber the answer emerged also. She paid her monthly Barclaycard bill and mine together with one composite cheque. Add the two together and the sums tallied. Blessed relief!

Again, in October 1996, just as my libel trial against the Guardian was due to begin, there were still several unexplained deposits on my bank statements. How was I going to explain these sums of up to £2,000 or so if I was cross-examined? Would the jury give me the benefit of the doubt?

Later, I was left with the same problem vis-à-vis Downey. After weeks of head- scratching, I had a brainwave. I vaguely recalled some tax refunds in the 1980s. I asked the Inland Revenue for details. Miraculously, the information they provid- ed plugged the remaining gaps. At last I was able to explain everything. But I had worried myself silly about this for month after month.

My records do prove I made no deposits of cash and no suspicious alterations to my spending patterns, substituting cash pay- ments for cheques. But that was not the end of it.

I also had to justify to Downey my accountant's tax advice and the deductions I claimed against my income tax liability. I wonder how many self-employed people would wish to experience a public examina- tion on their tax returns for the last 12 years?

The Guardian then selectively leaked parts of my evidence, falsely claiming I admitted defrauding the Revenue. The edi- tor of the Times, relying on the Guardian's duff information, said I 'had not denied' this. He had not seen my full evidence to Downey, nor my tax returns, nor my accountant's advice; nor did he know the first thing about tax law. But he declared me, in consequence, unfit to be an MP.

The 'cash for questions' saga is largely a Fayed hoax which obtained credibility only because of the Guardian's endorsement. The media have uncritically reported his lurid allegations and ignored the truth. When Fayed's stories are exposed as a far- rago of nonsense, as in Michael Howard's case, the truth gets minimal coverage.

I have endured an almost unprecedented scrutiny and invasion of my private life fol- lowing dishonest and distorted media reporting of Fayed's false allegations. Mar- tin Bell aims his 'anti-corruption' campaign at the wrong target.