Britannia Radio

This may seem a small matter of detail but in fact it's a measure of 
how this government is completely out-of-touch with the truth and is, 
consequently, utterly untrustworthy.

Jeff Randall promises the answer in due course.  Meanwhile was it:
- Darling ? - Brown ? -  Mandelson ? - Alastair Campbell ?  Or - - -  ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
===========================
TELEGRAPH   15.10.08
Why did they deny my story when it turned out to be true all along?
As a creature of habit, my early morning routine rarely changes: tea, 
toast and 10-15 minutes with The Daily Telegraph's online edition, 
before catching a train to the City.

By Jeff Randall


Last Wednesday, I nearly choked on the Hovis as I read that Royal 
Bank of Scotland and Alistair Darling had denied this newspaper's 
report, under my byline, that the bank's chief executive, Sir Fred 
Goodwin, would be replaced by his counterpart at British Land, 
Stephen Hester, as part of a Government bail-out for Edinburgh's 
walking wounded.

How could this be? The source of my information will never be 
revealed, but you can be confident that it was not a tip I picked up 
in a wine bar.

I had no doubt, not a shred, that Sir Fred's head would be built into 
the price for a state-funded rescue. What's more, I was certain that 
Hester had been lined up as successor. Yet the bank and No 11 were as 
one: the story was incorrect.

The Wall Street Journal's Marketwatch news service wrote: "A company 
[RBS] spokeswoman said the [Daily Telegraph] report was wrong, adding 
that the bank hadn't even discussed the issue. At a news conference, 
Darling told reporters that the government hadn't demanded any 
boardroom changes."

My surprise turned to despair, as some readers, with apparent good 
reason, lambasted me via postings on our website: "Please edit your 
articles and get your facts right... Jeff Randall too is taking to 
irresponsible reporting... the press needs to get its act together 
and STOP sensationalising things... Mr Randall - can we please have 
some quality journalism?"

As the day progressed, it was like hopping between parallel 
universes. In one, RBS spin doctors were demanding a correction. In 
another, banking sources reassured me that the plan to axe Goodwin 
and replace him with Hester was still in place, and that it would be 
activated the moment RBS approached the Treasury, as it inevitably 
would, for emergency rations. Who was right?

We did not have to wait long for the answer. On Sunday evening, it 
was confirmed that RBS and HBOS were to be nationalised, and that 
Goodwin was for the chop. His replacement? Yes, Stephen Hester. 
Relief at vindication was superseded by perplexity. Why did Sir Fred 
and the Chancellor go out of their way to issue formal rebuttals of a 
report that was true all along?

This is where the tale becomes murky. I sent a message to RBS's PR 
consultant, who less than a week before had telephoned me to say that 
my story was rubbish. You can imagine, I was not pleased. He replied 
by text: "Fair enough, guv - owe you an apology. Just wish they had 
told RBS then!"

By "they", I understood him to mean government officials. What's 
more, he seemed to suggest that, as so often with someone who is 
about to be sacked, Sir Fred was the last to know. What's more, 
Goodwin's fellow directors had also been kept in the dark.

That would have been plausible, except for one detail. Mr Hester has 
been on the RBS board, as a non-executive, since August. He must have 
known of the plan to oust Goodwin, otherwise why did British Land not 
issue a denial its boss was about to leave? Did Mr Hester not discuss 
the move with other RBS directors? If not, why not?

And then there's the Chancellor. At Monday's press conference, my 
colleague Andrew Porter put it to him that Sir Fred's removal was, 
surely, a condition of Government support for RBS, even though five 
days earlier Mr Darling had insisted that wasn't the case. Not so, 
said the Chancellor, it was RBS's board that had plunged the knife in 
Goodwin, not his department.

An RBS insider told me a different version: "Look, our official line 
is that it was a board decision. But Fred would not have gone. Of 
course the Government got rid of him."

Whom do we believe? Someone in this messy affair has been telling 
porkies. Somebody at the top knew of the plan to kick out Goodwin and 
draft in Hester, otherwise how would I have found out?

Without feeling a jot of sympathy for Sir Fred - he was the architect 
of his own downfall - I do not believe he is a liar. Arrogant? 
Misguided? Ruthless? Yes, yes, yes. But not a liar.

In which case, the Chancellor must have been dissembling. He must 
have known last week that Goodwin would be forced out by the Treasury 
in return for an unprecedented display of taxpayer largesse, mustn't he?

Well, here's a frightening thought. Perhaps not. What if Mr Darling 
didn't know? Instead, the dastardly plot was cooked up by a faceless 
mandarin and a cabal of dissident RBS directors who omitted to tell 
their masters until the last minute.

I think I know the assassins' identity. When I'm sure, I'll tell you.