[real red]

David Bond's got a different role at his paper now but even so, I can't see the papers being used as much as they were to get the Dubai point across. Amanda Staveley will tell the likes of Bond whatever it is she needs to tell him. That leaked email and the statements of the time meant it was no longer deniable - DIC and Hicks were to meet. Staveley knows that if the papers stop selling on the strength of another Hicks-is-a-bad-man story that many of the papers will look for another angle. And if they look hard enough they'll find one. Bond might feel he was best mates with Staveley, especially with the extras he got from her (info you dirty-minded bastards), but there's no way he was told everything, no way he was told the 100% truth. But as soon as he trusted her, he'd have taken it as truth.

I don't know what she's worth now, but when you read into her past she's made some big money at different times. And not for other people, with other people's money, like al-Ansari does for DIC for example. Her own money. (Or knowing how these rich dudes work, her "own" money borrowed off a bank).

Say Hicks said to Dubai - I want to talk, no fucking about, no bullshit, I want Amanda over the table now (not like that, sewer-minds) but there's one condition: None of this gets into the papers. One word in the press, the talks are off and I'm getting that loan off Carol Vorderman. Would Staveley risk telling any reporters about it?

So Rash, yes, you were getting some pretty decent information because you were getting it from someone who was getting some pretty decent information. I bet he isn't now, just enough to keep him sweet, like others in the press.

It's wrong to tar all reporters with the same brush (made from the hairs of Martin Samuel's beard), but I'm sure even the "best" ones will break a confidence if it suits their needs at a particular time. Which means that all you will ever get from someone like David Bond is the good stuff from Dubai's point of view, alongside a bit of bullshit fed for the purposes of getting their message out.

Is Bond's word as good as his bond? I'd say there's a risk his word is the equivalent of Jimmy Melia's words when he spoke out for Hicks. If you only listen to one side of a story you can't expect to know the whole truth.

You can still have the same conclusion, but it's calibrated a bit better.