Dreyfus of Tatton?
Sir: Is Neil Hamilton the Dreyfus of Tat- ton? I suspect not. Like many others, I am puzzled by the week-after-week misrepre- sentations of your little group who have been trying to rehabilitate the disgraced ex- minister, and to do down the Guardian because they exposed him.
Puzzlement turned to incredulity when Stephen Glover suggested mildly of the ex- MP, 'I don't doubt that he was at the very least economical with the truth' to Michael Heseltine (Media studies, 29 November). As Glover knows from the evidence tran- scripts, Hamilton told flat lies and admitted to the Downey inquiry that he had done so deliberately. The lying conversation went, 'Did you have a financial relationship with the lobbyist Ian Greer?' Answer, 'No.'
Then, blow me, you publish a letter from Hamilton's lawyer Rupert Grey (6 Decem- ber) in which he says Hamilton only dropped his libel action because of his part- ner Greer's lies. Grey says he advised his own client he still had a good chance of winning against the Guardian, but the cash had run out.
LETTERS
I remember Hamilton's cross-examina- tion by Nigel Pleming QC on behalf of the Downey inquiry. Hamilton admitted that the discovery of documents showing his own receipt of an extra L10,000-worth of under-the-counter payments, and showing his lie to Heseltine, would be big obstacles were he to have gone ahead with the libel case, instead of hastily dropping it.
If his solicitor advised Hamilton there was still a good chance of winning the libel case, then in my view he must be a rotten lawyer. Had he carried on with his client's law suit, Mr Rupert Grey would have lost not just his shirt, but his trousers as well.
David Leigh
Guardian,
119 Farringdon Road, London EC1
Previous page
