Eye on Hollis
Sir: According to W. J. West, the corres- pondence in your columns following the Chapman Pincher review of his recent book The Truth about Hollis has produced crucial new evidence in the case against Sir Roger.
In fact I told the story of Claud Cock- burn's 1963 meeting with Hollis in my column in the Observer in April 1988. But it looks much better, I can see, if Mr West can produce his big scoop in answer to Chapman Pincher's claim in your columns that any evidence of Hollis-Cockburn con- tact in later life would be of vital signifi- cance. Hey presto, here it is! As far as I am concerned, it is not true that in 1963 I had been editing Private Eye for three years without a break. Private Eye began publication in 1961 and I took over as editor the following year. A mis- take about these easily verifiable dates does not make me confident in W. J. West, historian.
I know little about Hollis, but I knew Claud Cockburn very well indeed. I im- agine that it is possible that Hollis kept in touch with him because he was an old friend and because, like many of us, he relished Claud's company.
By 1963 Claud had long since severed his connection with the Communist Party so it is hard to see anything very sinister or significant about the meeting. The fact that he identified Hollis to his companion Alan Brien hardly suggests the behaviour of a highly placed communist agent.
Richard Ingrams
Forge House, Aldworth, Reading, Berkshire
Previous page
