This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/15/chistopher-geidt-fine-public-servant
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Attack on Christopher Geidt a disservice to a fine public servant | Attack on Christopher Geidt a disservice to a fine public servant |
| (4 months later) | |
| You did Sir Christopher Geidt, private secretary to the Queen, a gross disservice (Reports, May 8). As a friend and someone who knows well the facts surrounding the case to which you refer, I am appalled by the smearing attack on him. You insinuate that Geidt has mysterious, if not improper links to MI6 and that, as someone who won a libel action against John Pilger, he has too much authority over the proposed royal charter on the press. Both allegations are rubbish. | You did Sir Christopher Geidt, private secretary to the Queen, a gross disservice (Reports, May 8). As a friend and someone who knows well the facts surrounding the case to which you refer, I am appalled by the smearing attack on him. You insinuate that Geidt has mysterious, if not improper links to MI6 and that, as someone who won a libel action against John Pilger, he has too much authority over the proposed royal charter on the press. Both allegations are rubbish. |
| I have known Christopher Geidt for more than 20 years, initially because of a mutual interest in Cambodia. In 1989, while working at a research institute and with an established academic interest in Indochina, Christopher Geidt went there with a friend, Anthony de Normann, to visit. So did many other people. It was an exciting place to visit. The beautiful country was beginning to open up after two dreadful decades of war, Khmer Rouge communist terror and Vietnamese occupation. In October 1991 a historic UN peace agreement was signed in Paris, whereby all the parties, including the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam, agreed to hold elections in Cambodia. | I have known Christopher Geidt for more than 20 years, initially because of a mutual interest in Cambodia. In 1989, while working at a research institute and with an established academic interest in Indochina, Christopher Geidt went there with a friend, Anthony de Normann, to visit. So did many other people. It was an exciting place to visit. The beautiful country was beginning to open up after two dreadful decades of war, Khmer Rouge communist terror and Vietnamese occupation. In October 1991 a historic UN peace agreement was signed in Paris, whereby all the parties, including the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam, agreed to hold elections in Cambodia. |
| Geidt and de Normann were seen in Cambodia by a Labour MP who in turn spoke to John Pilger, who had made a series of films about Cambodia. In his new film, Cambodia – the Betrayal, Pilger accused the two men of training the murderous Khmer Rouge communists in the use of land mines. Geidt and de Normann sued Pilger and Central Television; they won their case and Central had to pay them "substantial damages". Both Central and Pilger apologised in open court for the claims they had made and made unqualified retractions. | Geidt and de Normann were seen in Cambodia by a Labour MP who in turn spoke to John Pilger, who had made a series of films about Cambodia. In his new film, Cambodia – the Betrayal, Pilger accused the two men of training the murderous Khmer Rouge communists in the use of land mines. Geidt and de Normann sued Pilger and Central Television; they won their case and Central had to pay them "substantial damages". Both Central and Pilger apologised in open court for the claims they had made and made unqualified retractions. |
| The Guardian attempts to throw doubt on this and other judgments in their favour by quoting the subsequent bluster about how the case was lost only because the British government refused to allow crucial evidence and witnesses to come to court. The insinuation was that Pilger was right and only government "gagging" prevented him from establishing his case against Geidt and de Normann. This is nonsense. | The Guardian attempts to throw doubt on this and other judgments in their favour by quoting the subsequent bluster about how the case was lost only because the British government refused to allow crucial evidence and witnesses to come to court. The insinuation was that Pilger was right and only government "gagging" prevented him from establishing his case against Geidt and de Normann. This is nonsense. |
| I next came across Geidt in the Balkans. He was working with Carl Bildt (former Swedish foreign minister and prime minister) when Bildt was the EU's principal mediator in the wars of former Yugoslavia. I was writing a book about the UN and saw him often in Geneva, Zagreb and elsewhere; I remember noting that he was working extremely hard with other diplomats, soldiers and politicians first to stop the bloodshed and then to implement the Dayton peace plan. The Guardian glided past this important work, preferring to quote anonymous insinuations that he had "a touch of the spook about him". | I next came across Geidt in the Balkans. He was working with Carl Bildt (former Swedish foreign minister and prime minister) when Bildt was the EU's principal mediator in the wars of former Yugoslavia. I was writing a book about the UN and saw him often in Geneva, Zagreb and elsewhere; I remember noting that he was working extremely hard with other diplomats, soldiers and politicians first to stop the bloodshed and then to implement the Dayton peace plan. The Guardian glided past this important work, preferring to quote anonymous insinuations that he had "a touch of the spook about him". |
| Perhaps even more shocking are your attempts to assert that "the mysterious" Geidt is playing a hugely important part in constructing the royal charter. In fact, the Queen's private secretary has nothing to do with the substance of the charter – or any other political initiative. The Queen acts only on the advice of her ministers. The charter comes only from the government and the views of the Queen and her private secretary on its merits are irrelevant. Sir Christopher Geidt is a man of great intelligence, honour, experience and diligence. And humour. The monarchy is lucky to have such a public servant at its heart. And so are we. You owe him an apology. William Shawcross Author of Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia | Perhaps even more shocking are your attempts to assert that "the mysterious" Geidt is playing a hugely important part in constructing the royal charter. In fact, the Queen's private secretary has nothing to do with the substance of the charter – or any other political initiative. The Queen acts only on the advice of her ministers. The charter comes only from the government and the views of the Queen and her private secretary on its merits are irrelevant. Sir Christopher Geidt is a man of great intelligence, honour, experience and diligence. And humour. The monarchy is lucky to have such a public servant at its heart. And so are we. You owe him an apology. William Shawcross Author of Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia |
| • This article was amended on 16 May 2013 to correct a typo: "accuses" was replaced by "accused". | • This article was amended on 16 May 2013 to correct a typo: "accuses" was replaced by "accused". |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |