To: Sir Michael Atiyah F.R.S., Shotover Mound, Spring Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 8LC
From: Andrew Malcolm, 7 Southover Street, Brighton BN2 2UA tel, 0273 688930
Dear Sir Michael,
OUP: Making Names
Thank you for talking to me on the telephone yesterday and for kindly inviting me to write to you. As said, I do hope that the Delegatorial papers you have kept go back as far as July 1985.
I will briefly explain my problem and my enclosure of two versions A and B of what appears to be a Delegates' agenda paper. I know that, after a long period of refereeing, the then Delegate Alan Ryan recommended my book's publication by OUP. At different times during the subsequent unravelling of the affair, I have been given to understand (a) that the Delegates formally approved the book, (b) that they formally rejected the book and (c) that it was never presented to them for consideration. I am writing to you in the hope that your file may be able to establish which of these alternatives is true.
In March 1988, in the course of the routine process of discovery, I obtained document A, which was verified as having been sent to all Delegates. I took this to be an agenda paper for a meeting of that 16th July (Tuesday) date and asked for the relevant minutes. The occurrence of such a meeting was not denied but the production of any minutes was refused. After further prevarication, the Press then admitted that the paper was in fact drawn up for a meeting of the Delegates to be held on 23rd July but was never sent to them. With my suspicions aroused, in March this year I exercised my right to inspect the originals of the documents in the Press's file and discovered to my amazement that their version B of the paper carries, as you see, the extra handwritten words "for Delegates 23 July". These words, and the fact that they had evidently been obscured in the photocopying, suggest that, after all, Making Names was considered at the meeting of 23rd July. My questions therefore are simple.
1. Were you sent a paper like A or B and do you still have it?
2. Do you have any other papers which refer or relate to Making Names?
3. Do your papers indicate that Making Names was considered for publication at the Delegates' meeting of 23rd July 1985?
4. If so, was it approved or rejected?
I very much hope that your file can provide the answers to these questions and that you will see no reason not to pass on to me at least the answers, if not copies of the relevant papers. As you said on the telephone, one might assume that such things would be matters of public record, but as you may now appreciate, getting even the basic facts out of the Press is for me proving to be a very difficult and time-consuming business. Once again, many thanks for your help.
Yours sincerely, Andrew Malcolm
Go to the next item or the previous item in this series.
Go to Malcolm's Statement of Claim, to the Case History, to the Affidavits: Ivon Asquith (1), Asquith (2), Henry Hardy, William Shaw (solicitor) (1), Sir Roger Elliott (1), Margaret Goodall, to the Witness Statements: Elliott, Hardy, Richard Charkin, Nicola Bion, Goodall, to the courtroom testimony of the Oxford Six, 14/3/1990: Elliott, Goodall, Bion, Asquith, Charkin, Hardy, to the testimony of Andrew Malcolm 13/3/1990, to the Chancery Court Judgment, to the Appeal Court Judgment, to Malcolm's Points of Claim (the first item in the damages series), to the Damages assessment, or to the Settlement agreement.
Return to the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index or to the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index or to the SITE INDEX.