Cheque facts
Sir: Richard Ingrams (Letters, 6 Septem- ber) and I differ in that I grew up in that tradition of journalism where the writer is expected to check his facts, even to the extent of daring to talk to the object of an intended pillory and trying not to distort the words of others. He (or his employees) and I have never exchanged a word, spoken or written.
Were that difference not there, Private Eye under Mr Ingrams's editorship would have swiftly discovered that five months before the Eye's assault upon my publishing company in 1973 I (in charge of publishing policy) removed my fellow managing direc- tor (financial), that every cheque written when I was in financial charge was hon- oured and that the sum I planned to raise with the help of Jimmy Goldsmith, of which I told your readers the other day, was not a `confirmation of debts' but the further capi- talisation required to carry out major pro- jects through to fruition. The company was sailing out of the spring's rough waters when Private Eye's torpedo of the autumn struck it in the bows.
Mr Ingrams suggests there are sounder candidates than my former company to illustrate the unearned misfortune of vic- tims of the gratuitous misreporting of the Eye. I feel sure he is right. Let's have the list.
Tom Stacey
128 Kensington Church Street, London W8
Previous page
