New intelligence reaches me about that aborted meeting between the National Union of Journalists and Express Newspapers (see yesterday’s posting here).
It appears that the NUJ’s version of events was closer to the truth than I suggested because the newspapers’ owner, Richard Desmond, was indeed going off with his editorial director, Paul Ashford, to see the prime minister.
They were attending a meeting of the parliamentary group called the Conservative Friends of Israel (Cofi) at which David Cameron was the main speaker.
Moreover, according to all three NUJ representatives at the meeting with Ashford, they were told that the reason for his decision to quit the pay negotiations with the union was because Cameron wished to know more about Desmond’s decision to donate £300,000 to Ukip.
That remark by Ashford emerged in an email sent to him by the Express Newspapers’ father of the chapel, Richard Palmer, who wrote:
“Unfortunately, you had to leave our meeting to go off to see David Cameron to explain the proprietor’s reported pledge to give Ukip£300,000”.
Palmer was backed up by two senior NUJ staff at the meeting, the general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet, and the national organiser, Laura Davison.
They were unhappy about the negotiation being called off yet again and Stanistreet says that Ashford assured them that it was a real meeting “this time” and referred to “David needing some reassurance” on the Ukip donation.
It does not mean that Desmond did speak to, or even meet, Cameron. But I’m afraid it does reflect badly on what Desmond’s spokesman told me in an off-the-record briefing.
Asked if Desmond and Ashford had gone to see Cameron on Tuesday, he said they had not. Pushed further, he said they had been to a Cofi event, but said it wasn’t known whether Cameron was present.
It was a classic case of a PR being economical with the truth. Given the circumstances, I am therefore breaking the confidence of that briefing but, after careful consideration, I have decided not to identify him, although he certainly deserves to be named.
Although the suggestion of a formal meeting between Desmond and Cameron appears to have been an exaggeration, the point is that such an exchange between Ashford and the NUJ negotiators took place. I therefore apologise to Palmer for implying that his interpretation of what happened had been wide of the mark.
I have a further complaint about off-the-record briefings too, because I also contacted the Downing Street press office to discover if there had been a meeting between Desmond and Cameron.
Its spokesman refused to confirm or deny it on the grounds that “we don’t comment on the PM’s diary commitments.”
That refusal to answer a simple factual question about a past event is also an example of poor PR and proof, yet again, that there remains a culture of secrecy at the heart of government.
It was even more ridiculous in this case because Cameron’s speech to the Cofi was reported here in the Times and analysed here by the Daily Telegraph’s Peter Oborne.
So, when asked whether Cameron had held a meeting with Desmond on Tuesday, why couldn’t No 10’s spokesman have said: “No, but they might have met on that day at the Cofi”? Simple. Helpful. Uncontroversial. And, most of all, transparent.
