Words Dept.: entry

I see Andrew Gilligan is making the headlines again over a series of recent articles in the Evening Standard.

I’ve spent the last hour reading his original claims in the Standard, numerous subsequent counter-claims and various blogs on the subject and it’s all rather complicated.

Essentially, the key element of Gilligan’s latest investigation is that Lee Jasper, adviser to London Mayor Ken Livingstone, intervened improperly in the awarding of contracts to an organisation called Diversity International, run by Jasper’s “friend”, Joel O’Loughlin. Gilligan claims Jasper wanted to pay DI a £250,000 grant and then acted to have sacked two London Development Agency staff who objected to the deal.

That’s the basic gist of it, anyway. The fact that the story can’t be summed up easily in one sentence is a possible early indicator as to its inherent shortcomings. Doubt has also been cast on the story’s assuredness by the fact that Livingstone has made clear that he senses a vendetta. His office has issued a series of press releases containing vehement denials.

On the other hand, Livingstone’s position isn’t helped by the fact that he has, since Thursday, been denying something that Gilligan claims was never alleged. While the Mayor’s office proclaims the £250,000 payment wasn’t made, Gilligan says he never alleged the payments were made, merely that the LDA “agreed” to them. Gilligan is thus able to accuse Livingstone of distraction tactics and an attempt to blur the issue.

(If you read the text of Gilligan’s piece on this subject, it’s true, he doesn’t allege that the payment was finally made. But it’s worded trickily. If, in the third paragraph of a news story, you say someone “agreed to pay” someone else £250,000, it’s natural enough that the meaning most readers would take from that is that the cash changed hands.)

Livingstone also makes a fool of himself by demanding that Gilligan be sacked in a blog post on Comment is Free. Politicians demanding the sacking of a member of the media is in no way acceptable. It has a whiff of Putin’s Russia about it.

But the Mayor’s case is boosted by the quoting of an e-mail from Jasper, which shows that although Gilligan’s central claim is that Jasper was in favour of the £250,000 payment, in fact Jasper expressed “very serious doubts” about it. Livingstone claims this revelation “demolishes” Gilligan’s story.

Roy Greenslade waded into the controversy on Thursday. In attempting to predict the spat’s outcome, he found himself on the end of a tongue lashing from Gilligan, who posted several times on Greenslade’s blog to methodically argue his case. (He did the same on Words Dept. earlier this year when I dared suggest “his” story about donations to Manchester Labour Party from a local property developer might not be that fresh.)

So, what to make of it all? While I think Gilligan might be on to something vaguely bad about issues of croneyism and the often wasteful use of cash by public quangos in general, he has failed to serve up the killer piece of evidence as regards Jasper and the LDA. As a result, Livingston and his minions have been able to hit back, casting doubt on Gilligan’s “dirty” tactics, his reputation and his motives. And while the Mayor’s own rebuttal is flawed, there are some salient points that seem to undermine Gilligan’s allegations.

I have sympathy with Gilligan because he is dealing with a very complex paper trail and is having to defend himself against a highly accomplished politician with immense media management resources at his disposal. But the bottom line is that the facts don’t fully stand up. They might stand up 90% or 95% but unless you’re working at 100%, someone like Livingstone – or, gulp, Alastair Campbell – will have your balls for dessert.

It’s a shame because while my gut reaction is to side with journalists working to expose corruption and wrong-doing by government, with this one I just can’t. I really just can’t.

The Independent on Sunday has a take on the row here.

-