Cover up bits

 Some choice bits from Lord Dyson's report.. 

"Speaking generally, where there is a difference between the account given by Earl Spencer and that given by Mr Bashir, I prefer that of Earl Spencer. I found Earl Spencer a credible witness who gave me an entirely coherent and consistent account. On the other hand, as is apparent from this Report, there were significant parts of Mr Bashir’s account that I reject as incredible, unreliable and, in some cases, dishonest."

Lord Dyson interviewed Alison Kelly (née Jackson), Publicity Officer for Panorama in October 1995.  She recalled being asked to inform the Panorama team that the BBC was briefing the press that it suspected that stories about fake bank statements were being leaked by jealous colleagues. 

“I distinctly recall arriving in the Panorama offices, which were in White City…and I was asked to make this remark. I do recall it, yes, and I do recall a certain amount of hostility about that, which was tricky for me, because obviously I had to work with all of those journalists on different programmes each week…….It wouldn’t have been [Steve Hewlett’s] style. He wouldn’t have done that to me, I don’t think. I don’t know who did it……..But I do remember doing it and I remember it being quite awful”

Lord Dyson turns to the question of why the BBC did not report the allegations made against Mr Bashir about his methods (for example, in The Mail on Sunday on 7 April 1996). The press log for 23 April records:

“Paul Donovan (S Times) asked why the BBC had not reported the allegations made about Martin Bashir by MoS on 7.4.96 in its news summaries and newspaper reviews. Consulted Stephen Mitchell,
ED Radio News & C.CINCA and replied: ‘The BBC is proud of its track record on reporting issues about the Corporation objectively, when it is appropriate Sometimes judgements are difficult. On this
occasion allegations of a potentially defamatory nature, to which the BBC responded, were made by a newspaper. After careful consideration we decided the story was not sufficiently newsworthy”

Mr Donovan’s question was reflected in his article that was published in The Sunday Times on 28 April 1996 which included the following:

“No BBC radio (or television) programme has covered the Bashir saga, or even alluded to it, in any way whatsoever. It has not made a single news bulletin on any network nor has it been mentioned in

a single review of the papers, despite having been covered by at least five of them. The total absence of Panoramagate from the radio news programmes does not appear to be a complete coincidence.

The BBC took immediate steps to defuse the risk of inquiries being made by them. The day after the Mail on Sunday’s revelations, the editors of Radio 4’s daily sequence programmes (Today, The World

at One, PM and The World Tonight) found this e-mail message on their computer screens from a senior BBC news and current affairs executive: ‘If anyone asks about Bashir, the official line is: ‘it’s not

interesting’.

Lord Dyson's conclusion on this section: "I am satisfied that the BBC covered up in its press logs such facts as it had been able to establish about how Mr Bashir secured the interview. I am not persuaded by the attempts that have been made in this Investigation to justify the evasive responses that were

given to the questions by the press. The BBC should have answered these questions at the very latest once it had completed its investigation in April 1996 .  And there was no good reason not to mention

the issue at all on any news programme. By failing to do so, the BBC fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark.

"The documents that I have read and the oral testimony that I have heard do not enable me to make a finding as to who was responsible for deciding that the story should not be covered by the BBC and for issuing the “official line” to editors to which I have referred. It must have been someone from

senior management, but I can’t say who it was."